§ 5-31.1-29 Privileges and immunities for peer review activities.
(a) Neither the proceedings nor the records of peer review boards as defined in § 5-31.1-1 is subject to discovery or admissible in evidence in any case save litigation arising out of the imposition of sanctions upon a dentist or dental hygienist. Any imposition or notice of a restriction of privileges or a requirement of supervision imposed on a dentist or dental hygienist for unprofessional conduct as defined in § 5-31.1-10 is subject to discovery and admissible in any proceeding against that dentist or dental hygienist for performing or against any dental care facility or dental care provider which allows the dentist to perform the dental procedures which are the subject of the restriction or supervision during the period of the restriction or supervision or subsequent to that period. Nothing contained in this section applies to records made in the regular course of business by a hospital or other provider of health care information. Documents or records available from original sources are not to be construed as immune from discovery or use in any civil proceedings merely because they were presented during the proceedings of the committee.
(b) There is no monetary liability on the part of, and no cause of action for damages arising against, any member of an appointed peer review board operated pursuant to written by-laws, for any act or proceeding undertaken or performed within the scope of the functions of that board.
(c) There is no monetary liability on the part of, and no cause of action for damage arising against, any person on account of the communication of information in the possession of the person to any peer review board or the board of examiners in dentistry when the communication is intended to aid in the evaluation of the qualifications, fitness, or character of a practitioner of dentistry or dental hygiene and does not represent as true any matter not reasonably believed to be true.
(d) Any peer review processes authorized by statute and carried out in good faith has the benefit of the state action exemption to the state antitrust law.
(P.L. 1987, ch. 358, § 2.)