The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XLV
TORTS

Chapter 766
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND RELATED MATTERS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 766.101

766.101 Medical review committee, immunity from liability.—

(1) As used in this section:

(a) The term “medical review committee” or “committee” means:

1.a. A committee of a hospital or ambulatory surgical center licensed under chapter 395 or a health maintenance organization certificated under part I of chapter 641;

b. A committee of a physician-hospital organization, a provider-sponsored organization, or an integrated delivery system;

c. A committee of a state or local professional society of health care providers;

d. A committee of a medical staff of a licensed hospital or nursing home, provided the medical staff operates pursuant to written bylaws that have been approved by the governing board of the hospital or nursing home;

e. A committee of the Department of Corrections or the Correctional Medical Authority as created under s. 945.602, or employees, agents, or consultants of either the department or the authority or both;

f. A committee of a professional service corporation formed under chapter 621 or a corporation organized under part I of chapter 607 or chapter 617, which is formed and operated for the practice of medicine as defined in s. 458.305(3), and which has at least 25 health care providers who routinely provide health care services directly to patients;

g. A committee of the Department of Children and Families which includes employees, agents, or consultants to the department as deemed necessary to provide peer review, utilization review, and mortality review of treatment services provided pursuant to chapters 394, 397, and 916;

h. A committee of a mental health treatment facility licensed under chapter 394 or a community mental health center as defined in s. 394.907, provided the quality assurance program operates pursuant to the guidelines that have been approved by the governing board of the agency;

i. A committee of a substance abuse treatment and education prevention program licensed under chapter 397 provided the quality assurance program operates pursuant to the guidelines that have been approved by the governing board of the agency;

j. A peer review or utilization review committee organized under chapter 440;

k. A committee of the Department of Health, a county health department, healthy start coalition, or certified rural health network, when reviewing quality of care, or employees of these entities when reviewing mortality records; or

l. A continuous quality improvement committee of a pharmacy licensed pursuant to chapter 465,

which committee is formed to evaluate and improve the quality of health care rendered by providers of health service, to determine that health services rendered were professionally indicated or were performed in compliance with the applicable standard of care, or that the cost of health care rendered was considered reasonable by the providers of professional health services in the area; or

2. A committee of an insurer, self-insurer, or joint underwriting association of medical malpractice insurance, or other persons conducting review under s. 766.106.

(b) The term “health care providers” means physicians licensed under chapter 458, osteopathic physicians licensed under chapter 459, podiatric physicians licensed under chapter 461, optometrists licensed under chapter 463, dentists licensed under chapter 466, chiropractic physicians licensed under chapter 460, pharmacists licensed under chapter 465, or hospitals or ambulatory surgical centers licensed under chapter 395.

(2) A medical review committee of a hospital or ambulatory surgical center or health maintenance organization shall screen, evaluate, and review the professional and medical competence of applicants to, and members of, medical staff. As a condition of licensure, each health care provider shall cooperate with a review of professional competence performed by a medical review committee.

(3)(a) There shall be no monetary liability on the part of, and no cause of action for damages shall arise against, any member of a duly appointed medical review committee, or any health care provider furnishing any information, including information concerning the prescribing of substances listed in s. 893.03(2), to such committee, or any person, including any person acting as a witness, incident reporter to, or investigator for, a medical review committee, for any act or proceeding undertaken or performed within the scope of the functions of any such committee if the committee member or health care provider acts without intentional fraud.

(b) The provisions of this section do not affect the official immunity of an officer or employee of a public corporation.

(4) Except as provided in subsection (3), this section shall not be construed to confer immunity from liability on any professional society or hospital or upon any health professional while performing services other than as a member of a medical review committee or upon any person, including any person acting as a witness, incident reporter to, or investigator for, a medical review committee, for any act or proceeding undertaken or performed outside the scope of the functions of such committee. In any case in which, but for the enactment of the preceding provisions of this section, a cause of action would arise against a hospital, professional society, or an individual health professional, such cause of action shall exist as if the preceding provisions had not been enacted.

(5) The investigations, proceedings, and records of a committee as described in the preceding subsections shall not be subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil or administrative action against a provider of professional health services arising out of the matters which are the subject of evaluation and review by such committee, and no person who was in attendance at a meeting of such committee shall be permitted or required to testify in any such civil action as to any evidence or other matters produced or presented during the proceedings of such committee or as to any findings, recommendations, evaluations, opinions, or other actions of such committee or any members thereof. However, information, documents, or records otherwise available from original sources are not to be construed as immune from discovery or use in any such civil action merely because they were presented during proceedings of such committee, nor should any person who testifies before such committee or who is a member of such committee be prevented from testifying as to matters within his or her knowledge, but the said witness cannot be asked about his or her testimony before such a committee or opinions formed by him or her as a result of said committee hearings.

(6) In the event that the defendant prevails in an action brought by a health care provider against any person that initiated, participated in, was a witness in, or conducted any review as authorized by this section, the court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the defendant.

(7)(a) It is the intent of the Legislature to encourage medical review committees to contribute further to the quality of health care in this state by reviewing complaints against physicians in the manner described in this paragraph. Accordingly, the Department of Health may enter into a letter of agreement with a professional society of physicians licensed under chapter 458 or chapter 459, under which agreement the medical or peer review committees of the professional society will conduct a review of any complaint or case referred to the society by the department which involves a question as to whether a physician’s actions represented a breach of the prevailing professional standard of care. The prevailing professional standard of care is that level of care, skill, and treatment which, in light of all relevant surrounding circumstances, is recognized as acceptable and appropriate by reasonably prudent similar health care providers. The letter of agreement must specify that the professional society will submit an advisory report to the department within a reasonable time following the department’s written and appropriately supported request to the professional society. The advisory report, which is not binding upon the department, constitutes the professional opinion of the medical review committee and must include:

1. A statement of relevant factual findings.

2. The judgment of the committee as to whether the physician’s actions represented a breach of the prevailing professional standard of care.

(b) Cases involving possible criminal acts may not be referred to medical review committees, and emergency action by the department needed to protect the public against immediate and substantial threats must not be delayed by any referral of the case to a medical review committee. The department shall refer cases pursuant to this subsection prior to making determinations of probable cause.

(c) So as not to inhibit the willing and voluntary service of professional society members on medical review committees, the department shall use advisory reports from medical committees as background information only and shall prepare its own case using independently prepared evidence and supporting expert opinion for submission to the probable cause panel of a regulatory board formed under chapter 458 or chapter 459. Proceedings of medical review committees are exempt from the provisions of s. 286.011 and s. 24(b), Art. I of the State Constitution, and any advisory reports provided to the department by such committees are confidential and exempt from the provisions of s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution, regardless of whether probable cause is found. The medical review committee advisory reports and any records created by the medical review committee are not subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any disciplinary proceeding against a licensee. Further, no person who voluntarily serves on a medical review committee or who investigates a complaint for the committee may be permitted or required to testify in any such disciplinary proceeding as to any evidence or other matters produced or presented during the proceedings of such committee or as to any findings, recommendations, evaluations, opinions, or other actions of such committee or any members thereof. However, nothing in this section shall be construed to mean that information, documents, or records otherwise available and obtained from original sources are immune from discovery or use in any such disciplinary proceeding merely because they were presented during proceedings of a peer review organization or committee. Members of medical review committees shall assist the department in identifying such original sources when possible.

(d) Professional society representatives who participate in medical reviews and preparation of advisory reports pursuant to this subsection will be reimbursed for per diem and travel expenses consistent with the provisions of s. 112.061 and as provided in the written agreement described in paragraph (a).

(e) There shall be no monetary liability on the part of, and no cause of action shall arise against, any state or local professional society of physicians licensed under chapter 458 or chapter 459, or any member thereof, acting pursuant to the provisions of this subsection without intentional fraud or malice. Further, this subsection does not supersede the provisions of paragraph (3)(a) relating to immunity from liability for medical review committees.

(8) No cause of action of any nature by a person licensed pursuant to chapter 458, chapter 459, chapter 461, chapter 463, part I of chapter 464, chapter 465, or chapter 466 shall arise against another person licensed pursuant to chapter 458, chapter 459, chapter 461, chapter 463, part I of chapter 464, chapter 465, or chapter 466 for furnishing information to a duly appointed medical review committee, to an internal risk management program established under s. 395.0197, to the Department of Health or the Agency for Health Care Administration, or to the appropriate regulatory board if the information furnished concerns patient care at a facility licensed pursuant to part I of chapter 395 where both persons provide health care services, if the information is not intentionally fraudulent, and if the information is within the scope of the functions of the committee, department, or board. However, if such information is otherwise available from original sources, it is not immune from discovery or use in a civil action merely because it was presented during a proceeding of the committee, department, or board.

History.—ss. 1, 2, ch. 72-62; s. 1, ch. 73-50; s. 1, ch. 77-461; s. 285, ch. 79-400; s. 3, ch. 80-353; s. 8, ch. 85-175; s. 1, ch. 87-342; s. 47, ch. 88-277; s. 34, ch. 88-392; s. 25, ch. 88-398; s. 4, ch. 89-281; s. 35, ch. 89-289; s. 16, ch. 89-374; s. 9, ch. 90-341; s. 92, ch. 92-289; s. 37, ch. 93-39; s. 1, ch. 93-155; s. 1, ch. 93-158; s. 1, ch. 94-73; s. 244, ch. 94-218; s. 6, ch. 95-140; s. 422, ch. 96-406; s. 1798, ch. 97-102; s. 80, ch. 97-237; s. 61, ch. 97-264; s. 31, ch. 98-89; ss. 228, 295, ch. 98-166; s. 23, ch. 98-191; s. 6, ch. 99-186; s. 143, ch. 2000-318; s. 86, ch. 2001-277; s. 50, ch. 2009-132; s. 294, ch. 2014-19; s. 73, ch. 2014-209.

Note.—Former s. 768.131; s. 768.40.

F.S. 766.101 on Google Scholar

F.S. 766.101 on Casetext

Amendments to 766.101

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 766.101

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 766.101.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

O. BEAN, v. PERDUE,, 316 F. Supp. 3d 220 (D.D.C. 2018)

. . . . §§ 766.101, 104(a). . . . more past due on loan payments," or to any borrower who "[r]equest[s] this information." 7 C.F.R. §§ 766.101 . . . A ("FSA-2510"), 766.101(c); Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. ("Def.'s Mot.") Ex. 1, ECF No. 27-2. . . . See, e.g. , 7 C.F.R. §§ 766.101(b), 766.103(b)(2), 780. . . . accepted, the notice will be sent by first class mail to the borrower's last known address. 7 C.F.R. § 766.101 . . .

BARTOW HMA, LLC a k a v. J. KIRKLAND D. M. D. R. M. D. LLC,, 171 So. 3d 783 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . application of the statutory discovery protections set forth in sections 395.0191, 395.0193, 395.0197, and 766.101 . . . within the statutory protections set forth in sections 381.028(6)(b), 395.0191(8), 395.0193(8), and 766.101 . . .

BARTOW HMA, LLC d b a v. EDWARDS M. D., 175 So. 3d 820 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . See §§ 395.0191(8), 395.0193(8), 766.101(5), Fla. Stat. (2010); W. Fla. Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. . . .

HOLMES REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. v. DUMIGAN, 151 So. 3d 1282 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . . §§ 766.101-.316, Fla. Stat. (2013). . . . .

BARTOW HMA, LLC a k a v. J. KIRKLAND,, 126 So. 3d 1247 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . risk management/quality assurance discovery limitations under sections 395.0191, 395.0198, 395.0197, 766.101 . . . application of the statutory discovery protections set forth in sections 395.0191, 395.0193, 395.0197, and 766.101 . . .

WEST FLORIDA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. v. S. SEE,, 79 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2012)

. . . ANALYSIS Blank Application In See, the First District below determined that section 766.101(5), Florida . . . Even if a blank application falls within the purview of sections 766.101(5) and 395.0191(8), Amendment . . . Blank Application Not Protected Under Sections 766.101(5) and 395.0191(8) Sections 766.101 and 395.0191 . . . See §§ 766.101, 395.0191, Fla. Stat. . . . Section 766.101(5) states: The investigations, proceedings, and records of a committee as described in . . .

ACEVEDO v. DOCTORS HOSPITAL, INC., 68 So. 3d 949 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . with the Acevedos’ claims for medical malpractice and negligent hiring/retention pursuant to section 766.101 . . . that he did so negligently; and that respondent Doctors Hospital was negligent pursuant to section 766.101 . . . See §§ 395.0191(8), .0193(8); § 766.101(5), Fla. Stat. (2007). . . . .

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, v. D. POSS, D. P. M., 45 So. 3d 510 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . The language adopted in section 766.101(5), as well as in sections 395.011(9) and 395.0115(7), Florida . . .

W. DOE, III v. SUNTRUST BANK, W. Jr. W. Jr. a a, 32 So. 3d 133 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Stat. (2005) (creating a privilege for crash reports); § 766.101(5), Fla. . . .

WEST FLORIDA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. d b a v. S. SEE C., 18 So. 3d 676 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . the documents contained in the Hospital’s credentialing files arise under sections 395.0191(8) and 766.101 . . . Section 766.101(5) contains essentially the same language, except that it applies to medical review committees . . . by such boards and committees if those documents are obtained from other sources. § 395.0191(8); § 766.101 . . . See § 395.0191(8); § 766.101(8); Buster, 984 So.2d at 490-91. . . . whether “a blank hospital form used for testing the competency of nurses” was protected by section 766.101 . . .

COLUMBIA HOSPITAL CORPORATION OF SOUTH BROWARD d b a a v. FAIN,, 16 So. 3d 236 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . See §§ 395.0191(8), 395.0193(8), and 766.101(5), Fla. . . . from liability and damages to peer review bodies or those participating in peer review process); § 766.101 . . .

FLORIDA EYE CLINIC, P. A. v. T. GMACH,, 14 So. 3d 1044 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . on the work-product doctrine as follows: Contrary to the clear effect upon [sections 395.0193(8) and 766.101 . . .

LAKELAND REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, a v. NEELY, a NEELY M. D. OB- GYN, P. A., 8 So. 3d 1268 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . See §§ 395.0191(8), .0193(8), 766.101(5), Fla. Stat. (2007). . . . 7’s application to existing medical records protected under sections 395.0191(8), 395.0193(8), and 766.101 . . . See §§ 395.0191, .0193, 766.101, .1016, Florida Statutes (2007). . . . .

H. PIERSON, III, R. v. ORLANDO REGIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC. G. J. J. N. J. J. C. W. A. G. T. M. D. P. A. O. IV, 619 F. Supp. 2d 1260 (M.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . Plaintiff also challenges the state statutes— sections 766.101, 766.1015, and 395.0193, Florida Statutes . . .

BAPTIST HOSPITAL OF MIAMI, INC. M. D. M. D. P. A. L. M. D. L. M. D. P. A. J. M. D. J. M. D. P. A. v. GARCIA,, 994 So. 2d 390 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . credentialing files which Baptist claims are not discoverable pursuant to sections 395.0191(8) and 766.101 . . . Likewise, under section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes (2007), investigations, procedures and records of . . . discoverable under Amendment 7, but which remain exempt from discovery under sections 395.0191(8) and 766.101 . . . Such a result would violate sections 395.0191(8) and 766.101(5), the very purpose of the statutory exclusions . . . testimony before such a board or opinions formed by him or her as a result of such board meetings. . 766.101 . . .

FLORIDA HOSPITAL WATERMAN, INC. v. M. BUSTER, v., 984 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2008)

. . . -20 (Fla.1984) (interpreting former section 768.40(4), Florida Statutes, the predecessor to section 766.101 . . . We hold that the privilege provided by sections 766.101(5) and 395.011(9), Florida Statutes, protects . . . The sections protecting records and statements in peer review are sections 395.0191(8), 395.0193(8), 766.101 . . . Stat. (2004) (providing for a “patient safety data privilege”); § 766.101, Fla. . . . See §§ 395.0191(8), 395.0193(8), 766.101(5), Fla. Stat. (2005); cf. § 766.1016(2), Fla. . . . See §§ 395.0191(8), 395.0193(8), 766.101(5), 766.1016(2), Fla. Stat. (2005). . . . provided by law, including, but not limited to, those contained in ss. 395.0191, 395.0193, 395.0197, 766.101 . . . other hospital board otherwise provided by law, including, but not limited to, ss. 395.0191, 395.0193, 766.101 . . .

PIGFORD, v. T. SCHAFER, v. T., 536 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2008)

. . . . § 766.101 et seq. (2007). . . .

O. HORNING- KEATING, v. EMPLOYERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU,, 969 So. 2d 412 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . Department of Health, except as otherwise provided by law, any medical review committee as defined in s. 766.101 . . .

BRANDON REGIONAL HOSPITAL, v. MURRAY,, 957 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 2007)

. . . objected to production of the list, and Brandon sought a protective order under sections 395.0191 and 766.101 . . . 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), and was not entitled to the confidentiality protection provided by sections 766.101 . . . 450 So.2d 217, 219-20 (Fla.1984) (interpreting former section 768.40(4), the predecessor to section 766.101 . . . denied discovery of documents created by a peer review committee in civil litigation under sections 766.101 . . . Similarly, section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes (2001), provides: The investigations, proceedings, and . . .

ROSARIO, a a v. MIAMI- DADE COUNTY d b a d b a d b a, 490 F. Supp. 2d 1213 (S.D. Fla. 2007)

. . . . § 1983 (Count III), medical malpractice under sections 766.101 et seq. of the Florida Statutes (Count . . .

DOE, M. D. v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,, 948 So. 2d 803 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . statutes, • sections 458.331(9) and 458.337(3), Florida Statutes (2005), and sections 395.0193(8) and 766.101 . . . Doe, and that the provisions of sections 395.0193(8) and 766.101(5) do not prohibit the release of the . . . disclosure in a malpractice lawsuit or other civil or administrative claim that sections 395.0193(8) and 766.101 . . . As such, the language in sections 395.0193(8) and 766.101(5) that states that these records “shall not . . . A review of the legislative history of sections 395.0193(8) and 766.101(5) reveals that prior to 1990 . . .

Dr. FULLERTON, v. FLORIDA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, INC. Dr. B. Dr. Dr. O., 938 So. 2d 587 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . Because we decide that the lower court erroneously concluded that section 766.101, Florida Statutes ( . . . The peer-review immunity statute, section 766.101(3)(a), provides in part: There shall be no monetary . . . It is obvious that the lower court’s interpretation of section 766.101(3)(a) in the case at bar was largely . . . committee of a state or local professional society of health care providers,” as defined in section 766.101 . . . See § 766.101(l)(b), Fla. Stat. . . .

Dr. FULLERTON, v. FLORIDA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, INC. Dr. B. Dr. Dr. O., 973 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . Because we decide that the lower eourt erroneously concluded that section 766.101, Florida Statutes ( . . . The peer-review immunity statute, section 766.101(3)(a), provides in part: There shall be no monetary . . . It is obvious that the lower court’s interpretation of section 766.101(3)(a) in the case at bar was largely . . . committee of a state or local professional society of health care providers,” as defined in section 766.101 . . . See § 766.101(l)(b), Fla. Stat. . . .

NOTAMI HOSPITAL OF FLORIDA, INC. d b a v. BOWEN C. P. A. B. M. D., 927 So. 2d 139 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . "Unquestionably, the amendment would affect sections 395.0193(8) and 766.101(5), of the Florida Statutes . . .

FLORIDA HOSPITAL WATERMAN, INC. v. M. BUSTER,, 932 So. 2d 344 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . -21, wherein the court stated, “Unquestionably, the amendment would affect sections 395.0193(8) and 766.101 . . . See, e.g., § 766.101(5), Fla. . . . Stat. (2005) (peer review process); § 766.101(3), Fla. . . .

COLUMBIA JFK MEDICAL CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP d b a JFK v. SANGUONCHITTE, 920 So. 2d 711 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . petition because the documents at issue fall within the peer review privilege set forth in sections 766.101 . . . credentialing file is not subject to discovery because it falls within the statutory privilege in sections 766.101 . . . Section 766.101(5) provides that the investigations, proceedings, and records of a medical review committee . . . JFK argues that under sections 766.101(5) and 395.0191(8), proceedings and records of a review committee . . . We have concluded that a broad interpretation of section 766.101(5) is necessary to encourage frank peer . . .

BRANDON REGIONAL HOSPITAL, v. MURRAY, S. S. M. D. S. M. D. P. A. E. M. D. E. M. D. P. A., 910 So. 2d 880 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . privileged from discovery and use in the underlying litigation pursuant to sections 395.0191(8) and 766.101 . . .

PALMS OF PASADENA HOSPITAL, v. RUTIGLIANO,, 908 So. 2d 594 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . Palms argues that section 766.101(5) and section 395.0191(8), Florida Statutes (2000), makes the information . . . The provisions of section 766.101(5) and section 395.0191(8) create the privilege asserted by Palms. . . . Section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes (2000), provides: The investigations, proceedings, and records of . . .

ADVISORY OPINION TO ATTORNEY GENERAL RE PATIENTS RIGHT TO KNOW ABOUT ADVERSE MEDICAL INCIDENTS, 880 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 2004)

. . . Unquestionably, the amendment would affect sections 395.0193(8) and 766.101(5) of the Florida Statutes . . .

TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSPITALS, INC. d b a v. TAITEL, 855 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . The hospital objected on the ground that these forms are privileged under section 766.101(5), Florida . . . constitute “the investigations, proceedings, and records” of a medical review committee under section 766.101 . . .

BEVERLY ENTERPRISES- FLORIDA, INC. v. IVES, Jr., 832 So. 2d 161 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . and data sought by Robert Ives, Jr., as personal representative, are privileged pursuant to section 766.101 . . . -220 (Fla.1984) (interpreting former section 768.40(4), Florida Statues, the predecessor to section 766.101 . . . Section 766.101(5), provides: The investigation, proceedings, and records of a [medical review] committee . . .

ACCELERATED BENEFITS CORPORATION, v. DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE,, 813 So. 2d 117 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . Professional Regulation, except as otherwise provided by law, any medical review committee as defined in s. 766.101 . . .

LANE, v. HEALTH OPTIONS, INC. a, 796 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . health care provider that appellant failed to serve the HMO with presuit notice as required by section 766.101 . . .

W. MOORE, B. Y. M. D. M. D. L. T. D. R. N. R. N. v. GOLSON, Jr., 794 So. 2d 752 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . from the essential requirements of law, because the report was protected from discovery by section 766.101 . . . The trial court rejected DOC’s assertion that the document was privileged under section 766.101(5), infra . . . Section 766.101(5) provides that the records of medical review committees created in conformity with . . . Section 766.101(5) provides, in pertinent part: The investigations, proceedings, and records of a committee . . . Disclosure of this document cannot be construed as a waiver of section 766.101 protection for the outside . . .

HUMANA MEDICAL PLAN, INC. v. ERDELY,, 785 So. 2d 714 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . grounds that the application was protected by the peer review and credentialing privileges under section 766.101 . . . Section 766.101(2), Florida Statutes (2000) requires HMO’s to form a medical review committee to screen . . . inadmissible as evidence in any civil or administrative action against a provider of health services. § 766.101 . . . In Cruger, the Supreme Court of Florida held: [T]he privilege provided by sections 766.101(5) and 395.011 . . . material ordered produced in the instant case is protected by the statutory privilege provided in ... 766.101 . . .

INTEGRATED HEALTH CARE SERVICES, INC. St. a k a a k a v. LANG- REDWAY, W., 783 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . This definition conflicts, to some extent, with section 766.101(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1997), which . . .

M. SANDERSON, v. ECKERD CORPORATION,, 780 So. 2d 930 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . . §§ 465.002, 766.101(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (1999). . § 766.102(1), Fla. Stat. (1999). . . . .

J. LINGLE, M. D. v. DION, a k a,, 776 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . Lingle repeatedly objected to this line of questioning citing the language in § 766.101(5), Fla. . . . Section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes (2000), states, in relevant part, The investigations, proceedings . . . Fla. 4th DCA 1999), but also because information about the peer review process is privileged under § 766.101 . . . In addressing the question of the privilege set forth in § 766.101(5), we noted in Liberty Mutual, The . . . Such information was clearly privileged pursuant to section 766.101(5). . . .

BELL v. INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL,, 778 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . Since Plaintiffs admit they have not complied with the presuit requirements of Section 766.101, Fla. . . .

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, v. WOLFSON, 773 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . See § 766.101(5) Fla. Stat. (2000). . . . Section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes (2000), states, in relevant part, The investigations, proceedings . . .

TAPIA- RUANO, v. O. ALVAREZ, M. D., 765 So. 2d 942 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . 12, 1996 and that Estanillo gave timely notice of intent to initiate litigation pursuant to section 766.101 . . .

BAYFRONT MEDICAL CENTER, INC. v. STATE AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE ADMINISTRATION,, 741 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . chapter 395, Florida Statutes (1997), and therefore, a “health care provider” as defined in section 766.101 . . . approved by the trial court’s summary judgment are protected from discovery by sections 395.0193(7) and 766.101 . . . Section 766.101(2) provides: (2) A medical review committee of a hospital or ambulatory surgical center . . . Section 766.101(5) provides: (5) The investigations, proceedings, and records of a committee as described . . . The “peer review” process of section 395.0193 and section 766.101 is directed toward physicians and the . . .

COLUMBIA HOSPITAL CORP. OF SOUTH DADE d b a v. A. BARRERA, Jr. M. D., 738 So. 2d 505 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . We granted certiorari concluding: Section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes, provides: “[t]he investigations . . . Stat. 766.101(5) (1997). In Cruger v. . . . privileges are part of the records of the Medical Review Committee and thus, protected under section 766.101 . . . produced in the instant case is protected by the statutory privilege provided in sections 395.0191 and 766.101 . . .

PARACELSUS SANTA ROSA MEDICAL CENTER, v. M. SMITH Sr., 732 So. 2d 49 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . privilege over documents relating to staff privileges and credentialing pursuant to sections 395.019(8) and 766.101 . . . Sections 766.101(5) and 395.011, Florida Statutes, protect documents considered by a peer review committee . . .

HOLMES REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. v. NEAL M., 734 So. 2d 432 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . Holmes contends the information sought is privileged under sections 395.0191(8), 395.0193(7) and 766.101 . . .

JOSEPH L. RILEY ANESTHESIA ASSOCIATES, P. A. v. KARSTETTER,, 729 So. 2d 517 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . malpractice incident, so petitioners moved to strike him from the witness listing, arguing that under section 766.101 . . . Section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes (1997), provides that the investigation, proceedings and records . . .

COLUMBIA PARK MEDICAL CENTER, INC. v. GIBBS,, 728 So. 2d 373 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . Although sought from different sources, they are privileged and protected from discovery under sections 766.101 . . .

ORNDA HEALTHCORP, a d b a v. BERGHOF,, 722 So. 2d 961 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . Section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes, provides: “[t]he investigations, proceedings, and records of [the . . . Stat. § 766.101(5) (1997). In Cruger v. . . . privileges are part of the records of the Medical Review Committee and thus, protected under section 766.101 . . .

MUNROE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. v. W. ROUNTREE,, 721 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . Overcash maintains that such information is not subject to disclosure because section 766.101(5), Florida . . . Statutes (1997), specifically protects such matters, making them immune from discovery: 766.101 Medical . . . that the deposition questions at issue here fall within the following exception contained in section 766.101 . . . before such a committee or opinions formed by him or her as a result of such committee’s hearings. § 766.101 . . . By enacting section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes (1997), our legislature recognized the importance of . . .

WEEKOTY, v. UNITED STATES, 30 F. Supp. 2d 1343 (D.N.M. 1998)

. . . 505 (providing medical review committee records a qualified privilege from discovery); Fla.Stat.ch. 766.101 . . .

COLUMBIA PARK MEDICAL CENTER, INC. v. GIBBS,, 723 So. 2d 294 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . Columbia contends the documents are privileged pursuant to sections 766.101(5) and 395.0191(8), Florida . . . the request on five grounds, one of which included the “peer-review” privilege provided in section 766.101 . . . Section 766.101(5) provides: The investigations, proceedings and records of a committee as described . . .

LIBERATORE v. NME HOSPITALS, INC. d b a M. D. M. D. P. A. S. M. D. M. D. M. D. P. A. s P. A. s P. A., 711 So. 2d 1364 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . We reject the hospital’s contention the documents requested were privileged pursuant to section 766.101 . . .

TOYOS, M. D. v. NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 1 F. Supp. 2d 1462 (S.D. Fla. 1998)

. . . statutory medical peer review privilege established by Florida Statutes §§ 395.0191(8), 395.0193(7), and 766.101 . . . to a hospital’s “peer review panel, a committee, a disciplinary board, or a governing board”), and 766.101 . . . Ann. §§ 395.0191(8) (West Supp.1997), 395.0193(7) (West Supp.1997), 766.101(5) (West Supp. 1997). . . . The Hlis court was interpreting § 768.40(4), Florida Statutes, the predecessor to the current § 766.101 . . . courts in Holly and Segal, like the court in Hlis, were examining § 768.40(4), the predecessor to § 766.101 . . .

NOBLE, M. D. v. MARTIN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, INC. Dr., 710 So. 2d 567 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . The last issue involves the appellees’ request for attorney’s fees pursuant to section 766.101(6)(a), . . . Section 766.101(6)(a) provides: In the event that the defendant prevails in an action brought by a health . . . authorized by this section, the court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the defendant. § 766.101 . . .

COMMUNITY BLOOD CENTERS OF SOUTH FLORIDA, INC. f k a v. DAMIANO,, 697 So. 2d 948 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . See § 766.102; § 768.50(2), Fla.Stat. (1985); § 766.101(l)(b); § 766.105(l)(b). . . . blood banks are listed nowhere else within the statutory definition of chapter 766; e.g., subsections 766.101 . . . Subsection 766.101(l)(b) defines health care providers as: physicians licensed under chapter 458, osteopaths . . . licensed under chapter 465, or hospitals or ambulatory surgical centers licensed under chapter 395. § 766.101 . . .

M. MARTINEZ, M. D. v. PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE CO., 174 F.R.D. 502 (S.D. Fla. 1997)

. . . they: (1) are “peer review” records protected by Florida Statutes §§ 395.0191(8), 395.0193(7), and 766.101 . . . Pan American bases its objections on Florida Statutes §§ 395.0191(8) and 766.101(5). B. . . . Section 766.101(5) applies the rule to a “[medical review] committee.” . . . . § 766.101(5) (West Supp.1997). In Cruger v. . . . We hold that the privilege provided by sections 766.101(5) and [395.0191(8) ], Florida Statutes, protects . . .

MEASE HOSPITAL, INC. v. LAWRENCE,, 687 So. 2d 883 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . sought is protected from disclosure and discovery by the provisions of sections 395.0191, 395.0193 and 766.101 . . . See §§ 395.0191(8), 395.0193(7) and 766.101(5). The petition is granted in part. . . .

CENTURY MEDICAL CENTERS, INC. v. B. MARIN, M. D., 686 So. 2d 606 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . affirmative defenses may preclude any discovery of the factual basis for such defenses pursuant to subsection 766.101 . . . Subsection 766.101(5) states: The investigations, proceedings, and records of a committee as described . . . Auld, 450 So.2d 217 (Fla.1984), the Florida Supreme Court, in reviewing section 768.40 (renumbered 766.101 . . . In Cruger, the court stated: “We hold that the privilege provided by sections 766.101(5) and 395.011( . . . court concluded that they necessarily were part of the peer review process for purposes of section 766.101 . . . Century contends that the order infringes the peer review privilege created by subsection 766.101(5), . . . , and no cause of action for damages may arise against the Defendant; pursuant to Florida Statute § 766.101 . . .

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY d b a v. LOPEZ,, 678 So. 2d 408 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . A medical review committee, as defined by section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes (1995), created the record . . . Section 766.101(5) contains the following explicit language protecting the proceedings and records of . . . recommendations, evaluations, opinions, or other actions of such committee or any members thereof. § 766.101 . . .

VARIETY CHILDREN S HOSPITAL, v. MISHLER,, 670 So. 2d 184 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . objected to the request on the basis that it sought disclosure of documents privileged under subsections 766.101 . . . Section 766.101(5) states in relevant part: The investigations, proceedings, and records of a committee . . . Section 766.101(l)(a)l defines “committee” as a. . . . Cruger went on to hold that the privilege provided by sections 766.101(5) and 395.011(9) protects any . . . Sims is not on point, however, because the issue of privilege under section 766.101 was not involved. . . .

ALI, v. CITY OF CLEARWATER, a, 915 F. Supp. 1231 (M.D. Fla. 1996)

. . . . §§ 460.413, 766.102, 766.101(l)(b) (1993) and Catron v. . . .

DHADUVAI, M. D. v. A. BELSITO, M. D., 663 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . These provisions are comparable to those for medical review committees found in section 766.101, Florida . . . Both sections 395.0191 and 766.101 were created by chapter 85-175, Laws of Florida. . . .

SOVA DRUGS, INC. v. BARNES,, 661 So. 2d 393 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . with the presuit investigation and notice requirements of the Medical Malpractice Reform Act, sections 766.101 . . . parts of Chapter 766 include pharmacists in the list of “health care providers,” for example, section 766.101 . . . See § 766.101(l)(b), Fla.Stat. (1993). . . .

GOLDMAN, v. HALIFAX MEDICAL CENTER, INC., 662 So. 2d 367 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . In the instant case, the entity being sued is a hospital, and sections 766.101(l)(b), 766.102(1) and . . .

CASTILLO- PLAZA, M. D. M. D. P. A. v. GREEN, D. PIERRE, PIERRE, v. NORTH SHORE MEDICAL CENTER, INC. W. M. D. M. D. P. A. d b a GIRON, v. J. NOY, M. D. J. M. D. P. A. M. D. a, 655 So. 2d 197 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . See §§ 766.101-.316, Fla.Stat. (1993). . . .

F. BREM, M. D. v. DECARLO, LYON, HEARN PAZOUREK, P. A., 162 F.R.D. 94 (D. Md. 1995)

. . . Love, 599 So.2d 111 (Fla.1992) (applying Fla.Stat. ch. 766.101(5) & 395.011(9) (1989)); Miami Heart Inst . . . Reis, 638 So.2d 530 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1994) (applying Fla.Stat. ch. 766.101(5) & 395.0191(8) (1993)). . . .

PALM BEACH GARDENS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC. d b a AMI v. O BRIEN O O, 651 So. 2d 783 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . Love, 599 So.2d 111 (Fla.1992), in which our supreme court held that section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes . . . Section 766.101(5) provides in part: The investigations, proceedings, and records of a [medical review . . . 1990), in which the court also quashed discovery of information which was privileged under section 766.101 . . . If the legislature had intended for there to be an exception to section 766.101(5) for claims brought . . .

BARFUSS, n k a v. DIVERSICARE CORPORATION OF AMERICA d b a d b a, 656 So. 2d 486 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . court has previously held that nursing homes are not "health care providers” as defined in sections 766.101 . . .

MOUNT SINAI MEDICAL CENTER OF GREATER MIAMI, INC. v. BERNSTEIN,, 645 So. 2d 530 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . objecting to interrogatories 12 and «13, claiming that the information sought was privileged under sections 766.101 . . . Section 766.101 provides: (1) As used in this section: (a) The term “medical review committee” or “committee . . . As the Second District held: Discovery of material pertaining to peer review is protected by section 766.101 . . .

MIAMI HEART INSTITUTE v. REIS, L., 638 So. 2d 530 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . MHI objected to the subpoenas on the ground that the records sought were privileged under sections 766.101 . . . Sections 395.0191 and 766.101(5) establish the same privilege against disclosure; section 395.-0191 applies . . . to the proceedings of all hospital boards, and section 766.101(5) applies to medical review committee . . .

C. WEINSTOCK, PH. D. v. GROTH,, 629 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 1993)

. . . See § 768.50(2), Florida Statutes (1985); §§ 766.101(l)(b), .105(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1991). . . . Section 766.101(l)(b) defines health care providers as physicians licensed under chapter 458, osteopaths . . .

E. COOPER v. GULF BREEZE HOSPITAL, INC., 839 F. Supp. 1538 (N.D. Fla. 1993)

. . . . § 766.101 et seq. (West 1993). . . .

MANOR CARE OF DUNEDIN, INC. d b a v. KEISER,, 611 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . was based upon the exclusion of nursing homes from definitions of “health care provider” in sections 766.101 . . .

COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF PALM BEACHES, INC. v. GUERRERO, M. D., 610 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1992)

. . . Section 768.40(6)(b), Florida Statutes (1987) was renumbered as section 766.101(6)(b), Florida Statutes . . .

DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF SOUTH MIAMI, LTD. v. OVADIA, M. D. JONES, M. D. v. OVADIA, M. D. CRH PROPERTIES, v. OVADIA, M. D., 610 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1992)

. . . .-0115(8)(b) and 766.101(6)(b), Florida Statutes (1989), violate the constitution. . . .

PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATES, v. A. SIEGEL, M. D. TALLAHASSEE MEMORIAL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. v. M. SITTIG, M. D., 610 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 1992)

. . . District Court of Appeal invalidated sections 395.01l(10)(b) 395.0115(5)(b), Florida Statutes (1987), and 766.101 . . . The issue before the Court is whether sections 395.011(10)(b), 395.0115(5)(b), and 766.101(6)(b), which . . . We hold that sections 395.011(10)(b), 395.-0115(5)(b) and 766.101(6)(b) are unconstitutional because . . . Thus, Psychiatric Associates argued that sections 395.011, 395.0115, and 766.101 provided them statutory . . . Section 766.101(6)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988), reads as follows: As a condition of any health . . .

MARTINEZ v. LIFEMARK HOSPITAL OF FLORIDA, INC. d b a, 608 So. 2d 855 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . . § 766.101, et seq. 1990), there is a separate section relating to the liability of health care facilities . . .

H. J. M. M. D. H. J. M. M. D. P. A. v. B. R. C. R. H. C., 603 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . Love, 599 So.2d 111 (Fla.1992), the supreme court again gave section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes (1989 . . . Unlike the language in section 458.3315, section 766.101(5) at issue in Holly v. Auld and Cruger v. . . . The language adopted in section 766.101(5), as well as in sections 395.011(9) and 395.0115(7), Florida . . . This provision, now renumbered § 766.101(5), Fla.Stat. (1991), is part of the statutory provision according . . .

RUIZ, v. STEINER, M. D., 599 So. 2d 196 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . hospital committee meeting and, thus, the proceedings were privileged from discovery under Section 766.101 . . . meeting is absolutely protected from discovery by the medical review committee privilege in Section 766.101 . . . Section 766.101(5) provides immunity from liability for medical review committees and states in pertinent . . . Section 766.101(1) defines a medical review committee, for purposes of the privilege, and states that . . . apparent that the meeting was not the type of medical review committee meeting envisioned in Section 766.101 . . .

CRUGER, v. J. LOVE, M. D., 599 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 1992)

. . . District Court of Appeal held that the documents were privileged from discovery by virtue of sections 766.101 . . . Sections 766.101 and 395.011 pertain to peer review and credentialing by hospitals and other health care . . . Section 766.101(2) requires that medical review committees screen, evaluate, and review the professional . . . Section 766.101(5), provides: The investigations, proceedings, and records of a [medical review] committee . . . We hold that the privilege provided by sections 766.101(5) and 395.011(9), Florida Statutes, protects . . . 1316-17 (Allen, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part), the language of sections 395.011(9) and 766.101 . . . ,” and “records” except those that are “otherwise available from original sources.” §§ 395.011(9) & 766.101 . . .

OVADIA, M. D. v. CRH PROPERTIES d b a d b a, 586 So. 2d 440 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . Hospital, and Walter Jones, M.D., for failure to post a bond pursuant to sections 395.0115(8)(b), and 766.101 . . . Oct. 25, 1990), and hold that sections 395.-0115(8)(b), and 766.101(6)(b), requiring the posting of a . . .

NME PROPERTIES, INC. d b a v. E. McCULLOUGH,, 590 So. 2d 439 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . Nursing homes are not included in the definition of health care provider in either section 766.101(l) . . .

BOCA RATON COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, v. A. JONES H. V. RANKIN, M. D. v. H. JONES, A. H. JONES,, 584 So. 2d 220 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . See § 766.101(5), Fla.Stat. (1989); § 395.011(9), Fla.Stat. (1989); Tarpon Springs General Hospital v . . .

PARDELL, D. O. v. HUMANA MEDICAL PLAN, INC., 580 So. 2d 286 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . conclude that a health maintenance organization which conducts peer review of physicians under section 766.101 . . . 1989), is a “person” entitled to attorney’s fees and costs as a prevailing defendant under paragraph 766.101 . . .

CATRON, v. ROGER BOHN, D. C. P. A., 580 So. 2d 814 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . For instance, the term “health care providers” as defined in subsection 766.101(l)(b) includes many practitioners . . .

COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF THE PALM BEACHES, INC. d b a A. D. O. J. M. D. v. GUERRERO, M. D., 579 So. 2d 304 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . Renumbered as § 766.101(6)(b). . . .

J. LOVE, v. CRUGER,, 570 So. 2d 362 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . Hlis, 372 So.2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), as well as the construction placed upon sections 766.101 and . . .

PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATES, a M. D. M. D. M. D. v. A. SIEGEL, M. D., 567 So. 2d 52 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . .-0115(5)(b), Florida Statutes (1987), and section 766.101(6)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988), which . . . The statute at issue in Guerrero, section 768.-40, is the predecessor to section 766.101; subsection . . . (6)(b) of section 768.40 is identical to subsection (6)(b) of section 766.101. . . .

STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, v. KREJCI COMPANY, INC. d b a O s,, 570 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . . § 766.101(5), Fla.Stat. (1989); Burton v. Becker, 516 So.2d 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). . . . records were privileged by virtue of section 768.40(4), Florida Statutes (1983) (presently section 766.101 . . .

JACKSONVILLE MEDICAL CENTER, INC. v. AKERS, 560 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . .-011(9), Florida Statutes (1989), and Section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes (1989). Dr. . . . Sections 395.011(9) and 766.101(5) each prohibit discovery of investigations, proceedings, and records . . . Becker, 516 So.2d 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (section 766.101(5), formerly section 768.40(5), exception to . . . physician’s initial and renewal applications for staff privileges were immune from discovery under sections 766.101 . . . seems to be that the “otherwise available from original sources” language in Sections 395.011(9) and 766.101 . . .

TAMPA TELEVISION, INC. v. L. DUGGER, I., 559 So. 2d 397 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . In 1988, apparently in response to Wait, the Legislature amended Section 766.101, Florida Statutes. . . . Section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes (1989), provides in pertinent part: The investigations, proceedings . . . Section 766.101(7)(c), Florida Statutes (1989), states, in pertinent part: So as not to inhibit the willing . . .

PARDELL, D. O. v. HUMANA MEDICAL PLAN, INC., 560 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . limine to hold the record of its Provider Grievance Committee immune from discovery pursuant to section 766.101 . . . Pardell argues that the trial court erred in granting the motion in limine by applying section 766.101 . . . Section 766.101(l)(a)(l)(a) expressly includes an HMO’s medical review committee within the definition . . . Moreover, the privilege created by section 766.101(5) extends not only to the individual members of a . . . Section 766.101(5) provides in pertinent part: The investigations, proceedings, and records of a committee . . .

M. BOCZAR, M. D. a v. MANATEE HOSPITALS HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. a d b a L. M. D. N. M. D. M. D., 731 F. Supp. 1042 (M.D. Fla. 1990)

. . . out of medical peer review are precluded by the peer review immunity provisions of Florida Statutes § 766.101 . . .

TARPON SPRINGS GENERAL HOSPITAL, v. P. HUDAK,, 556 So. 2d 831 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . Perez for staff membership is privileged and not subject to production under the provisions of section 766.101 . . . Section 766.101 pertains to peer review by a hospital’s medical review committee. . . . Section 766.101(5) provides that the investigations, proceedings, and records of a medical review committee . . .