IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

September 3, 2009 Session Heard at Knoxville

LEE MEDICAL, INC. v. PAULA BEECHER ET AL.

Appeal by Permission from the Court of Appeals, Middle Section

Circuit Court for Williamson County

Nos. 08-144 & 08-146 Jeffrey S. Bivins, Judge

No. M2008-02496-SC-S09-CV - Filed May 24, 2010

This appeal involves the application of the Tennessee Peer Review Law of 1967 [Tenn. Code

Ann. § 63-6-219 (Supp. 2009)] to a hospital system’s business decision regarding the

provision of vascular access services to patients in its member hospitals. The hospitalsystem

had customarily outsourced these services at several of its hospitals, but, following an audit,

it decided to discontinue outsourcing the services and to begin providing them using nurses

employed by its own hospitals. After several of the system’s hospitals cancelled their

vascular access services contracts, the vendor that had been providing the services filed two

suits in the Circuit Court for Sumner County against the manufacturer of the catheters used

to provide the services and one of its employees, a staffing affiliate of the hospital system and

two of its employees, and the chief nursing officer at one of the system’s hospitals. These

suits, which were eventually transferred to the Circuit Court for Williamson County and

consolidated,sought damages under numeroustheories based on the vendor’s allegationsthat

the defendants, all of whom had played a role in the audit, had disparaged the manner in

which it had been providing the vascular access services and had improperly interfered with

its contracts. During discovery, the vendor sought copies of various records relating to the

audit of its services. The defendants claimed that these records were covered by the privilege

in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e). After reviewing the disputed records in chambers, the

trial court determined that most of the requested records were covered by the privilege. The

trial court also granted the vendor permission to pursue an interlocutory appeal to the Court

of Appeals; however, the Court of Appeals declined to accept the appeal. We granted the

vendor’s Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application to address the trial court’s interpretation and

application of Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e). We have determined that the trial court

interpreted the privilege in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e) too broadly. Therefore, we

vacate the portions of the trial court’s discovery orders applying the privilege in Tenn. Code

Ann. § 63-6-219(e) and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
Tenn. R. App. P. 11 Appeal by Permission; Judgment of the Circuit Court Vacated

and Remanded

WILLIAM C. KOCH,JR.,J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which CORNELIA A. CLARK,

and SHARON G. LEE, JJ., joined. GARY R. WADE, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which

JANICE M. HOLDER, C.J. joined.

Ron H. Pursell and Edward A. Hadley, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Lee Medical,

Inc.

Steven A. Riley and Sarah J. Glasgow, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellees, Cathy

Philpott, Paula Beecher and All About Staffing, Inc. and Non-Party Subpoena Recipients

Hendersonville Medical Center, and Mike Esposito.

George H. Cate, III, Nashville, Tennessee, Timothy J. Rivelli, Cornelius M. Murphy, Linda

T. Coberly, and Amanda R. Conley, Chicago, Illinois, for the appellees, Bard Access

Systems, Inc. and Heather Chambers.

Marshall T. Cook, Hendersonville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Kim Alsbrooks.

G. Brian Jackson and David L. Johnson, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Amicus Curiae,

Tennessee Hospital Association.

OPINION

I.

1

HCA, Inc. owns and operates the TriStar Health System that consists of twenty-one

hospitals in three states. Since 1997, several of the hospitals in the TriStar Health System

located in Middle Tennessee outsourced their vascular access services to Lee Medical, Inc.

2

The following recitation of facts is taken from the parties’ allegations and assertions found in 1

various papers they have filed in the trial court. These factual statements are not determinative of the factual

issues with regard to which the parties have not had a full hearing. Our inclusion of any particular fact in

this opinion should not be construed as a conclusive finding of fact that prevents the parties from presenting

additional evidence regarding the fact or prevents the trial court or the jury from making contrary findings.

In this case, “vascular accessservices” refersto procedures for the insertion of peripherally inserted

2

central catheters (“PICC lines”) and extended dwell peripheral catheters (“EDPCs”) that provide vascular

access for hospitalized patients. Among other purposes, they are used to deliver intravenous antibiotic

(continued...)

-2-
(“Lee Medical”). Accordingly, when physicians with patients at one of these hospitals

3

ordered a PICC line or EDPC for their patients, a specially trained nurse employed by Lee

Medical performed the procedure.

In July 2005, the TriStar Health System’s CNO Council decided to examine the cost

4

and quality benefits of providing vascular access services internally rather than continuing

to outsource them. The CNO Council enlisted the assistance of All About Staffing, Inc. (“All

About Staffing”), another HCA-affiliated company, to assist with its analysis of the

5

provision of vascular access services at the TriStar hospitals. All About Staffing provides

nurse staffing to HCA-related hospitals.

6

In November 2005, while All About Staffing’s review of vascular accessservices was

proceeding, Lee Medicalsubmitted a revised contract forservicesto Cathy Philpott, the chief

(...continued) 2

treatment, chemotherapy, or long-term intravenous feeding for nutritional support. Radiological Soc’y of

N. Am., Vascular Access Procedures (July 6, 2009), http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/pdf/vasc_access.pdf,

at 1. PICC lines are long, thin, flexible tubes that are inserted by physicians or specially trained nurses into

a peripheral vein, usually in an arm, and then are guided to a central vein that leads to the heart. See

MayoClinic.com, Video: PICC line placement, http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/picc-lineplacement/MM00781. Other types of extended dwell catheters, such as midline catheters, terminate in the

extremity rather than in a large vein near the heart. Emily Rhinehart & Mary McGoldrick, Infection Control

in Home Health Care and Hospice 39 (2d ed. 2006); Sharon Weinstein & Ada L. Plumer, Principles and

Practice of Intravenous Therapy 651 (8th ed. 2007). These catheters may remain in place for several days

or several months. Lisa S. Higa, Infection Control Today, IV Catheters, at http://www.vpico.com/article

manager/printerfriendly.aspx?article=60390. Infections at the insertion site and blood stream infections are

two of the complications associated with the use of these devices. Radiological Soc’y of N. Am., Vascular

Access Procedures (July 6, 2009), http://radiologyinfo.org/en/pdf/vasc_access.pdf, at 4-5.

Lee Medical alleged in its complaint that it began providing vascular access services to patients at 3

Hendersonville Medical Center in 1997. It also alleged that it began providing these services to patients at

Skyline MedicalCenter andTennessee Christian MedicalCenter(now the Skyline MadisonCampus)in 2001

and to patients at Summit Medical Center in 2004.

An affidavit submitted by TriStar’s Vice President of Quality and Clinical Performance states that

4

the CNO Council consists of “the chief nursing officers and other necessary individuals from each

HCA/TriStar hospital.” She explained that the CNO Council meets “in order to assist in evaluating and

improving the quality of healthcare provided at all of the hospitals in the HCA/TriStar division.”

All About Staffing is a Florida corporation that is wholly-owned by Southwest Florida Health 5

System, Inc. which is an affiliate of HCA.

Lee Medical asserts in its complaint that All About Staffing provides “a wide range of nursing 6

services including vascular access services to health care facilities” and that it is “a market competitor . . .

in providing vascular access services.”

-3-
nursing officer at Hendersonville Medical Center, one of the hospitals in the TriStar Health

System. Upon receipt of this contract, Ms. Philpott began evaluating Lee Medical’s

performance at Hendersonville Medical Center.

Lee Medical used catheters manufactured by Bard Access Systems, Inc. (“Bard”) in

its provision of vascular access services at the TriStar hospitals. Accordingly, All About

Staffing sought Bard’s assistance with its evaluation of the vascular access services being

provided at the TriStar hospitals. Bard’s help took two forms. First, two Bard

representatives – Heather Chambers and Kim Alsbrooks – conducted “chart reviews” at

7 8

various TriStar hospitals, including hospitals that had contracts with Lee Medical and those

that did not. Second, in March 2006, Ms. Chambers provided All About Staffing a “business

plan that shows cost justification for your nurses to place the PICCs at bedside.” Although

the record is unclear on this point, Bard’s report, apparently titled “PICC Proposal for TriStar System” (“Bard Report”) included not only the business plan mentioned by Ms.

Chambers but also the results of the “chart reviews” that had been conducted by Mses.

Chambers and Alsbrooks.

The record does not precisely define the sequence of events involving TriStar’s

consideration of All About Staffing’s report. According to TriStar’s Vice President for

Quality and Clinical Performance, the CNO Council “determined that, from a clinical

standpoint, the HCA/TriStar Hospitals should bring this service in house and use AASstaffed nurses to provide vascular access services.” The report was then presented to the

9

TriStar CFO Council. According to TriStar’s Vice President for Quality and Clinical

10

Performance, the CFO Council determined “from a financial standpoint . . . that the

HCA/TriStar Hospitals should use in-house AAS-staffed nurses to provide vascular access

services.” At some point, Ms. Philpott’s findings and opinions regarding the provision of

11

Ms. Chambers served as Bard’s “Nashville Territory Manager.” 7

Ms. Alsbrooks had worked for Bard as an “Independent Clinical Educator” since 2004. She had 8

also been employed by Lee Medical as a nurse specialist from May 2005 through December 2005.

“AAS” refers to All About Staffing. 9

An affidavitsubmitted by TriStar’s Vice President of Quality and Clinical Performance states that

10

the HCA/TriStar CFO Council includes the chief financial officers from each of the HCA/TriStar hospitals. 

One of its purposes is to evaluate the cost of health care rendered at the HCA/TriStar hospitals.

Lee Medical’s complaint states that on or about May 21, 2006, Ms. Philpott made “false and 11

defamatory statements” about its services to supervisors and nursing personnel at Hendersonville Medical

Center and that “[o]n other occasions, she made false statements to the TriStar CNO Council.” It also alleged

(continued...)

-4-
vascular access services at Hendersonville Medical Center were also presented to

Hendersonville Medical Center’s Quality Management Council, the TriStar CNO Council,

12

and the TriStar CFO Council.

In June or July 2006, the president of Lee Medical contacted Paula Beecher, All

About Staffing’s Regional Vice President for Operations, to discuss entering into a contract

to provide vascular access services for the other TriStar hospitals that were not already under

contract with Lee Medical. Ms. Beecher invited Lee Medical to submit a proposal. The

record contains no indication that Lee Medical was aware that TriStar had been considering

bringing vascular access services in house for almost one year.

As a result of the decisions made by its CNO Council and CFO Council, the TriStar

System decided to terminate the existing contracts with Lee Medical in due course. Lee

Medical submitted a “Proposal for Services” to Ms. Beecher on August 1, 2006, along with

an unsolicited confidential report containing “data outcomes related to the quality of

services” that Lee Medical had provided at Hendersonville Medical Center and Skyline

Medical Center. However, in light of TriStar’s decision to perform the vascular access

services in house, All About Staffing did not contract with Lee Medical to provide these

services at other TriStar hospitals. The record is unclear about when or how All About

Staffing or TriStar communicated this decision to Lee Medical.

On October 23, 2006, Tennessee Christian Medical Center became the first TriStar

hospital to cancel its contract with Lee Medical. On October 31, 2006, Randy Oxley, Lee

13

Medical’s Director of Operations, sent an email to Ms. Beecher expressing concern that “the

results of the audit are being used by the Hendersonville Medical Center as a method to raise

some questions with regard to Lee Medical.” The following day, Hendersonville Medical

(...continued) 11

that Ms. Philpott based her findings and opinions on the “chart review” that Bard conducted at

Hendersonville Medical Center.

According to an affidavit submitted by the hospital’s Director of Quality and Risk, this Council 12

is composed of appointed physicians and nurses working at the hospital. It is chaired by a physician who

is the chief of staff-elect. The primary purpose of the Council is “to monitor, evaluate and improve upon the

quality of patient care provided to . . . [the hospital’s] patients. In so doing, the Quality Management Council

reviews medical care provided to patients in the hospital.” Accordingly, it prepares and monitors

confidential risk management reports that are used in the evaluation of patient care at the hospital.

Lee Medical’s April 18, 2007 complaint did not allege that its contract with Tennessee Christian

13

Medical Center had been terminated. However, its complaint filed on October 25, 2007, alleged that its

contract with Tennessee Christian Medical Center had been terminated effective October 23, 2006.

-5-
Center terminated its contract with Lee Medical. On November 9, 2006, Ms. Beecher

14

“reassured” Mr. Oxley that

the audit we conducted surveyed the use of all intravascular

access, Peripheral lines, PICC lines, central lines, etc. for all of

our TriStar facilities. We at HCA are dedicated to [providing]

the most appropriate quality care for our patients. The results of

the audit were not used to evaluate the quality service of Lee

Medical Service. This audit was utilized to ensure proper line

utilization for our patients in the most cost effective manner.

Lee Medical was not reassured.

On April 18, 2007, Lee Medical filed suit in the Circuit Court for Sumner County

against Bard and Mses. Alsbrooks, Chambers, and Philpott. It sought $15,000,000 in

15

compensatory damages, as well as treble damages and punitive damages, based on various

claims, including libel, slander, tortious interference with business relationships, civil

conspiracy, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, inducement to breach a contract,

breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. On

October 25, 2007, Lee Medical filed a second suit in the Chancery Court for Sumner County

against Ms. Beecher and All About Staffing. This suit also sought $15,000,000 in damages

16

on claims similar to those asserted in its first lawsuit.

Lee Medical also commenced an aggressive discovery campaign on the day it filed

its first complaint. It had subpoenas duces tecum issued; it served lengthy interrogatories;

and it gave notice of taking depositions from parties and non-parties. Lee Medical believed

that TriStar’s decision to stop outsourcing vascular access services was the result of

defamatory remarks about the quality of its services made by Mses. Alsbrooks, Beecher,

Chambers, and Philpott, and that their conduct had been instigated by All About Staffing and

Bard who desired to wrest away TriStar’s business. Accordingly, the purpose of this

discovery was to obtain information regarding the basis for TriStar’s decision to stop

According to Lee Medical’s complaint filed on October 25, 2007, Skyline Medical Center 14

cancelled its contract on July 30, 2007. 

When Lee Medical filed this complaint, it still had contracts with Summit Medical Center and 15

Skyline Medical Center.

By the time Lee Medical filed this complaint, it only had a contract with Summit Medical Center 16

because Skyline Medical Center cancelled its contract on July 30, 2007.

-6-
outsourcing vascular access services and to terminate its contracts. Lee Medical believed

that the Bard Report was “at the center” of the litigation.

The defendants and the two non-parties who had received subpoenas and notices of

depositions did not provide Lee Medical with all of the records it requested. However, they

17

provided complete copies of some of the records and redacted copies of others. With regard

to the materials they declined to produce, the defendants and the non-parties asserted that

these records were protected by either the attorney-client privilege, the work product

privilege, or the “peer review privilege” in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e). Among the

records that Ms. Philpott produced was a redacted version of the Bard Report. Ms. Philpott

did not provide Lee Medical with the portion of the report that had been “gathered from risk

management reports.”

The defendants and the non-parties also provided Lee Medical with privilege logs in

accordance with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 26.02(5) identifying the categories of items that they

believed to be privileged. Ms. Philpott’s privilege log identified fifteen items. The privilege

log submitted by Hermitage Medical Center and Mr. Esposito identified eighteen items,

eleven of which also appeared in Ms. Philpott’s privilege log. The privilege log submitted

by All About Staffing and Ms. Beecher contained nine items, seven of which also appeared

on Ms. Philpott’s privilege log.

Lee Medical was dissatisfied with the responses to its discovery requests, particularly

with regard to the Bard Report, and filed motions to compel the production of most of the

withheld records. It insisted that the records were not protected by the privilege in Tenn.

Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e) because (1) the privilege involves only the peer review of

physicians, (2) the privilege applies only to committees made up of licensed physicians, (3)

the privilege does not apply to original sources of information, and (4) the information it

seeks falls within the exception to the privilege for documents and evidence regarding the

“good faith, malice, and reasonable knowledge or belief” recognized by this Court in Eyring

v. Fort Sanders Parkwest Medical Center, Inc., 991 S.W.2d 230, 239 (Tenn. 1999).

Ms. Beecher and All About Staffing moved to dismiss the complaint against them on

the ground of improper venue. In response, Lee Medical moved to consolidate its complaint

against Ms. Beecher and All About Staffing with its complaint against Bard and Mses.

Alsbrooks, Chambers, and Philpott. On January 9, 2008, the Circuit Court for Sumner

County transferred both cases to the Circuit Court for Williamson County in accordance with

These non-parties included Hendersonville MedicalCenter and Mike Esposito, the chief executive 17

officer of Hendersonville Medical Center.

-7-
Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-1-116 (2009). Thereafter, on May 7, 2008, the trial court in

Williamson County consolidated the cases.

On May 8, 2008, the trial court directed the defendants and the non-parties to submit

the withheld records identified in their privilege logs for inspection by the court in chambers.

Following a hearing on May 19, 2008, the trial court entered an order on June 5, 2008,

addressing the discovery of the disputed records. The court first determined that the TriStar

CNO Council, the TriStar CFO Council, and the Hendersonville Medical Center’s Quality

Management Council were medical review committees as defined in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-

6-219(c). Turning its attention to the records covered by the privilege logs, the trial court

concluded that two of the fifteen items retained by Ms. Philpott should be produced.

However, the court specifically determined that the Bard Report was shielded from

production by Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e). The trial court concluded that none of the

items on the privilege log submitted by All About Staffing and Ms. Beecher were

discoverable.

The trial court also determined that three of the eighteen items included on the

privilege log submitted by Hendersonville Medical Center and Mr. Esposito should be

produced. However, the trial court deferred ruling on the production of two remaining items

and on the question of whether Lee Medical was entitled to limited discovery regarding its

malice claim and its claim that it was entitled to a hearing before the cancellation of its

contracts.

The partiessubmitted additional briefs, and on June 30, 2008, the trial court conducted

a hearing with regard to the remaining disputed issues. On July 21, 2008, the court directed

Hendersonville Medical Center and Mr. Esposito to produce the two remaining unresolved

items on its privilege log and reaffirmed its decisions with regard to all the other items on all

the privilege logs.

The trial court’s two clear and definitive discovery orders did not end the parties’

discovery skirmish. They continued to trade motions to compel, motions for contempt and

sanctions, and motions for protective orders. Lee Medical filed a timely application for

permission to pursue a Tenn. R. App. P. 9 interlocutory appeal. On October 27, 2008, the

trial court granted Lee Medical permission to seek an interlocutory appeal; however, on

December 4, 2008, the Court of Appeals denied Lee Medical’s application for permission

to appeal. We granted Lee Medical’s Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application in order to address the

trial court’s interpretation and application of the privilege in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e).

-8-
II.

This appeal involves a pretrial discovery dispute. The sole issue presented is whether

the trial court erred by refusing to order the discovery of the Bard Report and other records

sought by Lee Medical that relate to TriStar’s decision to stop outsourcing the vascular

access services at its hospitals. Because decisions regarding pretrial discovery are inherently

discretionary, they are reviewed using the “abuse of discretion” standard of review. Doe 1

ex rel. Doe 1 v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Nashville, 154 S.W.3d 22, 42 (Tenn. 2005);

Benton v. Snyder, 825 S.W.2d 409, 416 (Tenn. 1992); Loveall v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 694

S.W.2d 937, 939 (Tenn. 1985).

The abuse of discretion standard of review envisions a less rigorous review of the

lower court’s decision and a decreased likelihood that the decision will be reversed on

appeal. Beard v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 288 S.W.3d 838, 860 (Tenn. 2009); State ex

rel. Jones v. Looper, 86 S.W.3d 189, 193 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). It reflects an awareness that

the decision being reviewed involved a choice among several acceptable alternatives.

Overstreet v. Shoney’s, Inc., 4 S.W.3d 694, 708 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). Thus, it does not

permit reviewing courts to second-guess the court below, White v. Vanderbilt Univ., 21

S.W.3d 215, 223 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999), or to substitute their discretion for the lower court’s,

Henry v. Goins, 104 S.W.3d 475, 479 (Tenn. 2003); Myint v. Allstate Ins. Co., 970 S.W.2d

920, 927 (Tenn. 1998). The abuse of discretion standard of review does not, however,

immunize a lower court’s decision from any meaningful appellate scrutiny. Boyd v. Comdata

Network, Inc., 88 S.W.3d 203, 211 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).

Discretionary decisions must take the applicable law and the relevant facts into

account. Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hosp. Auth., 249 S.W.3d 346, 358

(Tenn. 2008); Ballard v. Herzke, 924 S.W.2d 652, 661 (Tenn. 1996). An abuse of discretion

occurs when a court strays beyond the applicable legal standards or when it fails to properly

consider the factors customarily used to guide the particular discretionary decision. State v.

Lewis, 235 S.W.3d 136, 141 (Tenn. 2007). A court abuses its discretion when it causes an

injustice to the party challenging the decision by (1) applying an incorrect legal standard, (2)

reaching an illogical or unreasonable decision, or (3) basing its decision on a clearly

erroneous assessment of the evidence. State v. Ostein, 293 S.W.3d 519, 526 (Tenn. 2009);

Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hosp. Auth., 249 S.W.3d at 358; Doe 1 ex rel.

Doe 1 v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Nashville, 154 S.W.3d at 42.

To avoid result-oriented decisions or seemingly irreconcilable precedents, reviewing

courts should review a lower court’s discretionary decision to determine (1) whether the

factual basis for the decision is properly supported by evidence in the record, (2) whether the

lower court properly identified and applied the most appropriate legal principles applicable

-9-
to the decision, and (3) whether the lower court’s decision was within the range of acceptable

alternative dispositions. Flautt & Mann v. Council of Memphis, 285 S.W.3d 856, 872-73

(Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (quoting BIF, a Div. of Gen. Signal Controls, Inc. v. Service Constr.

Co., No. 87-136-II, 1988 WL 72409, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 1988) (No Tenn. R. App.

P. 11 application filed)). When called upon to review a lower court’s discretionary decision,

the reviewing court should review the underlying factual findings using the preponderance

of the evidence standard contained in Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d) and should review the lower

court’s legal determinations de novo without any presumption of correctness. Johnson v.

Nissan N. Am., Inc., 146 S.W.3d 600, 604 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004); Boyd v. Comdata Network,

Inc., 88 S.W.3d at 212.

The discretionary decision at the center of this discovery dispute is the trial court’s

acceptance of the defendants’ assertions that a number of the records sought by Lee Medical

are protected from discovery by the privilege in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e). There are

several other legal principles particularly applicable to claims of privilege in civil cases.

The first principle is that Tennessee’s discovery and evidentiary rules reflect a broad

policy favoring discovery of all relevant, non-privileged information. Harrison v.

Greeneville Ready-Mix, Inc., 220 Tenn. 293, 302, 417 S.W.2d 48, 52 (1967); Wright v.

United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 789 S.W.2d 911, 915 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990). This policy enables

the parties and the courts to seek the truth so that disputes will be decided by facts rather than

by legal maneuvering. White v. Vanderbilt Univ., 21 S.W.3d at 223. This policy is also

reflected in Tenn. R. Evid. 501 which embodies the general concept that evidence should

ordinarily be made available to the trier of fact to facilitate the ascertainment of the truth.

Neil P. Cohen et al., Tennessee Law of Evidence § 5.01[2], at 5-12 (5th ed. 2005); see also

Univ. of Pa. v. EEOC, 493 U.S. 182, 189 (1990) (declining to exercise authority to create

privileges expansively).

The second principle is that privileges present obstacles to the search for the truth.

VIII John H. Wigmore, Evidence § 2196, at 111 (McNaughten Rev. 1961) (hereinafter

“Wigmore”); see also 23 Charles A. Wright & Kenneth W. Graham, Jr., Federal Practice

and Procedure § 5422, at 677 (1980). They are not designed or intended to facilitate the

fact-finding process or to safeguard its integrity. Rather than illuminating the truth, their

effect is to “shut out the light.” 1 McCormick on Evidence § 72, at 339 (Kenneth S. Broun,

ed., 6th ed. 2006) (hereinafter “McCormick”). Privileges protect “interests and relationships

which, rightly or wrongly, are regarded as of sufficient social importance to justify some

sacrifice of the availability of evidence relevant to the administration of justice.”

McCormick, § 72, at 339; see also Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 50 (1980)

(privileges are accepted “only to the very limited extent that permitting a refusal to testify or

excluding relevant evidence has a public good transcending the normally predominant

-10-
principle of utilizing all rational means for ascertaining the truth.”) (quoting Elkins v. United

States, 364 U.S. 206, 234 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)).

The third principle is that the rules of evidence generally disfavor privileges in civil

proceedings. State ex rel. Flowers v. Tenn. Trucking Ass’n Self Ins. Group Trust, 209

S.W.3d 602, 616 n.13 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006); Wigmore, § 2192, at 72-73. While courts must

construe and apply statutory privileges according to their plain meaning, both federal and

state courts frequently note that privileges should not be broadly construed because they are

in derogation of the public’s “right to every man’s evidence.” Edward J. Imwinkelried, The

New Wigmore: Evidentiary Privileges §§ 3.2.2, at 129-30 & 4.3.3, at 248 (2002) (quoting

Wigmore, § 2192, at 70); see also United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, 331 (1950). As the

United States Supreme Court has noted, privileges, as “exceptions to the demand for every

man’s evidence are not lightly created nor expansively construed, for they are in derogation

of the search for truth.” United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 710 (1974), superseded by

statute on other grounds, Fed. R. Evid. 104(a), as recognized in Bourjaily v. United States,

483 U.S. 171, 179 (1987), superseded by statute on other grounds, Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2),

as recognized by United States v. Kemp, No. CR.A. 04-370, 2005 WL 352700, at *2 (E.D.

Pa. Feb. 10, 2005).

III.

The trial court’s decisions regarding the discovery of the materials sought by Lee

Medical implicate the evidentiary privilege in the Tennessee Peer Review Act of 1967. The

current statute differs markedly from the original one because of the eleven amendments

since the original statute’s enactment forty-three years ago. These amendments have

broadened the application of the statute at the expense of its clarity. In previous cases, the

courts have noted that the statute contains syntax errors and irreconcilable conflicts. The

18 19

Court of Appeals has recently characterized the statutes as “not a shining example of

legislative drafting.” Smith v. Pratt, No. M2008-01540-COA-R9-CV, 2009 WL 1086953,

at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2009) (No Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed).

This case brings to the fore another significant internal conflict in the statute that

affects the application of the privilege in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e). The conflict

Stratienko v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hosp. Auth., 226 S.W.3d 280, 284 (Tenn. 2007). 18

Roy v. City of Harriman, 279 S.W.3d 296, 305 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (Swiney, J., concurring) 19

(noting a conflict between Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e) and Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(d)(2) regarding

the ability to discover evidence that the person knowingly submitted false information to a peer review

committee).

-11-
cannot be resolved by considering the text of the statute alone. After employing the

recognized principles of statutory construction, we have determined that the privilege in

Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e) applies only to peer review proceedings before a peer review

committee as defined in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(c) that involve a physician’s conduct,

competence, or ability to practice medicine.

A.

When courts are called upon to construe a statute, their goal is to give full effect to

the General Assembly’s purpose, stopping just short of exceeding its intended scope.

Larsen-Ball v. Ball, 301 S.W.3d 228, 232 (Tenn. 2010); In re Estate of Tanner, 295 S.W.3d

610, 613 (Tenn. 2009). Because the legislative purpose is reflected in a statute’s language,

the courts must always begin with the words that the General Assembly has chosen.

Waldschmidt v. Reassure Am. Life Ins. Co., 271 S.W.3d 173, 176 (Tenn. 2008). Courts must

give these words their natural and ordinary meaning. Hayes v. Gibson County, 288 S.W.3d

334, 337 (Tenn. 2009). And because these words are known by the company they keep,

courts must also construe these words in the context in which they appear in the statute and

in light of the statute’s general purpose. State v. Flemming, 19 S.W.3d 195, 197 (Tenn.

2000); State ex rel. Comm’r of Transp. v. Medicine Bird Black Bear White Eagle, 63 S.W.3d

734, 754-55 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001); N.C. & St. L. Ry. v. Carroll County, 12 Tenn. App. 380,

387, 1930 WL 1711, at *5 (1930).

When a statute’s text is clear and unambiguous, the courts need not look beyond the

statute itself to ascertain its meaning. Green v. Green, 293 S.W.3d 493, 507 (Tenn. 2009);

State v. Strode, 232 S.W.3d 1, 9-10 (Tenn. 2007). Statutes, however, are not always clear

and unambiguous. Accordingly, when the courts encounter ambiguous statutory text –

language that can reasonably have more than one meaning – we must resort to the rules of

20

statutory construction and other external sources to ascertain the General Assembly’s intent

and purpose. See Calaway ex rel. Calaway v. Schucker, 193 S.W.3d 509, 516 (Tenn. 2005);

In re Conservatorship of Clayton, 914 S.W.2d 84, 90 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995).

Conflicting provisions in a statute may create ambiguity. In this circumstance, the

courts should endeavor to give effect to the entire statute by harmonizing the conflicting

provisions, Hill v. City of Germantown, 31 S.W.3d 234, 238 (Tenn. 2000); State v. Odom,

928 S.W.2d 18, 30 (Tenn. 1996), and by construing each provision consistently and

reasonably. Sallee v. Barrett, 171 S.W.3d 822, 828 (Tenn. 2005); In re D.L.B., 118 S.W.3d

360, 365 (Tenn. 2003). The courts should avoid basing their interpretation on a single

LeTellier v. LeTellier, 40 S.W.3d 490, 498 (Tenn. 2001); Bryant v. HCA Health Servs. of N. Tenn.,

20

Inc., 15 S.W.3d 804, 809 (Tenn. 2000).

-12-
sentence, phrase, or word, Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. King, 678 S.W.2d 19, 23 (Tenn.

1984), but should instead endeavor to give effect to every clause, phrase, or word in the

statute. Cohen v. Cohen, 937 S.W.2d 823, 828 (Tenn. 1996). The courts’ goal is to construe

a statute in a way that avoids conflict and facilitates the harmonious operation of the law.

Frazier v. E. Tenn. Baptist Hosp., Inc., 55 S.W.3d 925, 928 (Tenn. 2001); In re Audrey S.,

182 S.W.3d 838, 869 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).

The rules of statutory construction permit the courts to employ a number of

presumptions with regard to the legislative process. The courts may, for example, presume

that the General Assembly used every word deliberately and that each word has a specific

meaning and purpose. State v. Hawk, 170 S.W.3d 547, 551 (Tenn. 2005); Johnson v.

LeBonheur Children’s Med. Ctr., 74 S.W.3d 338, 343 (Tenn. 2002). The courts may also

presume that the General Assembly did not intend to enact a useless statute, State v. Jackson,

60 S.W.3d 738, 742 (Tenn. 2001), and that the General Assembly “did not intend an

absurdity.” Fletcher v. State, 951 S.W.2d 378, 382 (Tenn. 1997).

With specific regard to the legislators’ knowledge of the existing law affecting the

subject matter of the legislation, the courts may presume that the General Assembly knows

the “state of the law.” Murfreesboro Med. Clinic, P.A. v. Udom, 166 S.W.3d 674, 683 (Tenn.

2005). In addition, the courts may presume that the General Assembly is aware of its own

prior enactments, Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Morgan, 263 S.W.3d 827, 836 (Tenn. 2008). The

courts may likewise presume that the General Assembly is aware of the manner in which the

courts have construed the statutes it has enacted. Hicks v. State, 945 S.W.2d 706, 707 (Tenn.

1997); McKinney v. Hardwick Clothes, Inc., 217 Tenn. 457, 458, 398 S.W.2d 265, 265

(1966).

When courts are attempting to resolve a statutory ambiguity, the rules of statutory

construction authorize them to consider matters beyond the text of the statute being

construed. The courts may consider, among other things, public policy, historical facts

21

preceding or contemporaneous with the enactment of the statute being construed, and the

22

background and purpose of the statute. The courts may also consider earlier versions of the

23

Cronin v. Howe, 906 S.W.2d 910, 912 (Tenn. 1995). 21

Davis v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 204 Tenn. 135, 143, 316 S.W.2d 24, 27 (1958); Davis v. Beeler,

22

185 Tenn. 638, 642-43, 207 S.W.2d 343, 345 (1948)

Eastman Chem. Co. v. Johnson, 151 S.W.3d 503, 507 (Tenn. 2004); Steele v. Indus. Dev. Bd. of 23

Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County, 950 S.W.2d 345, 348 (Tenn. 1997).

-13-
statute, the caption of the act, the legislative history of the statute, and the entire statutory

24 25 26

scheme in which the statute appears. However, no matter how illuminating these non27

codified external sources may be, they cannot provide a basis for departing from clear

codified statutory provisions. See State ex rel. Maner v. Leech, 588 S.W.2d 534, 539 (Tenn.

1979).

B.

Today’s version of the Tennessee Peer Review Law of 1967 in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-

6-219 bears little resemblance to the statute first enacted forty-three years ago. The

Tennessee General Assembly has amended the statute eleven times. Some of the

amendments have been specific and precise. Others, however, have been broad and openended. Several of the amendments, while internally consistent, do not have a close fit with

related provisions in the statute.

In its current form, Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219 contains six sections. The first

28

section, Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(a), which was added in 1992, provides the popular

29

name of the statute. The second section, Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(b), is the operative

section that defines the purpose and application of the statute. It was also enacted in 1992

30

and has never been amended. The third section, Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(c), is the

definitional section that consists of a single 248-word sentence. The fourth section, Tenn.

Code Ann. § 63-6-219(d), contains the immunity provisions of the statute that date back to

Automatic Merch. Co. v. Atkins, 205 Tenn. 547, 556, 327 S.W.2d 328, 332 (1959); see also Seals 24

v. H & F, Inc., 301 S.W.3d 237, 246 (Tenn. 2010); Dockins v. Balboa Ins. Co., 764 S.W.2d 529, 532-33

(Tenn. 1989); Roberts v. Cahill Forge & Foundry Co., 181 Tenn. 688, 692-94, 184 S.W.2d 29, 31 (1944).

Hyatt v. Taylor, 788 S.W.2d 554, 556 (Tenn. 1990);City of Kingsport v. Jones, 196 Tenn. 544, 549, 25

268 S.W.2d 576, 578 (1954).

Fusner v. Coop Constr. Co., 211 S.W.3d 686, 691-92 (Tenn. 2007); State ex rel. Pope v. U.S. Fire

26

Ins. Co., 145 S.W.3d 529, 535 (Tenn. 2004).

State v. Hannah, 259 S.W.3d 716, 721 (Tenn. 2008); Wells v. Tenn. Bd. of Regents, 231 S.W.3d 27

912, 916 (Tenn. 2007).

The current version of Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219 is attached as an appendix to this opinion. 28

Act of Apr. 28, 1992, ch. 916, § 1, 1992 Tenn. Pub. Acts 901, 901. 29

Act of Apr. 28, 1992, ch. 916, § 4, 1992 Tenn. Pub. Acts 901, 902. 30

-14-
its original enactment in 1967. This section has been amended six times and currently bears

31

little resemblance to the original immunity provision. The fifth section, Tenn. Code Ann. §

63-6-219(e), contains the privilege provision that was first enacted in 1975. This section

32

has been amended three times. The sixth section, Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(f), added

33

in 1999, is simply a codified severability clause.

34

C.

The ability of the litigants and the courts to apply the evidentiary privilege in Tenn.

Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e) has been undermined by conflicting and ambiguous provisions in

the statute itself. The first two sentences of Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e), when read in

35

conjunction with the open-ended definition of “peer review committee” in Tenn. Code Ann.

§ 63-6-219(c), can be reasonably interpreted to mean that any record submitted to any

committee fitting within Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(c)’s definition is privileged. On the

other hand, the last sentence of Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e) can reasonably be

36

interpreted to mean that any record made in the regular course of a hospital’s business is not

privileged, even if it was submitted to a committee included in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-

219(c).

Act of May 2, 1975, ch. 117, § 1, 1975 Tenn. Pub. Acts 218, 219; Act of Mar. 16, 1988, ch. 609, 31

§§ 1 - 2, 1988 Tenn. Pub. Acts 251, 251; Act of Feb. 8, 1990, ch. 596 § 1, 1990 Tenn. Pub. Acts 5, 5; Act

of Mar. 28, 1994, ch. 732, § 5, 1994 Tenn. Pub. Acts 431, 432; Act of May 28, 1997, ch. 470, § 1, 1997

Tenn. Pub. Acts 844, 844-45; Act of May 17, 1999, ch. 305, § 1, 1999 Tenn. Pub. Acts 686, 686.

Act of May 2, 1975, ch. 117, § 1, 1975 Tenn. Pub. Acts 218, 219-20. 32

Act of May 11, 1983, ch. 344, § 2, 1983 Tenn. Pub. Acts 625, 626; Act of Apr. 28, 1992, ch. 916, 33

§ 3, 1992 Tenn. Pub. Acts 901, 902; Act of May 17, 1999, ch. 305, § 2, 1999 Tenn. Pub. Acts 686, 686.

Act of May 17, 1999, ch. 305, § 3, 1999 Tenn. Pub. Acts 686, 686. 34

The first two sentences of Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e) read as follows: 35

All information, interviews, incident or other reports, statements, memoranda or other data

furnished to any committee as defined in this section, and any findings, conclusions or

recommendations resulting from the proceedings of such committee are declared to be

privileged. All such information, in any form whatsoever, so furnished to, or generated by,

a medical peer review committee, shall be privileged. 

The final sentence of Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e) reads as follows: 36

Nothing contained in this subsection (e) applies to records made in the regular course of

business by a hospital or other provider of health care and information, documents or

records otherwise available from original sources are not to be construed as immune from

discovery or use in any civil proceedings merely because they were presented during

proceedings of such committee.

-15-
The tension between the “everything is privileged” and the “nothing is privileged”

language in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e) is complicated by the General Assembly’s steady

expansion of the definition of “peer review committee” in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(c).

The repeated broadening of the definition in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e) has created the

impression that the General Assembly likewise intended to expand the scope of the privilege

in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e). This impression is reflected in the parties’ arguments in

this case. They have drawn the battlelines over whether the TriStar CNO Council and the

TriStar CFO Council are “peer review committees” as defined in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-

219(c).

While the issue regarding whether a particular committee fits within the definition in

Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(c) must necessarily be addressed in the process of determining

whether records are privileged under Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e), it is not the only issue

that must be addressed. Decisions regarding the application of the privilege must take into

account: (1) the subject matter of the proceeding, (2) the nature and source of the particular

record being sought, and (3) the person or entity from whom the record is being sought.

D.

We begin our analysis of Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219 with the candid observation,

echoing the previous characterizations of this Court and the Court of Appeals, that the statute

is far from clear and unambiguous. Nonetheless, we will begin our analysis with the text

37

of the statute itself. In the process of ascertaining the scope of the evidentiary privilege in

Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e), we must construe all provisions of the statute consistently

and reasonably, and we must give effect to every sentence, clause, and word in the statute.

Thus, the scope of Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e) depends not only on the definitional

section in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(c), but also on the other sections of the statute.

The language added to the statute in 1992 provides a significant interpretative cue to

the proper application of Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e). This amendment made three

pivotal changes in the statute. First, it added Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(a), thereby giving

the statute its popular name – “Tennessee Peer Review Law of 1967.” Second, it added the

Our dissenting colleagues disagree with this conclusion. They have concluded that there is “no real 37

ambiguity in the statutory provisions.” We have already found Tenn. Code Ann. §63-6-219(e) to be

ambiguous enough to require us to add punctuation in orderto avoid “conflicting interpretations.” Stratienko

v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hosp. Auth., 226 S.W.3d at 284. A clear and unambiguous statutory

provision generally has a meaning that is not contradicted by other language in the same statute. 

Accordingly, individual subsections of a single statute should not be read in isolation but rather should be

considered in the context of the statute as a whole. 2A Norman J. Singer & J.D. Shambie Singer, Statutes

and Statutory Construction § 46.5, 189-205 (7th ed. 2007) (“Statutes and Statutory Construction”).

-16-
operative purpose and application section in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(b). Third, it

included the term “peer review committee” as one of the terms defined in Tenn. Code Ann.

§ 63-6-219(c). The effect of these changes was to sharpen the focus of the statute.

38

THE ADDED EMPHASIS ON “PEER REVIEW”

We must presume that the General Assembly chose the term “peer review” carefully

and deliberately in 1992. The common meaning of the word “peer” refers to a person of

equal civil standing or rank, a contemporary, or a member of the same age-group or social

set. When used in the health care context, the term “peer review” was originally understood

39

and continuesto be understood to denote a process whose purpose isto maintain and improve

the quality of health care by reviewing the performance of physicians and other health care

providers.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(b)(1) states that the purpose of the privilege in Tenn.

Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e) is to “encourage committees made up of Tennessee’s licensed

physicians to candidly, conscientiously, and objectively evaluate and review their peers’

40

professional conduct, competence, and ability to practice medicine.” As used in this

sentence, the word “peers” refers to the peers of licensed physicians, that is, other licensed

physicians.

Our conclusion that the word “peers” in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(b)(1) refers to

licensed physicians is buttressed by the references in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(b)(2) to

the “medical profession” and to the explicit authority to review “physicians’ fees.” Likewise,

the general immunity provisions in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(d)(1) refer to “[p]hysicians

health programs and physicians health peer review committees.” Finally, Tenn. Code Ann.

Despite their recognition that this Court has a duty to construe a statute so that “no part will be 38

inoperative,” our dissenting colleagues’ interpretation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219 relegates Tenn. Code

Ann. § 63-6-219(b) to the status of a vestigial “statement of policy, prefatory in nature, which does not

supercede the plain language of subsections (c) and (e).” Our analysis of the statutory text, the legislative

history of this particular statute, and the history of the role of peer review proceedings in the provision of

medical care lead us to a different conclusion. The General Assembly had a clear purpose in mind when it

enacted Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(b) and the other related amendments in 1992.

11 Oxford English Dictionary 435 (2d ed. 1983). 39

In other cases, parties seeking to avoid the privilege have relied on this language to argue that only

40

a committee composed entirely of physicians can qualify as a medical review committee or peer review

committee. While this argument is not before us on this appeal, we note that Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-

219(d)(1), as amended, plainly envisions that persons other than licensed physicians may serve on these

committees. 

-17-
§ 63-6-219(d)(2), which contains the exception to immunity for knowingly providing false

information, is limited to proceedings of “a medical review committee regarding the

competence or professional conduct of a physician.”

THE EXPANSION OF THE DEFINITION OF “PEER REVIEW COMMITTEE”

The original 1967 version of the statute did not contain a definitional section. The

General Assembly adopted the first statutory definition in 1975 when it defined the

interchangeable terms “medical review committee” or “committee.” The General Assembly

broadened the scope of the definition in 1983 and 1987 by adding two more types of

41 42

organizations to the definition.

In 1992, the General Assembly amended the terms being defined in Tenn. Code Ann.

§ 63-6-219(c) to include “peer review committee” as well as “medical review committee.”

As a result of the 1992 amendment, the same statutory definition applied to both “peer review

committee” and “medical review committee.” Thus, the terms “peer review committee” and

“medical review committee” are interchangeable insofar as the statutory definition is

concerned. For the purpose of this opinion, we have and will refer to the committees defined

in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(c) as “peer review committees.”

The General Assembly amended the definition in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(c) two

more times after 1992. On both occasions, the purpose of the amendment was to further

43

broaden the definition of “peer review committee” to include additional groups and

organizations. The history of the amendments to the statutory definition in Tenn. Code Ann.

§ 63-6-219(c) reflects the General Assembly’s purpose to define the interchangeable terms

“peer review committee” and “medical review committee” as broadly as possible.

However, the General Assembly’s decision to broaden the scope of the definition of

“peer review committee” in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(c) does not necessarily mean that

the General Assembly also intended to broaden the scope of the privilege in Tenn. Code Ann.

§ 63-6-219(e). To the contrary, the six amendments to this definition between 1975 and

2009 were for the purpose of adding more organizations, groups, and entities to the definition

of “peer review committee.” Thus, while the General Assembly plainly intended to apply

Act of May 11, 1983, ch. 344, § 1, 1983 Tenn. Pub. Acts 625, 626. 41

Act of May 12, 1987, ch. 315, § 1, 1987 Tenn. Pub. Acts 636, 637. 42

Act of May 17, 1993, ch. 404, § 13, 1993 Tenn. Pub. Acts 692, 695; Act of Mar. 30, 2009, ch. 46, 43

§ 1, 2009 Tenn. Pub. Acts ___, ___.

-18-
the privilege in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e) to more entities, nothing in the language of

the amendments reflects a purpose to broaden the scope of the privilege itself beyond the

scope reflected in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(b).

IV.

Courts construing ambiguous statutes may also consider matters beyond the text of

the statute. Our conclusions regarding the scope of the privilege in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-

219(e) based on the statutory language, legislative history and prior amendments are

buttressed by five considerations external to the statute itself.

A.

First, the chapter in which Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219 is codified is Chapter 6 of

Title 63. This chapter also includes the creation of the Board of Medical Examiners, the

44

requirements for obtaining a license to practice medicine, and the definition of the practice

45

of medicine. Accordingly, Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219 is grouped with other statutes that

46

govern only the practice of medicine and surgery.

B.

Second, a review of the statutes regulating other health care professionals

demonstrates that the General Assembly plainly did not envision that the privilege in Tenn.

Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e) would serve as a one-size-fits-all privilege that would be generally

applicable to other health care professionals or entities. Had that been the General

Assembly’s intent, it would not have enacted separate peer review immunity provisions and

privileges for other professional groups.

47

Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-101 (2004).

44

Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-201 (2004).

45

Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-204 (Supp. 2009).

46

See Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-4-118 (2004) (chiropractors); Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-7-115(c)(3) (2004) 47

(nurses); Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-9-114 (2004) (osteopathic physicians); Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 63-10-401 to

-405 (2004 & Supp. 2009) (pharmacists); Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-11-220 (2004) (psychologists); and Tenn.

Code Ann. § 63-5-131 (2004) (dentists). The General Assembly has also created peer review procedures for

veterinarians in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-12-138 (2004).

-19-
C.

Third, while we approach the legislative debates with some caution, a review of the

48

debates surrounding the enactment of the original legislation in 1967 and the eleven

subsequent amendments enacted between 1975 and 2009 reflect the General Assembly’s

understanding that the privilege in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e) applies to physicians.

Both the House and Senate sponsors of the 1967 legislation explained that the original bill

was much broader and that the bill had been narrowed by amendment to apply only to

committees concerned with recommending Medicare reimbursement for hospitalization. The

House sponsor of the 1975 amendment that added the privilege explained that physicians

“are reluctant to say another doctor is not practicing good medicine for fear of being sued by

that particular physician” and that “[t]his bill will encourage doctors to police themselves to

expose the bad practitioners who are causing the malpractice problem.” Smith v. Pratt, 2009

WL 1086953, at *3 (quoting Representative J. Stanley Rogers). Finally, during the debate

in the House Committee on Health and Human Services concerning the 1997 amendment,

the House sponsor characterized Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219 as providing that “physicians

who serve on peer review panels . . . enjoy immunity . . . for peer review on other

physicians.”

49

D.

Fourth, the history of the use of “peer review” in the field of health care demonstrates

that its focus has consistently been on physicians. The medical profession has historically

regulated itself using institutional-based processes designed to identify and remedy

substandard care. These processes, generically referred to as “peer review,” are intended

50

to ensure the existence of a qualified and competent medical staff and quality care. In

51

medicine, the peer review process consists of institutional employees meeting internally to

debate recent mishaps in the hope that such roundtable-type discussions will encourage

candid and uninhibited expressions of professional opinion for the purpose of improving the

In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d at 870; BellSouth Telecomms., Inc. v. Greer, 972 S.W.2d 663, 673 48

(Tenn. Ct. App. 1997); see Statutes and Statutory Construction §§ 48:13-48:15, at 600-615. 

Representative Mary Ann Eckles, House Committee on Health and Human Services, May 20, 1997.

49

Robert S. Adler, Stalking The Rogue Physicians: An Analysis of the Health Care Quality

50

Improvement Act, 28 Am. Bus. L.J. 683, 696 (1991). 

Ilene N. Moore et al., Rethinking Peer Review: Detecting and Addressing Medical Malpractice

51

Claims Risk, 59 Vand. L. Rev. 1175, 1177 (2006) (hereinafter “Moore”).

-20-
quality of the health care provided at the institution. Despite some internal dissent, the

52

medical profession firmly believes that the peer review process is fundamental to improving

the quality of health care.

53

The first peer review efforts were established by the physicians themselves and were

voluntary. In 1918, the American College of Surgeons implemented a peer review program

54

to set minimum standards for hospitals and the medical profession. In 1952, the Joint

55

Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals, now The Joint Commission, began to require

hospitals to perform physician peer review in order to qualify for accreditation.

56

Congress created Medicare and Medicaid when it enacted the Social Security

Amendments of 1965. To control the extent and the cost of the care provided to Medicare

recipients by hospitals and extended care facilities, the Medicare statutesrequired institutions

to establish utilization review committees, consisting of at least two physicians, to review the

medical necessity of admissions, duration of hospitalization, and professional services

rendered to the recipient. Motivated by the same cost control concerns, Congress amended

the Medicaid statutes in 1967 to require similar utilization review procedures.

57

Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(b)(1) (Supp. 2009) (stating that “the stated policy of Tennessee [is] 52

to encourage committees made up of Tennessee’s licensed physicians to candidly, conscientiously, and

objectively evaluate and review their peers’ professional conduct, competence, and ability to practice

medicine.”);see also Grande v. Lahey Clinic Hosp., Inc., 725 N.E.2d 1083, 1085-86 (Mass. Ct. App. 2000);

David L. Fine, The Medical Peer Review Privilege in Massachusetts: A Necessary Quality Control Measure

or an Ineffective Obstruction of Equitable Redress?, 38 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 811, 812 (2005) (hereinafter

“Fine”). 

Charles R. Koepke, Physician Peer Review Immunity: Time to Euthanize a Fatally Flawed Policy,

53

22 J.L. & Health 1, 8 (2009); Susan O. Scheutzow, State Medical Peer Review: High Cost But No Benefit

– Is It Time for a Change?, 25 Am. J.L. & Med. 7, 15 (1999) (hereinafter “Scheutzow”).

Moore, 59 Vand. L. Rev. at 1178. 54

Scheutzow, 25 Am. J.L. & Med. at 12-13; Jeanne Darricades, Comment, Medical Peer Review: 55

How Is It Protected by the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986?, 18 J. Contemp. L. 263, 269-70

(1992) (hereinafter “Darricades”).

Scheutzow, 25 Am. J.L. & Med. at 13; B. Abbott Goldberg, The Peer Review Privilege: A Law in 56

Search of a Valid Policy, 10 Am. J.L. & Med. 151, 151 (1984); Darricades, 18 J. Contemp. L. at 269.

ProposedPhaseout ofPSROs and Utilization Review Requirements: Hearing Before the Subcomm. 57

on Health of the S. Comm. on Finance, 97th Cong. (1981), reprinted in Peer Review Improvement Act of

1982: A Legislative History of Pub. Law 97-248, at Doc. 5, p. 24 (Bernard D. Reams ed. 1990).

-21-
In the 1970s and 1980s, more states enacted peer review statutes in response to the

increasing number of medical malpractice suits, the intensified focus on medical errors, and

Congress’s enactment of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 (“HCQIA”).

58

This Act was precipitated by Congress’s concern regarding the increasing occurrence of

59

medical malpractice, the movement of physicians who had lost their privilegesfrom one state

to another, and Patrick v. Burget, 486 U.S. 94 (1988) in which the United States Supreme

Court held that the state-action doctrine did not protect physicians from federal antitrust

liability for their activities on hospital peer review committees. The HCQIA granted

immunity from money damages to medical peer review committees, but it did not

60

specifically create a peer review privilege.

61

In 2000, the Institute of Medicine’s Committee on Quality of Health Care in America

released a report estimating that preventable medical error causes between 44,000 and 98,000

deaths per year. In addition to pointing out that medical errors were the eighth leading

62

cause of death in the United States, the report noted that the cost of preventable medical

63

errors was approximately $17 billion per year and that most of the errors were not the result

64

of personal recklessness but rather resulted from faulty systems, processes, and conditions.

65

The Committee issued a second report one year later making the same points.

66

Fine, 38 Suffolk U. L. Rev. at 811; Moore, 59 Vand. L. Rev. at 1178; Christina A. Graham, 58

Comment, Hide and Seek: Discovery in the Context of the State and Federal Peer Review Privileges, 30

Cumb. L. Rev. 111, 112 (1999-2000) (hereinafter “Graham”). 

See 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 11101-11152 (West 2010). 59

42 U.S.C.A. § 11111(a). 60

See, e.g., Virmani v. Novant Health, Inc., 259 F.3d 284, 291-92 (4th Cir. 2001); see also Graham, 61

30 Cumb. L. Rev. at 112. 

Institute of Medicine, Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, To ErrIs Human:Building 62

a Safer Health System 26, 31 (2000) (hereinafter “To Err Is Human”), http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?

record_id=9728.

To Err Is Human, at 1. 63

To Err Is Human, at 41. 64

To Err Is Human, at 49-66. 65

Institute of Medicine, Committee on the Quality of Health Care in America, Crossing the Quality

66

Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century (2001), http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=

10027. 

-22-
The Institute’s 2000 report prompted additional congressional debate over medical

error and provided an impetus for Congress to enact the Patient Safety and Quality

Improvement Act of 2005 (“PSQIA”). The PSQIA creates a tightly crafted federal

67 68

privilege for “patient safety work product” actually reported to a “patient safety

69 70

organization.” See 42 U.S.C. § 299b-22(a). The purpose of this privilege is to provide

71

“protections[that] will enable all health care systems, including multi-facility health systems,

to share data within a protected legal environment, both within and across states, without the

threat that the information will be used against the subject providers.” The parties have not

72

addressed, either in their briefs or during oral argument, the extent to which the PSQIA may

preempt the privilege in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e). Accordingly, we will not address

this issue in this case.

Today, all fifty states have enacted statutes containing some variation of the peer

review privilege. Despite these efforts, The Joint Commission reported in 2005 that “error

73

remains ubiquitous in health care delivery.”

74

See Proposed Rules, Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Patient Safety and Quality Improvement,

67

73 Fed. Reg. 8112, 8112-8113 (Feb. 12, 2008).

Pub. L. No. 109-41, 119 Stat. 424-34 (2005) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 42 68

U.S.C.). 

42 U.S.C. § 299b-21(7).

69

Patient safety work product that is not actually reported to a patient safety organization is not 70

privileged under the PSQIA. Charles M. Key, The Role of PSQIA Privilege in Medical Error Reduction, 21

Health Law 24, 24 (2008); Kathryn Leaman, Let’s Give Them Something To Talk About: How the PSQIA

May Provide Federal Privilege and Confidentiality Protections to the Medical Peer Review Process, 11

Mich. St. U.J. Med. & L. 177, 192-93 (2007).

42 U.S.C. § 299b-21(4).

71

Final Rule, Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Patient Safety and Quality Improvement, 73 Fed. 72

Reg. 70732 (Nov. 21, 2008) (effective Jan. 19, 2009).

Am. Med. Ass’n, Peer Review Privileges and Immunities: A 50 State Survey and Analysis 4 (2006);

73

see also The New Wigmore § 7.8.2, at 1124; Scheutzow, 25 J. L. & Med. at 9; Teresa L. Salamon, Note,

When Revoking Privilege Leads to Invoking Privilege: Whether There Is a Need to Recognize a Clearly

Defined Peer Review Privilege in Virmani v. Novant Health, Inc., 47 Vill. L. Rev. 643, 652 (2002); Brief

of Appellant at 24 n.5, Virmani v. Novant Health, Inc., 259 F.3d 284 (4th Cir. 2001), 2001 WL 34110690

(4th Cir. Jan. 8, 2001) (listing every state’s peer review statute).

Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, Health Care at the Crossroads: 74

(continued...)

-23-
E.

Finally, even though the peer review statutes enacted in other states are not identical

to ours, we have reviewed the decisions construing these statutes to determine whether any

other courts have applied their privilege in circumstances similar to those found in this case.

As reflected in our review of the history of the peer review statutes in Section IV(D), the

focus of the application of privileges akin to Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e) has been on the

competence and conduct of physicians. The parties have not cited any direct precedents, and

our independent research has failed to uncover any decisions, regarding the application of

the privilege to a hospital’s business decision that affects the quality and cost of patient

care.

75

V.

In the final analysis, we return to the principle thatstatutory privileges should be fairly

and reasonably construed to give effect to their intended purpose. However, they need not

be broadly or liberally construed because they obstruct the ability of the parties, the courts,

and the finders-of-fact to obtain the benefit of otherwise relevant facts. The interpretation

of Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e) advanced by the defendants in this case knows no

reasonable bounds. Virtually all decisions made by hospital committees affect the cost or

quality of health care either directly or indirectly. Our review of the language of Tenn. Code

Ann. § 63-6-219(e) and its legislative history provides no basis for concluding that the

General Assembly set out to shield essentially every decision made by a hospital from

appropriately managed discovery in a civil case.

Consistent with Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(b), the privilege in Tenn. Code Ann. §

63-6-219(e) applies only to peer review proceedings involving a physician’s professional

conduct, competence, or ability to practice medicine. It covers records possessed by entities

that qualify as “peer review committees” under Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(c), but only

when these entities are performing a peer review function. It does not apply to records kept

by a hospital in the regular course of its business unrelated to a peer review committee

conducting a proceeding involving a physician’s professional conduct, competence, or ability

(...continued) 74

Strategies for Improving the Medical Liability System and Preventing Patient Injury 17 (2005),

http://www.jointcommission.org/NR/rdonlyres/167DD821-A395-48FD-87F9-6AB12BCACB0F/0/Medical_

Liability.pdf. 

This question appears to have been presented to the Missouri Court of Appeals in 2002. However, 75

the court pretermitted the issue after it held that the hospital had waived the privilege. Missouri ex rel. St.

John’s Reg’l Med. Ctr. v. Dally, 90 S.W.3d 209, 214 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002). 

-24-
to practice medicine. Likewise, it does not apply to records in the custody of original

76

sources who did not prepare the record for use by a peer review committee in a peer review

proceeding.

77

In order to determine whether the privilege in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e) applies

to a particular circumstance, the courts must determine whether the records sought to be

discovered arose from a peer review proceeding to which the privilege applies. Tenn. Code

Ann. § 63-6-219(c) does not explicitly define a peer review proceeding. However, its

meaning emerges from the statute’s pentimento that remains visible notwithstanding the

broad brush strokes of the later amendments. In accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-

219(b), a peer review proceeding is a proceeding involving a physician’s professional

conduct, competence, or ability to practice medicine.

Limiting the privilege in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e) to peer review proceedings

involving a physician’s professional conduct, competence, or ability to practice medicine

provides a bright line of demarcation between records relating to peer review proceedings

involving physicians that are privileged and other records made in the regular course of the

hospital’s business that are not privileged under Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e). It is also

consistent with the broad definition of “peer review committee” in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-

219(c) because it allows the privilege to apply to any hospital committee that fits within the

statutory definition of “peer review committee,” as long as the committee is engaging in a

peer review proceeding which, consistent with Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(b), involves a

physician’s professional conduct, competence, or ability to practice medicine.

VI.

Using these principles, we now consider, based on the evidence in this record, (1)

whether the decision with regard to the provision of vascular access services is a peer review

proceeding for the purpose of Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e), (2) whether the Bard Report

was a record prepared for use by a peer review committee in a peer review proceeding, and

(3) whether the Tri-Star CNO Council and the Tri-Star CFO Council are peer review

committees under Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(c) that were conducting peer review

proceedings.

Powell v. Community Health Sys., Inc., ___ S.W.3d ___, ___ (Tenn. 2010) (released 76

contemporaneously with this opinion).

Stratienko v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hosp. Auth., 226 S.W.3d at 286. 77

-25-
A.

We turn first to the status of the TriStar CNO Council, the TriStar CFO Council, and

the Hendersonville Medical Center’s Quality Management Committee. Hospitals have not

limited themselves to using statutorily defined terms to name their peer review committees.

Accordingly, determinations whether a particular hospital committee fits within the definition

of “peer review committee” in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(c) depends on the committee’s

purpose and functions, not its name. A committee may be deemed to be a peer review

committee for the purpose of Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(c) even if it is not called a “peer

review committee.”

As a result of the numerous amendments to Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(c) over the

years, a peer review committee is now defined, among other things, as “any committee . . .

of any licensed health care institution . . . the function of which, or one (1) of the functions

of which, is to evaluate and improve the quality of health care rendered by providers of

health care service[s].” It is difficult to imagine any committee created by a hospital whose

functions do not include evaluating and improving the quality of care provided to patients

at the hospital.

In light of this broad definition of “peer review committee,” the trial court correctly

concluded in its June 5, 2008 order that the TriStar CNO Council, the TriStar CFO Council,

and the Hendersonville Medical Center’s Quality Management Committee were peer review

committees as defined in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(c). This conclusion, however, does

not end the inquiry. Because particular hospital committees may play more than one

institutional role, we must also determine whether the TriStar CNO Committee, the TriStar

CFO Committee, and the Hendersonville Medical Center’s Quality Management Committee

where engaging in a peer review function when they received and considered the Bard

Report and the other disputed records.

B.

A peer review proceeding for the purpose of Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e) is one

that involves the evaluation and review of a physician’s professional conduct, competence,

and ability to practice medicine. The three committees that reviewed the Bard Report were

considering whether the TriStar Health System should stop outsourcing the provision of

vascular access services at its hospitals. These proceedings were not peer review

proceedings for the purpose of Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e) because they did not involve

a physician’s professional conduct, competence, or ability to practice medicine.

-26-
The subject of the Bard Report did not involve the professional conduct, competence,

or ability to practice medicine of any physician. Thus, even though the TriStar CNO

Council, the TriStar CFO Council, and the Hendersonville Medical Center’s Quality

Management Committee fit within the broad statutory definition of “peer review committee,”

they were not engaged in a peer review proceeding when they considered the Bard Report.

Accordingly, the trial court’s orders of June 5, 2008 and July 21, 2008, applying the privilege

in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e) to the Bard Report are in error.

VII.

In light of our decision that the consideration of whether to stop outsourcing the

provision of vascular access services was not a peer review proceeding for the purpose of

Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e), we need not address at length Lee Medical’s assertions that

the privilege in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e) does not apply to Bard or to Mses. Alsbrooks

and Chambers. We have addressed this issue in Powell v. Community Health Systems, Inc.,

___ S.W.3d at ___ , where we held that third parties who prepare and submit information to

a peer review committee at its request and in the discharge of its peer review functions

should not be considered “original sources” for the purpose of Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-

219(e).

VIII.

Finally, we turn to Lee Medical’s argument that the trial court should have permitted

broader discovery in order to substantiate its claim that Bard, All About Staffing, and Mses.

Alsbrooks, Chambers, and Philpott knowingly furnished false information, derogatory to Lee

Medical’s performance, to the TriStar CNO Committee and the TriStar CFO Committee.

Lee Medical’sreliance on Eyring v. Fort Sanders Parkwest Medical Centerfor this argument

is misplaced. This decision found an implied exception to the privilege in Tenn. Code Ann.

§ 63-6-219(e), based upon the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(d)(3), regarding

information regarding the good faith, malice, or knowledge of a member of the peer review

committee. Eyring v. Fort Sanders Parkwest Med. Ctr., 991 S.W.2d at 239. In this case, Lee

Medical is asserting malice, not on the part of members of any of the peer review

committees, but by the persons who provided information to the peer review committees.

Because we have already determined that the consideration of whether to stop outsourcing

the provision of vascular access services was not a peer review proceeding for the purpose

of Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e), we have determined that the resolution of this issue

should await a more appropriate case.

-27-
IX.

The discovery orders of the trial court are vacated to the extent that they are

inconsistent with this opinion, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further

proceedings. In considering any other issues regarding the discovery of records possessed

by the defendants and non-parties, the trial court may and should make appropriate

provisions to assure that all personal medical information made private and confidential

under federal and state law is not inadvertently, inappropriately, or improperly released. The

costs of this appeal are taxed, jointly and severally, to Bard Access Systems, Inc. and All

About Staffing, Inc. The portion of the costs associated with the filings of the Tennessee

Hospital Association as amicus curiae are hereby taxed to the Tennessee Hospital

Association.

______________________________

WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUSTICE

-28-
APPENDIX

Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219 (Supp. 2009) provides:

(a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the “Tennessee

Peer Review Law of 1967.”

(b) (1) In conjunction with the applicable policies of the Health Care

Quality Improvement Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 11101-11152, it is the stated

policy of Tennessee to encourage committees made up of Tennessee’slicensed

physicians to candidly, conscientiously, and objectively evaluate and review

their peers’ professional conduct, competence, and ability to practice medicine.

Tennessee further recognizes that confidentiality is essential both to effective

functioning of these peer review committees and to continued improvement in

the care and treatment of patients.

(2) As incentive for the medical profession to undertake professional

review, including the review of health care costs, peer review committees must

be protected from liability for their good-faith efforts. To this end, peer review

committees should be granted certain immunities relating to their actions

undertaken as part of their responsibility to review, discipline, and educate the

profession. In instances of peer review committees examining the

appropriateness of physicians’ fees, thisimmunity must also extend to restraint

of trade claims under title 47, chapter 25.

(c) As used in this section, “medical review committee” or “peer review

committee” means any committee of a state or local professional association

or society, including impaired physician peer review committees, programs,

malpractice support groups and their staff personnel, or a committee of any

licensed health care institution, or the medical staff thereof, or a medical group

practice, or any committee of a medical care foundation or health maintenance

organization, preferred provider organization, individual practice association

or similar entity, the function of which, or one (1) of the functions of which,

is to evaluate and improve the quality of health care rendered by providers of

health care service to provide intervention, support, or rehabilitative referrals

or services, or to determine that health care 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 care services in the area and

includes a committee functioning as a utilization review committee under the

-29-
provisions of Public Law 89-97 (42 U.S.C. §§ 1395-1395pp) (Medicare Law),

or as a utilization and quality control peer review organization under the

provisions of the Peer Review Improvement Act of 1982, Public Law 97-248,

§§ 141-150, or a similar committee or a committee of similar purpose, to

evaluate or review the diagnosis or treatment or the performance or rendition

of medical or hospital services that are performed under public medical

programs of either state or federal design.

(d) (1) All state and local professional associations and societies and

other organizations, institutions, foundations, entities and associated

committees as identified in subsection (c), physicians, surgeons, registered

nurses, hospital administrators and employees, members of boards of directors

or trustees of any publicly supported or privately supported hospital or other

such provider of health care, any person acting as a staff member of a medical

review committee, any person under a contract or other formal agreement with

a medical review committee, any person who participates with or assists a

medical review committee with respect to its functions, or any other individual

appointed to any committee, as such term is described in subsection (c), is

immune from liability to any patient, individual or organization for furnishing

information, data, reports or records to any such committee or for damages

resulting from any decision, opinions, actions and proceedings rendered,

entered or acted upon by such committees undertaken or performed within the

scope or function of the duties of such committees, if made or taken in good

faith and without malice and on the basis of facts reasonably known or

reasonably believed to exist. Such immunity also shall extend to any such

entity, committee, or individual listed in this subsection (d) when that entity,

committee, or individual provides, or attempts to provide, assistance directly

related to and including alcohol or drug counseling and intervention through

an impaired professional program, or if none, through a requesting

professional society, to any title 63 licensee, or applicant for license.

Physicians health programs and physicians health peer review committeesshall

be immune from liability for providing intervention, referral, and othersupport

services to the minor children or spouse or both of physicians.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision (d)(1), any person

providing information, whether as a witness or otherwise, to a medical review

committee regarding the competence or professional conduct of a physician is

immune from liability to any person, unless such information is false and the

person providing it had actual knowledge of such falsity.

-30-
(3) A member of a medical review committee, or person reporting

information to a medical review committee, is presumed to have acted in good

faith and without malice. Any person alleging lack of good faith has the

burden of proving bad faith and malice.

(e) All information, interviews, incident or other reports, statements,

memoranda or other data furnished to any committee as defined in this section,

and any findings, conclusions or recommendations resulting from the

proceedings of such committee are declared to be privileged. All such

information, in any form whatsoever, so furnished to, or generated by, a

medical peer review committee, shall be privileged. The records and

proceedings of any such committees are confidential and shall be used by such

committee, and the members thereof only in the exercise of the proper

functions of the committee, and shall not be public records nor be available for

court subpoena or for discovery proceedings. One (1) proper function of such

committees shall include advocacy for physicians before other medical peer

review committees, peer review organizations, health care entities, private and

governmental insurance carriers, national or local accreditation bodies, and the

state board of medical examiners of this or any other state. The disclosure of

confidential, privileged peer review committee information to such entities

during advocacy, or as a report to the board of medical examiners under § 63-

6-214(d), or to the affected physician under review, does not constitute either

a waiver of confidentiality or privilege. Nothing contained in this subsection

(e) applies to records made in the regular course of business by a hospital or

other provider of health care and information, documents or records otherwise

available from original sources are not to be construed as immune from

discovery or use in any civil proceedings merely because they were presented

during proceedings of such committee.

(f) If any provisions of this section, or the application thereof to any

person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other

provisions or applications of this section that can be given effect without the

invalid provision or application, and to that end the provisions of this section

are declared to be severable.

-31-