About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

49 S.D. L. Rev. 424 (2003-2004)
Waiver of the Peer Review Privilege: A Survey of the Law

handle is hein.journals/sdlr49 and id is 446 raw text is: WAIVER OF THE PEER REVIEW PRIVILEGE: A SURVEY OF THE LAW DANIEL M. MULHOLLAND IIIt PHIL ZARONEtt I. INTRODUCTION The concept of hospital peer review and the privileges and immunities attendant to it have recently taken on a greater importance, given the current malpractice litigation crisis and demands for greater accountability for medical errors. In many respects, the hospital peer review system is the only meaningful, ongoing process by which medical care is monitored and evaluated and inferior care is dealt with through sanctions that prevent substandard practitioners from causing harm to patients. But if that system is to work in a climate of increasing litigiousness, the confidential nature of the process must be preserved, and those who make the process work must be protected from liability. For these reasons, the issue of waiver of peer review privileges and immunities has taken on a new urgency. As is so often the case, two recent decisions have shed new light on this issue, which calls for a closer examination of when and how the peer review privilege can be waived. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia recently ruled in State ex rel. Brooks v. Zakaib1 that a party may impliedly waive the peer review privilege if it fails to maintain privileged information in a confidential manner. Zakaib was a departure from a prior ruling of the court, which held that a party must formally indicate his intent before the privilege could be waived.2 The Missouri Court of Appeals also recently addressed waiver of the peer review privilege. In Missouri ex rel. St. John's Regional Medical Center v. Dally,3 the court adopted two doctrines by which the peer review privilege may be waived: the at issue and the fairness doctrines. Essentially, these doctrines hold that a party can waive the privilege by using peer review information in a manner that is unfair to the opposing party. Zakaib and Dally no doubt represent an expansion of the doctrines governing waiver of the peer review privilege in West Virginia and Missouri. However, before concluding that Zakaib and Dally are indicative of a general trend regarding waivers in peer review cases, it is important to recognize that t Senior partner, Horty, Springer & Mattern, P.C., Pittsburgh, PA. tt Associate, Horty, Springer & Mattern, P.C., Pittsburgh, PA. 1. 588 S.E.2d 418 (W. Va. 2003). 2. Young v. Saldanha, 431 S.E.2d 669, 675 (W.Va. 1993). 3. 90 S.W.3d 209 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002). 4. Id. at 215-17. 5. Id.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most