Kimberly Powell v. Community Health Systems, Inc. et al.

Summary

The Tennessee Supreme Court addressed whether information obtained during a hospital infection-control investigation was protected by the peer-review privilege under Tennessee Code Annotated section 63-6-219. The court held that ordinary business records are not privileged, but documents prepared by or for a peer-review committee and third-party materials created as part of its peer-review function are protected. The court reversed the Court of Appeals and concluded that the hospital had not waived the privilege.

Holdings

1. A hospital Quality Review Committee is a peer-review committee under Tennessee Code Annotated section 63-6-219(c) when one of its functions is to evaluate and improve the quality of health care, and its focused investigation into the role of medical staff in increased postoperative infections was a peer-review proceeding when it addressed physicians' professional conduct, competence, or ability to practice medicine.
2. Records received or created in the ordinary course of a hospital's business independently of a peer-review proceeding are discoverable, but documents created at the request of a peer-review committee exercising its peer-review functions, or documents that owe their existence to the peer-review process, are privileged and not discoverable.
3. A person acting on behalf of or at the request or direction of a peer-review committee is not an original source from whom information prepared for the committee's use may be discovered.
4. The hospital did not waive the statutory peer-review privilege by allowing its chief quality officer to testify about related matters without asserting the privilege against that witness.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the hospital's Quality Review Committee qualified as a peer-review committee under Tennessee Code Annotated section 63-6-219(c).
2. Whether the focused investigation into increased postoperative nosocomial infections constituted a protected peer-review proceeding.
3. Whether records generated independently in the hospital's ordinary course of business were distinguishable from records created at the request of or for a peer-review committee.
4. Whether the infection control director was an original source from whom information prepared for the peer-review committee could be discovered.
5. Whether the hospital waived the statutory peer-review privilege by allowing another hospital employee to testify about related matters without asserting the privilege.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded