§ 25-12,123.Peer review committee; proceedings and records; testimony; use in civil actions; limitation.

Peer review by other practitioners is central to how health professions police the quality of care within their own ranks. That review works only if practitioners can speak candidly in committee without fear that everything said will surface later in a malpractice suit against them. Section 25-12,123 builds the legal shield that makes that candor possible.

The proceedings and records of a peer review committee of a state or local association or society made up of health practitioners licensed under the Uniform Credentialing Act are held in confidence. They are not subject to discovery, and they cannot be introduced into evidence, in a civil action against a practitioner licensed under that Act arising out of the matters the committee evaluated and reviewed. Anyone who attended a committee meeting cannot be permitted or required to testify in that kind of civil action about evidence or other material produced or presented in the committee’s proceedings, or about the committee’s findings, recommendations, evaluations, opinions, or other actions.

The privilege has real boundaries. Information, documents, or records that are otherwise available from their original source are not shielded from discovery or use merely because they were also presented to the committee — the privilege protects the committee’s own deliberative process, not underlying facts a party could obtain independently. Documents or records a witness presented to the committee go back to that witness on request, or on a court’s order in a pending action, though the committee may keep copies at its discretion. A person who testified before the committee, or who served as a committee member, is not barred from testifying generally about matters within their own knowledge — what is off-limits is asking that witness about what they said to the committee or opinions they formed as a result of the committee’s hearings.

Finally, the privilege is not absolute. A court of record can order disclosure of the committee’s proceedings, minutes, records, reports, or communications, but only after a hearing and only on a showing of good cause arising from extraordinary circumstances. That standard sets a demanding bar, reserving disclosure for cases where the ordinary confidentiality protection would work a real injustice.