ORS 41.675
Inadmissibility of certain data provided to peer review body of health care providers and health care groups

(1)

As used in this section, “peer review body” includes tissue committees, governing bodies or committees including medical staff committees of a health care facility licensed under ORS chapter 441, medical staff committees of the Department of Corrections and similar committees of professional societies, a health care service contractor as defined in ORS 750.005 (Definitions), an emergency medical service provider as defined in ORS 41.685 (Inadmissibility of certain data relating to emergency medical services system) or any other medical group or provider of medical services in connection with bona fide medical research, quality assurance, utilization review, credentialing, education, training, supervision or discipline of physicians or other health care providers or in connection with the grant, denial, restriction or termination of clinical privileges at a health care facility. “Peer review body” also includes utilization review and peer review organizations.

(2)

As used in subsection (3) of this section, “data” means all oral communications or written reports to a peer review body, and all notes or records created by or at the direction of a peer review body, including the communications, reports, notes or records created in the course of an investigation undertaken at the direction of a peer review body.

(3)

All data shall be privileged and shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, administrative, arbitration or mediation proceeding. This section shall not affect the admissibility in evidence of records dealing with a patient’s care and treatment, other than data or information obtained through service on, or as an agent for, a peer review body.

(4)

A person serving on or communicating information to any peer review body or person conducting an investigation described in subsection (1) of this section shall not be examined as to any communication to or from, or the findings of, that peer review body or person.

(5)

A person serving on or communicating information to any peer review body or person conducting an investigation described in subsection (1) of this section shall not be subject to an action for civil damages for affirmative actions taken or statements made in good faith.

(6)

Subsection (3) of this section shall not apply to proceedings in which a health care practitioner contests the denial, restriction or termination of clinical privileges by a health care facility or the denial, restriction or termination of membership in a professional society or any other health care group. However, any data disclosed in those proceedings shall not be admissible in any other judicial, administrative, arbitration or mediation proceeding. [1963 c.181 §1; 1971 c.412 §1; 1975 c.796 §11; 1977 c.448 §9; 1981 c.806 §1; 1991 c.225 §1; 1995 c.485 §1; 1997 c.791 §6; 1997 c.792 §§29,29a]

Source: Section 41.675 — Inadmissibility of certain data provided to peer review body of health care providers and health care groups, https://www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/bills_laws/ors/ors041.­html.

Notes of Decisions

Transcripts and testimony regarding statements made before hospital disciplinary committees are not admissible into evidence. Straube v. Larson, 287 Or 357, 600 P2d 371 (1979)

Presence of third parties at hospital disciplinary hearings does not affect evidentiary privilege of this section. Straube v. Larson, 287 Or 357, 600 P2d 371 (1979)

Fact that state immunizes only good faith conduct demonstrates that plaintiff has state law remedy for actions against him in bad faith. Patrick v. Burget, 800 F2d 1498 (1986)

Where necessary inference of testimony in excess liability case is that professional assessment committee agreed case was defensible and testimony would have conveyed substance of committee’s findings, trial court did not err in ruling testimony inadmissible. Stumpf v. Continental Casualty Co., 102 Or App 302, 794 P2d 1228 (1990)

Where study was compiled by medical clinic but was not prepared for or addressed to peer review body, study was not inadmissible under this section. Rowen v. Gonenne, 274 Or App 803, 362 P3d 694 (2015)

Party that alleges claim asserting ultimate facts that are privileged or confidential communications but plausibly can seek to prove allegations based on facts not subject to privilege or confidence does not fail to state claim. Towner v. Bernardo/Silverton Health, 304 Or App 397, 467 P3d 17 (2020), Sup Ct review denied

Green check means up to date. Up to date

Current through early 2024

§ 41.675’s source at oregon​.gov