(a)Neither the proceedings nor the records of organized committees of medical, medical-dental, podiatric, registered dietitian, psychological, marriage and family therapist, licensed clinical social worker, professional clinical counselor, pharmacist, prehospital emergency medical care person or personnel, or veterinary staffs, or of a peer review body, as defined in Section 805 of the Business and Professions Code, having the responsibility of evaluation and improvement of the quality of care rendered in the hospital, or for that
peer review body, or medical or dental review or dental hygienist review or chiropractic review or podiatric review or registered dietitian review or pharmacist review or veterinary review or acupuncturist review or licensed midwife review or prehospital emergency medical care person or personnel review committees of local medical, dental, dental hygienist, podiatric, dietetic, pharmacist, veterinary, acupuncture, chiropractic, or prehospital emergency medical care person or personnel societies, marriage and
family therapist, licensed clinical social worker, professional clinical counselor, or psychological review committees of state or local marriage and family therapist, state or local licensed clinical social worker, state or local licensed professional clinical counselor, or state or local psychological associations or societies or licensed midwife associations or societies having the responsibility of evaluation and improvement of the quality of care, shall be subject to discovery.
(b)Except as hereinafter provided, a person in attendance at a meeting of any of the committees described in subdivision (a) shall not be required to testify as to what transpired at that meeting.
(c)The prohibition relating to discovery or testimony does not apply to the statements made by a
person in attendance at a meeting of any of the committees described in subdivision (a) if that person is a party to an action or proceeding the subject matter of which was reviewed at that meeting, to a person requesting hospital staff privileges, or in an action against an insurance carrier alleging bad faith by the carrier in refusing to accept a settlement offer within the policy limits.
(d)The prohibitions in this section do not apply to medical, dental, dental hygienist, podiatric, dietetic, psychological, marriage and family therapist, licensed clinical social worker, professional clinical counselor, pharmacist, veterinary, acupuncture, midwifery, chiropractic, or
prehospital emergency medical care person or personnel society committees that exceed 10 percent of the membership of the society, nor to any of those committees if a person serves upon the committee when his or her own conduct or practice is being reviewed.
(e)The amendments made to this section by Chapter 1081 of the Statutes of 1983, or at the 1985 portion of the 1985–86 Regular Session of the Legislature, at the 1990 portion of the 1989–90 Regular Session of the Legislature, at the 2000 portion of the 1999–2000 Regular Session of the Legislature, at the 2011 portion of the 2011–12 Regular Session of the Legislature, at the 2015 portion of the 2015–16 Regular Session of the Legislature, or at the 2024 portion of the 2023–24 Regular Session of the Legislature, do not exclude the discovery or use of
relevant evidence in a criminal action.
(f)For purposes of this section, “prehospital emergency medical care person or personnel” has the same meaning as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 1797.188 of the Health and Safety Code.
Notes of Decisions
West Covina Hosp. v. Superior Court, 718 P.2d 119 (Cal. 1986).
· cites it 6× “(1a) Evidence Code section 1157 provides in part that neither the proceedings nor the records of hospital medical staff committees shall be subject to discovery, and under subdivision (b) "no person in attendance at a meeting of any of those committees shall be required to…”
Leon v. Cnty. of San Diego, 202 F.R.D. 631 (S.D. Cal. 2001).
· cites it 8× “B) Privilege 1) State Evidentiary Privileges in Federal Court Defendants first argue that this Court, as a matter of comity, should allow *635 the use of privileges available under California Evidence Code § 1157. 4 This section of the evidence code does provide strong…”
Alexander v. Superior Court, 859 P.2d 96 (Cal. 1993).
· cites it 4× “Evidence Code section 1157 Evidence Code, section 1157, subdivision (a) (hereafter section 1157(a)) states: ‘Neither the proceedings nor the records of organized committees of medical .”
Fox v. Kramer, 994 P.2d 343 (Cal. 2000).
· cites it 7× “) Evidence Code section 1157, subdivision (a), “[b]y its terms .”
Pagano v. Oroville Hosp., 145 F.R.D. 683 (E.D. Cal. 1993).
· cites it 4× “Cal.Evid.Code § 1157. 5 *692 The court noted that “[fjederal courts in the Ninth Circuit have yet to adopt California’s peer review privilege.”
People v. Superior Court, 23 P.3d 563 (Cal. 2001).
· cites it 2× “” (Evid. Code, § 1157, subd. (a).) Our decision in Arnett concluded that the term “discovery” in this particular statute must be given “its well-established legal meaning of a formal exchange of evidentiary information between parties to a pending action .”
Teasdale v. Marin Gen. Hosp., 138 F.R.D. 691 (N.D. Cal. 1991).
· cites it 4× “*693 Defendants assert that the requested documents, primarily minutes from various meetings of the peer review committees at Ross General and Marin General, are privileged under California Evidence Code § 1157 and that this privilege should be applied by the court.”
Coburn v. Seda, 677 P.2d 173 (Wash. 1984).
· cites it 2× “The court there interpreted Cal. Evid. Code § 1157 , a statute substantially similar to RCW 4.”
People v. Superior Court (Mem'l Med. Ctr.), 91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7774 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 4× “" According to the People, because the documents in question are those of a committee of a "peer review body, as defined in Section 805 of the Business and Professions Code," (Evid. Code, § 1157, subd. (a)), and this language was an amendment to section 1157 added by chapter 196…”
Cent. Valley Hospitalists v. Dignity Health, 227 Cal. Rptr. 3d 848 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018).
“) In practice, a Section 805 Report is a negative mark on a physician's record of practice and may negatively affect future practice options.”
Clarke v. Hoek, 174 Cal. App. 3d 208 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “” “Evidence Code section 1157 expresses a legislative judgment that the public interest in medical staff candor extends beyond damage immunity [established by Civil Code section 43.”
Bell v. Sharp Cabrillo Hosp., 212 Cal. App. 3d 1034 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 2× “Completely protected by privilege (Evid. Code, § 1157), this process is designed to protect patients admitted to the hospital as well as the physicians who come up for reappointment.”
— Cal. Evidence Code § 1157(a) — 1 case
Teasdale v. Marin Gen. Hosp., 138 F.R.D. 691 (N.D. Cal. 1991).
“*693 Defendants assert that the requested documents, primarily minutes from various meetings of the peer review committees at Ross General and Marin General, are privileged under California Evidence Code § 1157 and that this privilege should be applied by the court.”
— Cal. Evidence Code § 1157(c) — 2 cases
Teasdale v. Marin Gen. Hosp., 138 F.R.D. 691 (N.D. Cal. 1991).
“*693 Defendants assert that the requested documents, primarily minutes from various meetings of the peer review committees at Ross General and Marin General, are privileged under California Evidence Code § 1157 and that this privilege should be applied by the court.”
Pagano v. Oroville Hosp., 145 F.R.D. 683 (E.D. Cal. 1993).
“Cal.Evid.Code § 1157. 5 *692 The court noted that “[fjederal courts in the Ninth Circuit have yet to adopt California’s peer review privilege.”
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.