Colorado Medical Board v. Office of Administrative Courts, 2014 CO 51

Background

Dr. Polly Train applied for a Colorado medical license and the Colorado Medical Board (the Board) denied her application; she sought administrative review before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).
During discovery in the administrative licensing hearing Train sought production of the Board’s confidential "Letters of Concern" issued to other physicians.
The ALJ ordered production (with redactions and a protective order). The Board objected, claiming the records are protected by the professional review (peer review) privilege under § 12-36.5-104(10)(a).
The Board petitioned the district court to enjoin the ALJ’s discovery order; the district court held the statute prevented subpoena/discovery only in "civil suits," not in administrative proceedings, and ordered production.
The Board sought review by the Colorado Supreme Court, which granted certiorari under C.A.R. 21 to decide statutory construction of § 12-36.5-104(10)(a).
The Supreme Court concluded the statute (1) bars all forms of subpoena and discovery of professional review committee records, (2) bars admissibility of those records in civil suits, and (3) interprets "civil suit" to include adjudicatory administrative proceedings like Train’s hearing; it reversed and remanded.

Issues

Issue	Train's Argument	Board's Argument	Held
Whether § 12-36.5-104(10)(a) protects professional review records from subpoena or discovery in administrative proceedings	"Civil suit" limits the protection; administrative adjudications are not "civil suits," so subpoena/discovery is permitted	The statute creates two distinct protections: (a) records are not subject to any subpoena or discovery (b) not admissible in civil suits — protections apply broadly to administrative proceedings	The statute protects records from all subpoena or discovery, including in administrative hearings; Board need not produce the Letters of Concern
Whether the statutory phrase also bars admissibility of records and whether "civil suit" includes administrative adjudications	Administrative hearings are not "civil suits," so admissibility bar does not apply	"Civil suit" encompasses adjudicatory administrative proceedings; admissibility is barred in such proceedings	"Not admissible in any civil suit" includes adjudicatory administrative proceedings; the Letters are not admissible in Train’s hearing
Whether the statutory exceptions in § 12-36.5-104(10)(b) limit the scope to only some subpoenas/discoveries	The ALJ/OAC argued an exception (Board’s use within scope of authority) permitted use in this licensing review	Exceptions are specific and do not cover this licensing-review context; they show subpoenas may be authorized in nonlitigation contexts but do not limit the general bar	The exceptions do not authorize production here; construing "civil suit" to limit subpoenas would render exceptions superfluous
Whether a protective order would cure confidentiality concerns	Protective order sufficient to protect confidentiality and allow discovery	Statutory privilege is absolute (subject to enumerated exceptions); protective order cannot override statutory bar	Protective order is inapplicable because the statute itself bars subpoena/discovery; confidentiality cannot be cured by protective order

Key Cases Cited

Klinger v. Adams Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 50, 130 P.3d 1027 (Colo. 2006) (statutory construction reviewed de novo)
Crandall v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 238 P.3d 659 (Colo. 2010) (give statute its commonly accepted meaning)
Moffett v. Life Care Ctrs. of Am., 219 P.3d 1068 (Colo. 2009) (read statutes as whole to effectuate legislative intent)
Posey v. Dist. Ct., 586 P.2d 36 (Colo. 1978) (rationale for confidentiality of peer review proceedings)
Franco v. Dist. Ct., 641 P.2d 922 (Colo. 1982) (professional review records privileged from discovery in civil litigation, with limited exception)
DeSantis v. Simon, 209 P.3d 1069 (Colo. 2009) (prior interpretation regarding Board’s status as a professional review committee)