Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2305
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.252 (2026)

Confidentiality of proceedings and records within scope of peer review committee of health care entity

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
September 17, 2014
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 493 - 130th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) Proceedings and records within the scope of a peer review committee of a health care entity shall be held in confidence and shall not be subject to discovery or introduction in evidence in any civil action against a health care entity or health care provider, including both individuals who provide health care and entities that provide health care, arising out of matters that are the subject of evaluation and review by the peer review committee. No individual who attends a meeting of a peer review committee, serves as a member of a peer review committee, works for or on behalf of a peer review committee, or provides information to a peer review committee shall be permitted or required to testify in any civil action as to any evidence or other matters produced or presented during the proceedings of the peer review committee or as to any finding, recommendation, evaluation, opinion, or other action of the committee or a member thereof.

Information, documents, or records otherwise available from original sources are not to be construed as being unavailable for discovery or for use in any civil action merely because they were produced or presented during proceedings of a peer review committee, but the information, documents, or records are available only from the original sources and cannot be obtained from the peer review committee's proceedings or records.

The release of any information, documents, or records that were produced or presented during proceedings of a peer review committee or created to document the proceedings does not affect the confidentiality of any other information, documents, or records produced or presented during those proceedings or created to document them. Only the information, documents, or records actually released cease to be privileged under this section.

Nothing in this section precludes health care entities from sharing information, documents, or records that were produced or presented during proceedings of a peer review committee or created to document them as long as the information, documents, or records are used only for peer review purposes.

An individual who testifies before a peer review committee, serves as a representative of a peer review committee, serves as a member of a peer review committee, works for or on behalf of a peer review committee, or provides information to a peer review committee shall not be prevented from testifying as to matters within the individual's knowledge, but the individual cannot be asked about the individual's testimony before the peer review committee, information the individual provided to the peer review committee, or any opinion the individual formed as a result of the peer review committee's activities.

An order by a court to produce for discovery or for use at trial the proceedings or records described in this section is a final order.

(B) Division (A) of this section applies to a peer review committee of the bureau of workers' compensation that is responsible for reviewing the professional qualifications and the performance of providers certified by the bureau to participate in the health partnership program created under sections 4121.44 and 4121.441 of the Revised Code, except that the proceedings and records within the scope of the peer review committee are subject to discovery or court subpoena and may be admitted into evidence in any criminal action or administrative or civil action initiated, prosecuted, or adjudicated by the bureau involving an alleged violation of applicable statutes or administrative rules. The bureau may share proceedings and records within the scope of the peer review committee, including claimant records and claim file information, with law enforcement agencies, licensing boards, and other governmental agencies that are prosecuting, adjudicating, or investigating alleged violations of applicable statutes or administrative rules. If the bureau shares proceedings or records with a law enforcement agency, licensing board, or another governmental agency pursuant to this division, that sharing does not affect the confidentiality of the record. Recipients of claimant records and claim file information provided by the bureau pursuant to this division shall take appropriate measures to maintain the confidentiality of the information.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 44 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case: Cousino v. Mercy St. Vincent Med. Ctr., 2018 Ohio 1550 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cousino v. Mercy St. Vincent Med. Ctr., 2018 Ohio 1550 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 26× “Vincent objected to many of the requests on several grounds, including that the requests seek information that is protected by Ohio's peer review privilege ( R.C. 2305.252 and 2305.253 ), the attorney-client privilege, and work product doctrine.”
Young v. Durrani, 2016 Ohio 5526 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 14× “251, which provides immunity to peer-review committees, or R.C. 2305.252, which provides for the confidentiality of peer-review-committee proceedings.”
Giusti v. Akron Gen. Med. Ctr., 896 N.E.2d 769 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 15× “02(B)(4) and, specifically for claimed peer-review-privileged material, under R.C. 2305.252. {¶ 7} The peer-review statute provides that “[a]n order * * * to produce for discovery or for use at trial the proceedings or records described in this section is a final order.”
Huntsman v. Aultman Hosp., 826 N.E.2d 384 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 17× “, appeal from the April 8, 2004 judgment entry of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas in which the trial court ordered Aultman Hospital to identify certain documents found in its peer review and credentialing files, upon application of R.C. 2305.252, governing confidentiality…”
Fravel v. Columbus Rehab. & Subacute Inst., 2016 Ohio 5807 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 24× “Appellants provided a privilege log that, in pertinent part, objected to the production of the quality indicator reports and facility key indicator reports due to R.C. 2305.252 peer review privilege. On July 8, 2015, appellants filed four motions to compel production of various…”
State v. Gideon (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 6961 (Ohio 2020). · cites it 4× “9)] Thus, while there is nothing inherently wrong with Investigator Yoakam and law enforcement’s agreement to share information, the evidence in the record reveals that Investigator Yoakam exceeded statutorily permissible collaboration by taking demonstrable steps to coerce…”
Large v. Heartland-Lansing of Bridgeport Ohio, L.L.C., 2013 Ohio 2877 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 15× “2006 CA 00331, 2008-Ohio-2554, ¶50 (holding that “the confidentiality of information pursuant to R.C. 2305.252 is one of law” to be reviewed de novo); also Smith v.”
Tenan v. Huston, 845 N.E.2d 549 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 12× “251 was subsequently renumbered and became current R.C. 2305.252. Currently, R.C. 2305.252 provides: {¶ 22} “Information, documents, or records otherwise available from original sources are not to be construed as being unavailable for discovery or for use in any civil action…”
State v. Gideon (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 5635 (Ohio 2020). · cites it 4× “The following language appears as footnote 9 in the court of appeals’ opinion: R.C. 2305.252 applies to peer-review privilege.”
Smith v. Cleveland Clinic, 2011 Ohio 6648 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 12× “El-Dalati was derived from his participation in peer-review activities and, thus, was not discoverable under Ohio’s peer-review-privilege statute, R.C. 2305.252. The motion also requested exclusion of the tape recording of the March 1, 2010 meeting.”
Cleveland Clinic Health Sys.—East Region v. Innovative Placements, Inc., 283 F.R.D. 362 (N.D. Ohio 2012). · cites it 16× “Ohio Rev.Code § 2305.252 (footnotes added).”
Manley v. Heather Hill, Inc., 885 N.E.2d 971 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 7× “Heather Hill refused to provide these documents, claiming that the documents were either protected by privilege or work product or were nondiscoverable under the peer-review statutes set forth in R.C. 2305.252 and 2305.253. Ms. Manley filed a motion to compel.”
Show all 44 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.252(A) — 18 cases
Young v. Durrani, 2016 Ohio 5526 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “251, which provides immunity to peer-review committees, or R.C. 2305.252, which provides for the confidentiality of peer-review-committee proceedings.”
Fravel v. Columbus Rehab. & Subacute Inst., 2016 Ohio 5807 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “Appellants provided a privilege log that, in pertinent part, objected to the production of the quality indicator reports and facility key indicator reports due to R.C. 2305.252 peer review privilege. On July 8, 2015, appellants filed four motions to compel production of various…”
Cousino v. Mercy St. Vincent Med. Ctr., 2018 Ohio 1550 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “Vincent objected to many of the requests on several grounds, including that the requests seek information that is protected by Ohio's peer review privilege ( R.C. 2305.252 and 2305.253 ), the attorney-client privilege, and work product doctrine.”
Meade v. Mercy Health-Reg'l Med. Ctr., L.L.C., 2019 Ohio 438 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
Stull v. Summa Health Sys., 2022 Ohio 457 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.252(B) — 3 cases
State v. Gideon (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 6961 (Ohio 2020). “9)] Thus, while there is nothing inherently wrong with Investigator Yoakam and law enforcement’s agreement to share information, the evidence in the record reveals that Investigator Yoakam exceeded statutorily permissible collaboration by taking demonstrable steps to coerce…”
State v. Gideon (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 5635 (Ohio 2020). “The following language appears as footnote 9 in the court of appeals’ opinion: R.C. 2305.252 applies to peer-review privilege.”
State v. Gideon, 2019 Ohio 2482 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
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.