J-A04009-15 J-A04010-15 2015 PA Super 132 MICHAEL J. YOCABET, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : UPMC PRESBYTERIAN AND : UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH : PHYSICIANS : : APPEAL OF: UPMC PRESBYTERIAN : SHADYSIDE, : : Appellant : : : CHRISTINA L. MECANNIC, : : Appellee : : v. : : UPMC PRESBYTERIAN AND : UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH : PHYSICIANS : : APPEAL OF: UPMC PRESBYTERIAN : SHADYSIDE, : : Appellant : No. 569 WDA 2014

Appeal from the Order Entered March 11, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Civil Division at No(s): G.D. NO. 11-19112, G.D. NO. 11-19113

MICHAEL J. YOCABET, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : J-A04009-15 J-A04010-15 : UPMC PRESBYTERIAN AND : UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH : PHYSICIANS : : APPEAL OF: UPMC PRESBYTERIAN : SHADYSIDE, : : Appellant : : : CHRISTINA L. MECANNIC, : : Appellee : : v. : : UPMC PRESBYTERIAN AND : UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH : PHYSICIANS : : APPEAL OF: UPMC PRESBYTERIAN : SHADYSIDE, : : Appellant : No. 1230 WDA 2014

Appeal from the Order Entered June 26, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Civil Division at No(s): G.D. NO. 11-19112, G.D. NO. 11-19113 BEFORE: BOWES, OLSON, and STRASSBURGER,∗ JJ.

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED: June 5, 2015 For the reasons provided by the Majority, I too would affirm the March 11, 2014 order. I therefore join Part II of the Majority Opinion. However,

∗ Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

-2- J-A04009-15 J-A04010-15 unlike the Majority, I also would affirm the June 26, 2014 order. Thus, I dissent to Part III of the Majority Opinion.

As to the June 26, 2014 order, I agree with the trial court’s assessment of UPMC’s attorney-client-privilege argument. UPMC did not claim that Ms. Concordia is a lawyer, and nothing in the record would permit a finding that her presentation to the Board was a discussion with legal counsel. For these reasons, I conclude that the trial court properly determined that the attorney-client privilege does not protect the information the plaintiffs sought in requests 23 and 24.

I further note that the trial court refused to address UPMC’s claim that the information in-question was protected by the peer review privilege, essentially because UPMC failed to present the court with a developed argument in support of that claim. Because I agree with the court, I believe the peer review privilege is not grounds for relief concerning the June 26th order.

For these reasons, I would affirm the trial court’s orders.

-3-