Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2305 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.251 (2026)

Peer review committee immunity

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
April 9, 2003
Latest Legislation:
Senate Bill 179 - 124th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) No health care entity shall be liable in damages to any person for any acts, omissions, decisions, or other conduct within the scope of the functions of a peer review committee of the health care entity. No individual who is a member of or works for or on behalf of a peer review committee of a health care entity shall be liable in damages to any person for any acts, omissions, decisions, or other conduct within the scope of the functions of the peer review committee.

(B)(1) A hospital shall be presumed to not be negligent in the credentialing of an individual who has, or has applied for, staff membership or professional privileges at the hospital pursuant to section 3701.351 of the Revised Code, and a health insuring corporation or sickness and accident insurer shall be presumed to not be negligent in the credentialing of an individual who is, or has applied to be, a participating provider with the health insuring corporation or sickness and accident insurer, if the hospital, health insuring corporation, or sickness and accident insurer proves by a preponderance of the evidence that, at the time of the alleged negligent credentialing of the individual, the hospital, health insuring corporation, or sickness and accident insurer was accredited by one of the following:

(a) The joint commission on accreditation of healthcare organizations;

(b) The American osteopathic association;

(c) The national committee for quality assurance;

(d) The utilization review accreditation commission.

(2) The presumption that a hospital, health insuring corporation, or sickness and accident insurer is not negligent as provided in division (B)(1) of this section may be rebutted only by proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, of any of the following:

(a) The credentialing and review requirements of the accrediting organization did not apply to the hospital, health insuring corporation, sickness and accident insurer, the individual, or the type of professional care that is the basis of the claim against the hospital, health insuring corporation, or sickness and accident insurer.

(b) The hospital, health insuring corporation, or sickness and accident insurer failed to comply with all material credentialing and review requirements of the accrediting organization that applied to the individual.

(c) The hospital, health insuring corporation, or sickness and accident insurer, through its medical staff executive committee or its governing body and sufficiently in advance to take appropriate action, knew that a previously competent individual had developed a pattern of incompetence or otherwise inappropriate behavior, either of which indicated that the individual's staff membership, professional privileges, or participation as a provider should have been limited or terminated prior to the individual's provision of professional care to the plaintiff.

(d) The hospital, health insuring corporation, or sickness and accident insurer, through its medical staff executive committee or its governing body and sufficiently in advance to take appropriate action, knew that a previously competent individual would provide fraudulent medical treatment but failed to limit or terminate the individual's staff membership, professional privileges, or participation as a provider prior to the individual's provision of professional care to the plaintiff.

(3) If the plaintiff fails to rebut the presumption provided in division (B)(1) of this section, upon the motion of the hospital, health insuring corporation, or sickness and accident insurer, the court shall enter judgment in favor of the hospital, health insuring corporation, or sickness and accident insurer on the claim of negligent credentialing.

(C) Nothing in this section otherwise shall relieve any individual or health care entity from liability arising from treatment of an individual. Nothing in this section shall be construed as creating an exception to section 2305.252 of the Revised Code.

(D) No person who provides information under this section without malice and in the reasonable belief that the information is warranted by the facts known to the person shall be subject to suit for civil damages as a result of providing the information.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 53 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1979–2023 · leading case: Young v. Durrani, 2016 Ohio 5526 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Young v. Durrani, 2016 Ohio 5526 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 14× “Based on their allegations, it appears their true target was either R.C. 2305.251, which provides immunity to peer-review committees, or R.”
Wilson v. Barnesville Hosp., 783 N.E.2d 554 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 14× “{¶ 9} The Peer Review Act, R.C. 2305.251, provides: {¶ 10} “Proceedings and records within the scope of the peer review or utilization review functions of all review boards, committees, or corporations described in section 2305.”
Trangle v. Rojas, 782 N.E.2d 617 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 9× “” Further, R.C. 2305.251 provides: *554 {¶ 21} “Proceedings and records of all review committees described in section 2305.”
Huntsman v. Aultman Hosp., 826 N.E.2d 384 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 10× “Essentially, appellee sought production of documents from Aultman Hospital that Aultman Hospital claimed were privileged and confidential and not subject to discovery or admission into evidence in a civil action pursuant to R.C. 2305.251. Appellants filed briefs in opposition to…”
Gates v. Brewer, 442 N.E.2d 72 (Ohio Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 12× “Anthony Hospital appeared before the trial court and moved that the subpoena duces tecum be quashed and that a protective order be issued preventing plaintiffs from obtaining access to the requested materials, pursuant to R.C. 2305.251. This appeal centers on the decision of the…”
Vistein v. Am. Registry of Radiologic Technologists, 509 F. Supp. 2d 666 (N.D. Ohio 2007). · cites it 30× “The R & R advises that O.R.C. § 2305.251 is applicable to the ARRT and precludes Ms.”
Tenan v. Huston, 845 N.E.2d 549 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 9× “] Does R.C. 2305.251 require a party seeking discovery of information and documents from a credentialing/peer review committee to obtain such discovery from an ‘original, outside source’? {¶ 14} “[4.”
State ex rel. Grandview Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v. Gorman, 554 N.E.2d 1297 (Ohio 1990). · cites it 6× “We agree and hold that a trial court, in the course of regulating discovery, has authority to direct an in camera inspection of hospital records despite claims of the medical review committee privilege under R.C. 2305.251. “For a writ of prohibition to issue, a relator must…”
Cousino v. Mercy St. Vincent Med. Ctr., 2018 Ohio 1550 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 5× “Although the Cousinos argue otherwise, they rely upon case law that was decided under a prior version of the peer review statute, then codified at R.C. 2305.251, that did not contain the current language, which was added by the Ohio Legislature on April 9, 2003, specifying that…”
Brooks v. Ohio State Univ., 676 N.E.2d 162 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 5× “Code, and a motion for protective order and/or motion in limine, based on R.C. 2305.251, which precludes the discovery and admissibility of proceedings and records of peer review committees and of testimony concerning actions of peer review *346 committees and their members.”
Gupta v. the Lima News, 757 N.E.2d 1227 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 7× “and R.C. 2305.251 and 2305.252. On August 31, 1999, Dr.”
Kelley v. Ruf, 909 N.E.2d 714 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 13× “R.C. 2305.251(B)(1) provides that a hospital “shall be presumed to not be negligent” in credentialing a physician if the hospital proves that at the time of the credentialing decision, the hospital was accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare…”
Show all 53 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.251(A) — 5 cases
Talwar v. Catholic Healthcare Partners, 258 F. App'x 800 (6th Cir. 2007).
Vistein v. Am. Registry of Radiologic Technologists, 509 F. Supp. 2d 666 (N.D. Ohio 2007). “The R & R advises that O.R.C. § 2305.251 is applicable to the ARRT and precludes Ms.”
Shahbabian, M.D. v. Trihealth, Inc. (S.D. Ohio 2021).
Gudes v. Wilson Health (S.D. Ohio 2023).
Mehlman v. Cincinnati Child.'s Hosp. Med. Ctr. (S.D. Ohio 2021).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.251(A)(2006) — 1 case
Vistein v. Am. Registry of Radiologic Technologists, 509 F. Supp. 2d 666 (N.D. Ohio 2007). “The R & R advises that O.R.C. § 2305.251 is applicable to the ARRT and precludes Ms.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.251(B)(1) — 3 cases
Kelley v. Ruf, 909 N.E.2d 714 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009). “R.C. 2305.251(B)(1) provides that a hospital “shall be presumed to not be negligent” in credentialing a physician if the hospital proves that at the time of the credentialing decision, the hospital was accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare…”
Janson v. Durrani, 2021 Ohio 1467 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
Janson v. Christ Hops., Inc., 2021 Ohio 1467 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.251(B)(1)(a) — 1 case
Kelley v. Ruf, 909 N.E.2d 714 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009). “R.C. 2305.251(B)(1) provides that a hospital “shall be presumed to not be negligent” in credentialing a physician if the hospital proves that at the time of the credentialing decision, the hospital was accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.251(B)(2) — 3 cases
Kelley v. Ruf, 909 N.E.2d 714 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009). “R.C. 2305.251(B)(1) provides that a hospital “shall be presumed to not be negligent” in credentialing a physician if the hospital proves that at the time of the credentialing decision, the hospital was accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare…”
Janson v. Durrani, 2021 Ohio 1467 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
Janson v. Christ Hops., Inc., 2021 Ohio 1467 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.251(B)(2)(b) — 1 case
Cousino v. Mercy St. Vincent Med. Ctr., 2018 Ohio 1550 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “Although the Cousinos argue otherwise, they rely upon case law that was decided under a prior version of the peer review statute, then codified at R.C. 2305.251, that did not contain the current language, which was added by the Ohio Legislature on April 9, 2003, specifying that…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.251(B)(2)(c) — 1 case
Kelley v. Ruf, 909 N.E.2d 714 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009). “R.C. 2305.251(B)(1) provides that a hospital “shall be presumed to not be negligent” in credentialing a physician if the hospital proves that at the time of the credentialing decision, the hospital was accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.251(B)(3) — 1 case
Kelley v. Ruf, 909 N.E.2d 714 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009). “R.C. 2305.251(B)(1) provides that a hospital “shall be presumed to not be negligent” in credentialing a physician if the hospital proves that at the time of the credentialing decision, the hospital was accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.251(C) — 1 case
Cousino v. Mercy St. Vincent Med. Ctr., 2018 Ohio 1550 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “Although the Cousinos argue otherwise, they rely upon case law that was decided under a prior version of the peer review statute, then codified at R.C. 2305.251, that did not contain the current language, which was added by the Ohio Legislature on April 9, 2003, specifying that…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.251(D) — 1 case
Kerr v. Hurd, 694 F. Supp. 2d 817 (S.D. Ohio 2010).
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.