O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 31-7-131 (2019)

Definitions

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

As used in this article, the term: (1) ‘‘Peer review’’ means the procedure by which professional health care providers evaluate the quality and efficiency of services ordered or performed by other professional health care providers, including practice analysis, inpatient hospital and extended care facility utilization review, medical audit, ambulatory care review, claims review, underwriting assistance, and the compliance of a hospital, nursing home, convalescent home, or other health care facility operated by a professional health care provider with the standards set by an association of health care providers and with applicable laws, rules, and regulations. (2) ‘‘Professional health care provider’’ means an individual who is licensed, or an organization which is approved, to practice or operate in the health care field under the laws of Georgia, including, but not limited to, the following individuals or organizations: (A) A physician; (B) A dentist; (C) A podiatrist; (D) A chiropractor; (E) An optometrist; (F) A psychologist; (G) A pharmacist; (H) A registered or practical nurse; (I) A physical therapist; ( J) An administrator of a hospital, a nursing or convalescent home, or other health care facility; (K) A corporation or other organization operating a hospital, a nursing or convalescent home, or other health care facility, as well as the officers, directors, or employees of such corporation or organization or the members of such corporation’s or organization’s governing board who are performing a peer review function; (L) A rehabilitation supplier registered with the State Board of Workers’ Compensation; and (M) An occupational therapist. (3) ‘‘Review organization’’ means a nationally recognized health care accreditation body or any panel, committee, or organization:

(A) Which: (i) Is primarily composed of professional health care providers; (ii) Is an insurer, self-insurer, health maintenance organization, preferred provider organization, provider network, or other organization engaged in managed care; or (iii) Provides professional liability insurance for health care providers; and (B) Which engages in or utilizes peer reviews and gathers and reviews information relating to the care and treatment of patients for the purposes of: (i) Evaluating and improving the quality and efficiency of health care rendered; (ii) Reducing morbidity or mortality; (iii) Evaluating claims against health care providers or engaging in underwriting decisions in connection with professional liability insurance coverage for health care providers; (iv) Compiling aggregate data concerning the procedures and outcomes of hospitals for the purposes of evaluating the quality and efficiency of health care services. Under no circumstances shall any such aggregate data or any other peer review information relating to an individual professional health care provider be disclosed or released to any person or entity without the express prior written consent of such health care provider, but such aggregate data or other peer review information may be released to another review organization upon the written request of such organization if such requesting review organization has specific reason to believe that immediate access to such aggregate data or information is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Such aggregate data and other peer review information shall be used for peer review purposes only and in no event shall such aggregate data or any other peer review information be sold or otherwise similarly distributed, but a review organization shall be authorized to utilize the services of and pay a fee to another person or entity to compile or analyze such aggregate data; (v) Evaluating the quality and efficiency of health care services rendered by a professional health care provider in connection with such provider’s participation as or request to participate as a provider in or for an insurer, self-insurer, health maintenance organization, preferred provider organization, pro345

vider network, or other organization engaged in managed care; or (vi) Performing any of the functions or activities described in Code Section 31-7-15.

History

Ga. L. 1975, p. 739, § 1; Code 1933, § 84-7602, enacted by Ga. L. 1980, p. 1282, § 1; Ga. L. 1984, p. 699, § 1; Ga. L. 1985, p. 149, § 31; Ga. L. 1987, p. 656, § 1; Ga. L. 1988, p. 13, § 31; Ga. L. 1991, p. 1016, § 1; Ga. L. 1995, p. 612,

§ 3; Ga. L. 2001, p. 192, § 2; Ga. L. 2012, p. 337, § 3/SB 361.

Annotations

Code Commission notes. - Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1995, ‘‘; and’’ was substituted for ‘‘, and’’ at the end of division (3)(A)(iii).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Code 1933, § 88-3201, which was subsequently repealed but was succeeded by provisions in this Code section, are included in the annotations for this Code section. Review committee must meet qualifications for article to apply to it. - In order for the information generated or maintained by a committee exercising review functions to be subject to the provisions of confidentiality the committee must meet the qualifications set forth in this section. Hollowell v. Jove, 247 Ga. 678, 279 S.E.2d 430 (1981) (decided under former Code 1933, § 88-3201). Hospital accreditation organization records not protected. - Hospital accreditation records generated by a nonprofit organization are not protected from

disclosure as the records of a confidential review organization under O.C.G.A. § 31-7-133 because the organization is not a ‘‘review organization’’ comprised primarily of ‘‘professional health care providers’’ as those terms are defined by O.C.G.A. § 31-7-131. Georgia Hosp. Ass’n v. Ledbetter, 260 Ga. 477, 396 S.E.2d 488 (1990). ‘‘Peer review.’’ - Nothing in O.C.G.A. § 31-7-131(3)(B)(vi) implies that every part of the review in O.C.G.A. § 31-7-15 constitutes peer review. Hosp. Auth. v. Meeks, 285 Ga. 521, 678 S.E.2d 71 (2009). Cited in Emory Univ. v. Houston, 185 Ga. App. 289, 364 S.E.2d 70 (1987); Patton v. St. Francis Hosp., 246 Ga. App. 4, 539 S.E.2d 526 (2000); Hosp. Auth. of Valdosta v. Meeks, 294 Ga. App. 629, 669 S.E.2d 667 (2008); Sewell v. Cancel, 331 Ga. App. 687, 771 S.E.2d 388 (2015).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Trauma advisory committee as review organization. - Since the Trauma Advisory Committee for Emergency Medical Services is a review organization consisting of surgeons licensed in the State of Georgia which evaluates care provided by professional health care providers as defined in paragraph (2) of O.C.G.A. § 31-7-131 for the purposes of improving

the quality of care rendered and reducing morbidity and mortality due to trauma, it is a review organization within the meaning of paragraph (3) of O.C.G.A. § 31-7-131 and is covered by the immunity and confidentiality provisions of O.C.G.A. §§ 31-7-132 and 31-7-133. 1988 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 88-5.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1987–2015 · leading case: Hosp. Auth. of Valdosta & Lowndes Cnty. v. Meeks, 678 S.E.2d 71 (Ga. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hosp. Auth. of Valdosta & Lowndes Cnty. v. Meeks, 678 S.E.2d 71 (Ga. 2009). · cites it 20× “The fact that this language may be broad enough to encompass the credentialing process does not mean that that process constitutes a peer review function as set forth in OCGA § 31-7-131. See Fulton-DeKalb Hosp. Auth.”
Emory Clinic v. Houston, 369 S.E.2d 913 (Ga. 1988). · cites it 12× “On March 21, 1984, an amendment to OCGA § 31-7-131 took effect which broadened the definition of "peer review organization" to include "any panel, committee, or organization which is primarily composed of professional health care providers.”
Fulton-DeKalb Hosp. Auth. v. Dawson, 509 S.E.2d 28 (Ga. 1998). · cites it 20× “" [4] The Court of Appeals failed to take into consideration the very broad definitional language of the peer review immunity statute, OCGA § 31-7-131, as amended by 1995 Ga. Laws, p.”
McCall v. Henry Med. Ctr., Inc., 551 S.E.2d 739 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 6× “” 10 Mindful of the foregoing, we find that the definition of “peer review” contained in OCGA § 31-7-131 (1) addresses the evaluation of the quality and efficiency of actual medical care services and does not encompass the credentialing process to the extent that every decision…”
Emory Univ. v. Houston, 364 S.E.2d 70 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 8× “699, 700; OCGA § 31-7-131 (3). OCGA § 31-7-140 was enacted in 1975 and provided the following definition: “the term ‘medical review committee’ means a committee of a state or local professional society or of a medical staff or a licensed hospital, .”
Hosp. Auth. of Valdosta & Lowndes Cty. v. Meeks, 669 S.E.2d 667 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 8× “679, 682 ( 551 SE2d 739 ) (2001), this Court held that the definition of “peer review” contained in OCGA § 31-7-131 (1) addresses the evaluation of the quality and efficiency of actual medical care services and does not encompass the credentialing process to the extent that…”
Georgia Hosp. Ass'n v. Ledbetter, 396 S.E.2d 488 (Ga. 1990). · cites it 4× “Are the Records Protected from Disclosure as Records of A Confidential Review Organization? Appellants insist that the records are protected from disclosure as the records of a confidential review organization under OCGA § 31-7-133.”
Alvin Sewell v. Angel Cancel, 771 S.E.2d 388 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “45 OCGA § 31-7-131 (1). 46 OCGA § 31-7-131 (3) (B).”
Patton v. St. Francis Hosp., 539 S.E.2d 526 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “This Court finds that each of the named committees here qualifies under the broader peer review statute found at OCGA § 31-7-131 (1). Hence, the discovery cloak enjoyed by these groups pursuant to OCGA § 31-7-133 (a) applies equally to the committees in this case as well.”
— 31-7-131(1) — 3 cases
Fulton-DeKalb Hosp. Auth. v. Dawson, 509 S.E.2d 28 (Ga. 1998). “" [4] The Court of Appeals failed to take into consideration the very broad definitional language of the peer review immunity statute, OCGA § 31-7-131, as amended by 1995 Ga. Laws, p.”
Hosp. Auth. of Valdosta & Lowndes Cnty. v. Meeks, 678 S.E.2d 71 (Ga. 2009). “The fact that this language may be broad enough to encompass the credentialing process does not mean that that process constitutes a peer review function as set forth in OCGA § 31-7-131. See Fulton-DeKalb Hosp. Auth.”
Hosp. Auth. of Valdosta & Lowndes Cty. v. Meeks, 669 S.E.2d 667 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008). “679, 682 ( 551 SE2d 739 ) (2001), this Court held that the definition of “peer review” contained in OCGA § 31-7-131 (1) addresses the evaluation of the quality and efficiency of actual medical care services and does not encompass the credentialing process to the extent that…”
— 31-7-131(3) — 1 case
Fulton-DeKalb Hosp. Auth. v. Dawson, 509 S.E.2d 28 (Ga. 1998). “" [4] The Court of Appeals failed to take into consideration the very broad definitional language of the peer review immunity statute, OCGA § 31-7-131, as amended by 1995 Ga. Laws, p.”
— 31-7-131(3)(B) — 1 case
Hosp. Auth. of Valdosta & Lowndes Cnty. v. Meeks, 678 S.E.2d 71 (Ga. 2009). “The fact that this language may be broad enough to encompass the credentialing process does not mean that that process constitutes a peer review function as set forth in OCGA § 31-7-131. See Fulton-DeKalb Hosp. Auth.”
— 31-7-131(3)(B)(vi) — 2 cases
Hosp. Auth. of Valdosta & Lowndes Cnty. v. Meeks, 678 S.E.2d 71 (Ga. 2009). “The fact that this language may be broad enough to encompass the credentialing process does not mean that that process constitutes a peer review function as set forth in OCGA § 31-7-131. See Fulton-DeKalb Hosp. Auth.”
Hosp. Auth. of Valdosta & Lowndes Cty. v. Meeks, 669 S.E.2d 667 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008). “679, 682 ( 551 SE2d 739 ) (2001), this Court held that the definition of “peer review” contained in OCGA § 31-7-131 (1) addresses the evaluation of the quality and efficiency of actual medical care services and does not encompass the credentialing process to the extent that…”
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.