Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 34-30-15-9 (2025)

Waiver of privilege

✓ 2025 Indiana Code: the 2026 session is not included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     Sec. 9. Except in cases of required disclosure to the professional health care provider under investigation, no records or determinations of or communications to a peer review committee shall be:

(1) subject to subpoena or discovery; or

(2) admissible in evidence;

in any judicial or administrative proceeding, including a proceeding under IC 34-18-11 (or IC 27-12-11 before its repeal), without a prior waiver executed by the committee.

[Pre-1998 Recodification Citation: 34-4-12.6-2(i).]

As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.26.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2001–2022 · leading case: Levetta Tunstall v. Dawn Manning, 124 N.E.3d 1193 (Ind. 2019).
Levetta Tunstall v. Dawn Manning, 124 N.E.3d 1193 (Ind. 2019). · cites it 6× “at 617–19; see Ind. Code § 34-30-15-9 (2018). Later, the court in Linton v.”
Fridono v. Chuman, 747 N.E.2d 610 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “First, we must determine whether the apparent conflict between Indiana Code Section 34-30-15-1 and Section 34-30-15-9 can be reconciled. As discussed above, Section 34-80-15-9 prohibits the disclosure of determinations of a peer review committee in judicial proceedings absent a…”
Mattice v. Mem'l Hosp., 203 F.R.D. 381 (N.D. Ind. 2001). · cites it 2× “In the context of judicial proceedings, the Act provides that “no records or determinations of or communications to a peer review committee shall be ... subject to subpoena or discovery or admissible in evidence in any judicial or administrative proceeding .”
Bonzani v. Goshen Health Sys. Inc, 459 F. Supp. 3d 1139 (N.D. Ind. 2020). · cites it 2× “” Ind. Code § 34-30-15-9 . This seems a question of discovery and admissibility, not dismissal.”
Bonzani v. Goshen Health Sys. Inc, No. 3:19-cv-00586 (N.D. Ind. July 5, 2022). “§ 34-30-15-9. professional health care provider under investigation” merely defines which health care providers may be given access to peer review records.”
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.