(a) Accreditation, quality assurance and similar materials as used in this section shall include written reports, records, correspondence, and materials concerning the accreditation or quality assurance or similar function of any hospital, clinic, or medical staff. The confidentiality established by this section shall apply to materials prepared by an employee, advisor, or consultant of a hospital, clinic, or medical staff and to materials prepared by an employee, advisor or consultant of an accrediting, quality assurance or similar agency or similar body and to any individual who is an employee, advisor or consultant of a hospital, clinic, medical staff or accrediting, quality assurance or similar agency or body.
(b) All accreditation, quality assurance credentialling and similar materials shall be held in confidence and shall not be subject to discovery or introduction in evidence in any civil action against a health care professional or institution arising out of matters which are the subject of evaluation and review for accreditation, quality assurance and similar functions, purposes, or activities. No person involved in preparation, evaluation or review of accreditation, quality assurance or similar materials shall be permitted or required to testify in any civil action as to any evidence or other matters produced or presented during the course of preparation, evaluation, or review of such materials or as to any finding, recommendation, evaluation, opinion, or other action of such accreditation, quality assurance or similar function or other person involved therein. Information, documents, or records otherwise available from original sources are not to be construed as being unavailable for discovery or for use in any civil action merely because they were presented or used in preparation of accreditation, quality assurance or similar materials nor should any person involved in preparation, evaluation, or review of such materials be prevented from testifying as to matters within his knowledge, but the witness testifying should not be asked about any opinions or data given by him in preparation, evaluation, or review of accreditation, quality assurance or similar materials.
(Acts 1981, No. 81-801, p. 1409.)
Notes of Decisions
Roby v. Fairfield Nursing & Rehab. Ctr., L.L.C., 22 So. 3d 445 (Ala. 2009).
· cites it 88× “These petitions present the Court with the critical issue whether it should displace the trial court's determination, made in the exercise of its sound discretion, [5] that Fairfield was not entitled to the *455 privilege against discovery afforded by Ala.Code 1975, § 22-21-8. I…”
Ex Parte Cryer, 814 So. 2d 239 (Ala. 2001).
· cites it 17× “Corbett and MOG responded to some of the plaintiffs' requests, but objected to responding to certain other requests for disclosure regarding matters that the defendants claimed were privileged against disclosure, under the provisions of § 22-21-8, Ala. Code 1975, or that they…”
Ex Parte St. Vincent's Hosp., 652 So. 2d 225 (Ala. 1994).
· cites it 13× “, which became effective on July 3, 1973, cannot trump a subsequent general act of statewide application, such as Ala.Code 1975, § 22-21-8 (enacted in 1981), or § 34-24-58 (enacted in 1976).”
Ex Parte Krothapalli, 762 So. 2d 836 (Ala. 2000).
· cites it 12× “Krothapalli timely filed a motion to quash the subpoenas, or, alternatively, a motion for a protective order, based upon Alabama's peerreview statute, § 22-21-8, Ala.Code 1975, arguing that the records the plaintiff sought were not personnel files, but were instead credentialing…”
Avnet v. Altapointe Health Sys., Inc. (Ex parte Altapointe Health Sys., Inc.), 249 So. 3d 1108 (Ala. 2017).
· cites it 17× “Finally, Altapointe argued that discovery of information and documents related to Altapointe's own investigation into the incident was precluded by the quality-assurance privilege of § 22-21-8, Ala. Code 1975. Avnet then moved to compel production of the discovery objected to by…”
Ex Parte Anderson, 789 So. 2d 190 (Ala. 2000).
· cites it 10× “Anderson filed a response objecting to these requests, based on §§ 22-21-8, 34-24-58, 34-24-59, 6-5-333 and 6-5-551, Ala.”
Dunn v. Dunn, 163 F. Supp. 3d 1196 (M.D. Ala. 2016).
· cites it 6× “In the course of the discovery process, MHM has refused to produce a number of documents (a few hundred pages worth), with respect to which it has asserted an Alabama state-law ‘quality assurance’ (alternately referred to as ‘peer review’) privilege, as codified at 1975 Ala.…”
Marshall v. Planz, 145 F. Supp. 2d 1258 (M.D. Ala. 2001).
· cites it 9× “Whether testimony from Planz and Hannah can be excluded under either or both of Alabama’s peer review statutes, § 22-21-8 or 6-5-333, ultimately depends on the application of these statutes in the context in which the statements were made.”
Ex Parte Coosa Valley Health Care, Inc., 789 So. 2d 208 (Ala. 2000).
· cites it 3× “Code 1975; § 22-21-8; the work-product doctrine; the attorney-client privilege; and general principles of relevancy, materiality, and overbreadth.”
Hutchins v. DCH Reg'l Med. Ctr., 770 So. 2d 49 (Ala. 2000).
· cites it 2× “DCH argued that the matters in dispute were protected by §§ 22-21-8 and 34-24-58, Ala.Code 1975, creating the so-called "quality-assurance privilege," and by the attorney-client privilege.”
State ex rel. Charles Town Gen. Hosp. v. Sanders, 556 S.E.2d 85 (W. Va. 2001).
“1998) further defines "peer review” as "the procedure for evaluation by health care professionals of the quality and efficiency of services ordered or performed by other health care professionals, in-eluding practice analysis, inpatient hospital and extended care facility…”
— Ala. Code § 22-21-8(a) — 2 cases
Roby v. Fairfield Nursing & Rehab. Ctr., L.L.C., 22 So. 3d 445 (Ala. 2009).
“These petitions present the Court with the critical issue whether it should displace the trial court's determination, made in the exercise of its sound discretion, [5] that Fairfield was not entitled to the *455 privilege against discovery afforded by Ala.Code 1975, § 22-21-8. I…”
Ex Parte Cryer, 814 So. 2d 239 (Ala. 2001).
“Corbett and MOG responded to some of the plaintiffs' requests, but objected to responding to certain other requests for disclosure regarding matters that the defendants claimed were privileged against disclosure, under the provisions of § 22-21-8, Ala. Code 1975, or that they…”
— Ala. Code § 22-21-8(b) — 13 cases
Roby v. Fairfield Nursing & Rehab. Ctr., L.L.C., 22 So. 3d 445 (Ala. 2009).
“These petitions present the Court with the critical issue whether it should displace the trial court's determination, made in the exercise of its sound discretion, [5] that Fairfield was not entitled to the *455 privilege against discovery afforded by Ala.Code 1975, § 22-21-8. I…”
Ex Parte Krothapalli, 762 So. 2d 836 (Ala. 2000).
“Krothapalli timely filed a motion to quash the subpoenas, or, alternatively, a motion for a protective order, based upon Alabama's peerreview statute, § 22-21-8, Ala.Code 1975, arguing that the records the plaintiff sought were not personnel files, but were instead credentialing…”
Ex Parte Cryer, 814 So. 2d 239 (Ala. 2001).
“Corbett and MOG responded to some of the plaintiffs' requests, but objected to responding to certain other requests for disclosure regarding matters that the defendants claimed were privileged against disclosure, under the provisions of § 22-21-8, Ala. Code 1975, or that they…”
State ex rel. Charles Town Gen. Hosp. v. Sanders, 556 S.E.2d 85 (W. Va. 2001).
“1998) further defines "peer review” as "the procedure for evaluation by health care professionals of the quality and efficiency of services ordered or performed by other health care professionals, in-eluding practice analysis, inpatient hospital and extended care facility…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.