Opinion ID: 1760683
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Kentucky Continues to Recognize the Discoverability of Peer Review Materials in Medical Malpractice Actions.

Text: Alternatively, Saleba argues that if this Court holds that Kentucky law applies to this action, we should consider overruling Sisters of Charity Health Systems, Inc. v. Raikes, 984 S.W.2d 464 (Ky.1998), and adopting the position that peer review documents are privileged in malpractice suits against healthcare providers. Sisters of Charity Health Systems, supra , squarely addressed the issue of whether KRS 311.377(2) extends the peer review privilege to medical malpractice suits. Id. Finding that it does not, this Court held that the peer review privilege created by KRS 311.377(2) is limited to suits against peer review entities as referred to and protected against in Subsection 1 of the statute. Id. at 470. This Court explained that the General Assembly's intent and purpose [in enacting KRS 311.377(2) ] was not to hinder an aggrieved patient's search for the truth in a medical malpractice suit against a negligent physician or hospital. The Preamble to the 1990 Act plainly states that it was enacted for the protection of peer review participants. Appellants, in their capacity in the cases at bar as party-defendants in a medical malpractice suit, are not included in this class because they have not been sued for any action taken in the course of performing a peer review. Simply put, the statute was not enacted for the protection of defendants in a medical malpractice suit. Id. at 469. This Court reiterated its holding that KRS 311.377(2) does not protect peer review records in medical malpractice suits in McFall v. Peace, Inc., 15 S.W.3d 724, 726 (Ky.2000). Despite this well-established precedent, Saleba contends that this Court misinterpreted KRS 311.377(2) in Sisters of Charity Health Systems, supra , and that the time has come for the Court to revisit that decision. We disagree. Stare decisis requires this Court to follow precedent set by prior cases, and this Court will only depart from such established principles when sound reasons to the contrary exist. Hilen v. Hays, 673 S.W.2d 713, 717 (Ky.1984); Gilbert v. Barkes, 987 S.W.2d 772 (Ky.1999). Although Saleba contends that this Court's refusal to protect peer review documents in medical malpractice cases frustrates the purpose of the privilege and undermines the greater goal of improving healthcare, Saleba has not presented compelling reasons to justify discarding over twenty years of precedent regarding the interpretation of KRS 311.377(2). Furthermore, if Kentucky's legislature found that this Court's decision in Sisters of Charity Health Systems, supra , truly frustrated the purpose of KRS 311.377(2), the legislature has had over ten years to amend that statute to include a clear, unmistakable prohibition against discovery of peer review documents in malpractice suits against healthcare providers. It has not done so. Therefore, we reiterate that KRS 311.377(2) does not extend the privilege for peer review documents to medical malpractice suits.