A. In connection with the investigation by the board on its own motion, or as the result of information received pursuant to section 32-1451, subsection A, the board or its duly authorized agents or employees at all reasonable times may examine and copy any documents, reports, records or other physical evidence of the person it is investigating or that is in possession of any hospital, clinic, physician's office, laboratory, pharmacy, public or private agency, health care institution as defined in section 36-401 and health care provider and that relates to medical competence, unprofessional conduct or the mental or physical ability of a licensee to safely practice medicine.
B. For the purpose of all investigations and proceedings conducted by the board:
1. The board on its own initiative or on application of any person involved in the investigation may issue subpoenas to require the attendance and testimony of witnesses or to demand the production for examination or copying of documents or any other physical evidence that relates to medical competence, unprofessional conduct or the mental or physical ability of a licensee to safely practice medicine. Within five days after a person is served with a subpoena that person may petition the board to revoke, limit or modify the subpoena. The board shall do so if in its opinion the evidence required does not relate to unlawful practices covered by this chapter, is not relevant to the charge that is the subject matter of the hearing or investigation or does not describe with sufficient particularity the physical evidence whose production is required. Any member of the board or any agent designated by the board may administer oaths or affirmations, examine witnesses and receive evidence.
2. Any person appearing before the board may be represented by counsel.
3. On application by the board or by the person subpoenaed, the superior court may issue an order to either:
(a) Require the subpoenaed person to appear before the board or the duly authorized agent to produce evidence relating to the matter under investigation.
(b) Revoke, limit or modify the subpoena if in the court's opinion the evidence demanded does not relate to unlawful practices covered by this chapter, is not relevant to the charge which is the subject matter of the hearing or investigation or does not describe with sufficient particularity the evidence whose production is required.
C. Patient records, including clinical records, medical reports, laboratory statements and reports, any file, film, other report or oral statement relating to diagnostic findings or treatment of patients, any information from which a patient or the patient's family might be identified or any information received and records or reports kept by the board as a result of the investigation procedure outlined in this chapter are not available to the public.
D. This section and any other law making communications between a physician and a physician's patient privileged does not apply to investigations or proceedings conducted pursuant to this chapter. The board and its employees, agents and representatives shall keep in confidence the names of any patients whose records are reviewed during the course of investigations and proceedings pursuant to this chapter.
E. Hospital records, medical staff records, medical staff review committee records and testimony concerning these records and proceedings related to the creation of these records are not available to the public, shall be kept confidential by the board and are subject to the same provisions concerning discovery and use in legal actions as are the original records in the possession and control of hospitals, their medical staffs and their medical staff review committees. The board shall use such records and testimony during the course of investigations and proceedings pursuant to this chapter.
F. The court may find a person who does not comply with a subpoena issued pursuant to this section in contempt of court.
Notes of Decisions
Sun Health Corp. v. Myers, 70 P.3d 444 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 12× “¶ 6 The hospital refused to disclose the statements and declined to answer the requests for admissions based on the statutory peer review privilege conferred by A.R.S. §§ 32-1451.01 (Supp.2002) and 36-445.”
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Ditsworth, 166 P.3d 130 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 10× “Therefore, according to the State, any statements made by Patel during the course of the Board’s investigation are not protected from disclosure to law enforcement agencies by § 32-1451.01. Patel, on the other hand, asserts that § 32-1451(0) only requires the Board to give…”
Lipschultz v. Superior Court, Etc., 623 P.2d 805 (Ariz. 1981).
· cites it 12× “Is information obtained by the Arizona Board of Medical Examiners in its investigation of alleged medical malpractice pursuant to statute, A.R.S. § 32-1451.01, privileged? 2. If a privilege exists, is it properly enforceable by the petitioners? The facts necessary to a…”
Danielson v. Superior Court, 754 P.2d 1145 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 11× “Section § 32-1451.01(0) and (E) mandate confidentiality of BOMEX records and provide as follows: C.”
Humana Hosp. Desert Valley v. Superior Court, 742 P.2d 1382 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 4× “After the trial court ordered BOMEX to provide plaintiffs with certain materials, the doctors filed a special action petition in our supreme court. That court found no legislative intent that the privileges of A.”
Ruben v. Amb (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Ruben violated A.R.S. § 32-1451.01 and A.R.S. § 32-3206 when he disclosed investigation information to a patient to assist in his defense.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1451.01(0) — 5 cases
Humana Hosp. Desert Valley v. Superior Court, 742 P.2d 1382 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
“After the trial court ordered BOMEX to provide plaintiffs with certain materials, the doctors filed a special action petition in our supreme court. That court found no legislative intent that the privileges of A.”
Sun Health Corp. v. Myers, 70 P.3d 444 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
“¶ 6 The hospital refused to disclose the statements and declined to answer the requests for admissions based on the statutory peer review privilege conferred by A.R.S. §§ 32-1451.01 (Supp.2002) and 36-445.”
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Ditsworth, 166 P.3d 130 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“Therefore, according to the State, any statements made by Patel during the course of the Board’s investigation are not protected from disclosure to law enforcement agencies by § 32-1451.01. Patel, on the other hand, asserts that § 32-1451(0) only requires the Board to give…”
Danielson v. Superior Court, 754 P.2d 1145 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
“Section § 32-1451.01(0) and (E) mandate confidentiality of BOMEX records and provide as follows: C.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1451.01(A) — 1 case
Lipschultz v. Superior Court, Etc., 623 P.2d 805 (Ariz. 1981).
“Is information obtained by the Arizona Board of Medical Examiners in its investigation of alleged medical malpractice pursuant to statute, A.R.S. § 32-1451.01, privileged? 2. If a privilege exists, is it properly enforceable by the petitioners? The facts necessary to a…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1451.01(B) — 2 cases
Danielson v. Superior Court, 754 P.2d 1145 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
“Section § 32-1451.01(0) and (E) mandate confidentiality of BOMEX records and provide as follows: C.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1451.01(B)(l) — 1 case
Danielson v. Superior Court, 754 P.2d 1145 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
“Section § 32-1451.01(0) and (E) mandate confidentiality of BOMEX records and provide as follows: C.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1451.01(C) — 7 cases
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Ditsworth, 166 P.3d 130 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“Therefore, according to the State, any statements made by Patel during the course of the Board’s investigation are not protected from disclosure to law enforcement agencies by § 32-1451.01. Patel, on the other hand, asserts that § 32-1451(0) only requires the Board to give…”
Sun Health Corp. v. Myers, 70 P.3d 444 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
“¶ 6 The hospital refused to disclose the statements and declined to answer the requests for admissions based on the statutory peer review privilege conferred by A.R.S. §§ 32-1451.01 (Supp.2002) and 36-445.”
Lipschultz v. Superior Court, Etc., 623 P.2d 805 (Ariz. 1981).
“Is information obtained by the Arizona Board of Medical Examiners in its investigation of alleged medical malpractice pursuant to statute, A.R.S. § 32-1451.01, privileged? 2. If a privilege exists, is it properly enforceable by the petitioners? The facts necessary to a…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1451.01(D) — 2 cases
Danielson v. Superior Court, 754 P.2d 1145 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
“Section § 32-1451.01(0) and (E) mandate confidentiality of BOMEX records and provide as follows: C.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1451.01(E) — 2 cases
Sun Health Corp. v. Myers, 70 P.3d 444 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
“¶ 6 The hospital refused to disclose the statements and declined to answer the requests for admissions based on the statutory peer review privilege conferred by A.R.S. §§ 32-1451.01 (Supp.2002) and 36-445.”
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Ditsworth, 166 P.3d 130 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“Therefore, according to the State, any statements made by Patel during the course of the Board’s investigation are not protected from disclosure to law enforcement agencies by § 32-1451.01. Patel, on the other hand, asserts that § 32-1451(0) only requires the Board to give…”
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.