Relationship to other privileges.

- Georgia law did not allow for a self-critical analysis privilege; the fact that the peer review privilege is limited to review organizations within the healthcare field weighs heavily against extending such privilege to a corporate organization. Lara v. Tri-State Drilling, 504 F. Supp. 2d 1323 (N.D. Ga. 2007).

Plaintiffs in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for a death of an inmate were granted a motion to compel disclosure of a morbidity and mortality report generated by a jail medical official and related correspondence and documents under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and 37 because the court refused under Fed. R. Evid. 501 to recognize the medical peer review privilege of O.C.G.A. §§ 31-7-133 and31-7-143 in that the need for probative evidence in a civil rights action outweighed the need for privilege. Jenkins v. Dekalb County, 242 F.R.D. 652 (N.D. Ga. 2007).

Malice exception does not apply to the discovery privileges set forth in O.C.G.A. §§ 31-7-133 and31-7-143. Patton v. St. Francis Hosp., 246 Ga. App. 4, 539 S.E.2d 526 (2000).

Embargo on use of peer review information.

- General Assembly has placed an absolute embargo upon the discovery and use of all proceedings, records, findings, and recommendations of peer review groups and medical review committees in civil litigation. The source of peer review information is irrelevant. Emory Clinic v. Houston, 258 Ga. 434, 369 S.E.2d 913 (1988).

In a case involving the Georgia medical review and peer review statutes, O.C.G.A. §§ 31-7-133(a) and31-7-143, the trial court erred in creating additional discovery exceptions not allowed by the statutes because the Georgia General Assembly placed an absolute embargo upon the discovery and use of all proceedings, records, findings, and recommendations of peer review groups and medical review committees in civil litigation. Hosp. Auth. of Valdosta v. Meeks, 294 Ga. App. 629, 669 S.E.2d 667 (2008), aff'd, 285 Ga. 521, 678 S.E.2d 71 (2009).

Legislative purpose.

- Purpose for the enactment of O.C.G.A. § 31-7-143 is to foster the delivery of quality medical services by preserving the candor necessary for the effective functioning of hospital medical review committees; it embraces the goal of medical staff candor at the cost of impairing litigants' access to evidence. Patton v. St. Francis Hosp., 260 Ga. App. 202, 581 S.E.2d 551 (2003).

Failure of a medical review committee to strictly adhere to bylaws does not strip the committee of the protection of confidentiality otherwise afforded by O.C.G.A. § 31-7-143. Patton v. St. Francis Hosp., 246 Ga. App. 4, 539 S.E.2d 526 (2000).

Surgical conference proceedings held privileged and confidential.

- See Poulnott v. Surgical Assocs., 179 Ga. App. 138, 345 S.E.2d 639 (1986).

Information obtainable from "original sources," that is, hospital medical records and information within the knowledge of an infection rate nurse, under O.C.G.A. §§ 31-7-133 and31-7-143, is discoverable. Cobb County Kennestone Hosp. Auth. v. Martin, 208 Ga. App. 326, 430 S.E.2d 604 (1993).

O.C.G.A. § 31-7-143 does not prevent disclosure of information, documents, or records otherwise available from original sources because those items were presented during medical review committee proceedings. Emory Univ. Hosp. v. Sweeney, 220 Ga. App. 502, 469 S.E.2d 772 (1996).

Information as to hospital's infection rate.

- O.C.G.A. §§ 31-7-133 and31-7-143 did not prevent discovery of recorded data pertaining to hospital's infection incidence because it was factual data from the original hospital records which the infection rate nurse used to compile the information the nurse presented to the peer review committee. Cobb County Kennestone Hosp. Auth. v. Martin, 208 Ga. App. 326, 430 S.E.2d 604 (1993).

Hospital information regarding decisions to suspend physician's privileges.

- In an action involving plaintiff physician's alleged drug usage prior to applying for disability insurance from defendant, information in the possession of hospitals regarding decisions to suspend plaintiff's privileges was shielded from discovery by peer review and medical review statutes. Doe v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 891 F. Supp. 607 (N.D. Ga. 1995).

Credentialing information not within privilege.

- Unless the credentialing information involves the evaluation of the quality and efficiency of actual medical services, the information does not come within the peer review and medical review privileges of O.C.G.A. §§ 31-7-133(a) and31-7-143. Accordingly, information in a physician's credentialing files was discoverable to the extent that the information did not involve a peer review or medical review committee's evaluation of actual medical services provided by the physician. Hosp. Auth. v. Meeks, 285 Ga. 521, 678 S.E.2d 71 (2009).

Information incorporated into report of government agency.

- Proceedings and records of medical review committees which are not subject to discovery or introduction into evidence under O.C.G.A. § 31-7-143 do not lose their protected status as the result of being disclosed to an authorized public agency or by virtue of the inclusion into its report by such agency. Emory Univ. Hosp. v. Sweeney, 220 Ga. App. 502, 469 S.E.2d 772 (1996).

Section inapplicable to those giving negligent tax advice.

- There is no viable basis for asserting that the privilege created by O.C.G.A. § 31-7-143 can or should be judicially extended to the internally generated personnel records and evaluations of those who have allegedly given negligent tax advice. DeLoitte Haskins & Sells v. Green, 187 Ga. App. 376, 370 S.E.2d 194, cert. denied, 187 Ga. App. 907, 370 S.E.2d 194 (1988).

Section inapplicable to federal civil rights actions.

- Medical peer review privilege, such as that in O.C.G.A. § 31-7-143, did not apply in plaintiff physician's 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 and 1985 racial discrimination case; thus, summary judgment to defendant hospital after limiting discovery of reviews to only the physician's department was reversed. Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, mot. granted, 552 U.S. 1131, 128 S. Ct. 903, 169 L. Ed. 2d 785 (2008).

Cited in Davenport v. Kutner, 182 Ga. App. 467, 356 S.E.2d 67 (1987).

ALR.

- Scope and extent of protection from disclosure of medical peer review proceedings relating to claim in medical malpractice action, 69 A.L.R.5th 559.