§
Subdivision 1.Members, directors, and officers.
No review organization and no person who is a member or employee, director, or officer of, who acts in an advisory capacity to, or who furnishes counsel or services to, a review organization shall be liable for damages or other relief in any action brought by a person or persons whose activities have been or are being scrutinized or reviewed by a review organization, by reason of the performance by the person of any duty, function, or activity of such review organization, unless the performance of such duty, function or activity was motivated by malice toward the person affected thereby. No review organization and no person shall be liable for damages or other relief in any action by reason of the performance of the review organization or person of any duty, function, or activity as a review organization or a member of a review committee or by reason of any recommendation or action of the review committee when the person acts in the reasonable belief that the action or recommendation is warranted by facts known to the person or the review organization after reasonable efforts to ascertain the facts upon which the review organization's action or recommendation is made, except that any corporation designated as a review organization under the Code of Federal Regulations, title 42, section 466 (1983) shall be subject to actions for damages or other relief by reason of any failure of a person, whose care or treatment is required to be scrutinized or reviewed by the review organization, to receive medical care or treatment as a result of a determination by the review organization that medical care was unnecessary or inappropriate.
The protections from liability provided in this subdivision shall also apply to the governing body of the review organization and shall not be waived as a result of referral of a matter from the review organization to the governing body or consideration by the governing body of decisions, recommendations, or documentation of the review organization.
§
Subd. 2.Organizations.
No state or local association of professionals or organization of professionals from a particular area shall be liable for damages or other relief in any action brought by a person whose activities have been or are being scrutinized or reviewed by a review organization established by the association or organization, unless the association or organization was motivated by malice towards the person affected by the review or scrutiny.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2021 · leading case:
Larson v. Wasemiller, 738 N.W.2d 300 (Minn. 2007).
Larson v. Wasemiller, 738 N.W.2d 300 (Minn. 2007).
· cites it 57× “The Limited Liability Provision Minn.Stat. § 145.63, subd. 1 (2006) provides some immunity from liability, both for individual credentials committee members and hospitals, for claims brought by either a physician or a patient.”
In Re Peer Review Action, 749 N.W.2d 822 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 10× “Minn. Stat. § 145.63 , subd. 1 (2006). Unlike HCQIA, discussed above, state-law immunity extends to injunctive relief.”
Sherr v. Healtheast Care Sys., 262 F. Supp. 3d 869 (D. Minnesota 2017).
· cites it 5× “This argument is based on Minn. Stat. § 145.63 , subd. Í, which provides immunity to peer review participants for performance of their duties “unless the performance of such duty, function or activity was motivated by malice.”
Larson v. Wasemiller, 718 N.W.2d 461 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 10× “02(e), arguing that (1) Minnesota does not recognize legal claims of “negligent credentialing” or “negligent privileging” against a hospital; (2) Minn.Stat. § 145.63, subd. 1, limits liability for review organizations; (3) the peer-review privilege, as codified in Minn.”
Gregory Sherr v. HealthEast Care Sys., 999 F.3d 589 (8th Cir. 2021).
· cites it 2× “Minn. Stat. § 145.63 , subdiv. 1. “The clear import of this statute is to encourage the medical profession to police its own activities with a minimum of judicial complaint’s claim that “[t]he HealthEast Neuro Group said that Dr.”
Kalish v. Mount Sinai Hosp., 270 N.W.2d 783 (Minn. 1978).
· cites it 2× “No person described in section 145.63 shall disclose what transpired at a meeting of a review organization except to the extent necessary to carry out one or more of the purposes of a review or-gánization.”
Konrady v. Oesterling, 149 F.R.D. 592 (D. Minnesota 1993).
· cites it 2× “No person described in section 145.63 shall disclose what transpired at a meeting of a review organization except to the extent necessary to carry out one or more of the purposes of a review organization.”
Doctor's Med. Clinic v. City of Jackson, 569 N.W.2d 231 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “Concluding the hospital was immune from damages under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act and immune from injunctive relief under the state peer review immunity statute, Minn.Stat. § 145.63, the trial court ordered summary judgment in favor of the hospital and later awarded…”
Doctor's Med. Clinic v. City of Jackson, 581 N.W.2d 30 (Minn. 1998).
· cites it 2× “§ 11101-52 (1994) and immunity from equitable relief under:Minn.Stat. § 145.63 (1996) and awarded respondents $25,000 in attorney fees on the basis that they were substantially prevailing parties and thus entitled to attorney fees under 42 U.”
Sherr v. HealthEast Care Sys. (D. Minnesota 2019).
· cites it 2× “” Minn. Stat. § 145.63 , subd. 1. Under the statute, immunity applies unless the peer review process was motivated by malice toward the subject of the peer review inquiry.”
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.