Opinion ID: 2328582
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Use of publicly available information to institute proceedings

Text: Petitioner claims that the Board ran afoul of COMAR 10.32.02.03.C(7)(d) by using information obtained through the CRC process to investigate and ultimately press the charges against him in the present case. To repeat, that regulation provides: Except for consideration of a proposed resolution of a case achieved through the CRC, the Board may not make later use of any commentary, admissions, facts revealed, or positions taken, unless the subject matter is available from other sources or is otherwise discovered.  (Emphasis added). Petitioner asserts that the regulation prohibits the Board from using information acquired from a statement Petitioner's counsel made to the Board's counsel, while the two were attempting to schedule an unrelated CRC, that Petitioner would be in court on the date proposed. Petitioner further asserts that the Board's position violates public policy because it discourages candor during the CRC process. The Board counters that the statement does not come within the protection of confidentiality afforded by the regulation because the statement was not made during a CRC and was not substantive. The Board further argues that Petitioner's interpretation of the scope of the confidentiality protection ignores the plain meaning of the regulation, and the Board did not actually attempt to use the statement . . . in any subsequent proceeding. Reviewing courts are to accord some deference to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations, Noland, 386 Md. at 573 n. 3, 873 A.2d at 1155 n. 3, and we shall do so here. We, like our colleagues on the Court of Special Appeals, see Kim, 196 Md.App. at 372, 9 A.3d at 540, find no error in the Board's decision that COMAR 10.32.02.03.C(7)(d) does not include within its protection of confidentiality statements concerning the mere logistics attendant to a CRC. Indeed, Petitioner's contrary view of the regulation does not comport with a common sense interpretation of its plain language. That is to say, a statement relating solely to the scheduling of a CRC is not commentary, an admission[], a fact[] revealed, or a position[] taken at a CRC. COMAR 10.32.02.03.C(7)(d). We likewise find no error in the Board's additional rationale that the statement that Petitioner was in court falls within the regulation's exception to the confidentiality protection for information that is available from other sources or is otherwise discovered. Neither do we find fault, as Petitioner would have us do, with the Board's finding additional support for that conclusion in Attorney Grievance Commission v. Lee, 387 Md. 89, 874 A.2d 897 (2005). In Lee, an attorney under disciplinary review had attempted to use, for impeachment purposes, a witness's statement allegedly made during a confidential peer review proceeding, id. at 103, 874 A.2d at 905, despite Maryland Rule 16-723(a), which prohibits such use in proceedings subsequent to the peer review, id. at 110, 874 A.2d at 911. We pointed out that, although what happens in Peer Review stays in Peer Review, a party nevertheless has an opportunity to discover information through other avenues and to use that information discovered independently. Id. at 113-14, 874 A.2d at 911-12. See also Md. Rule 17-109(e) (providing for confidentiality of communications during mediation proceedings, but not protecting information from disclosure solely by reason of its use in mediation). Like Maryland Rules 16-723(a) and 17-109(e), COMAR 10.32.02.03.C(7)(d), by its plain language, allows for the use of information that, even though obtained during a CRC, is available from other sources. There was substantial evidence in the present case not only that the information that Petitioner would be in court on a certain date was available from the Health Claims Arbitrations Office and the Maryland Judiciary Case Search, but also that the Board actually acquired the malpractice case information from those other sources. It follows that the Board committed no error in its construction of COMAR 10.32.02.03.C(7)(d). Moreover, substantial evidence in the record supports the Board's application of that regulation to Petitioner's case.