Opinion ID: 874082
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Peer Review Requirement and the Allegation of Improper Motive

Text: Neither party disputes that the materials sought by Montalbano for discovery were peer review records as defined in the statutory sections listed above. As I.C. § 39-1392b states clearly that all peer review records shall be confidential and privileged and provides that the records are not subject to subpoena or discovery in proceedings such as the one in this case, the statute applies to the questions before this Court. Montalbano argues that SARMC's investigation was motivated by a desire to eliminate him as competition and not for a purpose related to the hospital's quality of care. In essence, Montalbano is asking this Court to recognize a bad faith exception to this privilege to allow disclosure of his peer review records. Unfortunately for Montalbano, no such exception is allowed by the Idaho Legislature. Under I.C. § 39-1392b, the records are privileged once the hospital has shown that the material to be discovered arises from a peer-review proceeding. If, in fact, the legislature had intended to limit the peer review privilege, it could look to other states that have limited the privilege with language like that used in Va.Code Ann. § 8.01-581.17(B) (West 2011) (allowing for disclosure after hearing for good cause arising from extraordinary circumstances) or Mo. Ann. Stat. 537.035.5 (West 2011) (peer review privilege voided for actions arising from the restriction of staff privileges). But no such language or provisions limits the scope of the privilege in I.C. § 39-1392b and this Court will follow section 39-1392b as it is written and give the section its plain and original meaning. State v. Schwartz, 139 Idaho 360, 362, 79 P.3d 719, 721 (2003).