Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...or organizations are not subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any action against a health care provider arising out of the matters which are the subject of the committee or organization's inquiry. See §§ 395.0191(8), 395.0193(8), 766.101(5), Fla. Stat. (2005); cf. § 766.1016(2), Fla....

...vil or administrative action; and a witness who testifies before such committee or organization may not be prevented from testifying as to matters within his or her knowledge about the medical incident in question. See §§ 395.0191(8), 395.0193(8), 766.101(5), 766.1016(2), Fla....

...escalating cost of health care by encouraging self-regulation by the medical profession through peer review and evaluation. Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217, 219-20 (Fla.1984) (interpreting former section 768.40(4), Florida Statutes, the predecessor to section 766.101)....

...mation helpful or even essential to their cases, we assumed that the legislature balanced that against the benefits offered by effective self-policing by the medical community. Holly, 450 So.2d at 220. We hold that the privilege provided by sections 766.101(5) and 395.011(9), Florida Statutes, protects any document considered by the committee or board as part of its decision-making process....

...— (a) This section does not repeal or otherwise alter any existing restrictions on the discoverability or admissibility of records relating to adverse medical incidents otherwise provided by law, including, but not limited to, those contained in ss. 395.0191, 395.0193, 395.0197, 766.101, and 766.1016, or repeal or otherwise alter any immunity provided to, or prohibition against compelling testimony by, persons providing information or participating in any peer review panel, medical review committee, hospital committee, or other hospital board otherwise provided by law, including, but not limited to, ss. 395.0191, 395.0193, 766.101, and 766.1016....

...at the records of the review would not be used against them in medical malpractice or libel civil actions. Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217 (Fla. 1984). The sections protecting records and statements in peer review are sections 395.0191(8), 395.0193(8), 766.101(5), 766.1016(2), and 395.0197(6)(c), (7), (8), (13) of the Florida Statutes (2002)....

....0147, Fla. Stat. (2006) (providing that communications between a licensed psychologist and client are privileged); § 491.0147, Fla. Stat. (2006) (providing that communications between persons licensed under chapter 491 and clients are privileged); § 766.1016, Fla. Stat. (2004) (providing for a "patient safety data privilege"); § 766.101, Fla....

...[1] The hospitals were not parties to the malpractice action. Dr. Love objected, claiming that the documents were privileged. The trial court ordered that the documents be produced. The Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the documents were privileged from discovery by virtue of sections 766.101 and 395.011, Florida Statutes (1989), and the policy behind those statutes. Sections 766.101 and 395.011 pertain to peer review and credentialing by hospitals and other health care organizations. Section 766.101(2) requires that medical review committees screen, evaluate, and review the professional and medical competence of applicants to and members of hospital medical staffs....

...escalating cost of health care by encouraging self-regulation by the medical profession through peer review and evaluation. Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217, 219-20 (Fla. 1984) (interpreting former section 768.40(4), Florida Statutes, the predecessor to section 766.101). In order to make meaningful peer review possible, the legislature provided a guarantee of confidentiality for the peer review process. Holly, 450 So.2d at 220. Section 766.101(5), provides: The investigations, proceedings, and records of a [medical review] committee ......

...The court looked to the statutory language that provides "information, documents, and records otherwise available from original sources are not to be construed as immune from discovery or use ... merely because they were presented during proceedings of such committee." § 766.101(5), Fla....

...mation helpful or even essential to their cases, we assumed that the legislature balanced that against the benefits offered by effective self-policing by the medical community. Holly, 450 So.2d at 220. We hold that the privilege provided by sections 766.101(5) and 395.011(9), Florida Statutes, protects any document considered by the committee or board as part of its decision-making process....

...Love, a hospital could not assert that the document was privileged merely because the application was considered as part of the peer review or credentialing process. A second issue before us is whether the instant action is one "arising out of the matters which are the subject of evaluation and review by such committee... ." § 766.101(5), Fla....

...KOGAN, J., concurs specially with an opinion, in which SHAW, C.J., concurs. KOGAN, Justice, specially concurring. As Judge Allen noted in his partial dissent in Jacksonville Medical Center, 560 So.2d at 1316-17 (Allen, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part), the language of sections 395.011(9) and 766.101(5) simply does not support the construction employed by the majority in that same case. The statute extends a privilege to cover "documents," "information," and "records" except those that are "otherwise available from original sources." §§ 395.011(9) & 766.101(5), Fla....

...However, as both the trial and district courts below noted, psychologists licensed under chapters 490 and 491, Florida Statutes (1991), are not included in the chapter 766 definitions of "health care provider." See § 768.50(2), Florida Statutes (1985); [1] §§ 766.101(1)(b), [2] .105(1)(b), [3] Florida Statutes *837 (1991)....

...in paragraph (c); blood banks, plasma centers, industrial clinics, and renal dialysis facilities; or professional associations, partnerships, corporations, joint ventures, or other associations for professional activity by health care providers. [2] Section 766.101(1)(b) defines health care providers as physicians licensed under chapter 458, osteopaths licensed under chapter 459, podiatrists licensed under chapter 461, dentists licensed under chapter 466, chiropractors licensed under chapter 460...

election, it has the absolute discretion under section *766 101.253(2) to grant or deny a request for withdrawal

...of an autopsy and subsequent handling of the fetus clearly are actions which arise in conjunction with rendering medical diagnosis and services by a healthcare provider. Since Plaintiffs admit they have not complied with the presuit requirements of Section 766.101, Fla....

the First District below determined that section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes (2006), does not protect

...1st DCA 1990), and Sittig v. Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center, Inc., 567 So.2d 486 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), in which the First District Court of Appeal invalidated sections 395.011(10)(b) [1] , 395.0115(5)(b) [2] , *421 Florida Statutes (1987), and 766.101(6)(b) [3] , Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(1), of the Florida Constitution, and consolidate the two cases for purposes of this opinion. The issue before the Court is whether sections 395.011(10)(b), 395.0115(5)(b), and 766.101(6)(b), which require a plaintiff bringing an action against someone who participated in a medical review board process to post a bond sufficient to cover the defendant's costs and attorney's fees, before the action can be prosecuted, violate the plaintiff's right of access to the courts. [4] We hold that sections 395.011(10)(b), 395.0115(5)(b) and 766.101(6)(b) are unconstitutional because the bond requirement: 1) infringes on the plaintiff's fundamental right of access to the courts without providing an alternative remedy, commensurate benefit or a showing that no alternative method exists fo...

...aiming that Siegel's claim against them arose out of their executive committee responsibilities for quality assurance, peer review and regulation of physician staff privileges. Thus, Psychiatric Associates argued that sections 395.011, 395.0115, and 766.101 provided them statutory immunity. The trial court denied the summary judgment motion. Psychiatric Associates then filed a motion to require Siegel to post a bond for attorney's fees and costs as required by sections 395.011(10)(b) and 766.101(6)(b)....

...The district court did not address the issue of the trial court's dismissal, but rather reversed on the grounds that section 395.0115(5)(b) as applied in the case violated Sittig's right of access to the courts. *423 Sections 395.011(10)(b), 395.0115(5)(b), and 766.101(6)(b) share common language which requires a plaintiff to post "a bond or other security ......

...he trial court's stay order. However, in light of our decision holding that the bond requirement is unconstitutional, we find that dismissal of Sittig's action was inappropriate. Accordingly, we hold that sections 395.011(10)(b), 395.0115(5)(b), and 766.101(6)(b) violate the appellees' right of access to the courts and right to due process, and affirm the decisions below....

...w as authorized by this section and before any responsive pleading is due, the staff member shall post a bond or other security, as set by the court having jurisdiction of the action, in an amount sufficient to pay the costs and attorney's fees. [3] Section 766.101(6)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...for professional activity by health care providers," in section 768.50(2)(b) was intended to expand the definition of health care provider to include a nursing home. Nursing homes are not included in the definition of health care provider in either section 766.101(1)(b) or section 766.105(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1989). Nursing homes are licensed under chapter 400. Chapter 766 does not appear to contain any reference to chapter 400. Chapter 766 does, however, contemplate that the medical staff of a nursing home will establish a medical review committee. § 766.101(1)(a)1.c., Fla....

...At their depositions, the physicians refused to answer any questions regarding the discussion that took place at the meeting, asserting that the meeting constituted a hospital committee meeting and, thus, the proceedings were privileged from discovery under Section 766.101, Florida Statutes (1991)....

...meeting would cause the petitioner irreparable injury that could not be remedied on appeal. Regarding the asserted privilege, the respondents argue that the meeting is absolutely protected from discovery by the medical review committee privilege in Section 766.101, Florida Statutes (1991). Section 766.101(5) provides immunity from liability for medical review committees and states in pertinent part: The investigations, proceedings, and records of a committee as described in the preceding subsections shall not be subject to discovery or...

...ify in any such civil action as to any evidence or other matters produced or presented during the proceedings of such committee or as to any findings, recommendations, evaluations, opinions, or other actions of such committee or any members thereof. Section 766.101(1) defines a medical review committee, for purposes of the privilege, and states that a qualifying committee can be a committee of a hospital "formed to evaluate and improve the quality of health care rendered by providers of health services or to determine that health services rendered were professionally indicated or were performed in compliance with the applicable standard of care... ." § 766.101(1)(a)1, Fla. Stat. (1991). Turning to the record, it is apparent that the meeting was not the type of medical review committee meeting envisioned in Section 766.101....

...of first impression in the Eleventh Circuit. Florida, like many other states, has enacted a statute specifying pre-suit procedures for medical malpractice actions and placing limits on the amount plaintiffs may recover in damages. See Fla.Stat.Ann. § 766.101 et seq....

...Defendants further assert the entire Complaint fails to state a claim since suits against a hospital, its peer review panel, medical staff, employees and witnesses arising out of medical peer review are precluded by the peer review immunity provisions of Florida Statutes § 766.101 and Chapter 395 (1989) and the Federal Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C....

...y her son, when the pharmacy allegedly misfilled a prescription for him. Sova filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that Barnes failed to comply with the presuit investigation and notice requirements of the Medical Malpractice Reform Act, sections 766.101 through 766.212, Florida Statutes (1993)....

...on [1] leads to the conclusion that the Legislature intended to omit pharmacists and pharmacies from this part of the Medical Malpractice Reform Act. Other parts of Chapter 766 include pharmacists in the list of "health care providers," for example, section 766.101(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1993)....

...See Diversified Services, Inc. v. Avila, 606 So.2d 364 (Fla. 1992); Butterworth v. Caggiano, 605 So.2d 56 (Fla. 1992); Scope v. Fannelli, 639 So.2d 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Chandra v. Gadodia, 610 So.2d 15 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), cert. denied, 621 So.2d 432 (Fla. 1993). [2] See § 766.101(1)(b), Fla....

...The new language no longer provided a cause of action for allegations which fell below the standard of intentional fraud. We agree with the trial court's ruling in this regard. The last issue involves the appellees' request for attorney's fees pursuant to section 766.101(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1991). The appellees filed a motion for attorney's fees, "pursuant to Florida statutes and case law." The trial court denied the motion and held each party liable for their own attorney's fees. Section 766.101(6)(a) provides: In the event that the defendant prevails in an action brought by a health care provider against any person that initiated, participated in, was a witness in, or conducted any review as authorized by this section, the court shall award reasonable attorney's fees and costs to the defendant. § 766.101(6)(a), Fla....

...r case, be an appropriate vehicle for challenging nonfinal orders granting discovery. The issue raised by the instant petition concerns whether the documents and data sought by Robert Ives, Jr., as personal representative, are privileged pursuant to section 766.101, Florida Statutes....

...escalating cost of health care by encouraging self-regulation by the medical profession through peer review and evaluation. Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217, 219-220 (Fla.1984) (interpreting former section 768.40(4), Florida Statues, the predecessor to section 766.101). In order to make meaningful peer review possible, the legislature provided a guarantee of confidentiality for the peer review *163 process. Holly, 450 So.2d at 220. Section 766.101(5), provides: The investigation, proceedings, and records of a [medical review] committee......

...egarding Amendment 7 rendered in Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General Re Patients' Right To Know About Adverse Medical Incidents, 880 So.2d at 620-21, wherein the court stated, "Unquestionably, the amendment would affect sections 395.0193(8) and 766.101(5) of the Florida Statutes (2003), which currently exempt the records of investigations, proceedings, and records of the peer review panel from discovery in a civil or administrative action....

...[6] The privileges referred to are the numerous laws that prohibit discovery of various components of a hospital's self-evaluation process, which the Legislature believes are essential to meaningful self-regulation by health care providers in general. See, e.g., § 766.101(5), Fla. Stat. (2005) (medical review committee privilege); § 766.1016(2), Fla....

...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. Stat. (2005) (credentialing); § 395.0193(5), Fla. Stat. (2005) (peer review process); § 766.101(3), Fla....

...all of the defendant/appellees, and a count against defendant/appellee Florida Medical Association (FMA), a professional peer-review association, for violation of Florida's RICO Act. Because we decide that the lower court erroneously concluded that section 766.101, Florida Statutes (2003), and the federal Health Care Quality Improvement Act, 42 U.S.C....

...y; rather, they were enacted for the purpose of addressing the quality of health care provided by physicians in the treatment of their patients. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court ruled that the statutory immunity privilege provided in both section 766.101 and the HCQIA barred the plaintiff's claims in the absence of allegations of intentional fraud....

...etation that a peer-review committee is shielded from liability for an act taken by the committee on a claim that a physician's testimony in a medical-malpractice action fell below acceptable professional standards. The peer-review immunity statute, section 766.101(3)(a), provides in part: There shall be no monetary liability on the part of, and no cause of action for damages shall arise against, any member of a duly appointed medical review committee, or any health care provider furnishing any information ....

...2d DCA 1995). The plaintiff meets the statutory burden by filing a complaint "contain[ing] allegations of extrinsic evidence of either a lack of good faith or intentional fraud." Id. at 1357, n. 2. It is obvious that the lower court's interpretation of section 766.101(3)(a) in the case at bar was largely influenced by the above cases, which, however, did not involve a question of whether the statute's immunity provisions apply to expert-witness testimony in a medical-malpractice action....

...imony should be scrutinized by peer review, we conclude the statutes provide no immunity to the defendants. The parties do not dispute that the FMA EWC is a "committee of a state or local professional society of health care providers," as defined in section 766.101(1)(a)1.c, or that the term "health care providers" includes licensed physicians. See § 766.101(1)(b), Fla....

...determin[ing] that health services rendered were professionally indicated or were performed in compliance with the applicable standard of care or that the cost of health care rendered was considered reasonable by the providers of professional health services in the area." § 766.101(1)(a), Fla....

...gard or cannot otherwise be given effect. See McGhee v. Volusia County, 679 So. 2d 729, 731 (Fla. 1996). We find no clear legislative expression that the testimonial privilege long accorded to witnesses was intended to be modified by the language of section 766.101, which was expressly created for the purpose of evaluating and improving the quality of health care rendered by providers of health service....

...Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 990 (10th ed. 1998). A physician who renders a medical service is ordinarily considered to be providing medical care to his or her patient. This conclusion becomes even more evident when one considers the provisions of section 766.101 in connection with those of section 458.305(3), Florida Statutes (2003), which defines the practice of medicine as the "diagnosis, treatment, operation, or prescription for any human disease, pain, injury, deformity, or other physical...

...Fullerton to its discipline. Accordingly, we reverse the final judgments of dismissal. Our decision in this case is predicated solely on the determination that the trial court's primary reason for dismissal was the erroneous conclusion that the immunity provisions of section 766.101, Florida Statutes (2003), and the federal HCQIA bar appellant's claims against the FMA and the individual defendant physicians....

...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)....

...or staff membership or privileges at a hospital by a physician, including "investigations, proceedings and records of the board or agent ... with whom there is a specific written contract... shall not be subject to discovery...." [3] Likewise, under section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes (2007), investigations, procedures and records of a medical review committee of a hospital "shall not be subject to discovery...." The statutory exemptions from discovery of the contents of a hospital's credentialing files have been upheld recently in Morton Plant Hospital Ass'n v....

...g 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....

...s 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 meetings. [2] 766.101 Medical review committee, immunity from liability.— ....

...r 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....

...The trial court entered a final order granting the appellee's motion and granted a dismissal with prejudice as to the amended complaint. This appeal followed. Within Chapter 766 of the Florida Statutes, entitled "Medical Malpractice and Related Matters", (Fla. Stat. § 766.101, et seq....

...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....

...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....

...Appellee's subpoena required Appellant to produce certain of its "peer review" records for inspection by Appellee as part of its responsibilities of "risk management" review. Appellant is a hospital licensed under chapter 395, Florida Statutes (1997), and therefore, a "health care provider" as defined in section 766.101(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1997). Finding, as we will explain, that the documents sought by Appellee's subpoena and approved by the trial court's summary judgment are protected from discovery by sections 395.0193(7) and 766.101(5), Florida Statutes (1997), we reverse in part....

...ember of such group may not be prevented from testifying as to matters within his or her knowledge, but such witness may not be asked about his or her testimony before such a group or opinions formed by him or her as a result of such group hearings. Section 766.101(1)(a)1.a and b....

...1.a. A committee of a hospital or ambulatory surgical center licensed under chapter 395 or a health maintenance organization certificated under part I of chapter 641. b. A committee of a state or local professional society of health care providers. Section 766.101(2) provides: (2) A medical review committee of a hospital or ambulatory surgical center or health maintenance organization shall screen, evaluate, and review the professional and medical competence of applicants to, and members of, medical staff. As a condition of licensure, each health care provider shall cooperate with a review of professional competence performed by a medical review committee. Section 766.101(5) provides: (5) The investigations, proceedings, and records of a committee as described in the preceding subsections shall not be subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil or administrative action against a pro...

...t 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. In addition to and separate from the requirements for "peer review" of physicians required by section 395.0193 and section 766.101(2), each licensed facility is required by section 395.0197 to establish, as a part of its administrative functions, an internal "risk management program" that is "intended to reduce the frequency and severity of medical malpractice and patient injury claims." The "peer review" process of section 395.0193 and section 766.101 is directed toward physicians and the "peer review" focus is the "review of professional practices at the facility to reduce morbidity and mortality and to improve patient care." § 395.0193(2)(g), Fla....

...However, the agency or the appropriate regulatory board shall make available, upon written request by a health care professional against whom probable cause has been found, any such records which form the basis of the determination of probable cause, except that, with respect to medical review committee records, s. 766.101 controls....

...The peer review panel makes recommendations to the hospital governing board which then considers the recommendations and decides upon its action. We conclude that the records of the investigative portion of the peer review panel are privileged from disclosure by sections 395.0193(7) and 766.101(5)....

...Sinai, among other defendants. On the same date, as part of the discovery process, the Bernsteins served Mt. Sinai with interrogatories. Mt. Sinai filed answers thereto, objecting to interrogatories 12 and 13, claiming that the information sought was privileged under sections 766.101 and 395.0193, Florida Statutes (1993)....

...Miami Heart Institute v. Reis, 638 So.2d 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Manor Care of Dunedin, Inc. v. Keiser, 611 So.2d 1305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Suburban Propane v. Estate of Pitcher, 564 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). We grant the petition and quash the order under review. Section 766.101 provides: (1) As used in this section: (a) The term "medical review committee" or "committee" means: 1.a....

...Davis, 590 So.2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), the trial court ordered a hospital to reveal the names and addresses of peer review committee members present when the case was discussed. As the Second District held: Discovery of material pertaining to peer review is protected by section 766.101, Florida Statutes (1989)....

...The petitioner resisted the respondent's request for production and the respondent filed a motion to compel. The order under review was entered in response to the motion to compel. The petitioner asserts that the application of Dr. Perez for staff membership is privileged and not subject to production under the provisions of section 766.101, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988) (formerly section 768.40), and section 395.011, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988). Section 766.101 pertains to peer review by a hospital's medical review committee. Section 395.011 pertains to the granting of hospital staff membership privileges by a hospital's licensing board. These statutes contain similar provisions which are applicable here. Section 766.101(5) provides that the investigations, proceedings, and records of a medical review committee shall not be subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil action against a provider of professional health services arising...

...Doe seeks review of the Department's order denying his motion to quash the subpoena. The outcome of this case turns upon the interpretation of seemingly conflicting statutes, sections 458.331(9) and 458.337(3), Florida Statutes (2005), and sections 395.0193(8) and 766.101(5), Florida Statutes (2005)....

...ive intent behind each statute. Accordingly, we conclude that sections 458.331(9) and 458.337(3) permit the Department to subpoena this information for the purposes of its investigation of Dr. Doe, and that the provisions of sections 395.0193(8) and 766.101(5) do not prohibit the release of the information to the Department....

...The limited release of information to the Department is vital to Florida's physician disciplinary process, designed to assure acceptable levels of competence among physicians; it is not the type of public disclosure in a malpractice lawsuit or other civil or administrative claim that sections 395.0193(8) and 766.101(5) are intended to address....

...Doe became aware of the issuance of this subpoena and notified the hospital and the Department that he objected to the hospital releasing these records. He filed a motion to quash the subpoena with the Department, arguing primarily that the documents requested were privileged under sections 395.0193(8) and 766.101(5) and thus could not be released to the Department....

...epartment's investigation of the physician. In turn, those documents will remain "privileged" for all other purposes. There is no dispute that the information sought by the Department's subpoena is generally privileged under sections 395.0193(8) and 766.101(5). Section 395.0193(8), which is located in chapter 395 of the Florida Statutes regarding hospital licensing and regulation, and section 766.101(5), which is located in chapter 766 of the Florida Statutes regarding medical malpractice and related matters, both provide that the "investigations, proceedings, and records" of a peer review panel or medical review committee "shall...

...essary to protect the public health and safety — the statutes must be read in pari materia to conclude that the Department has access to peer review records under sections 458.331(9) and 458.337(3). As such, the language in sections 395.0193(8) and 766.101(5) that states that these records "shall not be subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil or administrative action against a provider of professional health services" must be read to apply to "any ....

...legislature should generally be required to amend the statute, if that is necessary to fulfill its actual intent. In this case, however, we harbor no doubt that our holding, though it implies wording that is not explicit in sections 395.0193(8) and 766.101(5), fulfills the legislative intent and facilitates the implementation of the legislature's policies as set forth in the statutes regarding peer review and physician discipline as a whole....

...t the risk management review provisions were not intended to abrogate or overcome the peer review privilege provisions. Nothing in Bayfront conflicts with our decision in this case. [8] A review of the legislative history of sections 395.0193(8) and 766.101(5) reveals that prior to 1990 the statutes referred only to "any civil action." The "or administrative" language was added in 1990....

...§ 11115(a) (emphasis supplied). Thus, under the HCQIA, Florida's statutes, which had provided greater protection and incentives by providing discovery protections for peer review proceedings, were expressly not preempted. See §§ 395.0191(8), 395.0193(8), and 766.101(5), Fla....

...Florida's statutes, and the HCQIA, continue to provide immunity from liability for statements or opinions in peer review proceedings. See 42 U.S.C. § 11111 (providing immunity from liability and damages to peer review bodies or those participating in peer review process); § 766.101, Fla....

...of medical review committees from discovery in defamation actions arising out of matters that are the subject of evaluation and review by a hospital's credentials committee. In Cruger v. Love, 599 So.2d 111 (Fla. 1992), the supreme court again gave section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes (1989), [3] a broad interpretation....

...ute, stating, "If the legislature intended the privilege to extend only to documents created by the board or committee, then surely that is what it would have said." 599 So.2d at 114. Petitioners argue that the confidentiality provision contained in section 766.101(5) is sufficiently similar to the confidentiality provision in section 458.3315 to require this court to similarly construe the latter provision....

...Whenever the consultant concludes that impairment affects a practitioner's practice and constitutes an immediate, serious danger to the public health, safety, or welfare, that conclusion shall be communicated to the secretary of the department. Unlike the language in section 458.3315, section 766.101(5) [4] at issue in Holly v....

...Accordingly, applying the rationale followed in Cruger, had the legislature intended to protect from discovery in civil actions all information concerning a physician disclosed in an impaired practitioner treatment program, "then surely that is what it would have said." 599 So.2d at 114. The language adopted in section 766.101(5), as well as in sections 395.011(9) and 395.0115(7), Florida Statutes (1991), shows that the legislature knew how to create such an absolute privilege if it so intended....

...departure from the essential requirements of law. The petition for certiorari is, therefore, DENIED. SMITH and WEBSTER, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] This program was instituted pursuant to § 458.3315, Fla. Stat. (1983). [2] This provision, now renumbered § 766.101(5), Fla....

...Cruger, 570 So.2d 362 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), juris. accepted, 579 So.2d 112 (Fla. 1991), that the items sought to be produced are privileged from discovery in view of the confidentiality of investigations, proceedings and records of medical review committees and boards. See § 766.101(5), Fla....

...overy order, which compels Dr. George Ellis, an employee of Columbia, to produce copies of documents which outline the hospital privileges currently held by two doctors at Columbia. Columbia contends the documents are privileged pursuant to sections 766.101(5) and 395.0191(8), Florida Statutes....

...It included: 2. A copy of any documents provided to Drs. Arnold Einhorn and Louis Kantounis outlining privileges currently held at defendant hospital. Columbia objected to the request on five grounds, one of which included the "peerreview" privilege provided in section 766.101(5), Florida Statues....

...e privileges they may have at Columbia. Gibbs further contends that the documents have lost their privileged status because they are intended to be made public and were made available to individuals who were not members of the peer review committee. Section 766.101(5) provides: The investigations, proceedings and records of a committee as described in the preceding subsections shall not be subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil or administrative action against a provider...

...Is that probation and the previous suspension of your license directly related to care that you provided to patients while you operated a medical office in Florida Center for Cosmetic Surgery in the year 1996? Lingle repeatedly objected to this line of questioning citing the language in § 766.101(5), Fla. Stat. (2000). Section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes (2000), states, in relevant part, The investigations, proceedings, and records of a committee as described in the preceding subsections shall not be subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil...

...We found *1076 that line of questioning to be error, not only because such was an improper attack on the physician's credibility, see Tormey v. Trout, 748 So.2d 303 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), but also because information about the peer review process is privileged under § 766.101(5). In addressing the question of the privilege set forth in § 766.101(5), we noted in Liberty Mutual, The peer review process is a system designed to keep health care costs low by encouraging self-regulation in the medical profession....

...Similarly, in the instant case, it was error for the trial court to require Lingle to testify about the suspension of his medical license and to require him to answer questions about the peer review process that led to that suspension. Such information was clearly privileged pursuant to section 766.101(5)....

...doctor can be required to disclose matters which were the subject of evaluation and review by a medical peer review committee regarding the doctor's staff privileges. Dr. Overcash maintains that such information is not subject to disclosure because section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes (1997), specifically protects such matters, making them immune from discovery: 766.101 Medical review committee, immunity from liability.— * * * * * * (5) The investigations, proceedings, and records of a committee as described in the preceding subsections shall not be subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any...

...ons, or other actions of such committee or any members thereof. Ms. Rountree acknowledges that the work of a peer review committee is privileged, but argues that the deposition questions at issue here fall within the following exception contained in section 766.101(5): 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 c...

...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 such committee's hearings. § 766.101(5), Fla. Stat. (1997)(emphasis added). She maintains that Dr. Overcash is an "original source" under the statute. We disagree. By enacting section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes (1997), our legislature recognized the importance of attaching confidentiality to the work of hospital staff peer review committees....

...Overcash to describe the detail of her cholecystectomy because his answers to such questions would constitute original information. However, the questions included in the trial court's discovery order do not seek original information as contemplated by the exception contained in section 766.101(5), because Dr....

...Overcash's knowledge of the reasons for his suspension could only have come from information obtained from the peer review committee. The fact that Dr. Overcash was under review by the committee does not remove or waive the limited protection against discovery provided in section 766.101(5)....

...Before JORGENSON, [*] COPE and GREEN, JJ. COPE, Judge. Century Medical Centers, Inc. petitions for a writ of certiorari, seeking review of an order compelling discovery. Century contends that the order infringes the peer review privilege created by subsection 766.101(5), Florida Statutes (1993)....

...As a further affirmative defense, this Defendant states that the Plaintiff, ANGEL B. MARIN, M.D., was terminated based upon actions of Defendant's quality assurance medical review committee (peer review), and no cause of action for damages may arise against the Defendant; pursuant to Florida Statute § 766.101, CENTURY MEDICAL CENTERS, INC., and members of its peer review committee are immune from liability or money damages for any acts or proceedings undertaken or performed within the scope of the function of the committee, and the Plaintiff's claims are barred and/or this Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff....

...of patient complaints about Dr. Marin are discoverable. The issue presented to us, whether a defendant health care provider who raises certain affirmative defenses may preclude any discovery [4] of the factual basis for such defenses pursuant to subsection 766.101(5), appears to be one of first impression....

...Some of these sources may happen to be peer review committee members, peer review witnesses, or non-peer review records ultimately submitted to the peer review committee. The fact of such membership, testimony, or submission should not be disclosed to the respondent. Subsection 766.101(5) states: The investigations, proceedings, and records of a committee as described in the preceding subsections shall not be subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil or administrative action against a provider...

...The legislative intent behind the creation of the privilege was to set up a physician review process free from threats of defamation or other civil actions against those involved in the review process. In Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217 (Fla.1984), the Florida Supreme Court, in reviewing section 768.40 (renumbered 766.101 in 1988), stated: In an effort to control the escalating cost of health care in the state, the legislature deemed it wise to encourage a degree of self-regulation by the medical profession through peer review and evaluation....

...2d DCA 1991); and proceedings and records from medical review committee meetings, Parkway Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Allinson, 453 So.2d 123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). The Supreme Court of Florida has interpreted the statute extremely broadly. In Cruger, the court stated: "We hold that the privilege provided by sections 766.101(5) and 395.011(9), Florida Statutes, protects any document considered by the committee or board as part of its decision-making process." 599 So.2d at 114 (emphasis added)....

...ses are protected by the statutory privilege. As I read the statute, Century would also be barred from introducing into evidence at any civil or administrative action any information obtained in or recommendations arising out of peer review process. § 766.101(5); Miami Heart Inst., 638 So.2d at 531-32 (prohibiting even defensive use of peer review materials)....

...*613 I must respectfully dissent, however, from the majority's decision to compel Century to produce a copy of all written complaints or grievances filed with Century against Dr. Marin. As the Fourth District has recently held (correctly, I think), these documents are privileged from discovery by virtue of section 766.101(5)....

...In Cruger, the court considered the discoverability of applications for staff privileges. Because of the need for complete candor in these applications, the court concluded that they necessarily were part of the peer review process for purposes of section 766.101(5)....

...their child shortly after its birth. The hospital objected to production of a list of prior incidents involving the defendant physicians at the hospital on the basis of Cruger v. Love, 599 So.2d 111 (Fla. 1992), in which our supreme court held that section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes (1989), precludes discovery of this information. Section 766.101(5) provides in part: The investigations, proceedings, and records of a [medical review] committee ......

...liable for a failure to exercise due care in fulfilling these duties. Plaintiffs rely on Tarpon Springs General Hospital v. Hudak, 556 So.2d 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), in which the court also quashed discovery of information which was privileged under section 766.101(5), but noted in a footnote that it was not addressing the applicability of section 766.110 because it was not pled or argued. We cannot agree with plaintiffs that including a claim under section 766.110(1) makes this information discoverable. If the legislature had intended for there to be an exception to section 766.101(5) for claims brought under section 766.110(1), it would have been a simple matter for the legislature to do so....

...ri review of a 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)....

...e was unqualified. 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....

...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....

...es. These documents were used to determine what surgeries Dr. Farkas could perform and whether his performance warranted continued privileges. We have consistently construed the peer review privilege broadly and declined to recognize an exception to section 766.101(5) even where the plaintiffs were suing for negligent credentialing and faced difficulty in proving their claim without access to peer review and hospital privilege documents. See Palm Beach Gardens Comty. Hosp., Inc. v. O'Brien, 651 *713 So.2d 783, 784 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). We have concluded that a broad interpretation of section 766.101(5) is necessary to encourage frank peer review evaluations....

...See Tenet Healthsystem Hosps., Inc. v. Taitel, 855 So.2d 1257, 1258 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (holding as a matter of first impression that blank hospital forms that were used in evaluating nurses as part of the hospital's quality assurance and peer review were privileged under section 766.101(5), Fla....

...a, correspondence and other documentation indicating that the doctor was given staff privileges at the hospital were protected by the statutory privileges. Based on our review of the documents at issue, we conclude that they fall within the scope of section 766.101(5)....

...As discussed below, we grant in part and deny in part. We find that the court erred in ordering the hospital to reveal the names and addresses of the peer review committee members present when the case was discussed. Discovery of material pertaining to peer review is protected by section 766.101, Florida Statutes (1989)....

...evaluating the competency of nurses in regard to sedation and analgesia. These forms were created by a hospital committee for the purpose of quality assurance and peer review. The hospital objected on the ground that these forms are privileged under section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes (2002)....

...Plaintiffs seek these forms in order to see what the hospital deemed important in testing the competency of nurses and to have experts review the hospital's testing procedures. Whether the blank forms constitute "the investigations, proceedings, and records" of a medical review committee under section 766.101(5), is a question of first impression....

...4th DCA 1989), adopted by the First District in Siegel. Nothing is to be gained by repeating it here. Therefore, the trial court order does not violate the essential requirements of law and the petition is denied. GUNTHER, STONE and GARRETT, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Renumbered as § 766.101(6)(b).

...lysis facilities; or professional associations, partnerships, corporations, joint ventures, or other associations for professional activity by health care providers. § 768.50(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1985). This definition conflicts, to some extent, with section 766.101(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1997), which has a different definition of "health care provider." [2] See also § 766....

...Health Care Organizations for a *185 period of three years prior to and including August 1987 and all responses made by MCH to the surveys. MCH objected to the request on the basis that it sought disclosure of documents privileged under subsections 766.101(5), 395.0191(8) and 395.0193(7), Florida Statutes (1993). Because we agree that the requested documents are privileged, we grant the petition for a writ of certiorari and quash the order to produce. [1] Section 766.101(5) states in relevant part: The investigations, proceedings, and records of a committee as described in the preceding subsections shall not be subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil or administrative action against a provider of professional health services arising out of the matters which are the subject of evaluation and review by such committee.... Section 766.101(1)(a)1 defines "committee" as a....

...necessary to the peer review process could not be obtained. Id. at 113-14 (citations omitted, alteration and omission in original) (quoting Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217, 220 (Fla.1984)). Cruger went on to hold that the privilege provided by sections 766.101(5) and 395.011(9) protects any document considered by the committee or board as a part of its decision making process....

...Thus, we believe that in order to give broad effect to the policy and intent of the statute, we must find that any evaluations that a hospital makes on its own or takes part in to improve the standard of care or patient safety and to reduce rates of death and disease is privileged under section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes....

...[2] The information may be obtained from other nonprivileged sources. [3] The Mishlers argue that Brown v. Sims, 538 So.2d 901 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) requires that we find the JCAH surveys to be discoverable. Sims is not on point, however, because the issue of privilege under section 766.101 was not involved....

...Gelbard to testify about the peer review process, not only because such was an improper attack on his credibility, see Tormey v. Trout, 748 So.2d 303 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), but also because information about the peer review process is privileged. See § 766.101(5) Fla. Stat. (2000). Section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes (2000), states, in relevant part, The investigations, proceedings, and records of a committee as described in the preceding subsections shall not be subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil...

...We hold that the failure by the hospital to provide medical records cannot be imputed to Doctor Alvarez. It is not disputed that the alleged medical malpractice occurred on August 12, 1996 and that Estanillo gave timely notice of intent to initiate litigation pursuant to section 766.101, et seq., Florida Statutes (1997), but she failed to provide the requisite medical expert opinion to corroborate reasonable grounds to support her claim for medical negligence....

...Brown's applications *1315 for appointment to the medical staff of JMC and renewal of staff privileges, along with supporting documentation. JMC objected, asserting that such materials are privileged pursuant to Section 395.011(9), Florida Statutes (1989), and Section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes (1989)....

...JMC subsequently denied the request for admissions for the reason that the copy submitted lacked supporting documentation which Dr. Brown had earlier presented with the original. The trial judge thereafter ordered JMC to produce the requested materials. Sections 395.011(9) and 766.101(5) each prohibit discovery of investigations, proceedings, and records of a licensing board or medical review committee, respectively, in a civil action against a health care provider in which the cause of action arose from matters that were the subject of evaluation and review by the board or committee....

...privileges; applications are not part of the peer review process but are voluntarily submitted prior to such proceedings), appeal denied, 125 Ill.2d 575, 130 Ill.Dec. 490, 537 N.E.2d 819 (1989). The statutory exception within sections 395.011(9) and 766.101(5) explicitly underscores the distinction between records created by the internal hospital entity, and those produced by outside entities and considered by the hospital group....

...The exception prevents parties from "hiding" behind the shield of the statutory immunity provision when they are asked to produce documents that were generated by, and otherwise available from, outside sources. See David J. Burton, D.M.D., P.A. v. Becker, 516 So.2d 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (section 766.101(5), formerly section 768.40(5), exception to discovery privilege applies to medical records relied upon by medical review committee but which are otherwise available from drug treatment facility)....

...In so holding, we recognize that there is apparent conflict between our decision and Tarpon Springs Gen. Hosp. v. Hudak, 556 So.2d 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), in which the Second District held that a physician's initial and renewal applications for staff privileges were immune from discovery under sections 766.101(5) and 395.011(9)....

...ALLEN, Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part, I agree that the petition for certiorari should be granted, but I would quash the trial court's discovery order. The rationale for the majority's decision seems to be that the "otherwise available from original sources" language in Sections 395.011(9) and 766.101(5), Florida Statutes, means that the only "documents" protected from discovery by these statutes are documents which have been created by the licensing board or medical review committee....

...We deny the petition for writ of certiorari to review the non-final order denying petitioners' motion to require respondent to post bond as security for attorney's fees. We approve the trial court's ruling that sections 395.011(10)(b) and 395.0115(5)(b), Florida Statutes (1987), and section 766.101(6)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. JOANOS, WIGGINTON and ZEHMER, JJ., Concur. NOTES [1] This clause is commonly referred to as the "guarantee of access to courts clause." [2] The statute at issue in Guerrero, section 768.40, is the predecessor to section 766.101; subsection (6)(b) of section 768.40 is identical to subsection (6)(b) of section 766.101.

...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....

...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. Stat. (2006). Section 766.101(5) contains essentially the same language, except that it applies to medical review committees 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....

...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....

...abrogates that statutory protection. In Tenet Healthsystem Hospitals, Inc. v. Taitel, 855 So.2d 1257, 1258 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), the Fourth District considered whether "a blank hospital form used for testing the competency of nurses" was protected by section 766.101(5)....

...aud." 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....

...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)....

...hat the list 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)....

...health care in the state, has enacted legislation to encourage self-regulation by the medical profession through peer review and evaluation. Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217, 219-20 (Fla. 1984) (interpreting former section 768.40(4), the predecessor to section 766.101)....

...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....

...upholding the validity of an agency subpoena. Id. at 1227-29. The court held that the trial court erred in ordering production of the minutes of the hospital's department of surgery because those documents were protected by sections 395.0193(7) and 766.101(5), Fla....

...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. (Emphasis added.) Similarly, section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes (2001), provides: The investigations, proceedings, and records of a committee as described in the preceding subsections shall not be subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil or administrativ...

...The peer review panel makes recommendations to the hospital governing board which then considers the recommendations and decides upon its action. We conclude that the records of the investigative portion of the peer review panel are privileged from disclosure by sections 395.0193(7) and 766.101(5)....

...2d DCA 1991), the court lamented the difficulty of interpreting chapter 766 because of the lack of comprehensive definitions. In Weinstock, our supreme court determined that psychologists were not included in any of the chapter 766 definitions of "health care provider." See § 766.102; § 768.50(2), Fla.Stat. (1985); [4] § 766.101(1)(b); [5] § 766.105(1)(b)....

...629 So.2d at 837. Here, defendant points out that blood banks are defined as a health care provider under subsection 768.502(b). While that is true, blood banks are listed nowhere else within the statutory definition of chapter 766; e.g., subsections 766.101(1)(b) and 766.105(1)(b)....

...eight of evidence that the alleged actions of the health care provider represented a breach of the prevailing professional standard of care for that health care provider. § 766.102(1), Fla.Stat. (1995) (emphasis supplied) (footnote omitted). [5] Subsection 766.101(1)(b) defines health care providers as: physicians licensed under chapter 458, osteopaths licensed under chapter 459, podiatrists licensed under chapter 461, dentists licensed under chapter 466, chiropractors licensed under chapter 460, pharmacists licensed under chapter 465, or hospitals or ambulatory surgical centers licensed under chapter 395. § 766.101(1)(b), Fla.Stat....

...Hillsborough County Hospital Authority seeks certiorari review of a trial court order which authorizes the use of a medical review committee record in discovery proceedings as well as at trial. Petitioner is a public hospital defending itself against a claim of medical malpractice. A medical review committee, as defined by section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes (1995), created the record in question and sent copies of it to certain physicians....

...ting physicians as a matter of courtesy. The Plaintiff thereafter received these documents from the Plaintiff's treating physician. Therefore, the Hospital has waived any claim of privilege as to these documents because of its voluntary disclosure." Section 766.101(5) contains the following explicit language protecting the proceedings and records of medical review committees from discovery or introduction into evidence in civil actions against a provider of health services: The investigations, p...

...ify in any such civil action as to any evidence or other matters produced or presented during the proceedings of such committee or as to any findings, recommendations, evaluations, opinions, or other actions of such committee or any members thereof. § 766.101(5), Fla....

...BARKETT, C.J., and SHAW, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur. OVERTON, Justice, dissenting: I dissent for the reasons expressed in Psychiatric Associates v. Siegel, 610 So.2d 419 (Fla. 1992). McDONALD, J., dissents. NOTES [1] Section 768.40(6)(b), Florida Statutes (1987) was renumbered as section 766.101(6)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...Hospital to produce all records of adverse medical incidents pursuant to petitioners’ Requests for Production 9,10 and 11. I. This litigation commenced with the Acevedos’ claims for medical malpractice and negligent hiring/retention pursuant to section 766.101, Florida Statutes (2007). The counts pertinent to this petition allege that defendant Dr. Solomon performed unnecessary or excessive surgery; that he did so negligently; and that respondent Doctors Hospital was negligent pursuant to section 766.101, with respect to its hiring and retention of Dr....

...). . Prior to Amendment 7, Florida law restricted discovery of investigations, proceedings, and records of a health care provider’s review of its staff members and physicians in a civil or administrative proceeding. See §§ 395.0191(8), .0193(8); § 766.101(5), Fla....

...For example, the legislature has exempted the records of medical review committees from public inspection. § 119.07(3)(z), Fla. Stat. (1989). It has also provided that such records are not subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in a civil action against a health care provider. § 766.101(5), Fla....

...at was initiated after the hospital had notified the department that it had recently suspended the physicians' staff privileges. The hospital claimed that the records were privileged by virtue of section 768.40(4), Florida Statutes (1983) (presently section 766.101(5))....

...all of the defendant/appellees, and a count against defendant/appellee Florida Medical Association (FMA), a professional peer-review association, for violation of Florida's RICO Act. Because we decide that the lower court erroneously concluded that section 766.101, Florida Statutes (2003), and the federal Health Care Quality Improvement Act, 42 U.S.C....

...y; rather, they were enacted for the purpose of addressing the quality of health care provided by physicians in the treatment of their patients. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court ruled that the statutory immunity privilege provided in both section 766.101 and the HCQIA barred the plaintiff's claims in the absence of allegations of intentional fraud....

...etation that a peer-review committee is shielded from liability for an act taken by the committee on a claim that a physician's testimony in a medical-malpractice action fell below acceptable professional standards. The peer-review immunity statute, section 766.101(3)(a), provides in part: There shall be no monetary liability on the part of, and no cause of action for damages shall arise against, any member of a duly appointed medical review committee, or any health care provider furnishing any information ....

...2d DCA 1995). The plaintiff meets the statutory burden by filing a complaint "contain[ing] allegations of extrinsic evidence of either a lack of good faith or intentional fraud." Id. at 1357, n. 2. It is obvious that the lower court's interpretation of section 766.101(3)(a) in the case at bar was largely influenced by the above cases, which, however, did not involve a question of whether the statute's immunity provisions apply to expert-witness testimony in a medical-malpractice action....

...imony should be scrutinized by peer review, we conclude the statutes provide no immunity to the defendants. The parties do not dispute that the FMA EWC is a "committee of a state or local professional society of health care providers," as defined in section 766.101(1)(a)1.c, or that the term "health care providers" includes licensed physicians. See § 766.101(1)(b), Fla....

...determin[ing] that health services rendered were professionally indicated or were performed in compliance with the applicable standard of care or that the cost of health care rendered was considered reasonable by the providers of professional health services in the area." § 766.101(1)(a), Fla....

...regard or cannot otherwise be given effect. See McGhee v. Volusia County, 679 So.2d 729, 731 (Fla.1996). We find no clear legislative expression that the testimonial privilege long accorded to witnesses was intended to be modified by the language of section 766.101, which was expressly created for the purpose of evaluating and improving the quality of health care rendered by providers of health service....

...Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 990 (10th ed.1998). A physician who renders a medical service is ordinarily considered to be providing medical care to his or her patient. This conclusion becomes even more evident when one considers the provisions of section 766.101 in connection with those of section 458.305(3), Florida Statutes (2003), which defines the practice of medicine as the "diagnosis, treatment, operation, or prescription for any human disease, pain, injury, deformity, or other physical...

...Rule 1.280(b)(1) precludes discovery regarding any matter that is privileged. Florida law recognizes privileges created by the Florida Evidence Code, statutes, and the Florida and United States Constitutions. See § 90.501, Fla. Stat. (2005); cf. § 316.066(4), Fla. Stat. (2005) (creating a privilege for crash reports); § 766.101(5), Fla....

...Ornda Healthcorp, d/b/a Parkway Regional Medical Center, appeals from an Order mandating that it release credentialing material, to-wit: the doctor's application for staff privileges and an application for malpractice insurance, to plaintiffs. We grant certiorari. Section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes, provides: "[t]he investigations, proceedings, and records of [the medical review] committee......

...shall not be subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil or administrative action against a provider of professional health services arising out of the matters which are the subject of evaluation and review by such committee." (emphasis added). Fla. Stat. § 766.101(5) (1997). In Cruger v. Love, 599 So.2d 111 (Fla.1992), the Supreme Court of Florida held that applications for staff privileges are part of the records of the Medical Review Committee and thus, protected under section 766.101(5)....

...nda the medical center appealed from an order mandating that it release credentialing material, to-wit: the doctor's application for staff privileges and an application for malpractice insurance, to plaintiffs. We granted certiorari concluding: *506 Section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes, provides: "[t]he investigations, proceedings, and records of [the medical review] committee......

...shall not be subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil or administrative action against a provider of professional health services arising out of the matters which are the subject of evaluation and review by such committee." (emphasis added). § Fla. Stat. 766.101(5) (1997). In Cruger v. Love, 599 So.2d 111 (Fla.1992), the Supreme Court of Florida held that applications for staff privileges are part of the records of the Medical Review Committee and thus, protected under section 766.101(5)....

...court for further proceedings consistent herewith. (Emphasis added). Ornda Healthcorp v. Berghof, 722 So.2d at 961. Likewise, the material ordered produced in the instant case is protected by the statutory privilege provided in sections 395.0191 and 766.101 Florida Statutes (1997)....

...LEGAL ANALYSIS A. The Statutory Medical Peer Review Privilege The various motions to compel at issue in this case present the question of whether the statutory medical peer review privilege established by Florida Statutes §§ 395.0191(8), 395.0193(7), and 766.101(5), prevent an insurance company sued by a doctor for breach of disability income insurance policies from obtaining portions of the doctor's applications and reapplications for staff privileges at various non-party hospitals....

...ments from discovery under the specific facts of this case. Florida Statutes §§ 395.0191(8) (applicable to hospital boards), 395.0193(7) (applicable to a hospital's "peer review panel, a committee, a disciplinary board, or a governing board"), and 766.101(5) (applicable to a medical review committee) protect from discovery the "investigations, proceedings, and records" of the relevant board or committee under certain circumstances....

...at are "against a provider of professional health services arising out of the matters which are the subject of evaluation and review" by such board, committee or group. Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 395.0191(8) (West Supp.1997), 395.0193(7) (West Supp.1997), 766.101(5) (West Supp....

...Hospital, and Hialeah Hospital. Baptist Hospital filed a motion for protective order that raises the same issues as Northwestern's motions to compel. [2] The Hlis court was interpreting § 768.40(4), Florida Statutes, the predecessor to the current § 766.101. See, e.g., Cruger v. Love, 599 So.2d 111, 113 (Fla. 1992). [3] The courts in Holly and Segal, like the court in Hlis, were examining § 768.40(4), the predecessor to § 766.101.

section 395.091(8), Florida Statutes and section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes. See e.g. Columbia/JFK

...elling production of a report concerning the death of inmate Rudolph Golson, Jr., son of respondent, Ebony Gol-son. DOC contends that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law, because the report was protected from discovery by section 766.101, Florida Statutes (2000)....

...sthma attack, and filed a motion to compel DOC to produce an “outside physician review report” that had been prepared pursuant to DOC’s Mortality Review Program. The trial court rejected DOC’s assertion that the document was privileged under section 766.101(5), infra, concluding that the statute protects only peer-review proceedings, and the report regarding Golson’s death was not submitted for peer-review purposes....

...On the contrary, the evidence in petitioners’ appendix and the applicable statutory authority bar respondent from discovery of this document. Section 945.6032(1), Florida Statutes (2000), requires DOC to establish a “medical review committee” under section 766.101 for the purpose of providing supervision over DOC’s inmate health-care quality-management - program. Section 766.101(5) provides that the records of *754 medical review committees created in conformity with subsection (l)(a) shall be protected from discovery....

...h services rendered were professionally indicated or were performed in compliance with the applicable standard of care or that the cost of health care rendered was considered reasonable by the providers of professional health services in the area[.] Section 766.101(5) provides, in pertinent part: The investigations, proceedings, and records of a committee as described in the preceding subsections shall not be subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil or administrative actio...

...The Bulletin details the hierarchy of administrative responsibilities within the program. It begins by stating the following purpose of the program, which demonstrates that the documents generated pursuant to the program meet the criteria for confidentiality articulated in the final paragraph in subsection 766.101(l)(a) quoted above: I....

...ify possible deficiencies in the provision of health services to inmate decedents that need to be addressed. Based on our examination of the above authority, we conclude that the outside physician review report is privileged against disclosure under section 766.101(5)....

...nd total inmate population between the years 1994 and 2000. The memorandum does not specifically mention the decedent, nor does it disclose anything about the circumstances of his death. Disclosure of this document cannot be construed as a waiver of section 766.101 protection for the outside physician review report which pertains explicitly to Golson’s death....

...red practitioner.... [H]ad the legislature intended to protect from discovery in civil actions all information concerning a physician disclosed in an impaired practitioner program, then surely that is what it would have said. The language adopted in section 766.101(5), as well as in sections 395.011(9) and 395.0115(7), Florida Statutes (1991), shows that the legislature knew how to create such an absolute privilege if it so intended....

...to correct the problem. *1236 On October 4, 1999, appellees moved to dismiss appellant’s First Amended Complaint. Appellees asserted that the HMO was a health care provider that appellant failed to serve the HMO with presuit notice as required by section 766.101, Florida Statutes and failed to file suit within the two-year statute of limitations under section 95.11(4), Florida Statutes (1999), applicable to medical malpractice actions....

...The Memorandum incorporated by reference the physicians' application to Humana. In a request for production directed to Petitioner, Respondent requested the application referenced in the Memorandum. Petitioner objected on grounds that the application was protected by the peer review and credentialing privileges under section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes....

...rivilege applications, applications to provide services as an HMO were not privileged. Furthermore, the trial court concluded discovery should be granted because the documents would be obtained one way or the other. We disagree with the trial court. Section 766.101(2), Florida Statutes (2000) requires *715 HMO's to form a medical review committee to screen, evaluate, and review the professional and medical competence of applicants to, and members of, its medical staff....

...nvestigations, proceedings, and records of a committee, panel or governing board performing medical review functions from discovery and making them inadmissible as evidence in any civil or administrative action against a provider of health services. § 766.101(5), Florida Statutes, provides: (5) The investigations, proceedings, and records of a committee as described in the preceding subsections shall not be subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil or administrative action...

...n any such civil action merely because they were presented during proceedings of such committee.... (Emphasis added.) Both "committee" and "medical review committee," as these terms are used in the statute, include a health maintenance organization. § 766.101(1)(a)1.a....

...ervices. A physician's application is necessarily part of the "records" of a medical review committee and is privileged. See Cruger v. Love, 599 So.2d 111 (Fla.1992). In Cruger, the Supreme Court of Florida held: [T]he privilege provided by sections 766.101(5) and 395.011(9), Florida Statutes, protects any document considered by the committee or board as part of its decision-making process....

...3rd DCA 1999), the third district granted certiorari and quashed a lower court order directing a hospital to turn over the doctor's application for medical privileges. The Third District said, Likewise, the material ordered produced in the instant case is protected by the statutory privilege provided in ... 766.101 Florida Statutes (1997)....

PER CURIAM. Assuming that the point is not foreclosed by the law of the case doctrine, we conclude that a health maintenance organization which conducts peer review of physicians under section 766.101, Florida Statutes (1989), is a “person” entitled to attorney’s fees and costs as a prevailing defendant under paragraph 766.101(6)(a)....

...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....

...f 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)....

...Fla.Stat.Ann. § 395.0191(8) (West Supp.1997) (emphasis added). Section 395.0193(7) applies the same rule to a hospital’s “peer review panel, a committee, a disciplinary board, or a governing board.” Fla.Stat.Ann. § 395.0193(7) (West Supp.1997). Section 766.101(5) applies the rule to a “[medical review] committee.” Fla.Stat.Ann. § 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....

peer review process. 1Older cases refer to section 766.101(5), which was the predecessor to Chapter 395

documents requested were privileged pursuant to section 766.101(5) and section 395.0191, Florida Statutes (1997)

...as other injuries cognizable in certiorari); Beverly Enterprises- Florida, Inc. v. Ives, 832 So. 2d 161, 162 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (considering a claim based in a privilege against discovery of information involving “self-critical analysis or quality assurance information” under section 766.101, Florida Statutes); Gomillion v....

...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 hospital medical review commit...

...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)....

...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 review by such board." Similarly, sections 395.0193(8) and 766.101(5) contain the same prohibition for the "investigations, proceedings, and records" of a hospital's peer review panel or medical review committee. Section 395.0193 pertains to the "process of investigating and disciplining physicians pursuant to the state-mandated peer review process." § 395.0193(1). Section 766.101 provides for the establishment of a committee to evaluate and improve the quality of health care rendered by providers of health service, to determine that health services rendered were professionally indicated or were performed in compliance with the applicable standard of care, or that the cost of health care rendered was considered reasonable by the providers of professional health services in the area. § 766.101(1)(a)1, l. It is undisputed that Castellano's lawsuit for defamation and intentional interference with a business relationship does not arise from the hospital's peer review or medical review processes, nor does it arise from the hos...

...nd 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 same analysis applies to sections 395.0193 (peer review) and 766.101 (medical review)....

...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 hospital medical review commit...

...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)....

...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 review by such board." Similarly, sections 395.0193(8) and 766.101(5) contain the same prohibition for the "investigations, proceedings, and records" of a hospital's peer review panel or medical review committee. Section 395.0193 pertains to the "process of investigating and disciplining physicians pursuant to the state-mandated peer review process." § 395.0193(1). Section 766.101 provides for the establishment of a committee to evaluate and improve the quality of health care rendered by providers of health service, to determine that health services rendered were professionally indicated or were performed in compliance with the applicable standard of care, or that the cost of health care rendered was considered reasonable by the providers of professional health services in the area. § 766.101(1)(a)1, l. It is undisputed that Castellano's lawsuit for defamation and intentional interference with a business relationship does not arise from the hospital's peer review or medical review processes, nor does it arise from the hos...

...nd 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 same analysis applies to sections 395.0193 (peer review) and 766.101 (medical review)....

...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 hospital medical review commit...

...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)....

...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 review by such board." Similarly, sections 395.0193(8) and 766.101(5) contain the same prohibition for the "investigations, proceedings, and records" of a hospital's peer review panel or medical review committee. Section 395.0193 pertains to the "process of investigating and disciplining physicians pursuant to the state-mandated peer review process." § 395.0193(1). Section 766.101 provides for the establishment of a committee to evaluate and improve the quality of health care rendered by providers of health service, to determine that health services rendered were professionally indicated or were performed in compliance with the applicable standard of care, or that the cost of health care rendered was considered reasonable by the providers of professional health services in the area. § 766.101(1)(a)1, l. It is undisputed that Castellano's lawsuit for defamation and intentional interference with a business relationship does not arise from the hospital's peer review or medical review processes, nor does it arise from the hos...

...nd 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 same analysis applies to sections 395.0193 (peer review) and 766.101 (medical review)....

...redacting the investigation report’s references to other persons. 2  One week later, the records custodian e-mailed the father that the managing entity would not provide the investigation report pursuant to section 766.101, Florida Statutes (2022). Section 766.101 pertinently provides: (5) The investigations, proceedings, and records of a [medical review] committee shall not be subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil or administrative action agai...

...disciplinary proceeding as to any evidence or other matters produced or presented during the proceedings of such committee or as to any findings, recommendations, evaluations, opinions, or other actions of such committee or any members thereof. … § 766.101(5), (7)(c), Fla. Stat. (2022). The father disagreed that section 766.101 exempted the managing entity from providing the investigation report, and therefore filed his 3 mandamus petition directed to the managing entity, the CEO, and the records custodian....

...dents’ counsel if he wished to be heard. The respondents’ counsel then provided his unpled and unsworn factual explanation and legal argument of why the managing entity had not provided the investigation report to the father: [Section] 766.101[(1)(a)1.g.[, Florida Statutes (2022),] … says [a “medical review committee” includes] [“]a committee of the Department of Children and Families which [includes] employees, agents, or consultants to the department … deemed necessary to provide peer review, utilization review and mortality review of treatment services provided.[”] That’s what [the managing entity] is. … But the legislature has decided [in sections 766.101(5) and (7)] that we cannot release [the investigation report]. … If you were to find that [the investigation report is] not confidential, for some reason, or [the managing entity is] not a proper medic...

...entity had not provided the investigation report to the father, the final order included a section entitled “Findings of Fact,” pertinently stating: Pursuant to its statutory duties … [the managing entity] convened a medical review committee, as defined in Section 766.101(1)(a)1.g., Florida Statutes [(2022)], to conduct a comprehensive file review “to provide peer review, utilization review, and mortality review of treatment services provided …” … The medical review committee then issued [an investigation report]....

...th center]. (emphases added; paragraph numbers omitted). The circuit court’s non-evidentiary “Findings of Fact” were then followed by the circuit court’s “Conclusions of Law,” pertinently stating: In accordance with Section 766.101(7)(c), Florida Statutes [(2022)], “Proceedings of medical review committees are exempt from the provisions of s. 286.011 [Sunshine Law] … and any advisory reports provided to the department by such committees are confidential and exempt from the provisions of s. 119.07(1) [Florida Public Records Act] ….” See Section 766.101(7)(c), Fla....

...The father pertinently argued, among other grounds, that the circuit had improperly denied the father’s mandamus petition on the merits, without evidence supporting the respondents’ claim that the managing entity had acted as a medical review committee under section 766.101 when creating the investigation report....

...In that adopted final order, the circuit court’s “Findings of Fact” were based on only the respondents’ counsel’s unpled and unsworn factual explanation from the non-evidentiary initial hearing that the managing entity had acted as a medical review committee under section 766.101 when the managing entity had created the investigation report....

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....

...Rutigliano sought the names of members of the Credentials Committee so that she could depose 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....

...4th DCA), review dismissed, 576 So.2d 284 (Fla.1990). We grant the petition, issue the writ and quash the order requiring disclosure of the members of the Credentials Committee. PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. SHARP, W., and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . Section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes (2000), provides: The investigations, proceedings, and records of a committee as described in the preceding subsections shall not be subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil or administrativ...

...of medical review committees from discovery in defamation actions arising out of matters that are the subject of evaluation and review by a hospital’s credentials committee. In Cruger v. Love, 599 So.2d 111 (Fla.1992), the supreme court again gave section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes (1989), 3 a broad interpretation....

...Whenever the consultant concludes that impairment affects a practitioner’s practice and constitutes an immediate, serious danger to the public health, safety, or welfare, that conclusion shall be communicated to the secretary of the department. Unlike the language in section 458.3315, section 766.101(5) 4 at issue in Holly v....

...Accordingly, applying the rationale followed in Cruger , had the legislature intended to protect from discovery in civil actions all information concerning a physician disclosed in an impaired practitioner treatment program, “then surely that is what it would have said.” 599 So.2d at 114 . The language adopted in section 766.101(5), as well as in sections 395.011(9) and 395.0115(7), Florida Statutes (1991), shows that the legislature knew how to create such an absolute privilege if it so intended....

...nstitute a departure from the essential requirements of law. The petition for certiorari is, therefore, DENIED. SMITH and WEBSTER, JJ., concur. . This program was instituted pursuant to § 458.3315, Fla.Stat. (1983). . This provision, now renumbered § 766.101(5), Fla.Stat....

pre-suit notice requirements set forth in section 766.101, Florida Statutes. We reverse and remand for

...a the medical center appealed from an order mandating that it release credentialing material, to-wit: the doctor’s application for staff privileges and an application for malpractice insurance, to plaintiffs. We granted certiorari concluding: *506 Section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes, provides: “[t]he investigations, proceedings, and records of [the medical review] committee ......

...shall not be subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil or administrative action against a provider of professional health services arising out of the matters which are the subject of evaluation and review by such committee.” (emphasis added). § Fla. Stat. 766.101(5) (1997). In Cruger v. Love, 599 So.2d 111 (Fla.1992), the Supreme Court of Florida held that applications for staff privileges are part of the records of the Medical Review Committee and thus, protected under section 766.101(5)....

...court for further proceedings consistent herewith. (Emphasis added). Ornda Healthcorp v. Berghof 722 So.2d at 961 . Likewise, the material ordered produced in the instant case is protected by the statutory privilege provided in sections 395.0191 and 766.101 Florida Statutes (1997)....

...Krames as one of their seven experts to testify regarding the standard of care. However, Dr. Krames participated in the peer review evaluation of the alleged malpractice incident, so petitioners moved to strike him from the witness listing, arguing that under section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes, that peer review evaluation is absolutely privileged....

...hart and operative notes and stated that his objectivity and professional opinion were in no way influenced by his participation in the peer review evaluation. The trial court denied petitioners’ motion to strike based on the doctor’s affidavit. Section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes (1997), provides that the investigation, proceedings and records of a medical review committee are not subject to discovery in any action against a health care provider arising out of the matters being reviewed an...

discuss quality assurance and peer review. Section 766.101(2), F.S., requires a "medical review committee"

...able es-toppel. Upon Humana’s motion the trial court dismissed all counts except that for breach of internal standards and granted Humana’s motion in limine to hold the record of its Provider Grievance Committee immune from discovery pursuant to section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes (Supp.1988). 1 *1250 Humana moved for summary judgment on the remaining count; the trial court granted the motion and entered judgment for Humana. On appeal, Dr. Pardell argues that the trial court erred in granting the motion in limine by applying section 766.101(5) to an HMO. This position is without merit. Section 766.101(l)(a)(l)(a) expressly includes an HMO’s medical review committee within the definition of a peer review committee. Moreover, the privilege created by section 766.101(5) extends not only to the individual members of a peer review committee, as Dr....

...3 Therefore, we find no error in the trial court’s entry of final summary judgment. We further hold that the trial court correctly dismissed Dr. Pardell’s claims for breach of contract, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, and equitable estoppel. Affirmed. . Section 766.101(5) provides in pertinent part: The investigations, proceedings, and records of a committee as described in the preceding subsections shall not be subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil action against a provide...

response to Wait, the Legislature amended Section 766.101, Florida Statutes. The amended statute expressly