medical peer review privilege in Massachusetts

2011“In determining whether a medical peer review privilege applies in a particular circumstance, [the Court looks] to ‘the way in which a document was created and the purpose for which it was used, not... its content.’ ” Id. at 509 , citing Carr v. Howard, 426 Mass. 514, 531 (1998).

2009In determining whether a medical peer review privilege applies in a particular circumstance, this court is required to review “the way in which a document was created and the purpose for which it was used, not ... its content.” Carr v. Howard, 426 Mass. 514, 531 (1998).

2002“Determining whether the medical peer review privilege applies turns on the way in which a document was created and the purpose for which it was used, not on its content ." Miller v. Milton Hospital & Medical, 54 Mass.App.Ct. 495, 499 (2002).

2002See Carr, 428 Mass. at 531 (“[djetermining whether the medical peer review privilege applies turns on the way in which a document was created and the purpose for which it was used, not on its content”); Miller, 54 Mass.App.Ct. at 499 (“[s]pecifically, where a privilege is claimed under G.L.c. 111, §204, the principal focus of the inquiry is on whether the document was created by, for or otherwise as a result of a ‘medical peer review committee’ ”).

2006The purpose served by the medical peer review privilege is similar in some respects to the attorney-client privilege, which is “founded on the necessity that a client be free to reveal information to an attorney without fear of its disclosure, in order to obtain informed legal advice.” Purcell v. District Attorney for the Suffolk Dist., 424 Mass. 109, 111 (1997).

2006Cf. Ayash v. Dana-Farber Cancer Inst., 443 Mass. 367, 394 (2005) (“the medical peer review privilege does not extend to physicians who participate [in the peer review] in bad faith,” discussing G.

2006Ass’n v. Board of Registration in Med., 401 Mass. 172, 183 (1987). 27 It is that work of the committee that the privilege protects, and unless the work can be shown to be tainted, then the privilege applies.

2006Although the attorney-client privilege “creates an inherent tension with society’s need for full and complete disclosure of all relevant evidence,” Matter of a John Doe Grand Jury Investigation, 408 Mass. 480, 482 (1990), quoting In re Grand Jury Investigation, 723 F. 2d 447, 451 (6th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1246 (1984), “that is the price that society must pay for the availability of justice to every citizen.” Matter of a John Doe Grand Jury Investigation, supra. The plaintiff also points to several Federal courts that have determined that even where the privilege has been establis

2006Although the attorney-client privilege “creates an inherent tension with society’s need for full and complete disclosure of all relevant evidence,” Matter of a John Doe Grand Jury Investigation, 408 Mass. 480, 482 (1990), quoting In re Grand Jury Investigation, 723 F. 2d 447, 451 (6th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1246 (1984), “that is the price that society must pay for the availability of justice to every citizen.” Matter of a John Doe Grand Jury Investigation, supra. The plaintiff also points to several Federal courts that have determined that even where the privilege has been establis

2003Grande v. Lahey Clinic Hosp., Inc., 49 Mass.App.Ct. 77, 79 (2000); Carro.

2002In short, nothing in the Hospital’s papers demonstrates, as to all of the documents at issue, or as to any particular document, that it was “necessary to the work product of a medical peer review” committee, or that it was “created by, for or otherwise as a result of a ‘medical peer review committee.’ ” Miller, 54 Mass.App.Ct. at 499 . 9 Compare, e.g., Carr, 426 Mass. at 516 ; Hughes v. American Recent Laboratories, 144 F.R.D. 177, 178 (D.Mass. 1992).