Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 311
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 311.377 (2026)

Waiver of claim for damages by applicant for or grantee of staff privileges

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

-- Records confidential -- Exceptions -- Federal immunity provisions.

(1) Any person who applies for, or is granted staff privileges after June 17, 1978, by any health services organization subject to licensing under the certificate of need and licensure provisions of KRS Chapter 216B, shall be deemed to have waived as a condition of such application or grant, any claim for damages for any good faith action taken by any person who is a member, participant in or employee of or who furnishes information, professional counsel, or services to any committee, board, commission, or other entity which is duly constituted by any licensed hospital, licensed hospice, licensed home health agency, health insurer, health maintenance organization, health services corporation, organized medical staff, medical society, or association affiliated with the American Medical Association, American Podiatry Association, American Dental Association, American Osteopathic Association, or the American Hospital Association, or a medical care foundation affiliated with such a medical society or association, or governmental or quasigovernmental agency when the entity is performing the designated function of review of credentials or retrospective review and evaluation of the competency of professional acts or conduct of other health care personnel. This subsection shall have equal application to, and the waiver be effective for, those persons who, subsequent to June 17, 1978, continue to exercise staff privileges previously granted by any such health services organization.

(2) At all times in performing a designated professional review function, the proceedings, records, opinions, conclusions, and recommendations of any committee, board, commission, medical staff, professional standards review organization, or other entity, as referred to in subsection (1) of this section, shall be confidential and privileged and shall not be subject to discovery, subpoena, or introduction into evidence, in any civil action in any court, including but not limited to medical malpractice actions, actions arising out of review of credentials or retrospective review and evaluation as referred to in subsection (1) of this section, and actions by an applicant for or grantee of staff privileges as referred to in subsection (1) of this section, or in any administrative proceeding before any board, body, or committee, whether federal, state, county, or city, except as specifically provided with regard to the board in KRS 311.605(2). The confidentiality and privilege protections of this subsection shall only be available to a person or entity that attests to participating in a patient safety and quality improvement initiative, including the program established by the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. secs. 299b-21 to 299b-26. This subsection shall not apply to any proceedings or matters governed exclusively by federal law or federal regulation.

(3) Nothing in subsection (2) of this section shall be construed to restrict or limit the right to discover or use in any civil action or other administrative proceeding any evidence, document, or record which is subject to discovery independently of the proceedings of the entity to which subsection (1) of this section refers.

(4) No person who presents or offers evidence in proceedings described in subsection (2) of this section or who is a member of any entity before which such evidence is presented or offered may refuse to testify in discovery or upon a trial of any civil action as to any evidence, document, or record described in subsection (3) of this section or as to any information within his own knowledge, except as provided in subsection (5) of this section.

(5) No person shall be permitted or compelled to testify concerning his testimony or the testimony of others except that of a defendant given in any proceeding referred to in subsection (2) of this section, or as to any of his opinions formed as a result of the proceeding.

(6) In any action in which the denial, termination, or restriction of staff membership or privileges by any health care facility shall be in issue, agents, employees, or other representatives of a health care entity may with the consent of the health care entity testify concerning any evidence presented in proceedings related to the facility's denial of staff membership or privileges.

(7) Nothing in this section shall be construed to restrict or prevent the presentation of testimony, records, findings, recommendations, evaluations, opinions, or other actions of any entity described in subsection (1) of this section, in any statutory or administrative proceeding related to the functions or duties of the entity.

(8) In addition to the foregoing, the immunity provisions of the federal Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986, P.L. 99-660, shall be effective arising under state laws as of July 15, 1988. Effective: July 14, 2018 History: Amended 2018 Ky. Acts ch. 11, sec. 1, effective July 14, 2018. -- Repealed and reenacted 1990 Ky. Acts ch. 271, sec. 1, effective July 15, 1990. -- Amended Ky. Acts ch. 1988 Ky. Acts ch. 100, sec. 1, effective July 15, 1988; and ch. 224, sec. 22, effective July 15, 1988. -- Amended 1980 Ky. Acts ch. 135, sec. 33, effective July 15, 1980. -- Amended 1978 Ky. Acts ch. 103, sec. 1, effective June 17, 1978. -- Amended 1976 Ky. Acts ch. 163, sec. 9. -- Amended 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 225, sec. 7. - - Created 1972 Ky. Acts ch. 199, sec. 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: Sisters of Charity Health Sys., Inc. v. Raikes, 984 S.W.2d 464 (Ky. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sisters of Charity Health Sys., Inc. v. Raikes, 984 S.W.2d 464 (Ky. 1999). · cites it 148× “Assuming that KRS 311.377 prevents disclosure of peer review material in the case at bar, we find that Appellants likewise have no adequate remedy on appeal.”
Saleba v. Schrand, 300 S.W.3d 177 (Ky. 2009). · cites it 10× “The trial court concluded that Kentucky’s Peer Review Statute, KRS 311.377, permits the discovery of peer review documents in medical malpractice suits and that Saleba was required to comply with Fiser’s discovery requests.”
Adventist Health Sys./Sunbelt Health Care Corp. v. Trude, 880 S.W.2d 539 (Ky. 1994). · cites it 24× “As a basis for the ruling relating to the discovery issue, the trial court found that the privileges provided by KRS 311.377 are strictly limited to claims filed against peer review entities for defamation.”
Sweasy v. King's Daughters Mem'l Hosp., 771 S.W.2d 812 (Ky. 1989). · cites it 21× “Many of these documents are relevant to the granting of staff privileges, the licensing of health service organizations, and other aspects of physician and hospital accreditation referred to in KRS 311.377. Section (1) of KRS 311.377 (the 1980 version in effect when the…”
McGuffey v. Hall, 557 S.W.2d 401 (Ky. 1977). · cites it 5× “§ 9 was an amendment of KRS 311.377, and the *406 remaining eight sections became part of KRS Chapter 304, Title 10.”
Appalachian Reg'l Health Care, Inc. v. Johnson, 862 S.W.2d 868 (Ky. 1993). · cites it 7× “More specifically, it held that the statute did not provide a privilege against the discovery of documents generated through the peer review process in a medical negligence action brought by a patient against a doctor and his hospital.”
Leanhart v. Humana Inc., 933 S.W.2d 820 (Ky. 1996). · cites it 4× “, on February 14, 1994, granting the motion of the Appellant and real party in interest, Cheryl R.”
Richmond Health Facilities-Madison, Lp, D/B/A Madison Health & Rehab. Ctr. v. Hon William G. Clouse Jr Judge, Madison Circuit Court, 473 S.W.3d 79 (Ky. 2015). · cites it 2× “1998); see generally KRS 311.377(2). 17 to encourage self-critical analysis; however, the ultimate goal is to "improve the quality of care for .”
Tibbs v. Bunnell, 448 S.W.3d 796 (Ky. 2014). “3d at 184 (“[W]e reiterate that KRS 311.377(2) does not extend the privilege for peer review documents to medical malpractice suits.”
Sanderson v. Frank S. Bryan, M.D., Ltd., 522 A.2d 1138 (Pa. 1987). “238 § 7(c); Ky.Rev.Stat. § 311.377(2) (1983); La.Rev.”
Preston v. Johnson Cnty. Fiscal Court, 27 S.W.3d 790 (Ky. 2000). · cites it 2× “Peasley has argued that the provisions of KRS 311.377 violate the Kentucky Constitution.”
Pauly v. Chang, 498 S.W.3d 394 (Ky. Ct. App. 2015). “1998), the Kentucky Supreme Court held that the peer review privilege created by KRS 311.377(2) is limited to suits against peer review entities and does not extend to malpractice suits: .”
Show all 32 citing cases →
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 311.377(1) — 3 cases
Sisters of Charity Health Sys., Inc. v. Raikes, 984 S.W.2d 464 (Ky. 1999). “Assuming that KRS 311.377 prevents disclosure of peer review material in the case at bar, we find that Appellants likewise have no adequate remedy on appeal.”
Adventist Health Sys./Sunbelt Health Care Corp. v. Trude, 880 S.W.2d 539 (Ky. 1994). “As a basis for the ruling relating to the discovery issue, the trial court found that the privileges provided by KRS 311.377 are strictly limited to claims filed against peer review entities for defamation.”
Meyers v. Logan Mem'l Hosp., 82 F. Supp. 2d 707 (W.D. Ky. 2000).
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 311.377(2) — 22 cases
Sisters of Charity Health Sys., Inc. v. Raikes, 984 S.W.2d 464 (Ky. 1999). “Assuming that KRS 311.377 prevents disclosure of peer review material in the case at bar, we find that Appellants likewise have no adequate remedy on appeal.”
Saleba v. Schrand, 300 S.W.3d 177 (Ky. 2009). “The trial court concluded that Kentucky’s Peer Review Statute, KRS 311.377, permits the discovery of peer review documents in medical malpractice suits and that Saleba was required to comply with Fiser’s discovery requests.”
Adventist Health Sys./Sunbelt Health Care Corp. v. Trude, 880 S.W.2d 539 (Ky. 1994). “As a basis for the ruling relating to the discovery issue, the trial court found that the privileges provided by KRS 311.377 are strictly limited to claims filed against peer review entities for defamation.”
Sweasy v. King's Daughters Mem'l Hosp., 771 S.W.2d 812 (Ky. 1989). “Many of these documents are relevant to the granting of staff privileges, the licensing of health service organizations, and other aspects of physician and hospital accreditation referred to in KRS 311.377. Section (1) of KRS 311.377 (the 1980 version in effect when the…”
Richmond Health Facilities-Madison, Lp, D/B/A Madison Health & Rehab. Ctr. v. Hon William G. Clouse Jr Judge, Madison Circuit Court, 473 S.W.3d 79 (Ky. 2015). “1998); see generally KRS 311.377(2). 17 to encourage self-critical analysis; however, the ultimate goal is to "improve the quality of care for .”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 311.377(3) — 6 cases
Adventist Health Sys./Sunbelt Health Care Corp. v. Trude, 880 S.W.2d 539 (Ky. 1994). “As a basis for the ruling relating to the discovery issue, the trial court found that the privileges provided by KRS 311.377 are strictly limited to claims filed against peer review entities for defamation.”
Leanhart v. Humana Inc., 933 S.W.2d 820 (Ky. 1996). “, on February 14, 1994, granting the motion of the Appellant and real party in interest, Cheryl R.”
Saint Elizabeth Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Hon. Patricia M. Summe (Ky. 2026).
Summit Med. Grp., Inc. D/B/A St. Elizabeth Physicians v. Patricia M Summe (Ky. 2026).
Stumph v. Spring View Physician Practices, LLC (W.D. Ky. 2021).
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 311.377(8) — 1 case
Adventist Health Sys./Sunbelt Health Care Corp. v. Trude, 880 S.W.2d 539 (Ky. 1994). “As a basis for the ruling relating to the discovery issue, the trial court found that the privileges provided by KRS 311.377 are strictly limited to claims filed against peer review entities for defamation.”
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.