Commissioner of Health Services v. Kadish
Connecticut Appellate Court
1DissentO’Connell, J.
I disagree with the decision of the majority and would find no error.
Peer review statutes are intended to encourage frank, uninhibited discussion, debate and criticism by the peers of a health care provider with projected goals of, inter alia, continuing professional education, evaluation of the quality of patient care, renewal of privileges, complaint investigation and malpractice review.1 The peer review committee’s proceedings are designed to be free from the chilling concern that they would become public and expose its members to the involvement of civil litigation and the glare of public…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Pisel v. Stamford HospitalSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Farricielli v. Connecticut Personnel Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
- Shelby Mutual Insurance v. Della GhelfaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
- Montanaro Brothers Builders, Inc. v. SnowConnecticut Appellate Court · 1985
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.