Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 18.23.020 (2026)
Limitation on liability for members of review organizations
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 18.23.020. Limitation on liability for members of review organizations.
A person who is a member or employee of, or who acts in an advisory capacity to, or who furnishes counsel or services to a review organization is not liable for damages or other relief in an action brought by another whose activities have been or are being scrutinized or reviewed by a review organization, by reason of the performance of a duty, function, or activity of the review organization, unless the performance of the duty, function, or activity was motivated by malice toward the affected person. A person is not liable for damages or other relief in an action by reason of performance of a duty, function, or activity as a member of a review organization or by reason of a recommendation or action of the review organization when the person acts in the reasonable belief that the action or recommendation is warranted by facts known to the person or to the review organization after reasonable efforts to ascertain the facts upon which the review organization's action or recommendation is made.
A person who is a member or employee of, or who acts in an advisory capacity to, or who furnishes counsel or services to a review organization is not liable for damages or other relief in an action brought by another whose activities have been or are being scrutinized or reviewed by a review organization, by reason of the performance of a duty, function, or activity of the review organization, unless the performance of the duty, function, or activity was motivated by malice toward the affected person. A person is not liable for damages or other relief in an action by reason of performance of a duty, function, or activity as a member of a review organization or by reason of a recommendation or action of the review organization when the person acts in the reasonable belief that the action or recommendation is warranted by facts known to the person or to the review organization after reasonable efforts to ascertain the facts upon which the review organization's action or recommendation is made.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 2007–2018 · leading case: Brandner v. Bateman, 349 P.3d 1068 (Alaska 2015).
Brandner v. Bateman, 349 P.3d 1068 (Alaska 2015). “Bate-man, Christensen, and Olivas, the doctors on the hearing panel, are immune under AS 18.23.020, which provides immunity for participants in review proceedings if their actions (1) were not motivated by malice; (2) occurred after reasonable efforts to ascertain the facts upon…”
Mat-Su Valley Med. Ctr., LLC v. Bolinder, 427 P.3d 754 (Alaska 2018). “Another provision, AS 18.23.020, limits liability for members of a review organization.”
Grandstaff v. State, 171 P.3d 1176 (Alaska Ct. App. 2007). “" AS 18.23.020 has no subsection (d); nor, at the time, did AS 18.”
Brandner v. Providence Health & Servs. - Washington, 394 P.3d 581 (Alaska 2017). “In February 2014 the superior court granted summary judgment in favor of the individual doctors, concluding that AS 18.23.020 immunized them from suit. 3 The court also granted summary judgment in Providence’s favor on Dr.”
Brandner v. Providence Health & Servs. - Washington, 384 P.3d 773 (Alaska 2016). “In February 2014 the superior court granted summary judgment in favor of the individual doctors, concluding that AS 18.23.020 immunized them from suit. 3 The court also granted summary judgment in Providence’s favor on Dr.”
Brandner v. Providence Health & Servs. - Washington (Alaska 2016). “In February 2014 the superior court granted summary judgment in favor of the individual doctors, concluding that AS 18.23.020 immunized them from suit.3 The court also granted summary 1 See AS 18.”
— Alaska Stat. § 18.23.020(d) — 1 case
Grandstaff v. State, 171 P.3d 1176 (Alaska Ct. App. 2007). “" AS 18.23.020 has no subsection (d); nor, at the time, did AS 18.”
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.