Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 39-1392 (2026)

Statement of policy. 

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Statement of policy. 

To encourage research, discipline and medical study by certain health care organizations for the purposes of reducing morbidity and mortality, enforcing and improving the standards of medical practice in the state of Idaho, certain records of such health care organizations shall be confidential and privileged as set forth in this chapter.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2021 · leading case: Verska v. Saint Alphonsus Reg'l Med. Ctr., 265 P.3d 502 (Idaho 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Verska v. Saint Alphonsus Reg'l Med. Ctr., 265 P.3d 502 (Idaho 2011). · cites it 12× “The act creating the peer review privilege, I.C. §§ 39-1392 through 39-1392e, was enacted in 1973.”
Nightengale v. Timmel, 256 P.3d 755 (Idaho 2011). · cites it 9× “Nightengale then filed a motion to compel, requesting that the court enter an order establishing that the peer-review privilege did not apply to the letters and compelling Dr.”
Montalbano v. Saint Alphonsus Reg'l Med. Ctr., 264 P.3d 944 (Idaho 2011). · cites it 8× “I.C. § 39-1392. The Legislature is not the only branch of Idaho's government that has adopted a public policy favoring the protection of peer review proceedings from public disclosure in order to facilitate the frank exchange of information.”
Murphy v. Wood, 667 P.2d 859 (Idaho Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 22× “This appeal involves the district judge's interpretation of the statute (I.C. §§ 39-1392 to -1392e) and his application of the law to the unusual circumstances of this case.”
Doe v. Kootenai Hosp. Dist. (D. Idaho 2021). · cites it 2× “Defendants object to the production of such information based on Idaho’s peer review privilege, codified at Idaho Code § 39-1392 . Defendants separately contend that some of Plaintiff’s requests are not proportional to the needs of the case in violation of Federal Rule of Civil…”
— Idaho Code § 39-1392(a)(ll) — 1 case
Nightengale v. Timmel, 256 P.3d 755 (Idaho 2011). “Nightengale then filed a motion to compel, requesting that the court enter an order establishing that the peer-review privilege did not apply to the letters and compelling Dr.”
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.