Code Details

Evidence Code – EVID
DIVISION 9. EVIDENCE AFFECTED OR EXCLUDED BY EXTRINSIC POLICIES [1100 – 1162] ( Division 9 enacted by Stats. 1965, Ch. 299. )

CHAPTER 3. Other Evidence Affected or Excluded by Extrinsic Policies [1150 – 1162] ( Heading of Chapter 3 renumbered from Chapter 2 by Stats. 1997, Ch. 772, Sec. 4. )

Exact Statute Text

(a) Neither the proceedings nor the records of organized committees of medical, medical-dental, podiatric, registered dietitian, psychological, marriage and family therapist, licensed clinical social worker, professional clinical counselor, pharmacist, prehospital emergency medical care person or personnel, or veterinary staffs, or of a peer review body, as defined in Section 805 of the Business and Professions Code, having the responsibility of evaluation and improvement of the quality of care rendered in the hospital, or for that peer review body, or medical or dental review or dental hygienist review or chiropractic review or podiatric review or registered dietitian review or pharmacist review or veterinary review or acupuncturist review or licensed midwife review or prehospital emergency medical care person or personnel review committees of local medical, dental, dental hygienist, podiatric, dietetic, pharmacist, veterinary, acupuncture, chiropractic, or prehospital emergency medical care person or personnel societies, marriage and family therapist, licensed clinical social worker, professional clinical counselor, or psychological review committees of state or local marriage and family therapist, state or local licensed clinical social worker, state or local licensed professional clinical counselor, or state or local psychological associations or societies or licensed midwife associations or societies having the responsibility of evaluation and improvement of the quality of care, shall be subject to discovery.

(b) Except as hereinafter provided, a person in attendance at a meeting of any of the committees described in subdivision (a) shall not be required to testify as to what transpired at that meeting.

(c) The prohibition relating to discovery or testimony does not apply to the statements made by a person in attendance at a meeting of any of the committees described in subdivision (a) if that person is a party to an action or proceeding the subject matter of which was reviewed at that meeting, to a person requesting hospital staff privileges, or in an action against an insurance carrier alleging bad faith by the carrier in refusing to accept a settlement offer within the policy limits.

(d) The prohibitions in this section do not apply to medical, dental, dental hygienist, podiatric, dietetic, psychological, marriage and family therapist, licensed clinical social worker, professional clinical counselor, pharmacist, veterinary, acupuncture, midwifery, chiropractic, or prehospital emergency medical care person or personnel society committees that exceed 10 percent of the membership of the society, nor to any of those committees if a person serves upon the committee when his or her own conduct or practice is being reviewed.

(e) The amendments made to this section by Chapter 1081 of the Statutes of 1983, or at the 1985 portion of the 1985–86 Regular Session of the Legislature, at the 1990 portion of the 1989–90 Regular Session of the Legislature, at the 2000 portion of the 1999–2000 Regular Session of the Legislature, at the 2011 portion of the 2011–12 Regular Session of the Legislature, at the 2015 portion of the 2015–16 Regular Session of the Legislature, or at the 2024 portion of the 2023–24 Regular Session of the Legislature, do not exclude the discovery or use of relevant evidence in a criminal action.

(f) For purposes of this section, “prehospital emergency medical care person or personnel” has the same meaning as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 1797.188 of the Health and Safety Code.

(Amended by Stats. 2024, Ch. 329, Sec. 1. (AB 2225) Effective January 1, 2025.)

Evidence Code § 1157 Summary

California Evidence Code § 1157 establishes the confidentiality of records and proceedings of specific organized committees responsible for evaluating and improving the quality of care within hospitals and other healthcare settings. In essence, it creates a privilege that generally prevents these “peer review” documents and the discussions held during these meetings from being discovered or used as evidence in civil lawsuits. This protection applies to committees of various professional staffs, including medical, dental, psychological, social worker, pharmacist, and prehospital emergency medical care personnel, among others.

The statute’s primary aim is to foster an environment where healthcare professionals can candidly and constructively review each other’s performance without fear that their internal self-assessment will be used against them in a malpractice action. While broad, the statute does include several key exceptions. For instance, the confidentiality does not apply to statements made by a person who is a party to a lawsuit related to the reviewed matter, to a person seeking hospital staff privileges, or in specific bad faith insurance actions. It also doesn’t apply if a committee’s membership exceeds a certain percentage of its society, or if a person’s *own* conduct is being reviewed by the committee *and they are serving on that committee for that purpose*. Importantly, this confidentiality does not extend to criminal actions.

Purpose of Evidence Code § 1157

The legislative purpose behind Evidence Code § 1157 is deeply rooted in the goal of enhancing the quality of healthcare and patient safety in California. By shielding the proceedings and records of peer review committees from discovery in civil litigation, the statute encourages healthcare professionals to engage in open, honest, and critical self-evaluation and peer assessment. Without this protection, committee members might be hesitant to identify or discuss deficiencies, fearing that their candid remarks could be used as an admission of fault in a subsequent lawsuit, thereby stifling the very process designed to improve care.

This confidentiality provision creates a “safe harbor” for medical and other healthcare professionals to identify errors, analyze adverse outcomes, and implement corrective measures without the chilling effect of potential legal repercussions. It allows hospitals and professional societies to rigorously scrutinize practices, develop best standards, and educate their members, ultimately leading to better patient outcomes. The statute aims to promote continuous quality improvement within the healthcare system by safeguarding the integrity and effectiveness of the peer review process, rather than creating a shield for incompetence.

Real-World Example of Evidence Code § 1157

Imagine a scenario where a patient, Ms. Davis, undergoes surgery at Community Hospital and experiences unforeseen complications, leading to a longer recovery period. Ms. Davis believes the surgeon, Dr. Miller, was negligent and decides to file a medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Miller and Community Hospital.

Internally, following Ms. Davis’s complications, Community Hospital’s medical staff quality improvement committee, composed of other surgeons and medical professionals, convenes a meeting to review Dr. Miller’s surgical procedure, the patient’s care, and the outcome. During this “peer review” meeting, committee members openly discuss potential areas for improvement, suggest alternative approaches, and critically evaluate Dr. Miller’s decision-making process. The committee’s discussions and any notes or reports generated from this meeting are part of the hospital’s internal quality assurance efforts.

When Ms. Davis’s attorney initiates discovery in the malpractice lawsuit, they request all records related to Dr. Miller’s performance review, specifically seeking the minutes and findings of the quality improvement committee meeting concerning Ms. Davis’s surgery. Community Hospital, relying on California Evidence Code § 1157, would assert the peer review privilege, refusing to turn over these documents or allow committee members to testify about what was said or discussed during the meeting.

Unless one of the specific exceptions in the statute applies (e.g., if Dr. Miller was a party to the action *and* a statement made *by him* was reviewed, or if Dr. Miller was currently serving on the committee reviewing *his own* conduct), the court would likely uphold the hospital’s position, preventing Ms. Davis’s attorney from discovering these internal peer review materials. This forces the attorney to rely on other evidence, such as Ms. Davis’s medical records, expert witness testimony, and depositions of other individuals involved in her care, to prove negligence, rather than using the hospital’s self-critical assessment.

Related Statutes

• Business and Professions Code § 805 – Reporting of Judgments, Settlements, and Disciplinary Actions; Peer Review Body Definition: This statute is directly referenced in Evidence Code § 1157(a) as it defines what constitutes a “peer review body.” Section 805 outlines the requirements for healthcare entities to report professional liability judgments, settlements, and certain disciplinary actions against licensees to the relevant licensing boards. Its definition of a peer review body is crucial for determining which entities fall under the protection of Evidence Code § 1157.
• Health and Safety Code § 1797.188(a)(1) – Prehospital Emergency Medical Care Personnel: Referenced in Evidence Code § 1157(f), this statute provides the definition for “prehospital emergency medical care person or personnel” for the purposes of the peer review confidentiality. This ensures that the privilege extends to specific individuals involved in emergency medical services, further broadening the scope of protected peer review activities.
• Evidence Code § 1156 – Medical or Dental Staff Committees; Quality of Care; Research Studies: While not directly referenced *within* EC 1157, Evidence Code § 1156 is a closely related statute also pertaining to the confidentiality of medical committee records. It addresses the protection of records of medical or dental studies conducted for the purpose of reducing morbidity or mortality or for evaluating and improving the quality of care. Although similar in intent, EC 1157 specifically focuses on the peer review process, whereas EC 1156 covers broader research and study records.

Case Law Interpreting Evidence Code § 1157

California courts have frequently interpreted and applied Evidence Code § 1157, defining its scope, limitations, and the underlying policy. Here are a few notable cases:

• **Arnett v. Dal Cielo (1996) 14 Cal.4th 4

Arnett v. Dal Cielo is a landmark case that profoundly shaped the understanding of Evidence Code § 1157. The California Supreme Court held that the privilege extends to all records and proceedings of peer review committees, not just those created *by* the committee. This means that documents created *before* a peer review meeting (e.g., medical records that the committee reviews) do not automatically become privileged simply because they are *reviewed* by the committee. The court clarified that the privilege applies to the *proceedings* and *records* of the committee itself, emphasizing the purpose of fostering frank internal discussions.

• **Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital v. Superior Court (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 711

This case further explored the scope of the privilege, specifically concerning the “statements made by a person in attendance at a meeting” exception. The court held that while a person who is a party to an action might be required to testify about their own statements made at a peer review meeting, the privilege still protects the committee’s *proceedings* and the statements of *other* committee members. This distinction is crucial for understanding the balance between discovery and the protection of the peer review process.

• **Willits v. Superior Court (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 90

Willits addressed the application of the “bad faith” exception within Evidence Code § 1157(c). The court clarified that this exception specifically applies to actions against an *insurance carrier* for bad faith in refusing a settlement offer within policy limits, and not to bad faith allegations against the hospital or individual providers themselves in a medical malpractice action. This limits the scope of this particular exception, reinforcing the primary protection offered by the statute in direct malpractice claims.

Why Evidence Code § 1157 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation

Evidence Code § 1157 is a critical statute in California personal injury litigation, particularly in medical malpractice cases, significantly impacting discovery, trial strategy, and client expectations for both plaintiffs and defendants.

For plaintiffs in a medical malpractice case, this statute presents a substantial hurdle. It means that internal hospital peer review documents—which might contain frank assessments of a healthcare provider’s performance or suggestions for improvement—are generally off-limits for discovery. This forces plaintiff attorneys to build their case using other sources of evidence, such as direct medical records, deposition testimony from treating physicians and nurses (who were not part of the protected committee meeting), and expert witness opinions based on those discoverable records. The inability to access these self-critical analyses can make proving negligence more challenging, as it removes a potentially powerful source of admissions or evidence of substandard care from the plaintiff’s arsenal. Attorneys must carefully explain this limitation to clients, managing expectations about what evidence can be obtained.

For defendants, particularly hospitals and healthcare providers, Evidence Code § 1157 is a robust defense tool. It allows them to conduct thorough, honest, and confidential internal reviews of patient care without the fear that those discussions will immediately become ammunition in a lawsuit. This protection encourages quality improvement and fosters a culture of self-correction, which ultimately benefits patient safety. Defense attorneys rely heavily on this statute to resist discovery requests for peer review materials, protecting their clients’ internal quality assurance processes. However, defense attorneys must also be aware of the statute’s exceptions, particularly those involving statements made by a party to the action or when a committee member reviews their own conduct, as these can open specific avenues for discovery.

In essence, EC § 1157 balances the public interest in encouraging candid self-assessment for quality improvement against a plaintiff’s right to full discovery. Its impact requires meticulous strategy from both sides: plaintiffs must develop creative discovery plans to uncover negligence without relying on privileged materials, while defendants must diligently protect their peer review processes to maintain the confidentiality afforded by law.