“However, § 131E-95 applies to the information generated by a medical review committee. . . . Regardless of its form, the information sought by plaintiff was generated by defendant [physician], not the [medical review committee]. Therefore, the information is discoverable and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a protective order.”
How later courts described this case
- “However, § 131E-95 applies to the information generated by a medical review committee. . . . Regardless of its form, the information sought by plaintiff was generated by defendant [physician], not the [medical review committee]. Therefore, the information is discoverable and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a protective order.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JACKSON, Judge,
concurring.
Although I concur with the majority opinion, I write separately to express my opinion that on the issue of Dr. Cook’s credentialing application, we need go no further than Chapter 13 IE to reach our conclusion.
Although North Carolina General Statutes, section 131E-95(b) prohibits discovery of medical review committee meetings, the records and materials it produces, and the materials it considers,
information, documents, or records otherwise available are not immune from discovery or use in a civil action merely because they were presented during proceedings of the committee. Documents otherwise available as public records within the meaning of G.S. 132-1 do not lose their status as public records merely because they were presented or considered during proceedings of the committee.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 131E-95(b) (2005) (emphasis added).
Here, plaintiff sought information pertaining to whether Dr. Cook had ever (1) had his license to practice medicine revoked, suspended, limited, or denied, either voluntarily or involuntarily; (2) had his hospital privileges revoked, suspended, or in any way limited; (3) had his privileges to prescribe medications, including narcotics, revoked, suspended, or limited, either voluntarily or involuntarily; or (4) been subject to an investigation or disciplinary action. This information was otherwise available from several sources other than his application for privileges at Cannon Memorial Hospital.
As the trial court noted, the information was known to Dr. Cook, himself. In addition, pursuant to the consent order entered into between Dr. Cook and the Georgia Board of Medical Examiners, it *739 was a matter of public record that Dr. Cook was the subject of a disciplinary action limiting his ability to practice medicine and prescribe medications in Georgia. Further, separate and apart from his application was a letter in the public files of D.H.H.S. in which Dr. Cook indicated that he had been the subject of disciplinary proceedings, had his ability to prescribe medications limited, and had his license to practice limited.
Because the information sought was otherwise available, it was discoverable, rather than the fact that, as the majority suggests, it was generated by defendant.