A. Any individual who, in connection with duties or functions of a hospital or outpatient surgical center pursuant to section 36-445, makes a decision or recommendation as a member, agent or employee of the medical or administrative staff of a hospital or center or of one of its review committees or related organizations or who furnishes any records, information, or assistance to such medical staff or review committee or related organization is not subject to liability for civil damages or legal action in consequence thereof.
B. 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 section 36-445 may be liable in damages to any person who is denied the privilege to practice in a hospital or center or whose privileges are suspended, limited or revoked. The only legal action which may be maintained by a licensed health care provider based on the performance or nonperformance of such duties and functions is an action for injunctive relief seeking to correct an erroneous decision or procedure. The review shall be limited to a review of the record. If the record shows that the denial, revocation, limitation or suspension of membership or privileges is supported by substantial evidence, no injunction shall issue. In such actions, the prevailing party shall be awarded taxable costs, but no other monetary relief shall be awarded.
C. Nothing in this section relieves any individual, hospital or outpatient surgical center from liability arising from treatment of a patient.
Notes of Decisions
Takieh M.D. v. O'Meara M.D., 497 P.3d 1000 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 14× “See A.R.S. § 36-445.02 (A), (B) (immunizing from “liability for civil damages or legal action” any participant in a medical peer-review proceeding who “makes a decision or recommendation” or “furnishes any records, information, or assistance” to “medical staff or review…”
Hourani v. Benson Hosp., 122 P.3d 6 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 12× “The statutes mandated peer review of physicians practicing in hospitals and provided immunity to those participating in the peer review process for decisions made “without malice and in good faith.”
Samaritan Health Sys. v. Superior Court, 981 P.2d 584 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 18× “”) § 36-445.02 (Supp.1997) (“§ 36-445.02”). ¶2 We accept special action jurisdiction and grant relief in part.”
Gilbert v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 745 P.2d 617 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 10× “Ivey participated on the peer review committee, A.R.S. § 36-445.02 provided: A person who, in connection with a hospital’s duties or functions pursuant to § 36-445, without malice and in good faith, makes a decision or recommendation as a member, agent or employee of a…”
Goodman v. Samaritan Health Sys., 990 P.2d 1061 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 12× “Thus, Goodman reasons, the court must strictly scrutinize section 36-445.02, as this is the level of scrutiny that must be applied to a statutory classification which results in a deprivation of a fundamental right, citing Kenyon v.”
Scappatura v. Baptist Hosp. of Phoenix, 584 P.2d 1195 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 10× “This Court, in reviewing the decision of the lower court granting appellees summary judgment, must resolve the following issues: *207 (1) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to review the internal operations of a private hospital; (2) To what extent do the physician peer review…”
In Re Est. of Friedman, 177 P.3d 290 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 6× “To determine whether the probate court erred in ordering Dennis and Libby to pay the special administrator’s fees and costs, we must determine what constitutes “malice” for purposes of A.”
Tucson Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Misevch, 545 P.2d 958 (Ariz. 1976).
· cites it 3× “The Arizona statute should not, however, discourage the full and frank giving of information to a review committee as was apparently feared in other states in light of A.R.S. § 36-445.02 which provides that: “A person who without malice and in good faith .”
Ramirez v. Health Partners, 972 P.2d 658 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 3× “Although the constitutionality of the statute was not at issue in that case, this court noted that § 36-445.”
Khaled A. Qasem v. C.E. Kozarek, 716 F.2d 1172 (7th Cir. 1983).
· cites it 2× “63 (1981); Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 36-445.02 (1981). 4 . Assembly Bill 56 contained the following provision: No person acting in good faith who participates in the review or evaluation of the services of health care providers or facilities or the charges for such services conducted in…”
Humana Hosp. Desert Valley v. Superior Court, 742 P.2d 1382 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
“) Specific reference to the application process is also found in § 36-445.02 which provides immunity to individuals involved in the peer review process: b.”
Carey v. Maricopa Cnty., 602 F. Supp. 2d 1132 (D. Ariz. 2009).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 36-445.02. Defendants argue that the process of Plaintiffs re-appointment process was pursuant to the Peer Review statute.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-445.02(A) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-445.02(B) — 6 cases
Hourani v. Benson Hosp., 122 P.3d 6 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
“The statutes mandated peer review of physicians practicing in hospitals and provided immunity to those participating in the peer review process for decisions made “without malice and in good faith.”
Goodman v. Samaritan Health Sys., 990 P.2d 1061 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“Thus, Goodman reasons, the court must strictly scrutinize section 36-445.02, as this is the level of scrutiny that must be applied to a statutory classification which results in a deprivation of a fundamental right, citing Kenyon v.”
Takieh M.D. v. O'Meara M.D., 497 P.3d 1000 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
“See A.R.S. § 36-445.02 (A), (B) (immunizing from “liability for civil damages or legal action” any participant in a medical peer-review proceeding who “makes a decision or recommendation” or “furnishes any records, information, or assistance” to “medical staff or review…”
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.