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

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 111, § 205 (2026)

Information and records necessary to comply with risk management and quality assurance programs; confidentiality; definitions

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

Section 205. (a) As used in this section the following terms shall have the following meanings:

''Health care facility'', any entity required to participate in risk management and quality assurance programs established by the board of registration in medicine.

''Patient care assessment coordinator'', a person or committee designated by a health care facility to implement and coordinate the facility's compliance with risk management and quality assurance programs established by the board of registration in medicine.

''Risk management and quality assurance programs established by the board of registration in medicine'', programs and activities undertaken pursuant to regulations promulgated by the board of registration in medicine under section two hundred and three of this chapter and sections five and five I of chapter one hundred and twelve.

(b) Information and records which are necessary to comply with risk management and quality assurance programs established by the board of registration in medicine and which are necessary to the work product of medical peer review committees, including incident reports required to be furnished to the board of registration in medicine or any information collected or compiled by a physician credentialing verification service operated by a society or organization of medical professionals for the purpose of providing credentialing information to health care entities shall be deemed to be proceedings, reports or records of a medical peer review committee for purposes of section two hundred and four of this chapter and may be so designated by the patient care assessment coordinator; provided, however, that such information and records so designated by the patient care assessment coordinator may be inspected, maintained and utilized by the board of registration in medicine, including but not limited to its data repository and disciplinary unit. Such information and records inspected, maintained or utilized by the board of registration in medicine shall remain confidential, and not subject to subpoena, discovery or introduction into evidence, consistent with section two hundred and four; however, such records may not remain confidential if disclosed in an adjudicatory proceeding of the board of registration in medicine, but the information and records shall be otherwise subject to the protections afforded by section two hundred and four. In no event, however, shall records of treatment maintained pursuant to section seventy of this chapter, or incident reports or records or information which are not necessary to comply with risk management and quality assurance programs established by the board of registration in medicine be deemed to be proceedings, reports or records of a medical peer review committee under this section; nor shall any person be prevented by the provisions of this section from testifying as to matters known by such person independent of risk management and quality assurance programs established by the board of registration in medicine.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1994–2009 · leading case: Carr v. Howard, 426 Mass. 514 (Mass. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Carr v. Howard, 426 Mass. 514 (Mass. 1998). · cites it 5× “” G. L. c. 111, § 205 (b). We first ask whether incident reports are “necessary to comply with risk management and quality assurance programs established by the board of registration in medicine.”
Ayash v. Dana-Farber Cancer Inst., 33 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1513 (Mass. 2005). “” The scope of the language “proceedings, reports and records” is defined expansively in G. L. c. 111, § 205 (b), which provides that “ [information and records .”
Bd. of Reg. in Med. v. Hallmark Health Corp., 910 N.E.2d 898 (Mass. 2009). “” G. L. c. 111, § 205 (b). Such materials include “incident reports required to be furnished to the [board] or any information collected or compiled by a physician credentialing verification service operated by a society or organization of medical professionals for the purpose…”
Vranos v. Franklin Med. Ctr., 448 Mass. 425 (Mass. 2007). “111, § 204 (a), or information and work product “necessary” to meet the hospital’s statutory risk management and quality assessment programs pursuant to G. L. c. 111, § 205 (b), merely because they are required to be furnished to the board.”
Swartz v. Cartwright ex rel. Est. of Voorhees, 15 Mass. L. Rptr. 261 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2002). “Moreover, while in G.L.c. 111, §205(b) the Legislature specifically recognized the important role of credentialing, it did not create the broad “credentialing privilege” that the Hospital’s argument envisions.”
Pardo v. Gen. Hosp. Corp., 13 Mass. L. Rptr. 544 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2001). · cites it 2× “” 5 Defendants also rely on the sworn assertion of one of the Hospital’s officers that ”[t]he transcript and records of [an SRC] are necessary to comply with the risk management and qualify assurance programs established by the Board and are necessary to the work product of the…”
Peters v. Ling, 2 Mass. L. Rptr. 561 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1994). · cites it 2× “Defendant contends these notes are privileged under Massachusetts’s “medical peer review privilege” as defined at G.L.c. 111 §205(b) and 243 CMR 313 (2). Plaintiff contends that since the notes have not specifically been used in the context of a peer review committee proceeding,…”
Pardo v. Gen. Hosp. Corp., 12 Mass. L. Rptr. 459 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2000). “at 518 , quoting G.L.c. 111, §205(b). From this point, two corollaries emerge.”
Montejunas v. Sioufi, 14 Mass. L. Rptr. 625 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2002). · cites it 4× “In G.L.c. 111, §205(b), the legislature specifically listed some of the material that is privileged (e.”
In re Deposition of Harrington Mem'l Hosp., 17 Mass. L. Rptr. 294 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2003). · cites it 2× “ions call into question such health care provider’s fitness to provide health care services or the evaluation and *295 assistance of health care providers impaired or allegedly impaired by reason of alcohol, drugs, physical disability, mental instability or otherwise The scope…”
Miller v. Milton Hosp., 17 Mass. L. Rptr. 458 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2004). “General Laws, chapter 111, Section 1 defines a “medical peer review committee” as: A committee of a state or local professional society of health care providers, including ... a medical staff of a licensed hospital.”
Evans v. Quaboag On Common, Inc., 26 Mass. L. Rptr. 372 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2009). “to the production of the Quality-Indicators, alleging that such documents are necessary to comply with risk management and quality-assurance programs required by federal law and the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine and, as such, are confidential and not subject to…”
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 111, § 205(b) — 7 cases
Swartz v. Cartwright ex rel. Est. of Voorhees, 15 Mass. L. Rptr. 261 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2002). “Moreover, while in G.L.c. 111, §205(b) the Legislature specifically recognized the important role of credentialing, it did not create the broad “credentialing privilege” that the Hospital’s argument envisions.”
Pardo v. Gen. Hosp. Corp., 13 Mass. L. Rptr. 544 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2001). “” 5 Defendants also rely on the sworn assertion of one of the Hospital’s officers that ”[t]he transcript and records of [an SRC] are necessary to comply with the risk management and qualify assurance programs established by the Board and are necessary to the work product of the…”
Peters v. Ling, 2 Mass. L. Rptr. 561 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1994). “Defendant contends these notes are privileged under Massachusetts’s “medical peer review privilege” as defined at G.L.c. 111 §205(b) and 243 CMR 313 (2). Plaintiff contends that since the notes have not specifically been used in the context of a peer review committee proceeding,…”
Pardo v. Gen. Hosp. Corp., 12 Mass. L. Rptr. 459 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2000). “at 518 , quoting G.L.c. 111, §205(b). From this point, two corollaries emerge.”
Montejunas v. Sioufi, 14 Mass. L. Rptr. 625 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2002). “In G.L.c. 111, §205(b), the legislature specifically listed some of the material that is privileged (e.”
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.