Opinion ID: 2402231
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Records of the Board of Medical Licensure and Discipline

Text: It is not necessary that the motion justice address on remand the hospital's argument that certain documents are not discoverable pursuant to G.L.1956 § 5-37-5.2 because they are records of the board of medical licensure and discipline. Section 5-37-5.2(a) pertains to complaints made to that board, as defined by § 5-37-1(1), concerning the unprofessional conduct of a licensed medical professional. Section 5-37-5.2 reads, in pertinent part: (a) Any person, firm, corporation, or public officer may submit a written complaint to the board charging the holder of a license to practice medicine or limited registrant with unprofessional conduct, specifying the grounds for the complaint. The board shall review all complaints. (b) If the board determines that the complaint merits consideration, or if the board, on its own initiative without a formal complaint, has reason to believe that any holder of a license or limited registration to practice medicine may be guilty of unprofessional conduct, the chairperson shall designate three (3) members of the board at least one of whom shall be a public member, to serve as a committee to investigate the complaint.    (c) The investigating committee shall conduct its deliberations and make recommendations regarding the complaint to the board. (d) No member of the board who participated in the investigation may participate in any subsequent hearing or action taken by the remainder of the board. Investigations shall remain confidential and all initial hearings, investigatory hearings, and full hearings before the board shall remain confidential.  (Emphasis added.) We previously have interpreted another statute as failing to create a testimonial privilege, despite the fact that it required records of a state agency to remain confidential. Mallette v. Children's Friend and Service, 661 A.2d 74, 76 (R.I.1995). Regardless of a clear legislative intent to protect the privacy interests of certain parties, we were hesitant to glean a privilege by implication from the statute in light of our need to construe privileges strictly. Id. We interpret § 5-37-5.2 in an identical manner. The mere reference in this statute to the confidential nature of investigatory records of the board of medical licensure and discipline is insufficient to create a statutory privilege. Despite the Legislature's intent to make these investigative records confidential, we do not think it is wise to interpret this as a privilege through statutory implication. Accordingly, we hold that § 5-37-5.2 does not create a statutory privilege. [10] We therefore affirm the decision of the motion justice with respect to the hospital's assertion of a privilege under that statute.