Few events are more unnerving for a healthcare provider than receiving notice that their case has been referred to a peer review committee. Whether triggered by a patient complaint, an adverse outcome, or a perceived pattern of poor performance, the process can feel deeply personal and professionally threatening.
What makes peer review stressful stems from misunderstanding what it is — and what it isn’t. Peer review is a legally defined process, wrapped in statutory confidentiality and designed, at least in theory, to promote quality improvement rather than punishment. But when you are the one being reviewed, it rarely feels that way.
That is why it is important to understand your rights and the limits of the process. Simply put, it can protect your career.
In theory, peer review is a quality improvement mechanism, not a punitive proceeding. It exists to evaluate whether care met accepted standards, and to ensure that practitioners maintain clinical competence.
However, in practice, the lines between “quality review” and “adverse credentialing action” often blur. Hospitals may use peer review findings to justify restrictions on privileges, mandatory proctoring, or suspension — all of which can have lasting consequences on licensure and reputation.
The physician typically receive notice that they are under review and may be asked to provide a written explanation, meet with the committee, or appear before a department chair. This is where representation matters. What you say and how you respond can influence whether the issue is resolved quietly or escalates to a formal corrective action and National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) report.
The Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA) 42 U.S.C. §§ 11101–11152 was enacted to encourage effective professional peer review and shield hospitals from liability when they act in good faith. In exchange for immunity from certain types of lawsuits, hospitals and peer reviewers must follow due process and fairness standards before taking adverse actions that affect a physician’s clinical privileges.
Hospitals, review committees, and individual reviewers are immune from money damages for actions taken during peer review if they meet HCQIA’s standards. Immunity is not automatic — it applies only if the review process satisfies the four fairness criteria under 42 USC §11112(a). This immunity applies to both state and federal claims unless the physician can show the process lacked due process or was motivated by bad faith.
For a peer review body to claim HCQIA immunity, its action must be taken:
HCQIA lays out what constitutes “adequate notice and hearing.” The hospital must provide:
The hearing itself must include:
HCQIA also created the NPDB, a federal database for reporting adverse actions against healthcare providers. Hospitals are required to report to the NPDB when they:
HCQIA grants peer reviewers a rebuttable presumption that they acted in compliance with the law. That means the burden of proof is on the physician to show that the review process failed to meet one or more of the fairness criteria. Courts have repeatedly emphasized that this presumption is strong — it’s not enough for the physician to claim unfairness or bias; they must present objective evidence that the process was unreasonable or malicious.
Peer review in Florida is governed primarily by Sections 766.101 and 395.0191 of the Florida Statutes. These laws outline how hospitals and other healthcare entities evaluate professional performance and define the confidentiality and immunity that surround the process.
Florida’s peer review laws are among the strongest in the country when it comes to confidentiality. Peer review materials cannot be subpoenaed, discovered, or admitted into evidence in malpractice or administrative proceedings, and they remain protected even if they are relevant to litigation so long as they were created exclusively for peer review purposes and kept within the committee.
Additionally, under Florida Statutes members of peer review committees are immune from civil damages if they act without malice and in reasonable belief that their actions were warranted.
Physicians are more likely to make procedural, rather clinical mistakes during the peer reviewing process, including:
Peer review is meant to protect patients, but it also carries serious implications for physicians. The process is confidential and legally protected. However, outcomes can affect credentialing, reporting, and reputation.
Treat peer review as a legal event. With informed counsel, clear communication, and a measured response, most cases can be resolved without long-term damage. Knowing the rules, asserting your rights early, and maintaining professionalism throughout the process is how you protect your practice and your name.
Hospitals and peer review bodies operate with powerful legal protections, and their processes are designed to safeguard institutional interests—not yours. When your clinical judgment, privileges, and professional reputation are under scrutiny, having experienced counsel from the outset can make all the difference. At Chapman Law Group, we devote our practice exclusively to healthcare professionals and understand how peer review proceedings can escalate into credentialing actions, DOH investigations, or NPDB reports. The earliest stages of the review are often where providers make avoidable mistakes and where the most effective interventions can be made. Contact us today to discuss your situation, and let our team guide you through the process with the strategy, precision, and advocacy needed to protect your career.
"*" indicates required fields
Shareholder
Chairperson of Professional Licensing & Regulatory Affairs,
Civil Litigation
Sarasota Office
6841 Energy Court
Sarasota, FL 34240
Phone: (941) 893-3449
Our Michigan healthcare regulatory and licensing lawyers negotiated to permit the physician to voluntarily resign from the employment contract without any reporting to the NPDB or the state licensing board.
Our Healthcare Regulatory attorneys worked with the Board of Osteopathic Medicine and Surgery and the Attorney General’s office to review the surgeon’s skills.
After testing positive for alcohol at levels that indicated binge drinking, our healthcare licensing attorneys submitted the polygraph results to the DOH along with letters from her medical providers attesting to her fitness to practice.
The family of a deceased Michigan Department of Corrections inmate sued several corrections officers and medical providers, alleging they failed to provide adequate treatment for the inmate’s asthma.
