Verska v. Saint Alphonsus Regional Medical Center
151 Idaho 889
| Idaho | 2011Background
- Dr. Verska, spine surgeon, was on Saint Alphonsus Medical Center's staff from 1996 to 2008.
- Hospital conducted in-hospital peer review reviews 2004–2007; Fair Hearing Panel held in 2008 resulting in denied privileges.
- Plaintiffs filed suit on July 23, 2009, alleging various torts and breach of implied covenant and due process rights.
- During discovery, plaintiffs sought records of the peer review/credentialing process; hospital sought protection under Idaho's peer review privilege, I.C. § 39-1392b.
- District court in Feb. 2010 granted protective order and denied motion to compel discovery, holding privilege applicable.
- The Supreme Court granted a discretionary permissive appeal to resolve whether I.C. § 39-1392b applies to this case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does I.C. § 39-1392b apply to this case? | Verska contends privilege does not bar discovery here due to competitive motive. | Hospital argues statute broadly protects peer review records in any action. | Yes, the privilege applies to this action. |
| Can court modify an unambiguous statute to avoid absurd results? | Literal reading could yield absurd outcome; court should reconsider. | Unambiguous statute must be applied as written; legislative correction is proper channel. | Court cannot modify an unambiguous statute. |
| Does filing suit waive the privilege under I.C. § 39-1392e(f)? | Plaintiffs argue waiver should extend to defense access for discovery. | Physician’s claim triggers waiver only for defense using privileged material; defendant may rely on privilege. | Waiver is interpreted to allow defense use by defendants; discovery remains protected. |
| Scope of I.C. § 39-1392C—whether it covers non-malpractice peer review materials? | Question requested flexibility beyond malpractice actions. | Statute applies to all peer review records regardless of action type. | Not addressed on appeal; district court ruling stands on other issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Willys Jeep, 100 Idaho 150 (1979) (misstated premise on absurd results; literal reading favored unless absurd)
- Worley Highway Dist. v. Kootenai County, 98 Idaho 925 (1978) (unambiguous statute must be given effect)
- Moon v. Investment Bd., 97 Idaho 595 (1976) (plain, clear, unambiguous statutes must be interpreted as written)
- Herndon v. West, 87 Idaho 335 (1964) (legislative wisdom not judicially revised)
- Federated Publ'ns, Inc. v. Idaho Business Review, Inc., 146 Idaho 207 (2008) (public policy and statutory interpretation limits)
- State v. Urrabazo, 150 Idaho 158 (2010) (recognizes interpretation of unambiguous statutes; avoid absurdism)