Cited Article

Confidentiality and Privilege of Peer Review Information: More Imagined Than Real

Case Citation

Claypool v. Mladineo, 724 So. 2d 373 (Miss. 1998)

Background

Holding that "[s]tatutes prohibiting discovery of peer review committee documents only covered the records and transcripts of committee proceedings, not documents pertaining to the results of those proceedings.”

Citing Quote

It has been noted that "there is extremely wide variation in the privilege granted by the states," and that "there is little consistency in the entities covered or types of information protected." Susan O. Scheutzow & Sylvia Lynn Gillis, Confidentiality and Privilege of Peer Review Information: More Imagined Than Real, 7 J.L. & Health 169, 186-187 (1992-1993); see also Ernest J. Naufel, Jr., Physician Peer Review -- Is it Really Confidential?, 45 Fed'n Ins. & Corp. Couns. Q. 229, 229-230 (1995). As a result, the case law interpreting these widely varying statutes has been described as "creating a crazy quilt effect among the states." Scheutzow & Gillis, 7 J.L. & Health at 188; see also Naufel, 45 Fed'n Ins. & Corp. Couns. Q. at 230 ("There are as many different approaches to a resolution of this situation as there are appellate courts and legislatures."); Charles David Creech, The Medical Review Committee Privilege: A Jurisdictional Survey, 67 N.C.L.Rev. 179, 212 (1988). Thus, although nearly every state has some form of statutory privilege for medical peer review, it appears that no two statutes, or courts' interpretations of them, are alike. Trinity Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Holum , 544 N.W.2d 148, 153 (N.D. 1996).

Article Publication Date

1993

Volume

7

Issue

2