Call Now | (412) 981-2400
Medical malpractice litigation in Pennsylvania involves more than just clinical facts and expert opinions—it also raises complex legal issues about what information can and cannot be revealed in court. A key doctrine that frequently becomes a battleground is peer review privilege.
Peer review privilege is designed to protect internal evaluations of healthcare providers conducted by hospitals and medical staff. Its purpose is to ensure open and candid discussions that ultimately improve patient care. In Pennsylvania, this privilege is governed by specific statutes, including the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act, and is further shaped by case law.
Understanding this privilege, its scope, and its exceptions is crucial for legal professionals, healthcare providers, and institutions involved in civil litigation or healthcare compliance.
Peer review privilege in Pennsylvania is a legal rule that protects certain communications and documents created during the peer review process from being disclosed in litigation, particularly in medical malpractice cases. Peer review itself is the process by which medical professionals evaluate clinical care and performance, often after a significant outcome such as a complication, injury, or death.
The legal foundation for peer review privilege is found in both the Pennsylvania Peer Review Protection Act (PRPA) and the MCARE Act. Under these laws, materials generated by a peer review committee are generally considered confidential and are not subject to discovery or admissible in court.
To invoke this privilege successfully, the peer review must be conducted by a legally recognized committee operating under the appropriate procedures. Simply labeling a document as “peer review” does not make it privileged. Courts carefully examine whether the body conducting the review qualifies under the statute and whether the purpose of the document aligns with the goals of peer review.
Enacted in 2002, the MCARE Act was Pennsylvania’s response to a growing medical liability crisis. Its intent was to reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits, ensure fair compensation for legitimate claims, and encourage systemic improvements in healthcare delivery.
One of the pillars of the MCARE Act is its provision for the confidentiality of peer review materials. Specifically, Section 311 states that documents arising from peer review activities “shall not be subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil action.” This clause was included to maintain the integrity of quality improvement processes within hospitals and healthcare systems.
Protected materials typically include:
The privilege applies only when the documents are created for the purpose of improving care through structured internal review. Operational or administrative records—like incident reports or billing notes—may not qualify, even if they relate to the same events.
Discovery is a critical phase in any malpractice case, as both sides seek evidence that supports their version of events. Plaintiffs often request hospital records, internal communications, and evaluation documents to demonstrate that a healthcare provider failed to meet the standard of care.
Peer review privilege can block access to these materials. In Pennsylvania, if a hospital or healthcare provider can show that certain materials were prepared as part of a legitimate peer review process, those materials are shielded from disclosure.
The burden of proof falls on the party asserting the privilege. They must demonstrate that:
If these conditions are not met, a court may rule that the privilege does not apply, and the documents must be turned over. This can significantly impact the direction and outcome of the case.
While peer review privilege is powerful, it’s not absolute. Pennsylvania courts have carved out several exceptions to the general rule of confidentiality, especially when healthcare providers attempt to shield materials that do not meet the statutory criteria.
One major limitation involves the source of the documents. If peer review is conducted by a third-party contractor or consultant not considered a “professional healthcare provider” under the statute, the privilege may not apply. This was a key issue in the Reginelli v. Boggs case, where the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a third-party emergency services contractor’s evaluation of a physician was not protected.
Another common exception occurs when hospitals fail to properly segregate evaluative documents from operational records. For instance, if a quality assurance report is shared broadly with non-review personnel, or used for administrative decisions rather than performance evaluation, the court may determine that the document has lost its privileged status.
Furthermore, if a hospital voluntarily discloses peer review documents to outside parties—such as attorneys, insurers, or even patients—it may inadvertently waive the privilege. Once waived, the protection cannot be restored.
Hospitals and healthcare providers must take deliberate steps to maintain the protection of peer review materials. This involves more than just forming a peer review committee—it requires a consistent, legally compliant process that reinforces the intent and confidentiality of peer review.
By following these practices, institutions reduce the risk of judicial challenges and ensure their internal evaluations remain protected. Failing to do so may expose sensitive information and weaken legal defenses in malpractice litigation.
Pennsylvania courts have played an active role in defining the limits of peer review privilege. Several decisions have provided crucial guidance on what qualifies for protection and what does not.
These cases emphasize that asserting peer review privilege requires not only a solid legal foundation but also proper document management and procedural discipline. Attorneys must be diligent in reviewing the source, purpose, and handling of any material claimed to be privileged.
Can peer review documents be used in malpractice suits in Pennsylvania? Generally, peer review documents are not admissible in malpractice suits in Pennsylvania if they were created as part of a formal peer review process recognized under the MCARE Act or the Peer Review Protection Act. The law specifically protects these documents from discovery and use as evidence. However, if the documents were not properly classified, if the peer review committee wasn’t legally constituted, or if the information was used outside of a peer review context, the court may find that the privilege does not apply. In those cases, the documents could potentially be used in litigation.
Are hospital peer reviews confidential in malpractice cases? Hospital peer reviews are considered confidential under Pennsylvania law, but only when they meet specific statutory requirements. The review must be conducted by a properly designated committee, and the information must be used solely for internal evaluation or quality improvement. If these conditions are met, the records are protected from disclosure in malpractice proceedings. However, any deviation from these rules—such as sharing documents outside the intended peer review group—may compromise confidentiality and expose the records to discovery.
What does the MCARE Act say about peer review? The MCARE Act reinforces the confidentiality of peer review processes by stating that materials arising from these activities are not subject to discovery or admissible as evidence in any civil action. This includes records, proceedings, and recommendations from committees engaged in evaluating the quality and efficiency of medical care. The Act is intended to foster honest and constructive internal assessments within healthcare institutions by shielding those discussions from legal exposure.
What happens if a peer review document is accidentally disclosed? If a peer review document is inadvertently disclosed to parties outside the authorized peer review group, it may result in a waiver of the privilege. Once privilege is waived—intentionally or not—the document may become admissible in court. This underscores the importance of strict document handling procedures and staff training to prevent unintentional disclosure. In malpractice litigation, such a waiver can significantly weaken a hospital’s defense.
Is peer review privilege automatic in Pennsylvania courts? No, the peer review privilege is not automatic. The party asserting the privilege bears the burden of proving that the materials in question qualify for protection. This includes showing that the documents were generated by a legally recognized peer review committee and were used exclusively for evaluation purposes. Courts will closely examine the nature, purpose, and handling of the documents before granting privilege. If there is any doubt about the document’s origin or use, the court may order its disclosure.
Peer review privilege is a critical element of Pennsylvania’s medical malpractice landscape. It ensures that healthcare providers can engage in honest self-evaluation without fear of legal retribution. At the same time, courts are vigilant in ensuring that the privilege is not used to hide wrongdoing or frustrate legitimate litigation efforts.
Healthcare institutions must strike a careful balance—preserving the integrity of peer review while complying with evolving legal standards. For attorneys and medical professionals alike, understanding how and when the privilege applies is key to effective advocacy and institutional protection.
Navigating peer review privilege requires deep knowledge of both healthcare practices and legal procedures. Whether you’re defending a malpractice case, responding to a discovery request, or structuring your hospital’s peer review processes, expert legal advice is essential.
Contact Matzus Law, LLC today to ensure your rights—and your patients—are properly protected.
Helping each and every one of our clients with tenacious representation when they need a strong and passionate advocate.
Maztus Law
Maztus Law