11 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2011 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Terre Haute Regional Hospital, Inc. v. Basdengreen2 sentences2011See id. at 238 , 268 N.E.2d at 99 (mindful "not [to] discount the concern of the Indiana General Assembly that the confidential nature of the physician-patient relationship be preserved at the cost of rendering certain evidence inadmissible," but concluding that a patient waives the privilege "by pursing a course of conduct inconsistent with a continued observance of the privilege"); Terre Haute Reg'l Hosp., Inc. v. Basden, 524 N.E.2d 1306, 1309-11 (Ind.Ct.App.1988) (refusing to write-in a good faith requirement or to require a balancing test in the application of the peer review privilege); s 2011See id. at 238 , 268 N.E.2d at 99 (mindful “not [to] discount the concern of the Indiana General Assembly that the confidential nature of the physician-patient relationship be preserved at the cost of rendering certain evidence inadmissible,” but concluding that a patient waives the privilege “by pursing a course of conduct inconsistent with a continued observance of the privilege”); Terre Haute Reg’l Hosp., Inc. v. Basden, 524 N.E.2d 1306, 1309-11 (Ind.Ct.App.1988) (refusing to write-in a good faith requirement or to require a balancing test in the application of the peer review privilege); s | 3 | 7 |
Collins v. Bairgreen2 sentences2011See id. at 238 , 268 N.E.2d at 99 (mindful “not [to] discount the concern of the Indiana General Assembly that the confidential nature of the physician-patient relationship be preserved at the cost of rendering certain evidence inadmissible,” but concluding that a patient waives the privilege “by pursing a course of conduct inconsistent with a continued observance of the privilege”); Terre Haute Reg’l Hosp., Inc. v. Basden, 524 N.E.2d 1306, 1309-11 (Ind.Ct.App.1988) (refusing to write-in a good faith requirement or to require a balancing test in the application of the peer review privilege); s 2011See id. at 238 , 268 N.E.2d at 99 (mindful “not [to] discount the concern of the Indiana General Assembly that the confidential nature of the physician-patient relationship be preserved at the cost of rendering certain evidence inadmissible,” but concluding that a patient waives the privilege “by pursing a course of conduct inconsistent with a continued observance of the privilege”); Terre Haute Reg’l Hosp., Inc. v. Basden, 524 N.E.2d 1306, 1309-11 (Ind.Ct.App.1988) (refusing to write-in a good faith requirement or to require a balancing test in the application of the peer review privilege); s | 3 | 3 |
Massey v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See id. at 238 , 268 N.E.2d at 99 (mindful “not [to] discount the concern of the Indiana General Assembly that the confidential nature of the physician-patient relationship be preserved at the cost of rendering certain evidence inadmissible,” but concluding that a patient waives the privilege “by pursing a course of conduct inconsistent with a continued observance of the privilege”); Terre Haute Reg’l Hosp., Inc. v. Basden, 524 N.E.2d 1306, 1309-11 (Ind.Ct.App.1988) (refusing to write-in a good faith requirement or to require a balancing test in the application of the peer review privilege); s 2011See id. at 238 , 268 N.E.2d at 99 (mindful “not [to] discount the concern of the Indiana General Assembly that the confidential nature of the physician-patient relationship be preserved at the cost of rendering certain evidence inadmissible,” but concluding that a patient waives the privilege “by pursing a course of conduct inconsistent with a continued observance of the privilege”); Terre Haute Reg’l Hosp., Inc. v. Basden, 524 N.E.2d 1306, 1309-11 (Ind.Ct.App.1988) (refusing to write-in a good faith requirement or to require a balancing test in the application of the peer review privilege); s | 2 | 2 |
Village of Downers Grove v. Illinois State Labor Relations Boardgreen2 sentences2001Joseph Hosp., 176 1ll.App.8d 737, 126 Ill.Dec. 197 , 581 N.E.2d 824, 828 (1988) (concluding that interrogatories seeking the nature and extent of a physician's staff privileges and any restrictions imposed on the physician's privileges are appropriate because such information is not protected by the peer review privilege), appeal denied (1989). "[Oluly action[s] taken during the peer-review process are protected under the Act." Id. (emphasis added). 2001Joseph Hosp., 176 1ll.App.8d 737, 126 Ill.Dec. 197 , 581 N.E.2d 824, 828 (1988) (concluding that interrogatories seeking the nature and extent of a physician's staff privileges and any restrictions imposed on the physician's privileges are appropriate because such information is not protected by the peer review privilege), appeal denied (1989). "[Oluly action[s] taken during the peer-review process are protected under the Act." Id. (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Munoz-Lopez v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2001Here, the purpose and policy of both the Indiana and Illinois peer review privileges are the same: to foster an effective review of medical care by permitting the members of the peer review panel to communicate "candidly, objectively, and consecientiously." Terre Haute Reg Hosp., Inc. v. Bas-den, 524 N.E.2d 1306, 1811 (Ind.Ct.App. 1988); see Knapp v. Palos Cmty. Hosp., 176 Tll.App.3d 1012, 126 IIlLDec. 862, 5831 N.E.2d 989 , 995 (1988) (stating that the purpose of the peer review privilege "is to ensure the effectiveness of professional self-evaluation, by members of the medical profession, in | 1 | 1 |
Winer v. Nixongreen1 sentence2001Here, the purpose and policy of both the Indiana and Illinois peer review privileges are the same: to foster an effective review of medical care by permitting the members of the peer review panel to communicate "candidly, objectively, and consecientiously." Terre Haute Reg Hosp., Inc. v. Bas-den, 524 N.E.2d 1306, 1811 (Ind.Ct.App. 1988); see Knapp v. Palos Cmty. Hosp., 176 Tll.App.3d 1012, 126 IIlLDec. 862, 5831 N.E.2d 989 , 995 (1988) (stating that the purpose of the peer review privilege "is to ensure the effectiveness of professional self-evaluation, by members of the medical profession, in | 1 | 1 |
Mulder v. Vankersengreen2 sentences2001See Mulder v. Vankersen, 637 N.E.2d 1335, 1339-40 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) ("The peer review privilege may only be waived by the execution. of a waiver in writing.... 2001See Mulder v. Vankersen, 637 N.E.2d 1335, 1339-40 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) ("The peer review privilege may only be waived by the execution. of a waiver in writing.... | 1 | 1 |
Franco v. DIST. COURT IN & FOR CITY & CTY.green2 sentences1988To engraft a good faith limitation on the peer review privilege would have the inevitable effect of derogating from the quality of the peer review process." Franco 641 P.2d at 930-31. 1988To engraft a good faith limitation on the peer review privilege would have the inevitable effect of derogating from the quality of the peer review process." Franco 641 P.2d at 930-31. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ray v. St. John's Health Care Corp.
green
2 sentences2004John's Health Care Corp., 582 N.E.2d 464 (Ind.Ct.App.1991), we addressed a trial court's grant of a blanket claim of "peer review" privilege regarding hospital documents, holding that "the trial court should have conducted an in camera review on a document-by-document basis to determine whether the materials sought were protected by the peer review privilege." Id. at 474 . 2004John's Health Care Corp., 582 N.E.2d 464 (Ind.Ct.App.1991), we addressed a trial court's grant of a blanket claim of "peer review" privilege regarding hospital documents, holding that "the trial court should have conducted an in camera review on a document-by-document basis to determine whether the materials sought were protected by the peer review privilege." Id. at 474 . | 6 | 1992–2004 |
In Re Kefalidis
green
1 sentence2004Therefore, in Kefalidis, we held that the trial court was obliged to consider the witnesses' claim of privilege in camera and on a question-by-question basis. - Kefalidis, 714 N.E.2d at 250 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.