PEER REVIEW PRIVILEGE
Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hosp. Auth., No. E2006-00064-SC-R11-CV ( Tenn. Feb. 13, 2008)

The Supreme Court of Tennessee reversed a lower court order that held a physician's attorney in contempt of court because he used the Freedom of Information Act in an attempt to obtain records from a hospital even though discovery was stayed in the lawsuit between the physician and the hospital. In this case, the physician's privileges were suspended after he engaged in a physical altercation with another physician in the break room. The physician sued the hospital to challenge the suspension and, during the course of that suit, sought to discover credentials information about the physician with whom he had tussled. The hospital, of course, refused to disclose the information, arguing that it was protected by the peer review privilege. The lower court agreed with the hospital, but granted the physician leave to appeal that decision immediately. The court stayed the proceedings pending the appellate court's resolution of the discovery dispute. While that proceeding was pending, the physician's attorneys filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the hospital, seeking much of the same information sought in the original discovery request. When the hospital failed to respond, the attorneys filed a lawsuit seeking production of those records pursuant to the Act. The hospital argued that the attorneys' actions violated the court's order staying the proceedings in the physician's case. Though the appeals court agreed that the attorneys had violated its order, and held them in civil contempt, the Supreme Court of Tennessee ultimately reversed that finding on the basis that the attorneys' public records lawsuit was separate from the lawsuit between the physician and hospital (to which the stay order applied).