Opinion ID: 2068788
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The scope of the peer review privilege.

Text: In an effort to encourage the medical peer review process, the General Assembly has provided immunity to the members of certain boards of review. This immunity is conferred upon all medical personnel who participate in peer review committees or organizations whose function is the review of medical records, medical care, and physicians' work, with a view to the quality of care and utilization of . . . facilities. [11] Such persons are immune from claim, suit, liability, damages, or any other recourse, civil or criminal, arising from any act, omission, proceeding, decision, or determination undertaken or performed, or from any recommendation made, so long as the person acted in good faith and without gross or wanton negligence in carrying out the responsibilities, authority, duties, powers, and privileges of the offices conferred by law upon them. . . . [12] Along with this immunity, the General Assembly has created a privilege for the records and proceedings of peer review committee meetings. Section 1768(b) of Title 29 provides: Unless otherwise provided by this chapter, the records and proceedings of committees and organization described in subsection (a) of this section are confidential and may be used by those committees or organizations and the members thereof only in the exercise of the proper functions of the committee or organization. The records and proceedings are not public records and are not available for court subpoena, nor are they subject to discovery. A person in attendance at a meeting of any such committee or organization is not required to testify as to what transpired at the meeting. . . . [13] Delaware courts have recognized that the public policy behind the peer review privilege is to foster open and critical inspection of health care facilities procedures. The privilege was enacted as part of a comprehensive revision of the laws which govern the practice of medicine to provide for the establishment and enforcement of professional standards in the practice of medicine, and in furtherance thereof provides confidential protection for the records and proceedings of committees charged with professional standards, review and enforcement for those performing those functions. [14] It is in the public interest to ensure that health care providers' critical analyses are not chilled by the fear of litigation over the analysis itself. [15] In Connolly v. Labowitz, [16] the Superior Court explained that [r]ecords include any paperwork, reports or compilation of date which are used exclusively by the committee. Documents used exclusively by a peer review committee . . . are privileged, and not discoverable. [17] But, the court also noted that the privilege is waived as to documents published to non-members. [18] This propositionthat documents are only privileged insofar as they are used exclusively by the committee has remained constant, even though the Superior Court has revisited the privilege over the last twenty-five years. [19] We agree with this analysis, because Section 1768 expressly applies only to actual committee members. Accordingly, we adopt the Superior Court's interpretation and expressly limit the privilege to paperwork, reports, or compilation of data that are used exclusively by peer review committees.