Kd Ex Rel. Dieffenbach v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that a medical peer review privilege in an FTCA action for dental malpractice would advance Congress’ goal of promoting peer review to improve quality of care
• reasoning that whether or not the National Institute of Health review bodies meet the technical requirements of PSOs, they “clearly perform the same functions as Congress intended the PSQIA to encourage”
• noting that claims alleging malpractice do not have the same important federal interest at stake as claims “alleging violation of federal civil rights (which implicate the strong federal policy of rooting out invidious discrimination
• adopting common-law privilege regarding peer review documents based, in part, on congressional legislative history of the Patient Safety Quality Improvement Act of 2005

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).