Moretti v. Lowe

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 hospital should, on proper interrogatory, identify all persons who have knowledge of the underlying event that is the basis of the malpractice action regardless of whether these persons sit on a peer-review committee or have presented evidence to a peer-review com mittee”
• reasoning that “[m]aking the fact of loss or restriction of privileges unavailable to the injured party is not necessary to accomplish the purposes of the peer-review statute and therefore should not be privileged”
• “[i]n enacting [Rhode Island’s] peer-review statute, the Legislature recognized the need for open discussions and candid self-analysis in peer-review meetings to ensure that medical care of high quality will be available to the public”
• the policy behind protecting medical peer review boards is to encourage \open discussions and candid self-analysis . . . to ensure that medical care of high quality will be available to the *Page 4 public\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).