she holds the file automatically when there is a return to surgery so to answer your question i think that the peer review process perhaps didn't begin when he had his hands in the patient dr painter but sometimes s i'm going at the moment that the patient had to go back in do you agree that we don't need to reach this issue of a private right i think it will probably be a mercy and don't you question is what information is the true complaining about that should not have been transmitted to dr mcgill but it's primarily it's the information well it's both the information here by the surgery itself it's all of the information defeat the purpose of this is what you're posing that any statement made at any time should be privileged and there really there there wouldn't be this even beginning of whether for the hospital in all of those cases that information that is shared with are generated by members of the medical staff not on peer review that is open to plaintiffs in medical malpractise case if he had his design statement by one doctor means that there's a peer review committee in place that has instituted procedures or proceedings rather to look into the issue i believe the president will clear up  it yes then i think that debt that's understandable but does that equate with the peer review process when your own client said that he is sick he answered correct to the following question he was a member of the committee yes but how does that trance her into the peer review process if i could quote from his deposition at page ninety three one seventeen this is this is him this is not me asking the question this  committee to consider it but it was an automatic up the review because any time we ask you were certain asked to go in and correct whatever was going on in the court that that was an instigated by a committee acting as a committee and dr wood dr peter said was the reason he went to dr mcgill again is he didn't think it was ever going to be a situation that came of the surgery on committee where he said he thought this was going to be something that the that that's protected under the medical study said and justice wilson said that would just take the whole act out of what you can't make a preordained rule but just because an answer her answer if you're going to review it at some future time that every communication every statement that's me or we need is also protected and that's really what the argument here is that because there was going to be peer review at some future time every statement that's made is protected as they see from the point of view of of of you're doing in the hospitals ultimately subject to peer review but unfortunately from the point of view of a defendant if any of these cases the courts have not yet weighed roache well to dr peters comments preclude disputed that the process had come in as well is there a line here are we saying that unless and until there is a meeting of the committee there has any statements there as i don't know  my question is can it reasonably be argued that this is information discovered between dr current dr you know in the process of peer review or was there another purpose for the documents or information generated he or the peer review process he gets or information reported to a committee unless that information is generated review but the court said but wait a minute that still took place before the committee as a committee undertook the process of review and i think that is the conclusion you'll have to rejigger so i don't know who i don't think you're going to get to the that somebody outside of that committee would be a clear violation of confidentiality set forth yet whether or not the act is intended to protect dr two should whether there should be a private right of action is a separate matter altogether we didn't really get to that would like to address briefly i know my time is limited i think it's clear from all the reading of the statute as well as the cases that are cited some of which don't come from stiction one of which i believe was a federal case that i cited to my poetry it's clear that the act was intended to protect people like jack to ensure it's not just to protect the public it's not just to protect the people who are  doctors for malpractise actions that's why this information should remain confidential especially in light of the fact that you know like courts have narrowed the confidentiality of texas two to information that is generated by the committee or sit on these committees should know they cannot go outside of these committees share information that's yet or once he knows that this is an automatic case for peer review he gets a call from the palace say hey i saw something in the specimen that might be intended to protect against claims their army based on information that should otherwise