Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

by a hospital medical review committee, and section 395.0191 pertaining to hospital staff membership privileges

...ion," regulates hospital practice. Significantly, there is nothing in the provisions of chapter 395 that regulate hospital staff privileges that addresses physician compliance with the financial responsibility requirements of section 458.320. First, section 395.0191, Florida Statutes (2006), which outlines the rules pertaining to hospital staff privileges, *186 does not require the hospital to ensure physician compliance with section 458.320....

...3d DCA 2005), in which the Third District concluded that a hospital could not be liable for failing to ensure a physician's compliance with the statutory financial responsibility requirements if that physician made an election under section 458.320(5)(g). [10] Section 395.0191 was originally enacted as section 395.011, Florida Statutes (Supp....

...Sadow Lawnwood had not been motivated solely by unreasonable financial gain. The Jury assessed punitive damages against Lawnwood in the sum of $5,000,000. B. The Claim of Immunity from Contract Liability Lawnwood’s claim of immunity is founded on § 395.0191(7)....

...To do so would be an abrogation of legislative power.” [e.s.] 767 So.2d at 1150-51 . 17 We conclude that Lawnwood’s construction of the statutory immunity text would have us ignore an explicit limitation as to its extent, thereby enlarging the grant of immunity beyond its plain meaning. The provisions of § 395.0191 lay down general rules for hospitals in setting up procedures and standards for staff membership and clinical privileges. The immunity of § 395.0191(7) is not a broad, general grant immunizing every kind of hospital liability after granting clinical privileges....

...Your verdict on the issues raised by the punitive damages claim of Dr. Sa-dow against Lawnwood must be based on the evidence that has been received during the trial of the first phase of this case, and on the evidence that has been received in *721 these proceedings, and on the law which I have instructed you.” . § 395.0191(7), Fla....

...See, e.g., Fla. Admin. Code R. 59A-3.217(4) (setting general guidelines for the granting of hospital staff privileges, and providing that standards and procedures should not operate to deny staff privileges in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious manner); § 395.0191, Fla....

...See, e.g., § 766.101(5), Fla. Stat. (2005) (medical review committee privilege); § 766.1016(2), Fla. Stat. (2005) (patient safety data); § 459.016(3), Fla. Stat. (2005) (reports of disciplinary actions); § 400.118, Fla. Stat. (2005) (quality assurance nursing homes); § 395.0191(8), Fla....

...(2005) (staff membership and clinical privileges); § 395.0197(4), (6)(c), (7), (13), Fla. Stat. (2005) (internal risk management); § 395.0193(8), Fla. Stat. (2005) (peer review). In addition, the Legislature has immunized the participants of such self-evaluation procedures from liability for actions taken. See, e.g., § 395.0191(7), Fla....

...Juan Barrios' credentialing file and a general description of said document and any claim of privilege if any. Baptist objected to interrogatories 6 and 7 on grounds that Ms. Garcia was seeking descriptions of the contents of the credentialing files which Baptist claims are not discoverable pursuant to sections 395.0191(8) [1] and 766.101(5), [2] Florida Statutes (2007)....

...required to produce a privilege log. The standard of review on a petition for writ of certiorari is whether the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law. See Gov't Employees Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). Section 395.0191(8), Florida Statutes (2007), provides that the procedure for applying for staff membership or privileges at a hospital by a physician, including "investigations, proceedings and records of the board or agent ......

...f a privilege log necessarily would require Baptist to divulge names and confidential information, which not only have nothing to do with adverse medical incidents discoverable under Amendment 7, but which remain exempt from discovery under sections 395.0191(8) and 766.101(5). Such a result would violate sections 395.0191(8) and 766.101(5), the very purpose of the statutory exclusions from discovery enacted pursuant to Florida Statutes (2007)....

...Therefore, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by ordering the overly broad disclosure of a list of all of the documents contained in the physicians' credentialing files, which would necessarily include the disclosure of documents not discoverable pursuant to sections 395.0191(8) and 766.101(5), and by ordering the compilation and production of a privilege log detailing and disclosing confidential information that is a part of those files....

...We therefore quash the trial court's order, but do so without prejudice for Ms. Garcia to file interrogatories which request documents pursuant to and in compliance with Amendment 7. *394 Petition for Writ of Certiorari granted. Order quashed without prejudice. NOTES [1] 395.0191 Staff membership and clinical privileges....

...ch a committee or opinions formed by him or her as a result of said committee hearings. [3] It should be noted that "information, documents, or records otherwise available from original sources are not to be construed as immune from discovery...." §§ 395.0191(8), 766.101(5), Fla....

...Defendants served upon MHI subpoenas duces tecum that sought discovery of any and all records that related to Dr. Reis' application for staff privileges. MHI objected to the subpoenas on the ground that the records sought were privileged under sections 766.101(5) and 395.0191(8), Florida Statutes (1993), which provide that the records of a hospital's medical review committee are not subject to discovery or introduction into evidence against a health care provider in any civil action that arises out of the matters that were reviewed by the committee....

...irections to deny access to the records sought. NOTES [1] Certiorari is the appropriate method by which to review an order entered in connection with discovery proceedings. Fortune Ins. Co. v. Santelli, 621 So.2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). [2] Sections 395.0191 and 766.101(5) establish the same privilege against disclosure; section 395.0191 applies to the proceedings of all hospital boards, and section 766.101(5) applies to medical review committee proceedings....

...circuit court order directing JFK to produce certain documents contained in the credentialing file of Dr. Jacques Farkas. We grant the petition because the documents at issue fall within the peer review privilege set forth in sections 766.101(5) and 395.0191(8), Florida Statutes (2005)....

...ed. Respondents served JFK with interrogatories and a request to produce Dr. Farkas's credentialing file. JFK objected that the credentialing file is not subject to discovery because it falls within the statutory privilege in sections 766.101(5) and 395.0191(8), Florida Statutes (2005)....

...Section 766.101(5) provides that the investigations, proceedings, and records of a *712 medical review committee are not discoverable or admissible in evidence in a civil or administrative proceeding against a healthcare provider arising from matters that are the subject of evaluation and review by the committee. Section 395.0191(8) provides that the investigations, proceedings, and records of the board that decides staff membership and clinical privileges at a medical facility are not subject to discovery or admissible in evidence in a civil action against a...

...At a hearing on outstanding discovery issues, JFK provided these documents for an in camera inspection. The court concluded, in its omnibus order, that the requested credentialing documents are not privileged and ordered JFK to produce them. JFK argues that under sections 766.101(5) and 395.0191(8), proceedings and records of a review committee or hospital licensing board relating to peer review and credentialing are not discoverable or admissible in a civil action against a healthcare provider....

...t of privileges was denied, to continue to practice at the hospital during the pendency of the doctor’s civil suit against the hospital. The hospital argues the trial court erred in entering the injunction because it is immune from liability under section 395.0191, Florida Statutes (2009)....

...Committee [MEC], which make recommendations to the hospital’s Board of Trustees. The Board makes the final decision for reappointment after considering the MEC’s recommendation and “such other elements as determined by the governing board.” § 395.0191(4), Fla....

...bused its discretion; however, any legal conclusions are subject to de novo review.” Foreclosure FreeSearch, Inc. v. Sullivan, 12 So.3d 771, 774 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Because we address a legal issue, our review is de novo. The hospital argues that section 395.0191, Florida Statutes (2009) provides the hospital with immunity from suit when the claim arises out of the appointment or reappointment process in the absence of an allegation of intentional fraud. According to the hospital, because the doctor failed to allege intentional fraud with particularity, he failed to overcome the immunity afforded by the statute. The doctor responds that section 395.0191 is inapplicable to his claim because it is limited to the initial appointment, not the reappointment process, which is controlled by the Medical Staff Bylaws. He suggests that once a physician becomes a member of the staff, the bylaws govern the relationship between the doctor and the hospital, not the statute. We disagree with the doctor. Section 395.0191 provides certain privileges and protections for the management of hospital personnel....

...bers, medical staff, or disciplinary board or against its agents, investigators, witnesses, or employees, or against any other person, for any action arising out of or related to carrying out the provisions of this section, absent intentional fraud. § 395.0191, Fla....

...2d DCA 1995). And, like any allegation of fraud, it must be pled with particularity. Id. Here, the doctor’s verified complaint for injunctive relief alleged an “action arising out of or related to” the medical staff reappointment process, governed by section 395.0191....

...arily and capriciously” and “without good cause” insufficient to overcome statutory immunity). The verified complaint contained mere conclusory allegations, devoid of the requisite specificity. Absent specific allegations of intentional fraud, section 395.0191’s immunity protects the hospital. Nevertheless, the doctor argues that the statutory immunity provided by section 395.0191 is limited to initial appointment decisions....

...y the bylaws and not by the statute. To support his argument, the doctor relies on two sentences of our twenty-three page opinion in Lawnwood Medical Center, Inc. v. Sadow, 43 So.3d 710 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). There, we stated that “[t]he immunity of § 395.0191(7) is not a broad, general grant immunizing every kind of hospital liability after granting clinical privileges....

...ng out the provisions of this section.’ ” Sadow, 43 So.3d at 721 (emphasis omitted). This general statement does not support the doctor’s argument. Our comment in Sadow cannot, and should not, be read as any limitation on the plain language of section 395.0191....

...In fact, Sadow involved claims for breach of *1031 contract and defamation. We specifically found the doctor had not alleged any violation arising out of the appointment statute. Id. at 722 . For this reason, we found the allegations in Sadow fell outside the immunity provided by section 395.0191(7). A simple reading of the statute explains why. Section 395.0191(4) explicitly states that it applies to “all applications for appointment and reappointment.” § 395.0191(4), Fla....

...The court held that the statute, which allowed a board to unilaterally amend bylaws, rendered it unconstitutional. Id. at 517-18 . Our supreme court did not add a “good cause” or “valid reasons” requirement to all board decisions. It certainly did not address the immunity issue now before us. Section 395.0191 immunizes the hospital against any action for monetary or injunc-tive relief if it arises out of, or is related to, the appointment or reappointment process absent intentional fraud....

...r to produce certain evidence was required by Amendment 7. Prior to the enactment of Amendment 7, the Florida Legislature had passed several statutes protecting documents maintained by hospitals from discovery in civil litigation, including sections 395.0191(8), 395.0193(8), and 766.101(5). Petitioner's claims of privilege for the documents contained in the Hospital's credentialing files arise under sections 395.0191(8) and 766.101(5), Florida Statutes, which were both enacted prior to the passing of Amendment 7. Section 395.0191(8) provides, in pertinent part, as follows: The investigations, proceedings, and records of the board [involved in determining staff membership or clinical privileges], *689 or agent thereof ... shall not be subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil action against a provider of professional health services arising out of matters which are the subject of evaluation and review by such board.... § 395.0191(8), Fla....

...ttees instead of boards that consider awarding staff membership and clinical privileges. Neither provision prohibits discovery or admissibility of documents considered by such boards and committees if those documents are obtained from other sources. § 395.0191(8); § 766.101(8); see Fla....

...Waterman, Inc. v. Buster, 984 So.2d 478, 490-91 (Fla. 2008). These provisions essentially provide only that healthcare facilities cannot be compelled to provide the documents or information they have considered in their credentialing and review functions. See § 395.0191(8); § 766.101(8); Buster, 984 So.2d at 490-91....

...It is undisputed that prior to the enactment of Amendment 7, Petitioner could not have been ordered to produce the requested evidence of the doctors' training to perform the specific procedure in question, as this evidence would come from the hospital's credentialing file and would be protected under section 395.0191(8), Florida Statutes (2006)....

...Belsito's statements were motivated by racial and economic reasons. He seeks damages from Dr. Belsito. The relevant allegations *1357 of the amended complaint are attached to this opinion as Appendix A. Section 395.011(8), Florida Statutes (1991), now codified as section 395.0191(7), Florida Statutes (1993), precludes any liability on the part of, or any cause of action against, a witness involved in a determination of staff privileges "for any action taken in good faith and without intentional fraud." This statutory limitation on existing common law causes of action is buttressed by a limitation on discoverable and admissible evidence in section 395.0191(8). [1] These provisions are comparable to those for medical review committees found in section 766.101, Florida Statutes (1993). Both sections 395.0191 and 766.101 were created by chapter 85-175, Laws of Florida....

...NOTES [1] That statute provides: "The investigations, proceedings, and records of the board ... [are not] subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil action against a provider of professional health services arising out of matters which are the subject of evaluation and review by such board... ." § 395.0191(8), Fla....

...Reiff argued that the bylaws met the definition of rule, as provided in section 120.52(16), Florida Statutes (1995); hence they were invalid in that they had not been formally adopted. We agree and reverse. In addition, Dr. Reiff alleged in his petition that the bylaws violate section 395.0191, Florida Statutes (1995), because they exclude licensed psychologists from obtaining certain clinical privileges and rights of staff membership that they are otherwise authorized to perform under the licensing laws of chapter 490. Section 395.0191(1) prohibits licensed hospitals from discriminating against licensed health care professionals, including psychologists, when awarding clinical privileges....

...s did not deprive Dr. Reiff of a property right that would constitute an injury in fact. Finally, the ALJ concluded that the limitations on psychologists' privileges *1032 are premised upon the hospital's reasonable needs; thus, they did not violate section 395.0191(1) by discriminating against psychologists as a class....

...erest in the establishment of clinical privileges by licensed facilities, because the statute prohibits such facilities from discriminating against certain classes of health care providers, such as psychologists, in the practice of their profession. Section 395.0191(1), Florida Statutes (1995), provides: No licensed facility, in considering and acting upon an application for staff membership or clinical privileges, shall deny the application of a qualified doctor of medicine licensed under chapt...

...der chapter 461, or a psychologist licensed under chapter 490 for such staff membership or clinical privileges within the scope of his or her respective licensure solely because the applicant is licensed under any of such chapters. (Emphasis added.) Section 395.0191(1), adding the provision banning discriminatory practices against the *1034 class of psychologists, was included within part I of Chapter 92-289, section 11, of the Laws of Florida....

...If management directives specifying how agency employees are to discharge their job responsibilities do not qualify as internal management memoranda, it is hard to imagine what does. This is not to say that our cases draw clear lines in this area. I would affirm without reaching appellant's contention that the bylaws violate section 395.0191, Florida Statutes (1995), and without prejudice to appellant's right to pursue this claim by some other avenue....

...Blocker to produce the list of privileges that he was granted through the hospital's credentialing process, which included consideration by Brandon's peer review credentials committee. Brandon and Dr. Blocker objected to production of the list, and Brandon sought a protective order under sections 395.0191 and 766.101, Florida Statutes (2001)....

...constituted a final report as described in Bayfront Medical Center, Inc. v. State Agency for Healthcare Administration, 741 So.2d 1226, 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), and was not entitled to the confidentiality protection provided by sections 766.101 and 395.0191, Florida Statutes (2001)....

...ngs, and records of a peer review committee are not subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil action against a provider of professional health services arising out of matters that are the subject of evaluation and review. [1] §§ 395.0191(8), 766.101(5), Fla....

...The issue before this Court is whether a list generated by a hospital, which includes a peer review committee recommendation delineating the privileges given to a member of a hospital staff, is protected from discovery under the confidentiality provisions of sections 395.0191 and 766.101, Florida Statutes....

...The Fourth District issued a similar holding in Boca Raton Community Hospital v. Jones, 584 So.2d 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Hence, district court case law in Florida has uniformly denied discovery of documents created by a peer review committee in civil litigation under sections 766.101 and 395.0191, Florida Statutes....

...mit discovery in private civil litigation of the results of the peer review process, in this case the committee's action recommending approval of the grant of certain practice privileges in the hospital. Murray, 910 So.2d at 881. Peer Review Records Section 395.0191(8), Florida Statutes (2001), provides: The investigations, proceedings, and records of the board, or agent thereof with whom there is a specific written contract for the purposes of this section, as described in this section shall no...

...hospital's fabrication of cardiac surgery data to CMS and that he has suffered a multitude of damages as a result. The hospital moved to dismiss Dr. Hakki's second amended complaint on the basis that it was immune from the suit pursuant to sections 395.0191(7) and 395.0193(5), Florida Statutes (2010), because Dr....

...ospital's actions in carrying out its duties under the statutes. Dr. Hakki responded that the immunities did not apply because his allegations concern the report provided to the NPDB, which is protected by 42 U.S.C. § 11137 (c) (2006), not sections 395.0191(7) and 395.0193(5), and even if the immunities did apply, he specifically alleged that the hospital engaged in intentional fraud. Relying on Lawnwood Medical Center, Inc. v. Desai , 54 So.3d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011), the trial court agreed with the hospital that the immunity in section 395.0191(7) barred Dr....

...The hospital responds that it is immune because the filing of the NPDB report arose out of the reappointment process and Dr. Hakki's complaint includes only unspecified, conclusory allegations of fraud. We conclude that, even assuming Dr. Hakki's complaint arose out of the reappointment process such that the immunity in section 395.0191(7) applies, the trial court nevertheless erred in its determination that Dr. Hakki failed to plead acts of intentional fraud on the part of the hospital. The trial court correctly observed that Dr. Hakki had the burden to plead extrinsic evidence of intentional fraud with particularity in order to avoid the immunity under section 395.0191(7). See Dhaduvai v. Belsito , 663 So.2d 1356 , 1357 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (citing Feldman v. Glucroft , 522 So.2d 798 (Fla. 1988) ); Desai , 54 So.3d at 1030 . The requirement to allege the existence of extrinsic evidence derives from section 395.0191(8)'s prohibition on discovery and admission into evidence of the "investigations, proceedings, and records of the board ......

...ho is a member of such board be prevented from testifying as to matters within his or her knowledge, but such witness cannot be asked about his or her testimony before such a board or opinions formed by him or her as a result of such board hearings. § 395.0191(8) ; cf....

...If that information is available from other than committee sources, then it may be used in a defamation action, which must be based on ... intentional fraud ...."). Thus, Dr. Hakki's allegations show that he could present evidence not protected by section 395.0191(8) demonstrating that the hospital engaged in intentional fraud by scheming to manipulate the reappointment and NPDB reporting processes through the use of false statements in order to destroy Dr....

production of documents privileged under section 395.0191 that do not relate to an adverse medical

...ted by the end of the year. In December, 1997, the PA obtained a temporary injunction allowing it to remain practicing at the hospital until the lawsuit was resolved. In contesting the motion, the hospital admitted that it did not comply with either section 395.0191(4), Florida Statutes (1997) 1 , or its bylaws in terminat *545 ing the PA’s staff privileges, but somehow maintained that it'did not need to do so....

...nstrated competency; the applicant's adherence to applicable professional ethics; the applicant's reputation; and the applicant's ability to work with others and by such other elements as determined by the governing board, consistent with this part. § 395.0191(4), Fla....

...ing. However, the denial of an application for an)' other reason requires a hearing at the applicant’s request. It was undisputed that JFK did not provide such a hearing. It was also undisputed that JFK did not make the determinations set forth in section 395.0191(4), Florida Statutes (1997), or section 59A-3.217(e) of the Florida Administrative Code before deciding not to reappoint the PA....

...The Hospital appealed the issuance of the temporary injunction, and we reversed, holding that absent specific allegations of intentional fraud, the Hospital was immune from an action' for monetary damages or injunctive relief related to the appointment or reappointment of staff under section 395.0191(4), Florida Statutes (2009)....

...After unsuccessful attempts to obtain reappointment at the Hospital or to find equivalent employment with another hospital, Dr. Valdes sued the Hospital and his former partners for damages. The claims against the Hospital were based on violation of section 395.0191, Florida Statutes (1995) and the Hospital's own bylaws which require prior written notice, a hearing before the medical staff executive committee, and an appeals process before termination of medical staff privileges by the board of directors—to all of which procedures Dr....

PER CURIAM. The petition for certiorari is granted with regard to those documents which contain information which falls within the privilege set forth in section 395.0191(8), Florida Statutes....

...The nonparties’ assertions In the instant Motion To Quash, nonparty-Kendall states that all categories of documents sought by Defendant are variously privileged and not discoverable because they: (1) are “peer review” records protected by Florida Statutes §§ 395.0191(8), 395.0193(7), and 766.101(5); (2) contain names of patients or other identifying information protected by Florida Statute § 395.3025; and (3) are “cre-dentialling files” protected by either or both of the statutory protections cited supra....

...plications for staff or courtesy privileges, ... internal memoran-da pertaining to Dr. Martinez, correspondence pertaining to Dr. Martinez and all other documents pertaining to Dr. Martinez.” Pan American bases its objections on Florida Statutes §§ 395.0191(8) and 766.101(5)....

...in Opp’n to Kendall’s Mot. to Quash at 3 n. 1.) The Court finds that any documents otherwise responsive to Defendant’s requests should be redacted to exclude such patients information. C. Protection sought for peer review records Florida Statutes § 395.0191(8) states in relevant part: The investigations, proceedings, and records of the [hospital] board, or agent thereof with whom there is a specific written contract for the purposes of this section, as described in this section shall not be...

...However, information, documents, or records otherwise available from original sources are not to be construed as immune from discovery or use in any such civil action merely because they were presented during proceedings of such board.... Fla.Stat.Ann. § 395.0191(8) (West Supp.1997) (emphasis added)....

...§ 766.101(5) (West Supp.1997). In Cruger v. Love, 599 So.2d 111 (Fla. 1992), the Florida Supreme Court resolved the question of which records were protected from discovery by the statutes cited herein. We hold that the privilege provided by sections 766.101(5) and [395.0191(8) ], Florida Statutes, protects any document considered by the committee or board as part of its decision-making process....

for staff membership or clinical privileges.” § 395.0191(5), Fla. Stat. (2020). As noted above, the credentialing

privileged pursuant to section 766.101(5) and section 395.0191, Florida Statutes (1997). The Liberatores’

...equate procedures-Plaintiffs have adequately stated a claim for breach of the Bylaws. ( See Doc. 1, ¶¶ 15-33.) So the Court rejects PMC's first two arguments. Third, PMC claims that the Bylaws Claim is barred by statutory immunity under Fla. Stat. § 395.0191 (7), which provides: There shall be no monetary liability on the part of, and no cause of action for injunctive relief or damages shall arise against, any licensed facility, its governing board or governing board members, medical staff, o...

...He also asks us to quash the protective order entered in favor of respondent West Florida-MHT, LLC d/b/a HCA Florida South Tampa Hospital (HCA), a non-party below. Halpern and HCA argued, and the trial court agreed, that all discovery sought by Castellano was privileged and confidential under sections 395.0191(8), 395.0193(8), and 766.101(5),1 Florida Statutes (2021), provisions which afford confidentiality in connection with applications for hospital staff membership and clinical privileges, hospital peer review and disciplinary proceedings, and...

...involve an "established adverse medical incident"). 2 These statutes also contain provisions providing immunity to participants in those processes for actions "arising out of or related to carrying out the provisions" of the various statutes. See § 395.0191(7); see also § 766.101(8)....

...2d 217, 220 (Fla. 1984) (stating that the legislature "deemed it wise to encourage a degree of self-regulation by the medical profession through peer review and evaluation"), abrogated on other grounds by Conage v. United States, 346 So. 3d 594, 598 (Fla. 2022). Section 395.0191, titled "Staff membership and clinical privileges," directs the manner in which a 7 licensed facility, such as a hospital, is to consider applications for staff membership or clinical privileges. Section 395.0191(8) prohibits the discovery of "investigations, proceedings, and records" of a hospital board "in any civil action against a provider of professional health services arising out of matters which are the subject of evaluation and revie...

...on applications for staff membership or clinical privileges in that area; and therefore, the privilege should extend to Castellano's discovery requests in this case. We cannot accept this expansive reading of the statute. The plain language of section 395.0191(8) expressly limits the privilege to "any civil action against a provider of professional health services arising out of matters which are the subject of evaluation and review by such board," and the matters subject to evaluation and review by the board in the context of section 395.0191 are applications for staff membership or clinical privileges....

...He also asks us to quash the protective order entered in favor of respondent West Florida-MHT, LLC d/b/a HCA Florida South Tampa Hospital (HCA), a non-party below. Halpern and HCA argued, and the trial court agreed, that all discovery sought by Castellano was privileged and confidential under sections 395.0191(8), 395.0193(8), and 766.101(5),1 Florida Statutes (2021), provisions which afford confidentiality in connection with applications for hospital staff membership and clinical privileges, hospital peer review and disciplinary proceedings, and...

...involve an "established adverse medical incident"). 2 These statutes also contain provisions providing immunity to participants in those processes for actions "arising out of or related to carrying out the provisions" of the various statutes. See § 395.0191(7); see also § 766.101(8)....

...2d 217, 220 (Fla. 1984) (stating that the legislature "deemed it wise to encourage a degree of self-regulation by the medical profession through peer review and evaluation"), abrogated on other grounds by Conage v. United States, 346 So. 3d 594, 598 (Fla. 2022). Section 395.0191, titled "Staff membership and clinical privileges," directs the manner in which a 7 licensed facility, such as a hospital, is to consider applications for staff membership or clinical privileges. Section 395.0191(8) prohibits the discovery of "investigations, proceedings, and records" of a hospital board "in any civil action against a provider of professional health services arising out of matters which are the subject of evaluation and revie...

...on applications for staff membership or clinical privileges in that area; and therefore, the privilege should extend to Castellano's discovery requests in this case. We cannot accept this expansive reading of the statute. The plain language of section 395.0191(8) expressly limits the privilege to "any civil action against a provider of professional health services arising out of matters which are the subject of evaluation and review by such board," and the matters subject to evaluation and review by the board in the context of section 395.0191 are applications for staff membership or clinical privileges....

...He also asks us to quash the protective order entered in favor of respondent West Florida-MHT, LLC d/b/a HCA Florida South Tampa Hospital (HCA), a non-party below. Halpern and HCA argued, and the trial court agreed, that all discovery sought by Castellano was privileged and confidential under sections 395.0191(8), 395.0193(8), and 766.101(5),1 Florida Statutes (2021), provisions which afford confidentiality in connection with applications for hospital staff membership and clinical privileges, hospital peer review and disciplinary proceedings, and...

...involve an "established adverse medical incident"). 2 These statutes also contain provisions providing immunity to participants in those processes for actions "arising out of or related to carrying out the provisions" of the various statutes. See § 395.0191(7); see also § 766.101(8)....

...2d 217, 220 (Fla. 1984) (stating that the legislature "deemed it wise to encourage a degree of self-regulation by the medical profession through peer review and evaluation"), abrogated on other grounds by Conage v. United States, 346 So. 3d 594, 598 (Fla. 2022). Section 395.0191, titled "Staff membership and clinical privileges," directs the manner in which a 7 licensed facility, such as a hospital, is to consider applications for staff membership or clinical privileges. Section 395.0191(8) prohibits the discovery of "investigations, proceedings, and records" of a hospital board "in any civil action against a provider of professional health services arising out of matters which are the subject of evaluation and revie...

...on applications for staff membership or clinical privileges in that area; and therefore, the privilege should extend to Castellano's discovery requests in this case. We cannot accept this expansive reading of the statute. The plain language of section 395.0191(8) expressly limits the privilege to "any civil action against a provider of professional health services arising out of matters which are the subject of evaluation and review by such board," and the matters subject to evaluation and review by the board in the context of section 395.0191 are applications for staff membership or clinical privileges....

the status of allied health professionals. Section 395.0191(1), F.S., provides: No licensed facility,

PETERSON, J. Palms of Pasadena Hospital, (“Palms”), petitions for a writ of certiorari to quash an order of the trial court requiring it to identify members of its Credentials Committee. Palms argues that section 766.101(5) and section 395.0191(8), Florida Statutes (2000), makes the information privileged and immune from discovery....

...them. She argued before the trial court that she intends to depose them not in their representative capacity, but individually and “then I’m going to ask some questions about the credentialing.” The provisions of section 766.101(5) 1 *595 and section 395.0191(8) 2 create the privilege asserted by Palms....

...such committee be prevented from testifying as to matters within his or her knowledge, but the said witness cannot be asked about his or her testimony before such a committee or opinions formed by him or her as a result of said committee hearings. . Section 395.0191(8), Florida Statutes (2000), provides: The investigations, proceedings, and records of the board, or agent thereof with whom there is a specific written contract for the purposes of this section, as described in this section shall no...

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See section 395.0191(7), Fla....