Ark. Code Ann. § 16-46-105 (2026)
Records of and testimony before committees reviewing and evaluating quality of medical or hospital care
-
-
- The proceedings, minutes, records, or reports of organized committees of hospital medical staffs or medical review committees of local medical societies, or a committee organized by and operating pursuant to a written plan or policy under the auspices of a professional corporation or a professional limited liability company whose members are licensed to practice medicine in this state, having the responsibility for reviewing and evaluating the quality of medical or hospital care, and any records, other than those records described in subsection (c) of this section, compiled or accumulated by the administrative staff of such hospitals or a physician group peer review committee as defined under § 20-9-501 in connection with such review or evaluation, together with all communications or reports originating in such committees, shall not be subject to discovery pursuant to the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure or the Freedom of Information Act of 1967, § 25-19-101 et seq., or admissible in any legal proceeding and shall be absolutely privileged communications.
- The submission of such proceedings, minutes, records, reports, and communications to a hospital governing board or physician group peer review committee as defined under § 20-9-501 shall not operate as a waiver of the privilege.
- Neither shall testimony as to events occurring during the activities of such committees be subject to discovery pursuant to the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure or the Freedom of Information Act of 1967, § 25-19-101 et seq., or admissible.
-
-
-
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent disclosure of the data mentioned in subsection (a) of this section to appropriate state or federal regulatory agencies which by statute or regulation are entitled to access to such data, nor to:
- An organized committee of hospital medical staffs or governing boards where the medical practitioner seeks membership or clinical privileges; or
- A committee organized by and operating pursuant to a written plan or policy under the auspices of a professional corporation or a professional limited liability company whose members are licensed to practice medicine in this state.
- Further, nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent discovery and admissibility if the legal action in which such data is sought is brought by a medical practitioner who has been subjected to censure or disciplinary action by such agency or committee or by a hospital medical staff or governing board.
-
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent disclosure of the data mentioned in subsection (a) of this section to appropriate state or federal regulatory agencies which by statute or regulation are entitled to access to such data, nor to:
- Nothing in this section or § 20-9-308 shall be construed to apply to original hospital medical records, incident reports, or other records with respect to the care or treatment of any patient or to affect the discoverability or admissibility of such records.
History. Acts 1977, No. 445, §§ 1, 3; A.S.A. 1947, §§ 28-934, 28-935; Acts 1995, No. 885, § 1; 1999, No. 1536, § 8; 2013, No. 441, §§ 3, 4.
Amendments. The 1995 amendment added the subdivision designations in (a); inserted “pursuant to … 25-19-101 et seq.” in (a)(1) and (a)(2); and inserted “subject to discovery” in (a)(2).
The 1999 amendment, in (a)(1), inserted “other than those records described in subsection (c) of this section” and added the last sentence; in (b), inserted the language “to organized … shall be construed,” inserted “agency or,” and added the language following “committee” in (b)(2); in (c), deleted “kept” preceding “with respect,” inserted “the care or treatment of,” and deleted “in the course of business of operating a hospital” following “any patient”; and made stylistic changes.
The 2013 amendment, in (a)(1)(A), inserted “or a committee organized . . . practice medicine in this state” and “or a physician group peer review committee as defined under § 20-9-501”; inserted “or physician group peer review committee as defined under § 20-9-501” in (a)(1)(B); inserted the (b)(1)(A) designation; substituted “An organized committee” for “organized committees” in (b)(1)(A); and added (b)(1)(B).
Research References
Ark. L. Rev.
Watkins, Open Meetings Under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, 38 Ark. L. Rev. 268.
Watkins, Access to Public Records Under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, 38 Ark. L. Rev. 741.
Case Notes
Construction.
Circuit court abused its discretion when it denied plaintiff surgeon's motion to compel discovery of peer review records regarding white physicians at the hospital in his suit alleging, inter alia, racial discrimination in the termination of his staff appointment and clinical privileges. Williams v. Baptist Health, 2019 Ark. App. 482, 587 S.W.3d 275 (2019), review granted, 2019 Ark. LEXIS 387 (Dec. 19, 2019).
Plain language of subdivision (b)(2) of this section unambiguously provides an exception to the peer review privilege when the plaintiff in the legal action is the doctor who was adversely affected by the peer review proceedings. Nothing in the language of the exception supports the contention that it only allows a physician the right to obtain the medical records and documents reviewed and used in his own peer review proceedings. Williams v. Baptist Health, 2019 Ark. App. 482, 587 S.W.3d 275 (2019), review granted, 2019 Ark. LEXIS 387 (Dec. 19, 2019).
Section 20-9-503(a)(1) is not read to forbid the use of peer review evidence in a doctor's lawsuit that challenges the peer review process. Rather, the statute appears to prohibit using peer review evidence in a lawsuit, such as a medical malpractice action, against a doctor that is based on the same conduct that led to the doctor's discipline. Williams v. Baptist Health, 2019 Ark. App. 482, 587 S.W.3d 275 (2019), review granted, 2019 Ark. LEXIS 387 (Dec. 19, 2019).
Disciplinary Proceedings.
All records, documents and other information provided to the state medical board regarding revocation of the medical staff privileges of the defendant are absolutely privileged by Arkansas statutory provisions and cannot be discovered or admitted into evidence in a medical malpractice suit. Hendrickson v. Leipzig, 715 F. Supp. 1443 (E.D. Ark. 1989).
Nonprivileged Communications.
In a negligence action against doctors, hospital and nurses, the treating physician, who was a member of the hospital's pediatric committee, was allowed to testify as to his conversations with the manager and other hospital employees about the shortage of nurses. National Bank of Commerce v. HCA Health Servs. of Midwest, Inc., 304 Ark. 55, 800 S.W.2d 694 (1990).
Medication incident report was discoverable under subsection (c) because report was not prepared by or at the direction of any organized committee for committee purposes, rather, policy and procedures of hospital required such a report to be generated any time there was a variance between physician's orders with respect to administration of medication and actual administration of medication; medical incident reports were designed to contain contemporaneous statements. Cochran v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 909 F. Supp. 641 (W.D. Ark. 1995).
Personnel Records.
Response to reprimand was not a medical record, incident report, or other record kept with respect to any patient within the meaning of the language and intent of subsection (c), but instead was a record filed with the administrative staff which became a part of a disciplinary action kept with respect to one of hospital's personnel. HCA Health Servs. of Midwest, Inc. v. National Bank, 294 Ark. 525, 745 S.W.2d 120 (1988).
Privileged Communications.
Trial court should have excluded nurse's written response as privileged communication as proscribed pursuant to subsection (a). HCA Health Servs. of Midwest, Inc. v. National Bank, 294 Ark. 525, 745 S.W.2d 120 (1988).
Records of a post-incident disciplinary proceeding were within the privilege of subsection (a). National Bank of Commerce v. HCA Health Servs. of Midwest, Inc., 304 Ark. 55, 800 S.W.2d 694 (1990).
Hospital statements taken from witnesses as part of a quality assurance or peer review proceeding were excluded from disclosure and were absolutely privileged communications pursuant to Arkansas statutes. Berry v. Saline Mem. Hosp., 322 Ark. 182, 907 S.W.2d 736 (1995).
Hospital's insurer did not have to respond to a production request seeking the production of documents reflecting the activities of the hospital's strategic quality management committee because those documents were protected by the quality assurance and review privilege provided for in this section. Clark v. Baka, No. 4:07-CV-00477 GTE, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84570 (E.D. Ark. Oct. 9, 2008).
Statutory privilege set forth in this section encompasses records compiled by hospital administrative staff “in connection with” its quality-review process, not just the records from those cases that are ultimately referred to a quality-assurance committee (circuit court did not rule on plaintiff's argument concerning the subsection (c) exception, and thus it was not addressed on appeal). Jefferson Hosp. Ass'n v. Smith, 2019 Ark. App. 27, 569 S.W.3d 889 (2019).
Review of Discovery Orders.
In a patient's suit against a rehabilitation institute, where the institute was ordered to produce certain documents that it contended were privileged, certiorari was inappropriate because (1) the institute sought to reverse a discovery order, (2) the supreme court would be required to delve into the underlying merits of the controversy, and (3) the institute was asking the supreme court to interpret the statute at issue and determine whether the circuit court properly construed and applied it. Baptist Health v. Circuit Court, 373 Ark. 455, 284 S.W.3d 499 (2008).
Cited: Baxter County Newspapers, Inc. v. Medical Staff of Baxter Gen. Hosp., 273 Ark. 511, 622 S.W.2d 495 (1981); Saline Mem. Hosp. v. Berry, 321 Ark. 588, 906 S.W.2d 297 (1995).