A. All proceedings, records and materials prepared in connection with the reviews provided for in section 36-445, including all peer reviews of individual health care providers practicing in and applying to practice in hospitals or outpatient surgical centers and the records of such reviews, are confidential and are not subject to discovery except in proceedings before the Arizona medical board or the board of osteopathic examiners, or in actions by an individual health care provider against a hospital or center or its medical staff arising from discipline of such individual health care provider or refusal, termination, suspension or limitation of the health care provider's privileges. No member of a committee established under the provisions of section 36-445 or officer or other member of a hospital's or center's medical, administrative or nursing staff engaged in assisting the hospital or center to carry out functions in accordance with that section or any person furnishing information to a committee performing peer review may be subpoenaed to testify in any judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding if the subpoena is based solely on those activities.
B. This article does not affect any patient's claim to privilege or privacy or to prevent the subpoena of a patient's medical records if they are otherwise subject to discovery or to restrict the powers and duties of the director pursuant to this chapter, with respect to records and information that are not subject to this article. In any legal action brought against a hospital or outpatient surgical center licensed pursuant to this chapter claiming negligence for failure to adequately do peer review, representatives of the hospital or center are permitted to testify as to whether there was peer review as to the subject matter being litigated. The contents and records of the peer review proceedings are fully confidential and inadmissible as evidence in any court of law.
Notes of Decisions
Tucson Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Misevch, 545 P.2d 958 (Ariz. 1976).
· cites it 14× “A.R.S. § 36-445.01. This is the statute within which the trial judge acted in this case and which is now questioned.”
Takieh M.D. v. O'Meara M.D., 497 P.3d 1000 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 4× “Although Dinner determined most of the emails were privileged attorney-client communications, she did not create a privilege log because she concluded all the emails were prepared in connection with peer-review proceedings that she contended were protected from discovery by…”
Sun Health Corp. v. Myers, 70 P.3d 444 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 7× “A.R.S. § 36-445.01. 3 *318 So are a hospital’s communications to BO-MEX relating to the suspension of staff privileges of a doctor.”
Humana Hosp. Desert Valley v. Superior Court, 742 P.2d 1382 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 5× “Such review shall include the nature, quality and necessity of the care provided and the preventability of complications and deaths occurring in the hospital____ § 36-445.01. Confidentiality of information; conditions of disclosure A.”
Yuma Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Superior Court, 852 P.2d 1256 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 7× “A.R.S. § 36-445.01(A) provides, in pertinent part: All proceedings, records and materials prepared in connection with the reviews provided for in § 36-445, including all peer reviews of individual health care providers .”
Samaritan Health Sys. v. Superior Court, 981 P.2d 584 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “02 provides for immunity from damage lawsuits for health care providers: No hospital or outpatient surgical center and no individual involved in carrying out review or disciplinary duties or functions of a hospital or center pursuant to § 36-445 may be liable in damages to any…”
Lipschultz v. Superior Court, Etc., 623 P.2d 805 (Ariz. 1981).
· cites it 2× “In effect, the only material that can be discovered from the Board is'material which could also be discovered from “hospitals, their medical staffs, and their medical staff review committees.” Tucson Medical Center, Inc.”
Marshall v. Planz, 145 F. Supp. 2d 1258 (M.D. Ala. 2001).
“§ 32 — 1451 (A), not its peer review statute, Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 36-445.01. Hirsch provides no assistance to Marshall because the'issues raised here address the particular policy concerns of peer review processes.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-445.01(A) — 5 cases
Takieh M.D. v. O'Meara M.D., 497 P.3d 1000 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
“Although Dinner determined most of the emails were privileged attorney-client communications, she did not create a privilege log because she concluded all the emails were prepared in connection with peer-review proceedings that she contended were protected from discovery by…”
Tucson Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Misevch, 545 P.2d 958 (Ariz. 1976).
“A.R.S. § 36-445.01. This is the statute within which the trial judge acted in this case and which is now questioned.”
Humana Hosp. Desert Valley v. Superior Court, 742 P.2d 1382 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
“Such review shall include the nature, quality and necessity of the care provided and the preventability of complications and deaths occurring in the hospital____ § 36-445.01. Confidentiality of information; conditions of disclosure A.”
Yuma Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Superior Court, 852 P.2d 1256 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
“A.R.S. § 36-445.01(A) provides, in pertinent part: All proceedings, records and materials prepared in connection with the reviews provided for in § 36-445, including all peer reviews of individual health care providers .”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-445.01(B) — 4 cases
Yuma Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Superior Court, 852 P.2d 1256 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
“A.R.S. § 36-445.01(A) provides, in pertinent part: All proceedings, records and materials prepared in connection with the reviews provided for in § 36-445, including all peer reviews of individual health care providers .”
Humana Hosp. Desert Valley v. Superior Court, 742 P.2d 1382 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
“Such review shall include the nature, quality and necessity of the care provided and the preventability of complications and deaths occurring in the hospital____ § 36-445.01. Confidentiality of information; conditions of disclosure A.”
Lipschultz v. Superior Court, Etc., 623 P.2d 805 (Ariz. 1981).
“In effect, the only material that can be discovered from the Board is'material which could also be discovered from “hospitals, their medical staffs, and their medical staff review committees.” Tucson Medical Center, Inc.”
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.