Opinion ID: 2148949
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Does Minnesota's peer review statute create a cause of action for negligent credentialing?

Text: We consider, first, whether the language of the peer review statute actually creates a cause of action for negligent credentialing. Section 145.63, subd. 1, provides that No review organization and no person shall be liable for damages or other relief in any action by reason of the performance of the review organization or person of any duty, function, or activity as a review organization or a member of a review committee or by reason of any recommendation or action of the review committee when the person acts in the reasonable belief that the action or recommendation is warranted by facts known to the person or the review organization after reasonable efforts to ascertain the facts upon which the review organization's action or recommendation is made   . (emphasis added.) The legislature has the authority to create a cause of action for negligent credentialing. The question is whether section 145.63, subdivision 1, expresses an intent to do so. Although stated in the negative, the language of this statute implies that a review organization shall be liable for granting privileges where the grant is not reasonably based on the facts that were known or that could have been known by reasonable efforts. This language could be read as evidencing the legislative intent to establish such a cause of action, whether or not one existed at common law. We agree with the Larsons that the immunity provision of the peer review statute contemplates the existence of a cause of action for negligent credentialingotherwise there would be no need for the legislature to address the standard of care applicable to such an action. But we are reluctant to conclude that the statute affirmatively creates such a cause of action because the standard of care is stated in the negative. [1] Ultimately, we need not determine whether the statute creates a cause of action because, at the very least, the statute does not negate or abrogate such a cause of action and this leaves us free to consider whether the cause of action exists at common law.