Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Appeals court hears arguments over medical peer review privilege in physician whistleblower case
Summary
A three-justice panel heard arguments over whether the medical peer review privilege can be pierced in healthcare whistleblower suits where alleged retaliatory discipline does not implicate patient care; both sides urged existing precedent; the court took the matter under advisement.
Chief Justice Amy Blake and the two-justice panel heard 15-minute arguments in Albert Alexander, MD v. Baystate Health Inc., where appellant counsel Tanya Saperstein asked the court to narrow application of the 1986 medical peer review privilege so whistleblowers can obtain documents needed to prove retaliatory discipline. Saperstein said the privilege has been applied “wholesale” to bar discovery and that in this case the underlying facts do not involve patient care or malpractice, leaving no way to prove…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
