Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 41-63-9 (2026)
Discoverability and admissibility into evidence of proceedings and records of review committees
✓ current as of July 2026
- (1) Notwithstanding any conflicting statute, court rule or other law, in order to encourage medical and dental review activity, the proceedings and records of any medical or dental review committee shall be confidential and shall not be subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil action arising out of the matters which are the subject of evaluation and review by such committee. No person who was in attendance at a meeting of such committee shall be permitted or required to testify in any civil action regarding any evidence or other matters produced or presented during the proceedings of the committee or as to any findings, recommendations, evaluations, opinions or other actions of the committee or its members. However, information, documents or records otherwise discoverable or admissible from original sources are not to be construed as immune from discovery or use in any civil action merely because they were presented during the proceedings of such committee, nor should any person who testifies before such committee or who is a member of such committee be prevented from testifying as to other matters within his knowledge. Provided, however, a witness shall not be questioned concerning his participation on or testimony before such committee or opinions formed by him as a result of such committee hearings or proceedings.
- (2) The provisions of subsection (1) of this section which limit the discovery of medical or dental review committee records and proceedings shall not apply in any legal action brought by a medical or dental review committee to restrict or revoke a physician's license to practice medicine or hospital staff privileges, or in any legal action brought by an aggrieved physician against any member of the committee or the legal entity which formed such committee for actions alleged to have been malicious.
- (3) The provisions of this statute, including the confidentiality provided in this subsection, shall be deemed part of the substantive law of this state enacted for the expressed legislative purpose of promoting quality patient care through medical and dental peer review activities.
Laws, 1977, ch. 346, § 5; Laws, 1984, ch. 464, § 4; Laws, 1994, ch. 524, § 4, eff. 7/1/1994.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1987–2024 · leading case: Claypool v. Mladineo, 724 So. 2d 373 (Miss. 1998).
Claypool v. Mladineo, 724 So. 2d 373 (Miss. 1998). “After a hearing, the lower court entered an Order, ruling that all the documents submitted for the in camera inspection were protected because they constituted either proceedings or records of medical review committees or accreditation and quality assurance materials that were…”
Jeff Cahn v. Copac, Inc., 198 So. 3d 347 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015). “Miss. Code Ann. § 41-63-9 (1) (Supp.1997).”
Sanderson v. Frank S. Bryan, M.D., Ltd., 522 A.2d 1138 (Pa. 1987). “1984); Miss.Code Ann. § 41-63-9 (1972 & Supp.1984); Mo.”
Elizabeth Claypool v. John P. Mladineo (Miss. 1996). “After a hearing, the lower court entered an Order, ruling that all the documents submitted for the in camera inspection were protected because they constituted either proceedings or records of medical review committees or accreditation and quality assurance materials that were…”
Dr. Benjamin Rush v. Rush Health Sys., Inc., Physician Servs., LLC, Med. Found., Inc. & Rush Med. Found. d/b/a Rush Found. Hosp. (Miss. 2023). “4 Miss. Code Ann. § 41-63-9 (Rev. 2018) (emphasis added).”
Mississippi Baptist Health Sys., Inc. v. Mary A. Johnson (Miss. 2023). “Miss. Code Ann. § 41-63-9 (1) (Rev. 2018).”
Vanderlan v. Jackson HMA LLC (S.D. Miss. 2024). “Miss. Code Ann. § 41-63-9 (1); see also id.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 41-63-9(1) — 2 cases
Claypool v. Mladineo, 724 So. 2d 373 (Miss. 1998). “After a hearing, the lower court entered an Order, ruling that all the documents submitted for the in camera inspection were protected because they constituted either proceedings or records of medical review committees or accreditation and quality assurance materials that were…”
Mississippi Baptist Health Sys., Inc. v. Mary A. Johnson (Miss. 2023). “Miss. Code Ann. § 41-63-9 (1) (Rev. 2018).”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 41-63-9(3) — 2 cases
Claypool v. Mladineo, 724 So. 2d 373 (Miss. 1998). “After a hearing, the lower court entered an Order, ruling that all the documents submitted for the in camera inspection were protected because they constituted either proceedings or records of medical review committees or accreditation and quality assurance materials that were…”
Vanderlan v. Jackson HMA LLC (S.D. Miss. 2024). “Miss. Code Ann. § 41-63-9 (1); see also id.”
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.