Utah Code
Utah Code § 58-13-5 (2026)
Information relating to adequacy and quality of medical care -- Immunity from liability
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
UT-LEGle.utah.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
7/1/2026
As used in this section, "health care provider" has the same meaning as defined in Section 78B-3-403.
The division, and the boards within the division that act regarding the health care providers defined in this section, shall adopt rules to establish procedures to obtain information concerning the quality and adequacy of health care rendered to patients by those health care providers.
It is the duty of a health care provider licensed under Title 58, Occupations and Professions, to furnish information known to the health care provider with respect to health care rendered to patients by any health care provider licensed under Title 58, Occupations and Professions, as the division or a board may request during the course of the performance of its duties.
A health care facility as defined in Section 26B-2-201 which employs, grants privileges to, or otherwise permits a licensed health care provider to engage in licensed practice within the health care facility, and any professional society of licensed health care providers, shall report any of the following events in writing to the division within 60 days after the event occurs regarding the licensed health care provider:
terminating employment of an employee for cause related to the employee's practice as a licensed health care provider;
terminating or restricting privileges for cause to engage in any act or practice related to practice as a licensed health care provider;
terminating, suspending, or restricting membership or privileges associated with membership in a professional association for acts of unprofessional, unlawful, incompetent, or negligent conduct related to practice as a licensed health care provider;
subjecting a licensed health care provider to disciplinary action for a period of more than 30 days;
a finding that a licensed health care provider has violated professional standards or ethics;
a finding of incompetence in practice as a licensed health care provider;
a finding of acts which, when considered with the functions and duties of the profession, bear a substantial relationship to the individual's ability to safely or competently perform the duties expected of a licensed health care provider; or
a finding that a licensed health care provider is engaged in abuse of alcohol or drugs.
This section does not prohibit any action by a health care facility, or professional society comprised primarily of licensed health care providers to suspend, restrict, or revoke the employment, privileges, or membership of a health care provider.
The data and information obtained in accordance with this section is classified as a "protected" record under Title 63G, Chapter 2, Government Records Access and Management Act.
Any person or organization furnishing information in accordance with this section in response to the request of the division or a board, or voluntarily, is immune from liability with respect to information provided in good faith and without malice, which good faith and lack of malice is presumed to exist absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
The members of the board are immune from liability for any decisions made or actions taken in response to information the board acquires if those decisions or actions are made in good faith and without malice, which good faith and lack of malice is presumed to exist absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
An individual who is a member of a hospital administration, board, committee, department, medical staff, or professional organization of health care providers, and any hospital, other health care entity, or professional organization conducting or sponsoring the review, is immune from liability arising from participation in a review of a health care provider's professional ethics, medical competence, or a behavior which, when considered with the functions and duties of the profession, bears a substantial relationship to the individual's ability to safely or competently perform the duties expected of a health care provider including any mental or physical illness or condition, or engagement in any of the behaviors listed in Subsection 58-1-501(2)(a)(v), or substance abuse.
This section does not exempt a person licensed under Title 58, Occupations and Professions, from complying with any reporting requirements established under state or federal law.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2010–2024 · leading case: Archuleta v. St. Mark's Hosp., 2009 UT 36 (Utah 2010).
Archuleta v. St. Mark's Hosp., 2009 UT 36 (Utah 2010). “The first type is found in subsection 6(a), which provides, "[a]ny person or organization furnishing information in accordance with this section in response to the request of the [Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing] or a board, or voluntarily, is immune from…”
Belnap v. Howard, 2019 UT 9 (Utah 2019). “Section 58-13-5 similarly states that individuals participating in a peer review process are immune from liability arising from that process, as long as they participate in good faith.”
Cottam v. IHC Health Servs., 2024 UT App 19 (Utah Ct. App. 2024). “See Utah Code § 58-13-5(7). This opinion resolves no questions regarding the contours of that statutory immunity either.”
Waddoups v. Noorda, 2013 UT 64 (Utah 2013). “" Subsection (7) reads: An individual who is a member of a hospital administration, board, committee, department, medical staff, or professional organization of health care providers, and any hospital, other health care entity, or professional organization conducting or…”
Fine v. Univ. of Utah, 2024 UT 4 (Utah 2024). “§ 58-13-5(7). The district court agreed with the University in this respect as well and granted summary judgment on the alternative basis that the University had statutory immunity.”
Vered v. Tooele Hosp. Corp., 2018 UT App 15 (Utah Ct. App. 2018). “See Utah Code Ann. § 58-13-5 (7) (LexisNexis 2016).”
United States of Am. v. St. Mark's Hosp. (D. Utah 2020). “The Sorensen Defendants have not offered any basis to read Utah Code section 58-13-5(7) any other way. to establish this privilege as to any of these documents even under state law.”
— Utah Code § 58-13-5(6)(a) — 1 case
Archuleta v. St. Mark's Hosp., 2009 UT 36 (Utah 2010). “The first type is found in subsection 6(a), which provides, "[a]ny person or organization furnishing information in accordance with this section in response to the request of the [Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing] or a board, or voluntarily, is immune from…”
— Utah Code § 58-13-5(6)(b) — 1 case
Archuleta v. St. Mark's Hosp., 2009 UT 36 (Utah 2010). “The first type is found in subsection 6(a), which provides, "[a]ny person or organization furnishing information in accordance with this section in response to the request of the [Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing] or a board, or voluntarily, is immune from…”
— Utah Code § 58-13-5(7) — 4 cases
Archuleta v. St. Mark's Hosp., 2009 UT 36 (Utah 2010). “The first type is found in subsection 6(a), which provides, "[a]ny person or organization furnishing information in accordance with this section in response to the request of the [Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing] or a board, or voluntarily, is immune from…”
Cottam v. IHC Health Servs., 2024 UT App 19 (Utah Ct. App. 2024). “See Utah Code § 58-13-5(7). This opinion resolves no questions regarding the contours of that statutory immunity either.”
Fine v. Univ. of Utah, 2024 UT 4 (Utah 2024). “§ 58-13-5(7). The district court agreed with the University in this respect as well and granted summary judgment on the alternative basis that the University had statutory immunity.”
United States of Am. v. St. Mark's Hosp. (D. Utah 2020). “The Sorensen Defendants have not offered any basis to read Utah Code section 58-13-5(7) any other way. to establish this privilege as to any of these documents even under state law.”
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.