Utah Supreme Court
Does Utah's peer review privilege contain a bad faith exception? Belnap v. Howard Explained
Summary
Dr. Belnap was denied surgical privileges at Jordan Valley Medical Center following allegedly defamatory statements made by Drs. Howard and Mintz during peer review proceedings. The district court prohibited discovery of statements made during the peer review process under Rule 26(b)(1), and Dr. Belnap filed an interlocutory appeal seeking a bad faith exception to the privilege.
Analysis
Background and Facts
Dr. LeGrand Belnap sued Drs. Ben Howard and Steven Mintz for defamation and other claims arising from allegedly defamatory statements made during peer review proceedings at Jordan Valley Medical Center. Dr. Belnap had applied for surgical privileges at the facility, and during the credentialing process, the Medical Executive Committee solicited input from physicians who had previously worked with Dr. Belnap. The defendants moved to prohibit discovery of statements made during the peer review process under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) and Utah Code section 26-25-3.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1)’s peer review privilege contains a bad faith exception that would allow discovery of allegedly defamatory statements made during peer review proceedings. Dr. Belnap argued that the rule’s legislative note, which references statutory immunity provisions requiring good faith participation, created such an exception.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court applied correctness review to this question of law and found no bad faith exception in Rule 26(b)(1). The court emphasized the rule’s broad language protecting “all information in any form” provided during peer review processes “in any proceeding of any kind.” The court distinguished between two different protections: Utah Code sections 58-13-4 and 58-13-5 provide qualified immunity from liability requiring good faith participation, while Rule 26(b)(1) and section 26-25-3 provide absolute discovery privileges with no good faith requirement. The legislative note’s reference to both types of statutes did not create a bad faith exception to the discovery privilege.
Practice Implications
This decision creates significant tension for medical malpractice and defamation practitioners. While healthcare providers can lose immunity from liability for bad faith participation in peer review, plaintiffs cannot discover evidence of that bad faith through the peer review process itself. Attorneys must look to sources outside the formal peer review proceedings to establish bad faith conduct. The court acknowledged this tension but noted the legislature has had ample opportunity to resolve it through subsequent amendments.
Case Details
Case Name
Belnap v. Howard
Citation
2019 UT 9
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20170628
Date Decided
February 28, 2019
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides an absolute peer review privilege with no bad faith exception for discovery purposes.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law regarding the existence of privilege and interpretation of civil procedure rules
Practice Tip
Document all peer review proceedings carefully, as the broad discovery privilege protects even allegedly defamatory statements made during the process, regardless of the speaker’s intent or good faith.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.