Legal Opinion

Amaral v. Saint Cloud Hospital

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided August 12, 1999No. CX-98-784PublishedCited by 171 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

PAUL H. ANDERSON, Justice.

This case requires us to examine the scope of Minn.Stat. § 145.64, subd. 2 (1998), the provider data exception to the privilege provision of Minnesota’s review organizations statute, Minn.Stat. §§ 145.61-67 (1998). Appellants, Dr. Michael A. Amaral and Dr. Dan E. Miulli, are physicians with staff privileges at respondent, The Saint Cloud Hospital. The two physicians requested information about themselves from certain of the hospital’s medical peer review organizations. The hospital refused their request, stating that the information sought was confidential…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Holly v. AuldSupreme Court of Florida · 1984
  2. State Ex Rel. Cooper v. FrenchSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
  3. Offerdahl v. University of Minnesota Hospitals & ClinicsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
  4. Tuma v. Commissioner of Economic SecuritySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
  5. Bredice v. Doctors Hospital, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 1970

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by171 opinions

  1. American Family Insurance Group v. SchroedlSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
  2. American Tower, L.P. v. City of GrantSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2001
  3. Staab v. Diocese of St. CloudSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
  4. Premier Bank v. BECKER DEVELOPMENT, LLCSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2010
  5. Christianson v. HenkeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2013

166 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API