noting that California's peer review privilege ""is an attempt to prevent a chilling effect on the accurate evaluation of health care facilities which would lead to a decline in the quality of health care"
How later courts described this case
- noting that California's peer review privilege ""is an attempt to prevent a chilling effect on the accurate evaluation of health care facilities which would lead to a decline in the quality of health care"
- conc. opn. of Woods (Fred), J.
- cone. opn. of Woods (Fred), J.
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Disagreed with by Scripps Memorial Hospital v. Superior Court, 37 Cal. App. 4th 1720 (1995)
We disagree with Memorial Medical Center.
The opinion
WOODS (Fred), J., Concurring.
I write separately to accentuate the concerns, first identified in the lead opinion, over the effect that the elimination of Evidence Code section 1157 discovery immunity in criminal prosecutions will have on the medical “peer review” system. As pointed out in the lead opinion, Evidence Code section 1157 was enacted so that medical peer review committees would have full rein to examine with complete candor claimed deficient medical treatment by a medical doctor or provider of medical services without fear that comments, deliberations, or documentation would eventually be revealed in litigation. The lead opinion now opens peer review to criminal discovery via search warrant and eliminates the protection of Evidence Code section 1157. The inference is inescapable that the lead opinion creates a chink in the armour of peer review independence. I am fearful that the conclusion reached in the lead opinion will have a deep “chilling effect” on peer review and thus weaken the system. This would be an unfortuante turn of events since, in my opinion, peer review is the mainstay in checking on the maintenance of day-to-day quality medical care being given to hospital patients.
However, I stop short of registering a dissent to the lead opinion in view of the fact that I find the legislative analysis of Evidence Code section 1157 as contained in the lead opinion to be marginally persuasive. I believe that the subject is a proper one for the Legislature to immediately address. I would urge the Legislature to immediately address the problems created by this opinion, in its manifest erosion of Evidence Code section 1157 discovery immunity, at the very earliest moment so that any detrimental effect on the California peer review system can be minimized and carefully contained.
Other than as stated, I concur in the judgment of the lead opinion.
The petition of real party in interest for review by the Supreme Court was denied December 19,1991. Mosk, J., and Panelli, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.