Marshall v. Planz (Summary)

PEER REVIEW PRIVILEGE

Marshall v. Planz, No. CIV. A. 97-T-793-S (M.D. Ala. April 9, 2001)

A physician sued his former business partner and the group in which he previously practiced for defamation stemming from the termination of his medical staff appointment at two hospitals. The suit centered on statements made by the former partner, seeking damages that would not be available from the hospitals. The former partner, the group, and one of the hospitals (not a party in the suit) claimed that the statements were privileged under the Alabama peer review statute and not admissible at trial. The former partner was not an official member of a standing peer review committee but did participate in an ad hoc committee, which was formed to review a number of unexpected deaths, whose report led the Medical Executive Committee to recommend that the plaintiff physician be proctored. This recommendation was challenged by the plaintiff, touching off a series of events that ultimately led to termination. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama concluded that the purpose of the privilege was to encourage full candor in the peer review process and that this goal required the privilege be extended to those furnishing information to the peer review committee as well as to the committee itself. The court further held that in Alabama there was no exception to the privilege for bad faith or malice. The court found the peer review privilege to apply to all but one of the disputed statements and was not waived due to failure to raise it in deposition or the pretrial order.