Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 146.37 (2026)
Health care services review; civil immunity
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
146.37(1)(a)(a) “Health care provider” includes an ambulance service provider, as defined in s. 256.01 (3), and an emergency medical services practitioner, as defined in s. 256.01 (5), and an emergency medical responder, as defined in s. 256.01 (4p).
146.37(1g)(1g) Except as provided in s. 153.76, no person acting in good faith who participates in the review or evaluation of the services of health care providers or facilities or the charges for such services conducted in connection with any program organized and operated to help improve the quality of health care, to avoid improper utilization of the services of health care providers or facilities or to determine the reasonable charges for such services, or who participates in the obtaining of health care information under subch. I of ch. 153, is liable for any civil damages as a result of any act or omission by such person in the course of such review or evaluation. Acts and omissions to which this subsection applies include, but are not limited to, acts or omissions by peer review committees or hospital governing bodies in censuring, reprimanding, limiting or revoking hospital staff privileges or notifying the medical examining board or podiatry affiliated credentialing board under s. 50.36 or taking any other disciplinary action against a health care provider or facility and acts or omissions by a medical director in reviewing the performance of emergency medical services practitioners, as defined in s. 256.01 (5), or ambulance service providers.
146.37(1m)(1m) The good faith of any person specified in subs. (1g) and (3) shall be presumed in any civil action. Any person who asserts that such a person has not acted in good faith has the burden of proving that assertion by clear and convincing evidence.
146.37(2)(2) In determining whether a member of the reviewing or evaluating organization or the medical director has acted in good faith under sub. (1g), the court shall consider whether the member or medical director has sought to prevent the health care provider or facility and its counsel from examining the documents and records used in the review or evaluation, from presenting witnesses, establishing pertinent facts and circumstances, questioning or refuting testimony and evidence, confronting and cross-examining adverse witnesses or from receiving a copy of the final report or recommendation of the reviewing organization or medical director.
146.37(3)(3) This section applies to any person acting in good faith who participates in the review or evaluation of the services of a psychiatrist, or facilities or charges for services of a psychiatrist, conducted in connection with any organization, association or program organized or operated to help improve the quality of psychiatric services, avoid improper utilization of psychiatric services or determine reasonable charges for psychiatric services. This immunity includes, but is not limited to, acts such as censuring, reprimanding or taking other disciplinary action against a psychiatrist for unethical or improper conduct.
146.37 HistoryHistory: 1975 c. 187; 1979 c. 221; 1981 c. 323; 1983 a. 27; 1985 a. 29 s. 3202 (27); 1985 a. 340; 1987 a. 27, 399; 1989 a. 102; 1997 a. 175; 1999 a. 56; 2007 a. 130; 2009 a. 113, 274; 2011 a. 260 s. 81; 2017 a. 12.
146.37 AnnotationAnyone who has the good faith belief that they are participating in a valid peer review procedure of a health care provider is entitled to the presumption of good faith under sub. (1g) and is immune from liability unless the presumption is overcome. Limjoco v. Schenck, 169 Wis. 2d 703, 486 N.W.2d 567 (Ct. App. 1992).
146.37 AnnotationWhen a third party becomes an integral part of the ongoing medical services review, its actions are eligible for immunity from civil liability under this section. It would defeat the purpose of this section if the participation of an outside entity enlisted by a reviewing committee to perform an assessment of the abilities of a physician to perform effectively while on call is not eligible for immunity simply because the outside entity is not part of a formal “peer review program.” Rechsteiner v. Hazelden, 2008 WI 97, 313 Wis. 2d 542, 753 N.W.2d 496, 06-1521.
146.37 AnnotationWhen a third party’s diagnosis of the condition of the doctor subject to review was indistinguishable from the employing hospital’s review, evaluation, and analysis of the doctor’s ability to perform as an on-call surgeon, the diagnosis was the essence of the peer review process initiated by the hospital. Even if the diagnosis was negligent, it was immune because it was central to the peer review process. However, this case does not mean that the peer review statute will immunize medical negligence in all situations, irrespective of the circumstances. Rechsteiner v. Hazelden, 2008 WI 97, 313 Wis. 2d 542, 753 N.W.2d 496, 06-1521.
146.37 AnnotationA person reviewing a peer can be found to have acted in bad faith even if procedural rights under sub. (2) were not denied, but whether procedural rights were denied is a factor that must be considered in a determination of “good faith.” Qasem v. Kozarek, 716 F.2d 1172 (1983).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases, 1977–2012 · leading case: Rechsteiner v. Hazelden, 2008 WI 97 (Wis. 2008).
Rechsteiner v. Hazelden, 2008 WI 97 (Wis. 2008). “The defendants moved for summary judgment and asserted statutory immunity *549 under Wis. Stat. § 146.37 , 4 Wisconsin's "peer review statute.”
Hofflander v. St. Catherine's Hosp., Inc., 2003 WI 77 (Wis. 2003). “38 and its counterpart statute, Wis. Stat. § 146.37 , [42] which is to encourage hospitals to perform quality-control reviews aimed at improving, prospectively, their services.”
Phelps v. Physicians Ins. Co. of Wisconsin, Inc., 2004 WI App 91 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “There are two provisions in the statutes dealing with health-care services review: Wis. Stat. § 146.37 , which provides that those who participate in the health-care-services-review process have, if certain criteria are met, immunity from liability for "civil damages" arising…”
State Ex Rel. Good Samaritan Med. Ctr.-Deaconess Hosp. Campus v. Moroney, 365 N.W.2d 887 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985). “Sections 146.37 and 146.38, Stats., were both created by ch.”
Limjoco v. Schenck, 486 N.W.2d 567 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “This appeal involves the interpretation of the statute granting immunity from liability to those who in good faith participate in peer review of health care providers, sec. 146.37, Stats. We affirm the summary judgment dismissing Dr.”
Mallow v. Angove, 434 N.W.2d 839 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). “1985), in which this court determined that the records of hospital governing bodies are discoverable, had been effectively overruled by the legislature’s subsequent amendment of sec. 146.37, Stats. It is this order from which the Mallows appeal.”
Khaled A. Qasem v. C.E. Kozarek, 716 F.2d 1172 (7th Cir. 1983). “(1), the court shall consider whether such member has sought to prevent the health care provider or facility and its counsel from examining the documents and records used in the review or evaluation, from presenting witnesses, establishing pertinent facts and circumstances,…”
Rechsteiner v. Hazelden, 2007 WI App 148 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007). “Accordingly, Wis. Stat. § 146.37 's immunity provision is extended to Hazelden for its role in Spooner's peer review of Rechsteiner's behavior.”
Davison v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins., 248 N.W.2d 433 (Wis. 1977). “That Act created sections 146.37 and 146.38, Stats., relating to civil immunity for persons evaluating health care providers and facilities and the confidentiality of information acquired in such reviews.”
Franzen v. Child.'s Hosp. of Wisconsin, Inc., 485 N.W.2d 603 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “Our second observation is that *384 the term "peer review" is used in an adjacent statute, sec. 146.37, Stats. However, this court has previously held that the legislature intended to only limit the liability of peer review participants, not expand a privilege of confidentiality.”
Patt v. Fam. Health Sys., Inc., 189 F.R.D. 518 (E.D. Wis. 1999). “Family Health Plan also contends that Wis. Stat. § 146.37 also supports its claim of privilege; however, that provision gives civil immunity for persons involved in the review or evaluation of health care providers.”
Hofflander v. St. Catherine's Hosp., Inc., 2001 WI App 204 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “In tandem with Wis. Stat. § 146.37 , providing civil immunity to persons who conduct peer reviews, Wis.”
— Wis. Stat. § 146.37(1) — 2 cases
Mallow v. Angove, 434 N.W.2d 839 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). “1985), in which this court determined that the records of hospital governing bodies are discoverable, had been effectively overruled by the legislature’s subsequent amendment of sec. 146.37, Stats. It is this order from which the Mallows appeal.”
State Ex Rel. Good Samaritan Med. Ctr.-Deaconess Hosp. Campus v. Moroney, 365 N.W.2d 887 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985). “Sections 146.37 and 146.38, Stats., were both created by ch.”
— Wis. Stat. § 146.37(1g) — 1 case
Rechsteiner v. Hazelden, 2008 WI 97 (Wis. 2008). “The defendants moved for summary judgment and asserted statutory immunity *549 under Wis. Stat. § 146.37 , 4 Wisconsin's "peer review statute.”
— Wis. Stat. § 146.37(2) — 2 cases
Rechsteiner v. Hazelden, 2008 WI 97 (Wis. 2008). “The defendants moved for summary judgment and asserted statutory immunity *549 under Wis. Stat. § 146.37 , 4 Wisconsin's "peer review statute.”
Khaled A. Qasem v. C.E. Kozarek, 716 F.2d 1172 (7th Cir. 1983). “(1), the court shall consider whether such member has sought to prevent the health care provider or facility and its counsel from examining the documents and records used in the review or evaluation, from presenting witnesses, establishing pertinent facts and circumstances,…”
— Wis. Stat. § 146.37(l)(a) — 1 case
Phelps v. Physicians Ins. Co. of Wisconsin, Inc., 2004 WI App 91 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “There are two provisions in the statutes dealing with health-care services review: Wis. Stat. § 146.37 , which provides that those who participate in the health-care-services-review process have, if certain criteria are met, immunity from liability for "civil damages" arising…”
— Wis. Stat. § 146.37(lg) — 5 cases
Rechsteiner v. Hazelden, 2008 WI 97 (Wis. 2008). “The defendants moved for summary judgment and asserted statutory immunity *549 under Wis. Stat. § 146.37 , 4 Wisconsin's "peer review statute.”
Phelps v. Physicians Ins. Co. of Wisconsin, Inc., 2004 WI App 91 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “There are two provisions in the statutes dealing with health-care services review: Wis. Stat. § 146.37 , which provides that those who participate in the health-care-services-review process have, if certain criteria are met, immunity from liability for "civil damages" arising…”
Limjoco v. Schenck, 486 N.W.2d 567 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “This appeal involves the interpretation of the statute granting immunity from liability to those who in good faith participate in peer review of health care providers, sec. 146.37, Stats. We affirm the summary judgment dismissing Dr.”
Rechsteiner v. Hazelden, 2007 WI App 148 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007). “Accordingly, Wis. Stat. § 146.37 's immunity provision is extended to Hazelden for its role in Spooner's peer review of Rechsteiner's behavior.”
Est. of Hammersley v. Wisconsin Cnty. Mut. Ins., 2012 WI App 44 (Wis. Ct. App. 2012).
— Wis. Stat. § 146.37(lm) — 1 case
Rechsteiner v. Hazelden, 2008 WI 97 (Wis. 2008). “The defendants moved for summary judgment and asserted statutory immunity *549 under Wis. Stat. § 146.37 , 4 Wisconsin's "peer review statute.”
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.