### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ja nuary 11, 200 8
FRANCIS ROY, M.D. v. THE CITY O F HARRIMAN, ET AL


### .

Appeal from t he Circuit Court for R oane County No. 13545 Russell Simmons, Jr., Jud ge

No. E2007-00785-COA- R3-CV - FILED JUNE 30, 2008

D. M I CHAEL S W I NEY , J., separ ate c oncurring Opinion.

I f ull y c on c ur

wi th o ur Op ini on in this c a se . I do so be c a us e I b e lieve th e res ult is mandated by the languageof the Tenne ssee Peer Review Law, Tenn. Code Ann § 63-6-219 ( 2004). Howeve r, I write separ ately to expr ess my opinion that the statute as ena cted by the G ener al As se mbl y a nd int e rp re te d by the c ou rt s of thi s state , inc lud ing thi s Co urt, c on ta ins a n ir re c on c ila ble

c on fl ic t.

I conc ur with our holdi ng as st ated in this Opinion that “the Peer Review La w cr eate s a privil ege that bars the discovery or us e of ‘[ a ]l l inf orma tio n, int e rv ie ws , inc ide nt or oth e r r e po rt s, statements, memora nda or othe r data furnished to a ny committee as de fined in [the sta tute], and a ny fi nd ing s, con clu si on s o r reco mm end ati on s re su lt in g fr om th e pro ceedi ng s o f suc h c ommitt e e ,’ un le ss the information in question falls under an exc eption to t h e p ri v i l ege. T enn. Code Ann. § 63- 6- 21 9( e ). ” W he re I b e lie ve the ir re c on c ila ble c on fl ic t ar is es is in the app lic a tio n o f this ho ldi ng to Te nn . Co de An n. § 6 3- 6- 21 9( d) (2 ) w hic h r e a ds a s f oll ow s in re le va nt p art :
[A]ny pe rson providing information, whe ther a s a witness or other wise, to a medic al revie w committee re garding the c ompetence or prof essional conduc t of a physician i s i mmune from liability to any person, unless such information is false and the person pr oviding it had actual knowledge of such f alsity.

Applying secti o n (d)( 2) of that statute to the c ase now befor e us, Dr. Be nnett is not im mune from lia bil ity to D r. Roy if the inf or ma tio n Dr . Ben ne tt pr ov ide d to the Pe e r Re vie w Comm itt e e is f a lse and Dr . Bennett had a ctual knowledge of such f alsity. This is what is alleged by Dr. Roy.-2- Under the clea r langua ge of the statute, Dr. Benne tt is not immune if the information he provide d to the Peer Revie w Commit tee wa s false a nd he kn ew it was f alse. How ever , our Opinion, which I concur in, means that not only can Dr. R oy not discover what Dr. Bennett told the Peer Revie w Commit tee, he cannot have it admitted as evide nce e ven though he ha s rec eived it by some means other than formal discovery and from a sour ce othe r than Dr . Bennett. In short, eve n tho ug h a pla int if f m a y h a ve a

c a us e of a c tio n a ga ins t a n in div idu a l w ho kn ow ing ly p ro vid e s f a lse information to a Peer Review Com mittee, that plaintiff i s prohibited not only from discovering what was said to the Pee r Review Committee but also is prohibited from having what was said to the Peer Review Commi ttee admitted as evidenc e even if he has obtained it by a means o t h er t h an formal dis c ov e ry a ndfr om a

so ur c e oth e r tha n th e origi na l so ur c e , th e de fe nd a nt.

I am at a loss as to how any potential p l ai n t i ff co u ld proce ed against an individual who i s not immune from liability because he knowingly provided f alse information to a Peer Revie w Commi ttee without being able t o discover w hat was sa id to the Peer Review Commi ttee and the n being able to ha ve what was said admitted into e vidence

. I believe it is an impossibili ty under the statute as interpr eted by the c ourts of this stat e. T h e end result is t hat Tenn. Code A nn. § 63-6- 21 9( d) (2 ) i s e ff

e c tiv e ly d e le te d f

ro m th e statut e be c a us e a lth ou gh su c h an ind ivi du a l w ho kn ow ing ly pr ov ide s fa lse inf

or ma tio n is no t imm un e fr om lia bil ity
, the re is abs olu te ly no way fo r a plaint if f t o pr ov e it u nle ss the de fe nd a nt, a s the origi na l sour c e , for so me re a so n volu nta ri ly f urnis he s o r t e lls the plaintiff what false information he provided to the Pee r Review Committee.

As stated, I be lieve this is an irre concilable conflict in the langua ge of the statute as

enac ted by the Ge nera l Assembly. Howeve r, perhaps I am i n err or and our S upreme Court can f ind

a wa y to rec oncile this, to me, appar ent l y irrec oncilable c onflict. For these re asons, I c oncur but write sepa

rate ly.

___________________________________ D. MICHAEL SWI NEY, JUDG E