Mass. Gen. Laws » Part I Title XVI Chapter 111
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 111, § 204 (2026)

Confidentiality of medical peer review committee proceedings, reports and records; exceptions; immunity

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 204. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the proceedings, reports and records of a medical peer review committee shall be confidential and shall be exempt from the disclosure of public records under section 10 of chapter 66 but shall not be subject to subpoena or discovery, or introduced into evidence, in any judicial or administrative proceeding, except proceedings held by the boards of registration in medicine, pharmacy, social work, or psychology or by the department of public health pursuant to chapter 111C, and no person who was in attendance at a meeting of a medical peer review committee shall be permitted or required to testify in any such judicial or administrative proceeding, except proceedings held by the boards of registration in medicine, pharmacy, social work or psychology or by the department of public health pursuant to chapter 111C, as to the proceedings of such committee or as to any findings, recommendations, evaluations, opinions, deliberations or other actions of such committee or any members thereof.

(b) Documents, incident reports or records otherwise available from original sources shall not be immune from subpoena, discovery or use in any such judicial or administrative proceeding merely because they were presented to such committee in connection with its proceedings. Nor shall the proceedings, reports, findings and records of a medical peer review committee be immune from subpoena, discovery or use as evidence in any proceeding against a member of such committee to establish a cause of action pursuant to section eighty-five N of chapter two hundred and thirty-one; provided, however, that in no event shall the identity of any person furnishing information or opinions to the committee be disclosed without the permission of such person. Nor shall the provisions of this section apply to any investigation or administrative proceeding conducted by the boards of registration in medicine, pharmacy, social work or psychology or by the department of public health pursuant to chapter 111C.

(c) A person who testifies before such committee or who is a member of such committee shall not be prevented from testifying as to matters known to such person independent of the committee's proceedings, provided that, except in a proceeding against a witness to establish a cause of action pursuant to section eighty-five N of chapter two hundred and thirty-one, neither the witness nor members of the committee may be questioned regarding the witness' testimony before such committee, and further provided that committee members may not be questioned in any proceeding about the identity of any person furnishing information or opinions to the committee, opinions formed by them as a result of such committee proceedings, or about the deliberations of such committee.

(d) A court or administrative body may place reasonable restrictions on the use which may be made of the information obtained hereunder so as to maintain, so far as necessary or practicable, the confidentiality of such information.

(e) No proceeding, report or record of a medical peer review committee obtained hereunder and disclosed in an action pursuant to section eighty-five N of chapter two hundred and thirty-one or a proceeding before an administrative body, shall be subject to subpoena or discovery, or introduced into evidence in judicial or administrative proceedings other than those proceedings or investigations specified in subsections (a) and (b).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases, 1987–2020 · leading case: Carr v. Howard, 426 Mass. 514 (Mass. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Carr v. Howard, 426 Mass. 514 (Mass. 1998). · cites it 8× “To promote candor and confidentiality in the review process, G. L. c. 111, § 204 (a), provides that: “[T]he proceedings, reports and records of a medical peer review committee shall be confidential and shall not be subject to subpoena or discovery, or introduced into evidence,…”
Pardo v. Gen. Hosp. Corp., 841 N.E.2d 692 (Mass. 2006). · cites it 5× “See G. L. c. 111, § 204 (b). 16 See also G. L.”
Ayash v. Dana-Farber Cancer Inst., 33 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1513 (Mass. 2005). · cites it 2× “On its renewal later in the case, the motion for a protective order again was denied, this time on the grounds that Dana-Farber had waived the confidentiality provisions of G. L. c. 111, § 204, when it shared the documents with the plaintiff.”
Beth Israel Hosp. Ass'n v. Bd. of Reg. in Med., 515 N.E.2d 574 (Mass. 1987). · cites it 5× “07 (3) (k) purports to grant the board and DPH access to PRC “proceedings, reports and records,” it conflicts with the protections granted by G. L. c. 111, § 204 (a) - (d), and is invalid.”
Vranos v. Franklin Med. Ctr., 448 Mass. 425 (Mass. 2007). · cites it 9× “See G. L. c. 111, §§ 204 (b), 205 (b); G. L. c.”
Bd. of Reg. in Med. v. Hallmark Health Corp., 910 N.E.2d 898 (Mass. 2009). · cites it 2× “Ill, § 205 (b), extends most — but not all — of the protections of § 204 (a) to qualified patient care assessment materials. It is the difference between these statutes that is determinative in this case.”
Grande v. Lahey Clinic Hosp., Inc., 725 N.E.2d 1083 (Mass. App. Ct. 2000). · cites it 3× “Lahey sought a protective order on the ground that G. L. c. 111, §§ 204(a) and 205, conferred a peer review privilege on all information that Dr.”
Babcock v. Bridgeport Hosp., 742 A.2d 322 (Conn. 1999). “See Mass. Gen. Laws c. 111, §§ 204, 205.”
Swartz v. Cartwright ex rel. Est. of Voorhees, 15 Mass. L. Rptr. 261 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2002). · cites it 6× “at 499 (“[s]pecifically, where a privilege is claimed under G.L.c. 111, §204, the principal focus of the inquiry is on whether the document was created by, for or otherwise as a result of a ‘medical peer review committee’ ”).”
Ayash v. Dana Farber Cancer Inst., 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 176 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1997). · cites it 3× “Ayash, in an additional effort to establish either a common law invasion of privacy action or a G.”
Swatch v. Treat, 671 N.E.2d 1004 (Mass. App. Ct. 1996). “” We conclude, as did the judge who ruled on the motion to intervene, that the proceeding before the hearing panel of the local NASW’s committee on inquiry was peer review within the meaning of G.”
Hughes v. Am. Regent Labs., 144 F.R.D. 177 (D. Mass. 1992). “Mass.Gen.L. ch. 111, § 204(a). Subsection (b) of section 204 (“section 204(b)”) provides that reports or records obtained from other sources are not privileged merely because such information is submitted to a medical peer review committee.”
Show all 25 citing cases →
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 111, § 204(a) — 7 cases
Grande v. Lahey Clinic Hosp., Inc., 725 N.E.2d 1083 (Mass. App. Ct. 2000). “Lahey sought a protective order on the ground that G. L. c. 111, §§ 204(a) and 205, conferred a peer review privilege on all information that Dr.”
Swartz v. Cartwright ex rel. Est. of Voorhees, 15 Mass. L. Rptr. 261 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2002). “at 499 (“[s]pecifically, where a privilege is claimed under G.L.c. 111, §204, the principal focus of the inquiry is on whether the document was created by, for or otherwise as a result of a ‘medical peer review committee’ ”).”
Hughes v. Am. Regent Labs., 144 F.R.D. 177 (D. Mass. 1992). “Mass.Gen.L. ch. 111, § 204(a). Subsection (b) of section 204 (“section 204(b)”) provides that reports or records obtained from other sources are not privileged merely because such information is submitted to a medical peer review committee.”
Pardo v. Gen. Hosp. Corp., 13 Mass. L. Rptr. 544 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2001).
Montejunas v. Sioufi, 14 Mass. L. Rptr. 625 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2002).
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 111, § 204(b) — 5 cases
Swartz v. Cartwright ex rel. Est. of Voorhees, 15 Mass. L. Rptr. 261 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2002). “at 499 (“[s]pecifically, where a privilege is claimed under G.L.c. 111, §204, the principal focus of the inquiry is on whether the document was created by, for or otherwise as a result of a ‘medical peer review committee’ ”).”
Pardo v. Gen. Hosp. Corp., 12 Mass. L. Rptr. 459 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2000).
Ayash v. Dana Farber Cancer Inst., 8 Mass. L. Rptr. 216 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1998).
Montejunas v. Sioufi, 14 Mass. L. Rptr. 625 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2002).
Carr v. Howard, 6 Mass. L. Rptr. 530 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1997).
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.