Thurman Meeks, both individually and as executor of his deceased wife’s estate, brought suit against the Hospital Authority of Valdosta and Lowndes County, d/b/a South Georgia Medical Center Hospital and against Dr. Terry Tri for damages. This action is based in part upon the alleged negligence of the Hospital in credentialing Dr. Tri to perform the cardiac procedure that resulted in the death of Meeks’ wife. The Hospital filed a motion for protective order, asserting that certain of Meeks’ discovery requests sought information and documents which were absolutely privileged under Georgia’s medical review and peer review statutes. See OCGA § § 31-7-133 a, 31-7-143. The trial court ruled that “the contents of the Hospital’s peer review and medical review files, including its credentialing files regarding Dr. Tri, are not subject to discovery. This ruling is limited to the contents of those files.” On interlocutory appeal by the Hospital, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that “the medical review and peer review statutes protect all proceedings and information of a review organization, not just what is included in physical files.” Hospital Auth. of Valdosta and Lowndes County v. Meeks , 294 Ga. App. 629, 631 1 669 SE2d 667 2008. However, the Court of Appeals also reversed on Meeks’ cross-appeal, determining that, “to the extent that there is information in Tri’s credentialing files that does not involve a peer review committee’s evaluations of his performance of medical procedures, that information is discoverable . . . .” Hospital Auth. of Valdosta and Lowndes County v. Meeks , supra at 632 3. In a separate opinion, Presiding Judge Ruffin concurred in judgment only as to Division 3, stating that, if the Hospital’s ” ‘credentialing files’ include information related to Dr. Tri’s general competence, and the information was generated exclusively through a medical review or peer review proceeding, it would be privileged and not subject to discovery.” Hospital Auth. of Valdosta and Lowndes County v. Meeks , supra at 633. Having granted certiorari to consider the important issue addressed in the physical precedent of Division 3, we conclude that information in Dr. Tri’s credentialing files is discoverable to the extent that it does not involve a peer review or medical review committee’s evaluation of actual medical services provided by him.
In OCGA § § 31-7-133 a and 31-7-143, with certain exceptions for information otherwise available from original sources and for testimony which is independent from the witness’ appearance at committee hearings, “the General Assembly has placed an absolute embargo upon the discovery and use of all proceedings, records, findings and recommendations of peer review groups and medical review committees in civil litigation . . . .” Emory Clinic v. Houston , 258 Ga. 434-435 1 369 SE2d 913 1988. See also Freeman v. Piedmont Hosp. , 264 Ga. 343, 344-345 444 SE2d 796 1994. Of course, these statutes must be construed in accordance with the legislative intent, but they cannot be expansively construed, for they are “in derogation of the general policy in favor of the discovery and admissibility of probative evidence. Cits.” Hollowell v. Jove , 247 Ga. 678, 681 279 SE2d 430 1981.
