MCGEE v. BRUCE HOSPITAL SYSTEM
12/13/1993
This Court granted a writ of certiorari to consider the following question:
Are credentialing files, clinical privileges,
and the policies and procedures involved in
the evaluation of medical staff immune from
discovery under the terms of S.C. Code Ann. §§
40-71-10 and -20 (Supp. 1992)?
The underlying action involves a
The plaintiff requested from Bruce Hospital 1) documentation delineating staff privileges, including but not limited to, applications for staff privileges and any proof of training or experience submitted in relation to an application for staff privileges; and 2) any and all medical staff monitoring and evaluation policies and procedures.
The defendant physicians contend that such documentation is protected by the confidentiality statute which provides immunity for:
an appointed member of a committee of a
medical staff or a licensed hospital, provided
the medical staff operates pursuant to written
bylaws that have been approved by the
governing board of the hospital . . . for any
act or proceeding undertaken or performed
within the scope of the functions of the
committee.
S.C. Code Ann. § 40-71-10 (B) (Supp. 1992). Further, section 40-71-20 provides that:
all proceedings of and all data and information acquired by
the committee referred to in § 40-71-10 in the exercise
of its duties are confidential . . . . These proceedings
and documents are not subject to discovery, subpoena, or
introduction into evidence in any civil action except upon
Information, documents, or records which are
otherwise available from original sources are
not immune from discovery or use in a civil
action merely because they were presented
during the committee proceedings nor shall any
complainant or witness before the committee be
prevented from testifying in a civil action as
to matters of which he has knowledge apart
from the committee proceedings or revealing
such matters to third persons.
(Emphasis added.)
The trial judge found that the materials sought were discoverable and did not fall within the ambit of sections 40-71-10 and -20. The trial judge ruled that the applications for staff privileges and supporting documents of appropriate training were not protected since the statute does not protect information that is available from original sources. Further, the trial judge found that section 40-71-20 does not preclude the discovery of the policies and procedures for staff monitoring. The statute was interpreted by the trial judge as only protecting information generated or created by the committee.
We first conclude that the Executive Committee of the medical staff of Bruce Hospital constitutes a "committee of a medical staff of a licensed hospital" within the purview of section 40-71-10 (B) to the extent the committee operates pursuant to the written bylaws approved by the hospital.
The overriding public policy of the confidentiality statute is to encourage health care professionals to monitor the competency and professional conduct of their peers to safeguard and improve the quality of patient care. See State ex rel Shroades v. Henry, 187 W. Va. 723, 421 S.E.2d 264 (1992). The underlying purpose behind the confidentiality statute is not to facilitate the prosecution of civil actions, but to promote complete candor and open discussion among participants in the peer review process. Cruger v. Love, 599 So.2d 111 (Fla. 1992). We adopt the Florida Supreme Court's reasoning in Cruger that:
he policy of encouraging full candor in
peer review proceeding
Page 1 2 3 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys