WPC%p ")x zhE7,4SۊSպfa'b,gQxkwe3i#u|^>€ǾY E bh~q?u``67s7PȀycMD18F3bmBz䊕iBb(jr%Cm̪pE~rV]!Ͷ+J;.5" v3_!QuͲPqS)ڣ53I$-yx*p;p0h&+5Âսt/hE-;. ]5?;rO byY3,f\ VjoO`UW ҬՓxXfP3 U kīA(V):2cǀ^8>iY"A1Rg81#2!(ew_ LshgvV`~LueY# U: %# 0)w~- 4f 0#d4 0 DfeB 0 :y_!%')e ,b,,<-U:?.?.?. By. AQ.. 0D/ 0D/ 0D5050 D/y0y0 B0 D30000U:2U:234U:66U:X;;x=U:r??U:AAU:CCU:NHHnJU:OV?VCVeDVrEV[FVGVFeHVKVeLVMVNVPVEQV XVUYVZVE[V[\V[]V^VE_VE`VEaVEbVEcVEdVUeVfV[gVhViVjVkV{lVmV[nVoVpVqVrVUsVPtVuVEvVwVxVDyVPzVU{VP|VD}VD~VUVPVUVUVUVUVUVVVVDVVUVDVUVVEVVDVVUVDVUVUVUVUVVxeVӀV%s&3|xV \\RA' Legal\((2$ g!XTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7XXdXXd7     X `   0  (#$  0   \\RA' Legal\ [  SI$X   1    XXԀTenn.RulesandRegs.Ch.120083.02(1). Themedicalstaffshallbeappointedbythe  governingauthorityinaccordancewiththehospitalsbylawsfortermsnottoexceedtwo(2)years.   SI$X   2    ݀XXBasically,ifaproblemorcomplicationaroseinaparticularcase,thepatientschartwouldbe  placedinafilealongwiththephysiciansothersuchcasestomoniterwhethertheproblemorcomplicationconstitutedatrendorpatterninaparticularphysiciansfile.#XߜX`#(3$ g!XTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7XXdXXd7        $XX `   3    =]Xdd=ӀQXXԀThetrialcourt,findingthattheHCQIAdidnotpreemptthemorerestrictiveTennesseePeer  ReviewLaw,baseditsdecisionsolelyontheTennesseestatute.   $XX `   6    =]Xdd=ӀQXXԀMoreover,thelegislaturehasdefineda hospitalasan institution.Tenn.CodeAnn.68  11201(21)(A)(1996&Supp.1998).#X]XQ#Ԁ   $XX `   5    =]Xdd=ӀQXXԀMoreover,thePeerReviewLawexplicitlystatesthatitistoberead inconjunctionwiththe  applicablepoliciesoftheHealthCareQualityImprovementActof1986,42U.S.C.1110111152,Id.219(a)(1)(nowcodifiedat219(b)(1)),whichispartofthepreexistinglawtowhichthe  Legislaturehasexpresslydirectedourattention. C ׀TheimmunityprovisionsoftheHCQIAapplytoprotecthospitals.Cf.42U.S.C.11111,11151(HCQIAexpresslyextendsitsprotectionstoa (   professionalreviewbody,whichisdefinedasa healthcareentity,whichinturnisdefinedasincludingalicensedhospital);e.g.,Imperialv.SuburbanHosp.Assn,Inc.862F.Supp.1390(D.Md.),   affd,37F.3d1026(4thCir.1993).#X]XQ#   SI$X   6    @XXԀTheprovisionofthePeerReviewLawwhichweinterprettoincludehospitalswasamendedin  1990.SeePubActsCh.No.596,1(1990).TheprovisionstatingthatthePeerReviewLawistobereadinconjunctionwiththeHealthCareQualityImprovementActwasamendedin1992.SeePub.ActsCh.9164(April28,1992). }  $XX `   5    =oXdd=Ӏ.XXԀMoreover,thePeerReviewLawexplicitlystatesthatitistoberead inconjunctionwiththe  applicablepoliciesoftheHealthCareQualityImprovementActof1986,42U.S.C.1110111152,Id.219(a)(1)(nowcodifiedat219(b)(1)),whichispartofthepreexistinglawtowhichthe  Legislaturehasexpresslydirectedourattention./ C ׀TheimmunityprovisionsoftheHCQIAapplytoprotecthospitals.Cf.42U.S.C.11111,11151(HCQIAexpresslyextendsitsprotectionstoa (   professionalreviewbody,whichisdefinedasa healthcareentity,whichinturnisdefinedasincludingalicensedhospital);e.g.,Imperialv.SuburbanHosp.Assn,Inc.862F.Supp.1390(D.Md.   1993),affd37F.3d1062.#.XoX#   $XX `   1    =]Xdd=ӀQXXԀBasically,ifaproblemorcomplicationarosewithaparticularpatient,thepatientschart  wouldbeplacedinthephysiciansfiletomonitorwhethertheproblemorcomplicationwoulddevelopintoatrendorpattern.#X]XQ#   $XX `   2    =]Xdd=QXXX]XQԀ#QXX]#TheonememberoftheAdHocCommitteewhovotedagainstsummarilysuspending  Eyring,agreedwithalloftheHearingCommitteesfindingsbutfeltthatEyringshouldhavereceivedalessseverepenalty.   $XX `   4    =]Xdd=QXXԀInarelatedissue,EyringarguesthatanyinterpretationofthePeerReviewLawwhich  includeshospitalswithinitsprotectiveambiteffectivelygrantsahospitalimmunityforbreachofcontractcontrarytoourholdinginLewisburgCommunityHosp.v.Alfredson,805S.W.2d756(Tenn. | 1991).Inourview,however,Lewisburgisreadilydistinguishablebecausethere,thehospitalrefused B : toprovideahearing. - - u )X  .(EYRINGEJ.OPN(EYRINGEJ.OPN/   ""  XXXXVXX   Ad FILEDXXV  April19,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh ,cAZ"Arial Regular d!"#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ((' dxdP Pd'dxd   $XX `   6    =oXdd=Ӏ-XXԀMoreover,thelegislaturehasdefineda hospitalasan institution.Tenn.CodeAnn.68  11201(21)(A).#-XoX#Ԁ,  AZ"Arial Regular,  AZ"Arial Regular   SI$X   6    .@XXԀTheprovisionofthePeerReviewLawwhichweinterprettoincludehospitalswasamendedin  1990.SeePubActsCh.No.596,1(1990).TheprovisionstatingthatthePeerReviewLawistobereadinconjunctionwiththeHealthCareQualityImprovementActwasamendedin1992.SeePub.ActsCh.9164(April28,1992).   $XX `   6    =ϗXdd=Ӏ1@XXԀMoreover,thelegislaturehasdefineda hospitalasan institution.Tenn.CodeAnn.68  11201(21)(A)(1996&Supp.1998).#1XϗX@Ϲ#Ԁ,  AZ"Arial Regular ~  $XX `   5    =ϗXdd=Ӏ3@XXԀMoreover,thePeerReviewLawexplicitlystatesthatitistoberead inconjunctionwiththe  applicablepoliciesoftheHealthCareQualityImprovementActof1986,42U.S.C.1110111152,Id.219(a)(1)(nowcodifiedat219(b)(1)),whichispartofthepreexistinglawtowhichthe  Legislaturehasexpresslydirectedourattention.4 C ׀TheimmunityprovisionsoftheHCQIAapplytoprotecthospitals.Cf.42U.S.C.11111,11151(HCQIAexpresslyextendsitsprotectionstoa (   professionalreviewbody,whichisdefinedasa healthcareentity,whichinturnisdefinedasincludingalicensedhospital);e.g.,Imperialv.SuburbanHosp.Assn,Inc.862F.Supp.1390(D.Md.   1993),affd,37F.3d1062.#3XϗX@Ϲ#,  AZ"Arial Regular   SI$X   6    3@XXԀTheprovisionofthePeerReviewLawwhichweinterprettoincludehospitalswasamendedin  1990.SeePubActsCh.No.596,1(1990).TheprovisionstatingthatthePeerReviewLawistobereadinconjunctionwiththeHealthCareQualityImprovementActwasamendedin1992.SeePub.ActsCh.9164(April28,1992).   $XX `   1    =ϗXdd=Ӏ6@XXԀBasically,ifaproblemorcomplicationarosewithaparticularpatient,thepatientschart  wouldbeplacedinthephysiciansfiletomonitorwhethertheproblemorcomplicationwoulddevelopintoatrendorpattern.#6XϗX@Ϲ#,  AZ"Arial Regular   $XX `   2    =ϗXdd=8@XX8XϗX@Ԁ#8@XXϗ#TheonememberoftheAdHocCommitteewhovotedagainstsummarilysuspending  Eyring,agreedwithalloftheHearingCommitteesfindingsbutfeltthatEyringshouldhavereceivedalessseverepenalty.,  AZ"Arial Regular   $XX `   3    =ϗXdd=Ӏ:@XXԀThetrialcourt,findingthattheHCQIAdidnotpreemptthemorerestrictiveTennesseePeer  ReviewLaw,baseditsdecisionsolelyontheTennesseestatute.,  AZ"Arial Regular   $XX `   5    =ϗXdd=Ӏ<XXԀMoreover,thePeerReviewLawexplicitlystatesthatitistoberead inconjunctionwiththe  applicablepoliciesoftheHealthCareQualityImprovementActof1986,42U.S.C.1110111152,Id.219(a)(1)(nowcodifiedat219(b)(1)),whichispartofthepreexistinglawtowhichthe  Legislaturehasexpresslydirectedourattention.= C ׀TheimmunityprovisionsoftheHCQIAapplytoprotecthospitals.Cf.42U.S.C.11111,11151(HCQIAexpresslyextendsitsprotectionstoa (   professionalreviewbody,whichisdefinedasa healthcareentity,whichinturnisdefinedasincludingalicensedhospital);e.g.,Imperialv.SuburbanHosp.Assn,Inc.862F.Supp.1390(D.Md.),   affd,37F.3d1026(4thCir.1993).#<XϗX#,  AZ"Arial Regular   SI$X   6    <@XXԀTheprovisionofthePeerReviewLawwhichweinterprettoincludehospitalswasamendedin  1990.SeePubActsCh.No.596,1(1990).TheprovisionstatingthatthePeerReviewLawistobereadinconjunctionwiththeHealthCareQualityImprovementActwasamendedin1992.SeePub.ActsCh.9164(April28,1992).   $XX `   5    =ϗXdd=Ӏ?XXԀMoreover,thePeerReviewLawexplicitlystatesthatitistoberead inconjunctionwiththe  applicablepoliciesoftheHealthCareQualityImprovementActof1986,42U.S.C.1110111152,Id.219(a)(1)(nowcodifiedat219(b)(1)),whichispartofthepreexistinglawtowhichthe  Legislaturehasexpresslydirectedourattention.@ C ׀TheimmunityprovisionsoftheHCQIAapplytoprotecthospitals.cf.42U.S.C.11111,11151(HCQIAexpresslyextendsitsprotectionstoa (   professionalreviewbody,whichisdefinedasa healthcareentity,whichinturnisdefinedasincludingalicensedhospital);e.g.,Imperialv.SuburbanHosp.Assn,Inc.862F.Supp.1390(D.Md.),   affd,37F.3d1026(4thCir.1993).#?XϗX#,  AZ"Arial Regular   SI$X   6    ?@XXԀTheprovisionofthePeerReviewLawwhichweinterprettoincludehospitalswasamendedin  1990.SeePubActsCh.No.596,1(1990).TheprovisionstatingthatthePeerReviewLawistobereadinconjunctionwiththeHealthCareQualityImprovementActwasamendedin1992.SeePub.ActsCh.9164(April28,1992).   $XX `   5    =ϗXdd=ӀBXXԀMoreover,thePeerReviewLawexplicitlystatesthatitistoberead inconjunctionwiththe  applicablepoliciesoftheHealthCareQualityImprovementActof1986,42U.S.C.1110111152,Id.219(a)(1)(nowcodifiedat219(b)(1)),whichispartofthepreexistinglawtowhichthe  Legislaturehasexpresslydirectedourattention.C C ׀TheimmunityprovisionsoftheHCQIAapplytoprotecthospitals.Cf.42U.S.C.11111,11151(HCQIAexpresslyextendsitsprotectionstoa (   professionalreviewbody,whichisdefinedasa healthcareentity,whichinturnisdefinedasincludingalicensedhospital);e.g.,Imperialv.SuburbanHosp.Assn,Inc.862F.Supp.1390(D.Md.),   affd,37F.3d1026(4thCir.1993).#BXϗX#,  AZ"Arial Regular   SI$X   6    B@XXԀTheprovisionofthePeerReviewLawwhichweinterprettoincludehospitalswasamendedin  1990.SeePubActsCh.No.596,1(1990).TheprovisionstatingthatthePeerReviewLawistobereadinconjunctionwiththeHealthCareQualityImprovementActwasamendedin1992.SeePub.ActsCh.9164(April28,1992).   $XX `   6    =ϗXdd=ӀEXXԀMoreover,thelegislaturehasdefineda hospitalasan institution.Tenn.CodeAnn.68  11201(21)(A)(1996&Supp.1998).#EXϗX#Ԁ,  AZ"Arial Regular u ")X  .(EYRINGEJ.OPN(EYRINGEJ.OPN/     $XX `   1    =ϗXdd=ӀHXXԀBasically,ifaproblemorcomplicationarosewithaparticularpatient,thepatientschart  wouldbeplacedinthephysiciansfiletomonitorwhethertheproblemorcomplicationwoulddevelopintoatrendorpattern.#HXϗX#,  AZ"Arial Regular   $XX `   3    =ϗXdd=ӀJXXԀThetrialcourt,findingthattheHCQIAdidnotpreemptthemorerestrictiveTennesseePeer  ReviewLaw,baseditsdecisionsolelyontheTennesseestatute.,  AZ"Arial Regular    $XX `   3    =ϗXdd=ӀMXXԀThetrialcourt,findingthattheHCQIAdidnotpreemptthemorerestrictiveTennesseePeer  ReviewLaw,baseditsdecisionsolelyontheTennesseestatute.,  AZ"Arial Regular   $XX `   4    =ϗXdd=OXXԀInarelatedissue,EyringarguesthatanyinterpretationofthePeerReviewLawwhich  includeshospitalswithinitsprotectiveambiteffectivelygrantsahospitalimmunityforbreachofcontractcontrarytoourholdinginLewisburgCommunityHosp.v.Alfredson,805S.W.2d756(Tenn. | 1991).Inourview,however,Lewisburgisreadilydistinguishablebecausethere,thehospitalrefused B : toprovideahearing.,  AZ"Arial Regular   $XX `   5    =ϗXdd=ӀQXXԀMoreover,thePeerReviewLawexplicitlystatesthatitistoberead inconjunctionwiththe  applicablepoliciesoftheHealthCareQualityImprovementActof1986,42U.S.C.1110111152,Id.219(a)(1)(nowcodifiedat219(b)(1)),whichispartofthepreexistinglawtowhichthe  Legislaturehasexpresslydirectedourattention.R C ׀TheimmunityprovisionsoftheHCQIAapplytoprotecthospitals.Cf.42U.S.C.11111,11151(HCQIAexpresslyextendsitsprotectionstoa (   professionalreviewbody,whichisdefinedasa healthcareentity,whichinturnisdefinedasincludingalicensedhospital);e.g.,Imperialv.SuburbanHosp.Assn,Inc.862F.Supp.1390(D.Md.),   affd,37F.3d1026(4thCir.1993).#QXϗX#,  AZ"Arial Regular   SI$X   6    Q@XXԀTheprovisionofthePeerReviewLawwhichweinterprettoincludehospitalswasamendedin  1990.SeePubActsCh.No.596,1(1990).TheprovisionstatingthatthePeerReviewLawistobereadinconjunctionwiththeHealthCareQualityImprovementActwasamendedin1992.SeePub.ActsCh.9164(April28,1992).   $XX `   6    =ϗXdd=ӀTXXԀMoreover,thelegislaturehasdefineda hospitalasan institution.Tenn.CodeAnn.68  11201(21)(A)(1996&Supp.1998).#TXϗX#Ԁ,  AZ"Arial Regular   $XX `   2    =ϗXdd=VXXVXϗXԀ#VXXϗ#TheonememberoftheAdHocCommitteewhovotedagainstsummarilysuspending  Eyring,agreedwithalloftheHearingCommitteesfindingsbutfeltthatEyringshouldhavereceivedalessseverepenalty.,  AZ"Arial Regular   $XX `   1    =ϗXdd=ӀXXXԀBasically,ifaproblemorcomplicationarosewithaparticularpatient,thepatientschart  wouldbeplacedinthephysiciansfiletomonitorwhethertheproblemorcomplicationwoulddevelopintoatrendorpattern.#XXϗX#,  AZ"Arial Regular g!XTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7XXdXXd7     VVVKVKVVKVGVGVKVGVCVCVGVCVCVX   † FV=ϗXXdd=FVCVCV=V=VCVCVFV=XXdd=ӜFVVVVVVr )<,(j 8` `@E ` 8ttxP,  rVVV@@MMDINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEEVVVt )>.*jxQ7` `@EE ` 8ttxP} 7 tߛV@@zz)DATKNOXVILLE  CVCV ` CVCV    h      p VVCVCVgV񀀀gVnVnV FORCVCVVVPUBLICATION l d  ̀ p VVCVCV hV񀀀hVmVmVFiled:jVjVkVjVApriljVkVkVAprilkVjVjVlV19,1999lViV_____________iV CVCViV  (# iVmVmV >6 EDWARDJ.CVCVEYRINGCVCV,CVCV h CVCV    ) p     H= x   (#  *"  CVCVIndividuallyCVCVandforCVCVthebenefitCVCVCVCVof  CVCV  )   EDWARDJ.CVCVEYRINGCVCV,M.D.,P.C.,  CVCV) p VKNOXCIRCUITVCVCV   {V ` {V{V {V{V  {V{V h {V{V  {V{V  {V{V){VzVzV `  CVCVAppellant,CVCV h     )    `    CVCV)V p VoV񀀀oVVKNOXCIRCUITVCVCV    `     h     ) `     h     ) p      x  tl CVCVGVCVCVGVKVGVGVKVVsVKVKVVKVGVGVKVGVCVCVGVCVCV. `     h     ) p CVCVHON.WHEELERCVCVA.CVCVGVCVCVGVKVGVGVKVVKVKVVROSENBALMVKVKVVKVGVGVKVGVCVCVGV,CVCV ZR  `     h     CVCV) p VVpV񀀀pVJUDGECVCVVV @8  `     h     ) p    &  `     h     ) p         `        )VVCVCVVVVVVVqVqVVNo.VVVVVV03S019711CV00134VCVCV񀀀  FORTSANDERSCVCVGVCVCVGVKVGVGVKVVKVKVVPARKWESTVKVKVVKVGVGVKVGVCVCVGVCVCV    )  MEDICALCENTER,INC.CVCVandCVCV    )  FORTSANDERSVVALLIANCEuVtV.tVuVvV,vVVV    )  VVsV ` sVsV sVsV  sVsV h sVsV  sVsV  sVsV)sVrVrVVV `  VVCVCVAppelleewVswV.CVCVxV񛀛xVzVzVyV h yVzVzVyV  yVVV  CVCV)CVCV p CVCVVNo.03S019711CV00134VCVCV ph ̀VVVVVV `   `     h     FortheCVCVAppellant:CVCV h      p CVCVForCVCVCVCVAppellees: CVCV #  VV |V|V JohnVVK.King    h      p FosterD.CVCVGVCVCVGVKVGVGVKVVKVKVVArnettVKVKVVKVGVGVKVGVCVCVGVCVCV $! CVCVAlanCVCVM.Parker   h      p RickL.Powers %" CVCVLEWIS,CVCVCVCVKING,CVCVCVCVGVCVCVGVKVGVGVKVVKVKVVKRIEGVKVKVVKVGVGVKVGVCVCVGV, h     CVCV p CVCVDanD.Rhea &# GVCVCVGVKVGVGVKVVKVKVVVVVVWALDROPVKVKVVKVGVGVKVGVCVCVGV&GVCVCVGVKVGVGVKVVKVKVVCATRONVKVKVVKVGVGVKVGVCVCVGV,P.C.     p GVCVCVGVKVGVGVKVVKVKVVARNETTVKVKVVKVGVGVKVGVCVCVGV,DRAPERANDGVCVCVGVKVGVGVKVVKVKVVHAGOODVKVKVVKVGVGVKVGVCVCVGV r'j $ Knoxville,Tennessee h      p Knoxville,Tennessee X(P!% VV~V~VVV񀀀 ForAmicusCuriae,Tennessee     p ForAmicusCuriae,Tennessee  +$( MedicalAssociation[V[V:[V[V h      p HospitalAssociation\V\V: \V\V +$) VV}V}VMarcVVE.GVCVCVGVKVGVGVKVVKVKVVOverlockVKVKVVKVGVGVKVGVCVCVGV   h      p WilliamB.GVCVCVGVKVGVGVKVVKVKVVHubbardVKVKVVKVGVGVKVGVCVCVGV ,%* AngelaWashington h      p VVV  VWEED,VVGVCVCVGVKVGVGVKVVKVKVVHUBBARDVKVKVVKVGVGVKVGVCVCVGV,BERRY -&+ ANDTENNESSEEMEDICALASSOCIATION p VVVVDOUGHTYVV /(- Nashville,GVCVCVGVKVGVGVKVVKVKVTennesseeeKVKVVVTennesseeVKVGVGVKVGVCVCVGV h      p Nashville,Tennessee z0r). VVXVXVVVVVVVVVVVVV ` 6XX     h   OPINION #XX6(!# 5.4 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVCOURTOFAPPEALS ;4:w AFFIRMED    h      p     ANDERSON,GVCVCVGVKVGVGVKVVKVKVVC.JVKVKVVKVGVGVKVGVCVCVGVCVCV (# CVCV   CVCV ` WegrantedthisappealprimarilytodeterminewhetherhospitalsareentitledtoqualifiedimmunityfromliabilityfordamagesundertheTennesseePeerReviewLaw,Tenn.CodeAnn.CVCV636219(1997).CVCVOtherissuesincludewhethertherewasagenuineissueofmaterialfactastowhetherthehospitalsactionswereingoodfaithandwithoutmaliceandonthebasisoffactsreasonablyknownorreasonablybelievedtoCVCVexistCVCVandwhetherthePeerReviewLawgrantsthehospitalaprivilegebarringdiscoveryofthepeerreviewCVCVprocess*V?*V=V=V+V.+VCVCV ` TheCourtofAppealsaffirmedthetrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmenttothedefendants,CVCVholding:CVCV1)thatthePeerReviewLawincludeshospitalsinthosepartiesentitledtoqualifiedimmunityfromliabilityfordamages;2)thattherewasnogenuineissueofmaterialfactregardingwhetherthehospitalsactionsweretakeningoodfaithandwithoutmaliceandonthebasisoffactsreasonablyknownorreasonablybelievedtoexist;CVCVandV[U,[UVVV3)CVCVthatthePeerReviewLawgrantsthehospitalaprivilegebarringdiscoveryofthepeerreviewprocess.Afterourreviewoftherecordandapplicableauthorities,weaffirmthejudgmentoftheCourtofAppeals.  BACKGROUND  %" ( ` PlaintiffEdwardJ.Eyring( Eyring)isalicensedphysicianandboardcertifiedorthopedicsurgeon.DefendantsFortSandersParkwestMedicalCenter,Inc.andFortSandersAllianceCVCV(collectivelyreferredtoas Parkwest)CVCVgrantedEyringmedicalstaffprivilegesforanumberofyearspriortoJuly31,1991.Shortlyafterhisreappointmentin1991andfollowingthedeathofoneofhispatients,HelenParker,ParkwestinitiateddisciplinaryactionagainstEyringwhicheventuallyresultedintherevocationofhisstaffappointmentandclinicalprivileges. ` Eyringconcedesthatheisanaggressivesurgeonwhoperformssurgeryonhighriskpatientsuponwhomothersurgeonswouldnotbewillingtooperate.Healleges,however,thatParkwestdisciplinedhimoutofmaliceandbadfaithwhichhe X9P28 claimstobeevidencedbyvariousdeviationsfromParkwestsBylawsoccurringthroughoutthepeerreviewprocess.CVCVVVCVCV   ParkwestsBylaws  l d , ` ParkwestsBylawsrequiredthatcorrectiveactionagainstaphysicianbeinitiatedbytheChiefExecutiveOfficer( CEO),theBoardofTrustees(the Board),ortheMedicalExecutiveCommittee,amedicalstaffcommitteeofdoctorsexercisingoverallmanagementfunctionsofParkwestsmedicalstaff.Afterinitiatingorreceivingarequestforadverseaction,theMedicalExecutiveCommitteeforwardstherequesttothe chairpersonofthedepartmentinwhichthequestionedactivitiesoccurred.TheBylawsprovidethattheDepartmenttheneitherinvestigatesthematterorappointsanAdHocCommitteetoinvestigate.TheinvestigationistoculminateinawrittenreportwithinCVCVthirtyCVCVdayswhichisthenforwardedtotheMedicalExecutiveCommittee.IftheMedicalExecutiveCommitteerecommendsadverseactiontotheBoardbaseduponthisreport,thephysicianisentitledtopromptnoticeadvisingthephysicianofhisrighttorequestahearing. ` Oncethephysicianrequestsahearing,Parkwestistoprovidenoticeofthehearingsplaceandtime,whichshouldbeschedulednolaterthanCVCVthirtyCVCVdaysfromthedateofthephysiciansrequest.AtleastCVCVVVsevenCVCVdaysbeforethehearing,Parkwestmustprovidethephysicianwithaconcisestatementofallegedactsoromissions.VV_V_VFollowingVVVVthehearing,appellatereviewshouldoccurwithinCVCVVVsevenCVCVdaysofthephysiciansrequest.   ActionAgainstEyring  (2 +0 3 ` ThecorrectiveactionagainstEyringwasinitiatedbytheSurgicalPatientCareEvaluationCommittee( SurgicalEvaluationCommittee),ofwhichEyringwasaVVmember.^V]V1]V^VVVVVAfterHelenParkerdiedatParkwestwhileunderEyringscare,theSurgicalEvaluationCommitteehaditsregularmeetinganddiscussedtheHelen X9P28 Parkerchartasapartofitsregularagenda.Eyringwaspresentduringthediscussion.TheSurgicalEvaluationCommitteequestionedEyringsjudgmentinchoosingtoperformkneesurgeryonHelenParker,whowasapoorcandidateforsurgerybecauseofnumerousriskfactorsinhercase,includingextremeobesity.TheSurgicalEvaluationCommitteerecommendedthattheHelenParkerchartbe trended,atermreferringtotheprocessbywhichParkwestperformsqualityassurance.CVUUCVCVLVQVQVQVWQVLVLVGLVCVCV5CV  #  1      CVCVTheSurgicalEvaluationCommitteevotedtoappointaCVCVfivememberCVCVAd   HocCommitteetoconductanCVCVin,V,V-V-VdepthCVCVfocusedreviewofallofEyringscasestrended duringthepasttwoyears,whichtotaledCVCVtwentythreeCVCVchartsincludingtheHelenParkerchart. ` BoththeDepartmentofSurgeryandtheMedicalExecutiveCommitteeapprovedtheSurgicalEvaluationCommitteesrecommendations,andtheAdHocCommitteebeganitsfocusedreviewofEyringstrendedcases.MorethanCVCVthirtyCVCVdayslater,theAdHocCommitteesubmittedtotheMedicalExecutiveCommitteeaCVCVtwopageCVCVreport,inwhichitunanimouslyconcludedthatEyringhaddeviatedfromthestandardofcareandrecommended strongsanctionsuptoandincludingsuspension.BasedupontheAdHocCommitteesreport,theMedicalExecutiveCommitteeunanimouslyvotedtorecommendtotheBoardtherevocationofEyringsclinicalprivilegesandmedicalstaffappointment. ` InsteadofprovidingEyringnoticeoftheMedicalExecutiveCommitteesadverseaction,theBoardmetandunanimouslyvotedtoaccepttheMedicalExecutiveCommitteesrecommendationandtoimmediatelyterminateEyringsmedicalstaffappointment.TheBoardnotifiedEyringofitsaction,thatthisactionconstituted adverseaction,andthathewasentitledtoproceduralrightscontainedintheBylaws.However,shortlyafterterminatinghisappointmentandprivileges, 5.4 theBoardapparentlyrealizedthatithadmadeaproceduralmistakeandreinstatedEyringsappointmentandprivileges.TheBoardinformedEyringthattheMedicalExecutiveCommitteesoriginalrecommendationtorevokehisprivilegesandappointmentwasstillineffectandthathewasentitledtorequestahearinginaccordancewiththeBylaws. ` ApproximatelyCVCVfortyCVCVdaysafterEyringsrequestforahearing,Parkwestprovidedhimnoticewhichsuggestedthatthehearingwouldbeheldsometimethefollowingmonthsubjecttothepartiesagreement.ThisletterprovidedEyringwiththe concisestatementofhisallegedacts,informinghimthattheAdHocCommitteefoundfaultwithhimforthreemainreasons:1)hehadahighpostoperativeinfectionratebecause [n]ine(9)casesoftwentytwo(22)caseswhichwerethesubjectofthefocusedreviewweredefinitelyinfected;2)hedemonstratedpoorsurgicaltechnique;CVCVand V, V!V!V3)CVCVheexhibitedpoorclinicaljudgment. ` Priortothehearing,EyringrequestedvoluminousmaterialsfromParkwestincludingbothphotocopiesofthepatientschartsreviewedandchartsofspecifiedpatients.Healsorequestedvariousotherpeerreviewdocuments.ThoughParkwestprovidedacopyoftheAdHocCommitteesCVCVtwopageCVCVreport,alistofCVCVpatient"V"VsCVCVwhosechartswerereviewed,andchartsofspecificpatientsasrequested,ParkwestclaimedthatdocumentsandmaterialsoftheAdHocCommitteeandtheMedicalExecutiveCommitteewereprotectedbyaprivilegepursuanttothePeerReviewLaw,Tenn.CodeAnn.636219. ` PursuanttotheBylaws,thehearingwasconductedbeforeaHearingCommitteeselectedbyParkwest.TheHearingCommitteewascomprisedofCVCVfiveCVCVphysicianmembers.Eyring,representedbyamemberofthemedicalstaffingoodstanding,voirdiredeachCVCVmemberoftheHearingCommitteeCVCVextensively,presentedproof,andcrossexaminedwitnesses.AnCVCVrepresentativefortheAdCVCVHocCommittee X9P28 CVCVreadCVCVintoevidenceaCVCVseventeenpageCVCVAdHocCommitteereport,acopyofwhichEyringhadneverseen,whichexplainedthereasonsfortheAdHocCommitteesadverserecommendation.ThoughtheHearingCommitteedidnotagreewithallfindingsoftheAdHocCommittee,byaCVCVfourtooneCVCVvote,itissuedareporttotheMedicalExecutiveCommitteeinwhichitagreedwiththeAdHocCommitteesfinalrecommendationtosuspendEyringsclinicalprivilegesandstaffappointment.CVUUCVCVQVQVQVUQVCVCV7CV  #  2      CVCVThe   MedicalExecutiveCommitteethensuspendedEyringsclinicalprivilegesandstaffappointment.Eyringthen,asprovidedbytheBylaws,requestedappellatereview,whichParkwestscheduledtooccur approximatelyCVCVelevenCVCVdaysfromhisrequest.  h`   ` TheAppellateReviewCommitteesreportagreedthattheconclusionsoftheHearingCommitteeweresupportedbytheevidenceandthatEyringhadreceivedafairhearing.TheAppellateReviewCommitteeunanimouslyrecommendedthattheBoardaffirmtheMedicalExecutiveCommitteesrecommendation.TheBoardaffirmedtherecommendationbyaunanimousvote.Consequently,theBoardrevokedEyringsclinicalprivilegesandmedicalstaffmembership. ` EyringfiledsuitagainstParkwestinthecircuitcourtfor anaggregateof %" CVCV$600,000,000.00CVCVincompensatoryandpunitivedamagesallegingbreachofcontract,intentionalinterferenceincontract,intentionalinterferenceinanexistingbusinessrelationship,intentionalinterferenceinaprospectivebusinessexpectancy,andintentionaldiscriminatoryinterferenceinhisrighttoengageinhisprofessionatthehospital.ParkwestfiledaMotionforPartialSummaryJudgmentagainstEyringsclaimsfordamagesbaseduponthequalifiedimmunitiesgrantedbythe FederalHealthCareQualityImprovementAct,42U.S.C.CVCV$V#Vz#V$V$V$V%V#V#V%V&V&V11101,CVCVetseq. (2 +0 (HCQIA),CVUUCVCVMVQVQVQVLQVMVMVIMVCVCV9CV  #  3      CVCVandbytheTennesseePeerReviewLaw,Tenn.CodeVVAnn.ZVZV_V_VYVYVVV636219.  Inresponse,Eyringmovedfordiscovery.  ` OverParkwestsobjection,thetrialcourtinitiallypermitteddiscoveryofpeerreviewparticipantsforthelimitedpurposeofallowingEyringanopportunitytodiscoverthecommitteemembersgoodfaith,malice,andwhethertheyactedonthebasisoffactsreasonablyknownorbelievedtoexist.Thetrialcourt,however,eventuallysustainedParkwestsobjectionsthatEyringwasseekingprivilegedinformationaboutthepeerreviewcommitteesdeliberativeprocessesandgrantedParkwestsmotionforsummaryjudgment.TheCourtofAppealsaffirmedthetrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmenttothedefendants,holdingthattheTennesseePeerReviewLawincludeshospitalsinthosepartiesentitledtoqualifiedimmunityfromliabilityfordamages;thattherewasnogenuineissueofmaterialfactregardingwhetherthehospitalsactionsweretakeningoodfaithandwithoutmaliceandonthebasisoffactsreasonablyknownorreasonabPVNVK4  #  4      NVPVlybelievedtoexist;andthatthePeerReviewLawgrantsthehospitalaprivilegebarringdiscoveryofthepeerreviewprocess. ` WegrantedEyringsapplicationforpermissiontoappeal. `'X $   CVCV ANALYSIS  *#( kW  TheTennesseePeerReviewLawof1967󀀀  ,%* W ` WebeginouranalysisofthequestionofwhetherhospitalswereincludedinthosepartiestowhomqualifiedimmunityfromliabilitywasextendedbyexaminingthelanguageofthePeerReviewLaw.TheTennesseePeerReviewLawiscodifiedinTenn.CodeAnn.636219.InCVCVenactingCVCVthePeerReviewLaw,theLegislaturehasclearlystateditsintentandpurposes: 5.4 Ӏ8 ` 8 ` !` !itisthestatedpolicyofTennesseetoencourage  committeesmadeupofTennesseeslicensedphysicianstocandidly,conscientiously,andobjectivelyevaluateandreviewtheirpeersprofessionalconduct,competence,andabilitytopracticemedicine...CVCV.VUUVCVCVAsincentiveforthemedicalprofessiontoundertakeprofessionalCVCVreview,CVCV...peerreviewcommitteesmustbeprotectedfromliabilityfortheirgoodfaithefforts.Tothisend,peerreviewcommitteesshouldbegrantedcertainimmunitiesrelatingtotheiractionsundertakenaspartoftheirresponsibilitytoreview,discipline,andeducatetheprofession.    YId.219(a)(1)(2)(nowcodifiedat219(b)(1)(2)).   wp>] ` ThePeerReviewLawdefines peerreviewcommitteeasincluding acommitteeofanylicensedhealthcareinstitution.Id.219(b)(nowcodifiedat NF 219(c)).InenumeratingthepartiesentitledtoqualifiedimmunityunderthePeerReviewLaw,thestatutestatesthat:8 ` 8 ` !` !...institutions,foundations,entitiesandassociated  committeesasidentifiedinsubsectionCVCV(b),CVCVphysicians,surgeons,registerednurses,hospitaladministratorsandemployees,membersofboardsofdirectorsortrusteesofanypubliclysupportedorprivatelysupportedhospitalorothersuchproviderofhealthcare,anypersonactingasastaffmemberofamedicalreviewcommittee...is ! immunefromliabilitytoanypatient,individualor ! organizationforfurnishinginformation,data,CVCVreportsCVCVorrecordstoanysuchcommitteeorfordamagesresulting #  fromanydecision,opinions,actionsandproceedings $! rendered,enteredoracteduponbysuchcommittees %" undertakenorperformedwithinthescopeorfunctionofthedutiesofsuchcommittees,ifmadeortakeningood `'X $ faithandwithoutmaliceandonthebasisoffactsreasonablyknownorreasonablybelievedtoexist.CVCV,)$"&   CVCVId.219(c)(1)(emphasisadded)(nowcodifiedat219(d)(1)).CVCV +$) CVCVCVCVCVCV ` EyringarguesthelowercourtserredinapplyingthePeerReviewLawtograntParkwestqualifiedimmunityfromliabilityfordamagesbecausetheplainlanguageofthestatuteprovidesnoexplicitimmunityto hospitals,andtosoconstruethestatutewouldviolateourdutytostrictlyconstruestatutesinderogationofthecommonlaw.CVCVParkwestCVCVmaintainsthatthePeerReviewLawincludes hospitalsbyincluding institutionsand entities. >:639  ` Afterhavingcarefullyconsideredtheargumentsofbothparties,thePeerReviewLaw,anditsstatedpolicy,weconcludethattheonlyinterpretationwhich CVCVGVCVCVGVKVGVGVKVVKVKVVgive[sVKVKVVKVGVGVKVGVCVCVGVCVCV]effecttotheintentionorpurposeofthelegislatureasexpressedinthestatute,CVCVe.g.,CVCVCarsonCreekVacationResorts,Inc.v.CVCVState0V,0VCVCVCVCVGVDVDVEVEVGVKVGVGVKVVKVKVVDep/V/VtVKVKVVKVGVGVKV.V..VCVCVGVDVDVGVofRevenue,865 l d S.W.2d1(Tenn.1993),istoconstruetheterm institutionsasreferringtohospitals.QVQVQVNQV  #  4      ׀Weacknowledgethathospitalslackimmunityunderthecommonlaw.   However,Eyringsargumentoverlooksthefactthatatcommonlaw,ahospitalcanonlyactthroughitsagents,incurringliabilityonlythroughitsagentsactsandomissions.ThePeerReviewLawclearlygrantsimmunitytoaspecificclassofthehospitals agents,thepeerreviewcommittees.GVUUGV1V?VGVKVHVHVKVHVKVQVFQVQVPFQVKVKVAFKVHVHV>FHVGVGV;FGV?V?V2F?V1V1VF1V  #  5      KVKV 4,  ` Moreover,thestatedpurposeofthePeerReviewLawindicatesthatthelegislaturebalancedtheinterestsofphysiciansandthepublicsothat,essentially,personsandentitiesinvolvedinthepeerreviewprocessareprotectedfrommonetaryliabilityfortheiractionsbutarestillsubjecttosuitfordeclaratoryandinjunctiverelief.AplaintiffphysicianshouldnotbepermittedtocircumventthestatedpolicysupportingthePeerReviewLawsimplybynamingthehospitalasaseparatedefendantinasuitformoneydamageswhenphysiciansareentitledtovindicatetheirrightstoprocedurethroughsuitsfordeclaratoryandinjunctiverelief.Accordingly,affordinghospitalsaqualifiedimmunityfromliabilityfordamagesbetterservestheKVKV(VL(V)Vl)VegislaturesKVKVpurposetoprovidean incentiveforthemedicalprofessiontoundertakeprofessionalKVKVreview.4V4V5V5V5VTenn.Code5V7V6Vand6V7V8VAnn.8V9V8Vz8V9V9V9V:V8V8V:V;V636;V5V5V4VId.4V4V4V:639 itsultimatedecisiontorevoketheprivilegesoftheplaintiff,wasnotactingingoodfaithandthatitwaspossessedandmotivatedbyVVmalice.V   VVVVVdVVVV   VVVVVVVVV(VVVEMPHVVVVeVVVEVVmphasisadded).VVVVVVV ` TheCourtofAppealsagreed,statingthat [w]ehavethoroughlyreviewedplaintiffsargumentandtherecord,andconcludethattherewasinsufficientevidencefromwhichmalicecouldhavebeeninferredunderthePeerReviewLaw.EyringmaintainsinthisCourtthatheofferedthetrialcourtsufficientproofofmaliceandbadfaithtodefeatParkwestssummaryjudgmentbysubmittingseveralaffidavitsdisputingthestandardofcareandbycatalogingParkwestsdeviationsfromtheBylaws.ParkwestarguesthatreviewingcourtsshouldnotconsideraffidavitswhichwerenotconsideredbythepeerreviewparticipantsbecausesuchdocumentsareirrelevanttoParkwestsknowledgeorreasonablebelief,andthatinanyevent,ParkwestsubstantiallyfolloweditsBylaws. ` Toresolvethesearguments,wehaveconsideredtheaffidavitsfiledbyEyringandagreewiththetrialcourtthattheaffidavitsfailedtoraiseagenuineissueastoParkwestsmalice,goodfaithKVKVand'V'V)V)V'Vits'VKVKVbasisofknowledgeandreasonablebeliefatthetimeofthehearing.Smithv.OurLadyoftheLakeHosp.,639So.2dKVKV730U,753UKVKV(La. F(>!% 1994)( affidavits...questioningtheproprietyofthedisciplinaryactiondonotsupporttheallegationsofbadfaithandmalice;theysimplyquestionthemedicaljudgmentuponwhichthedisciplinaryactionwasKVKVbasedUU);KVKVOnatv.PenobscotBay -&+ KVKVMedUicalUU.UKVKVKVKVVKVKVVCVenVtVeVrVKVKVVV.V,KVKV574A.2d872,874(Me.1990)( [p]rofessionaldisagreementoverthe v/n(- appropriatestandardofcaredoesnotperseconstituteKVKVmalice)>V;Gilbertv.Boardof ,%* МMed>VUicalU>VU.U񛀜Exam>VUineU>VUUrsofStateofAriz>VUonaU>VU.U,745P.2d617,627(Ariz.)( [p]rofessionalcriticismor .', disapprovaldoesnotconstitutemalice)>V.KVKV ` Moreover,wenotethattherewasnodirectevidenceofmalice,andEyringstheoryrequiresthatmalicebeinferredfromallegeddeviationsfromthehospitalBylaws.Eyringarguesinthisregardthathis dueprocessrightswereviolated,particularlyhisrighttonoticeundertheBylaws.TheBylawsrequiredEyringsnotice >:639 to containaconciseKVKVstatementUofUKVKV...allegedactsoromissions,alistbynumberofthespecificorrepresentativepatientrecordsinquestionand/ortheotherreasonsorsubjectmatterformingthebasisfortheadverserecommendationoractionwhichisthesubjectofthehearing. Eyrings concisestatementfromParkwestallegedthat:VVVVVVVV8 ` a.8 ` !` !Dr.Eyringhadanunacceptablenumberofpost   operativeinfectionsafterconsiderationoftheoverallinfectionrateofhispatientstreatedatthehospital.Nine(9)casesoftwentytwo(22)caseswhichwerethesubjectofthefocusedreviewweredefinitelyinfectedwhenthequestionofinfectionwasraised.    8 ` b.8 ` !` !Dr.Eyringhashadnumerouscasesevidencingpoor z  surgicaltechnique.Onecaseinvolvedseveranceofthesciaticnervewhileperformingarevisionofatotalhip.Inonecase,therewasaseveranceofseveralligamentsofthekneeduringtotalkneereplacement.Inanothercasetherewasadislocationofahipjointafteratotalhipprocedure.Therewerecasesofhemovacdrainsbeingplacedinthekneejointandonepatientwasdischargedhomewiththedraininthejointspace.    8 ` c.8 ` !` !Dr.Eyringexhibitspoorclinicaljudgment.Onecase  reviewedinvolvedarevisionofahipjointinahemiplegicpatient.Anothercaseinvolvedafusionofakneejointinatwentyeight(28)yearoldpatientwithnormalappearingxraysoftheknee.Therewerecasesofbilateraland/ormultiple,simultaneousprocedures.    tVVVVTheVVVVnoticefurtherstatedthat:VVVVVVVV8 ` 8 ` !` !ItwastheAdhocCommitteesunanimousopinionthatDr.Eyringexhibitsmultiplesignificantdeficiencieswithdeviationsfromthestandardofcarethatshouldbedeliveredtopatients.ItwasthatcommitteesopinionthatDr.Eyringfailedtofollowacceptedprofessionalstandardscausingtheadverseresultsreflectedinthecaseswhichwehavejustdescribed.  z,%*   ThisnoticeclearlycompliedwiththatrequiredbytheBylaws,whicharewritteninthedisjunctive,andwhichonlyrequiredthatEyringreceivenoticeofhis allegedKVKVacts,VVKVKV specificorrepresentativepatientrecordsinquestion,and/ortheother 3,2 reasonsorsubjectmatterformingthebasisfortheadverserecommendation.Moreover,thoughtheBoardinitiallyterminatedEyringwithoutprovidinghimnoticeofhisrighttoahearing,therecordreflectsthatParkwestquicklyrectifiedthis X9P28 deviationfromtheBylaws.TherecordfurtherreflectsthatParkwestprovidedEyringalistofallchartsconsidered,accesstoallcharts,copiesofrequestedcharts,andnoticewhichbothspecifiedthenumberofcasesinwhichtheAdHocCommitteefoundproblemsofinfectionand,whilenotspecifyingeveryproblemwitheachreviewedchart,statedeachproblemandcitedseveralcaseexamplessupportingeachoftheAdHocCommitteesconcerns.Cf.Rosenblitv.SuperiorKVKVCVourVtV.V,KVKV231Cal.   App.3d1434,144249,282Cal.Rptr.819,KVKV8232V8VVVV7VKVKV(1991)(noticeheldinadequateinlightofhospitalsrefusaltoallowphysiciantocopymedicalrecordsandhearingcommitteesvaguefindings). ` ThoughEyringtakesissuewiththeAdHocCommitteesKVKVV17V Vseventeen VpageKVKVreportasviolatinghisrighttonotice,thisreportwasbaseduponthesamechartsastheKVKV V2 V Vtwo VpageKVKVreportwhichEyringhadseenpriortothehearing.Further,theBylawsdidnotrestricttheHearingCommitteefromindependentlyconsideringevidencebutonlyrequiredthattheHearingCommitteesfindingsbe supportedbyreferencetothehearingrecordandtheotherdocumentationconsideredbyit.TherecordindicatesthatboththeAdHocCommitteeandtheHearingCommitteebasedtheirindependentfindingsuponthesameevidence;Eyringhadaccesstothisevidence;KVKVandV V, VVKVKVtheHearingCommitteehadtheauthorityundertheBylawstomakeindependentjudgmentbasedupontheevidence.TheHearingCommitteesexerciseofthatjudgmentdoesnotsupportaninferenceofmaliceorbadfaith. ` Eyringmakesnumerousother dueprocessallegationswhichheclaimsshouldhavepreventedthetrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmenttoParkwest.Wedonotdeemitnecessarytoaddressseparatelyeachallegation,butwehaveconsideredalltheallegationsofmalicetotheextentthattheysuggestproceduralviolationsaffectinghisrighttodueprocess.Wehavecarefullyreviewedthevoluminousrecordinthiscase,andweagreewiththeCourtofAppealsthatEyringwasprovideddueprocess;thathepresentednoevidencefromwhichtoreasonably X9P28 infermalice;andthathehasofferedonlyconclusoryallegationsunsupportedbytheevidencethatParkwesthadanimproperpurposeinproceedingtorevokehisprivilegesandappointment.Accordingly,weconcludethattherewasnogenuineissueofmaterialfactastowhetherParkwestsactionswereingoodfaithandwithoutmaliceandthatthetrialcourtwascorrectingrantingsummaryjudgmenttothedefendants.    @ PrivilegefromDiscovery       ` WenowconsiderwhetherthePeerReviewLawgrantsthehospitalaprivilegebarringdiscoveryofthepeerreviewprocess.ThetrialcourtinitiallyallowedEyringanopportunitytodeposepeerreviewparticipantsforthelimitedpurposeofdiscoveringwhetherthecommitteesactedingoodfaithandwithoutmaliceandonthebasisoffactsreasonablyknownorreasonablybelievedtoexist.However,thetrialKVKVcourt V VKVKVeventuallysustainedParkwestsobjectionsthatEyringwasnotentitledtoinquireaboutthedeliberativeprocessofthepeerreviewcommittee,itsconclusions,oraboutthebasisorreasonsforitsconclusions.TheCourtofAppealsconcludedthatthetrialcourtwascorrectindenyingEyring theabilitytoconductdiscoveryconcerningthepeerreviewprocess. ` Eyringarguesthatthetrialcourterredinrefusingtograntfurtherdiscoveryofthepeerreviewcommitteemembers.ParkwestclaimsthatsuchinformationisprivilegedunderthePeerReviewLaw.Wefirstexaminethepolicyandlanguageofthestatute.TherelevantportionofthePeerReviewLawstatesthepolicyinTennessee:8 ` 8 ` !` !thatconfidentialityisessentialbothtoeffectivefunctioningofthesepeerreviewcommitteesandtocontinuedimprovementinthecareandtreatmentofKVKVpatients.    VVKVKVcVcVVVdVdVVVVVVVfVfVeVId.eVfVfVeVeVVVVV219(a)(1).Inordertopromotethispolicy,thePeerReviewLawstatesthat: 706 8 ` 8 ` !` !Allinformation,interviews,incidentorotherreports, X9P28 statements,memorandaorotherdatafurnishedtoany >:639 committee...andanyfindings,conclusionsor  recommendationsresultingfromtheproceedingsofsuch  committeearedeclaredtobeprivileged. Therecords  andproceedingsofanysuchcommitteesareconfidential...andshallnotbe...availableforcourtsubpoenaor   fordiscoveryKVKVproceedings.VVKVKV...Thedisclosureof  ~ confidential,privilegedpeerreviewcommitteeinformation...totheaffectedphysicianunderreview,doesnotconstituteeitherawaiverofconfidentialityorprivilege.KVKV     KVKV Id.at219(d)(emphasisadded)(nowcodifiedat219(e)).Thisstatutecreatesa   broadprivilegefromdisclosurefor [a]llinformation,interviews,incidentorotherreports,statements,memorandaorotherdata...andanyfindingsconclusionsorrecommendationsresultingfromthe[committees]proceedings.KVKVVVVId.VVVVVInKVKVourview, 4, thisbroadlanguageencompassesanyandallmattersrelatedtothepeerreviewprocessitself.WerejectEyringscontentionthatthestatutegrantsanimplicitrighttoanyinformation furnishedtoorresultingfromtheproceedingsofthepeerreviewcommittees. ` Itappears,however,thatthebroadlanguageextendingtheprivilegefromdiscoverymustbereconciledwiththestatutoryrequirementthattheplaintiffbeartheburdenofproducingevidenceofmaliceandbadfaith.WethereforeagreewiththetrialcourtsrulingallowingEyringtoconductdiscoveryforthelimitedpurposeofinvestigatingthecommitteemembersgoodfaith,malice,andreasonableknowledgeorbelief,butprohibitinganyinquiryintothepeerreviewprocessitself.Cf.Alexanderv.MemphisIndividualKVKVVKVKVVPracVKVKVVVticeVV.VKVKVAssn,870S.W.2d278(Tenn.1993). ,%* Accordingly,weconcludethatthetrialcourtwascorrectandthatthebroadlanguageofthestatuteencompassesanyandallmattersrelatedtothepeerreviewprocess. (2 +0   CONCLUSION @  5.4  ` WehavedeterminedthatthePeerReviewLawgrantsKVKVVhospitalsVbothKVKVaqualifiedimmunityfromliabilityforKVKVdamagesVV!V!VVtohospitalsVKVKVandaprivilegefromdiscoveryofthe X9P28 peerreviewprocess.Wehavealsodeterminedthattherewasnogenuineissueofmaterialfactonthequestionofthehospitalsmalice,goodfaith,andreasonableknowledgeandbelief.Accordingly,weaffirmtheCourtofAppealsjudgmentthatthetrialcourtcorrectlygrantedthedefendantsmotionforsummaryjudgment.Costsofthisappealaretaxedtotheplaintiff. p      x  80 KVKVKVKV `    VV h     KVKV_________________________________KVKVVV `    VV h     RILEYANDERSON,KVKVVKVKVVCHIEFJUSTICEVKVKVVKVKVKVKV VVVPanelVVCONCURV: KVKVVVVV h` VVVVDrowota,VVBirch,Holder,KVKVandBarker,KVKVKVKVJJ.VVV̜VVKVKVVKVF֛KVVVVVVV