WIXLIB

people knowledgeable about Mat-Su’s decision to grant him membership. Mat-Suobjected, citing the peer review privilege. The Estate also sought to depose Mat-Supersonnel with knowledge of the identity of individuals “likely to possess personalknowledge regarding [Dr. Zwiacher’s] professional credibility, behavior, and/orconduct” including knowledge of any limitation or revocation of Dr. Zwiacher’s medicalstaff membership imposed by Mat-Su. Mat-Su again objected on the basis of the peerreview privilege to the extent the request asked for more than the designation ofindividuals with personal knowledge of Dr. Zwiacher’s credibility. Mat-Su thendesignated Joan Brodie, the assistant director of quality risk management and providerservices, to testify on these topics.Brodie’s job duties include overseeing thecredentialing process, addressing regulatory compliance issues, and participating in thepeer review process.At the deposition Brodie provided the names of several general surgeons,anesthesiologists, and hospitalists who might have information about Dr. Zwiacher’scredibility. She also advised the Estate to contact the heads of the nursing and operatingroom staffs to obtain information about others who had worked with him. But, citing thepeer review privilege, Mat-Su objected to many of the Estate’s inquiries, including thoseasking whether any complaints had been raised about Dr. Zwiacher and the nature ofBrodie’s interactions with him. Brodie explained that “every contact [she] had with[Dr. Zwiacher] was within . . . the course of what [she] do[es]”; therefore she could notanswer such questions because the information was privileged.The Estate additionally sought to depose Drs. John Naylor and Bruce Hess.Dr. Hess served as the president of the medical staff before Dr. Naylor assumed theposition. Dr. Naylor served as the president of the medical staff, chaired the ExecutiveCommittee, and worked at Mat-Su as an anesthesiologist. In early January 2015, whenthe deposition was taken, Dr. Naylor had served as president of the medical staff for-8-7293

about nine months. Though the Estate did ultimately depose Dr. Naylor, it did notdepose Dr. Hess.Dr. Naylor testified that, as president of the medical staff, he serves as thechair of the Executive Committee. He had also previously served as the chair of the PeerReview Committee. Dr. Naylor explained that the peer review process is initiated byconcerns and complaints from Mat-Su staff. Dr. Naylor confirmed that outside the peerreview process “nothing ever happened with [him] and Dr. Zwiacher that in any waygave [him] concern or raised an issue regarding [Dr. Zwiacher’s] patient care with [him]personally.” And because his familiarity with Dr. Zwiacher’s competency and surgicalcare derived from the peer review process, he could not answer questions about thesetopics. Mat-Su objected to questions asking Dr. Naylor to identify people withinformation related to concerns or complaints about Dr. Zwiacher and asking for“original sources . . . [with] information regarding Dr. Zwiacher’s behavior and conduct. . . at the hospital.” Dr. Naylor contended he could not divulge such informationbecause he had acquired it through his role in the peer review process. He explained that“[a]ny complaint or issue . . . that enters the peer review or quality review system . . .falls under the [privilege’s] protection” and that this applied to all complaints aboutDr. Zwiacher.Following its unsuccessful attempts to elicit information at the depositions,the Estate filed two motions to compel disclosure from Mat-Su related to: (1) its decisionto grant Dr. Zwiacher medical staff membership and (2) complaints related toDr. Zwiacher’s competency and credibility, including the identity of people possessingpersonal knowledge of such information.The superior court granted both motions in two separate discovery orders.The first discovery order, issued on April 27, 2015, granted the Estate’s request todiscover materials related to the decision to grant Dr. Zwiacher’s application for medical-9-7293

staff membership. The superior court concluded that Mat-Su must disclose suchmaterials because the Estate alleged that Dr. Zwiacher knowingly included falseinformation in his application, and thus the materials fell within an exception to the peerreview privilege. The first order further permitted the Estate to obtain all materialsprovided to a peer review committee that were alleged to contain knowingly falseinformation, specifically:testimony, documents, proceedings, records, and otherevidence adduced before a review organization that areotherwise inaccessible under [the peer review privilege] if[the Estate] claims that information provided to a revieworganization was false and claims that the person providingthe information knew or had reason to know the informationwas false.The second discovery order, issued on June 10, 2015, granted the Estate’srequest to obtain complaints that Mat-Su had received about Dr. Zwiacher. The superiorcourt concluded that such complaints did not fall within the peer review privilege;though they may initiate the peer review process and later become evidence in a peerreview proceeding, they are not part of such a proceeding. Thus, subject to requests forin camera review, the court instructed employees and members of the medical staff atMat-Su with “personal knowledge” of such complaints to provide this information to theEstate “without regard to whether [they] presented such information to a peer reviewcommittee.” It also instructed Mat-Su and Dr. Zwiacher to “produce all documents orrecords . . . regarding complaints or concerns regarding Dr. Zwiacher’s conduct that werenot generated by or did not originate with a peer review committee.”Mat-Su filed an original application for review of these two discoveryorders, which we granted. Dr. Zwiacher and three amici curiae — Alaska Associationfor Justice, Alaska State Hospital and Nursing Home Association, and Providence-10-7293

Alaska Medical Center — also filed briefs.12 While the appeal was pending, the petitionfor interlocutory review in Brandt was filed.D.Petition In Brandt v. ZwiacherJon Brandt was also a patient of Dr. Zwiacher. Dr. Zwiacher performed alaparoscopic small bowel resection surgery on Brandt at Mat-Su in September 2012(when Dr. Zwiacher still had medical staff membership). During recovery, Brandtcomplained of pain; the parties dispute how Dr. Zwiacher addressed Brandt’s pain.Brandt was discharged from Mat-Su four days after surgery, which Brandt alleges wasinvoluntary. Brandt claims that upon discharge, his pain worsened; he returned to MatSu approximately eight hours later. A CT scan was performed, which Brandt claimsrevealed that Dr. Zwiacher had perforated the left side of his colon during the surgery,resulting in leaking and an infection. According to Brandt, he has undergone sevenadditional surgeries to address the issues stemming from the surgery performed byDr. Zwiacher.In September 2014, while discovery in Bolinder was still ongoing, Brandtfiled suit against Dr. Zwiacher and Mat-Su. Brandt brought a medical malpractice claimagainst Dr. Zwiacher, alleging that Dr. Zwiacher misrepresented his skills prior to thesurgery, delivered substandard medical care, created false and misleading records ofBrandt’s medical care following the surgery, and obtained both his medical license andhis Mat-Su medical staff membership through misrepresentation and non-disclosure.Brandt also brought a negligent credentialing claim against Mat-Su based on the12Alaska Association for Justice argues that we should affirm the discoveryorders; Alaska State Hospital and Nursing Home Association and Providence AlaskaMedical Center argue that we should reverse.-11-7293

hospital’s decision to grant and renew Dr. Zwiacher’s staff membership.13 Brandtclaimed that, given Dr. Zwiacher’s professional troubles in Wisconsin and the litany ofcomplaints regarding his conduct and standard of care while at Mat-Su, Mat-Su failedto act with reasonable diligence in vetting Dr. Zwiacher’s initial application for medicalstaff membership and in subsequently renewing it.Discovery ensued, during which Mat-Su voluntarily disclosed, subject toa protective order, Dr. Zwiacher’s entire 443-page credentials file, which contains all ofthe materials Mat-Su’s credentials committee used in granting Dr. Zwiacher’s initialappointment to the Mat-Su medical staff and all subsequent renewals. The file includesDr. Zwiacher’s initial application for medical staff membership at Mat-Su (the sameapplication that had led to the first petition for review in Bolinder).14 The credentials filealso contains confidential communications regarding Dr. Zwiacher to the ExecutiveCommittee written while his initial application was pending.13A negligent credentialing claim derives from the theory of corporatenegligence, under which “a hospital owes an independent duty to its patients to usereasonable care to insure that physicians granted hospital privileges are competent, andto supervise the medical treatment provided by members of its medical staff.” Fletcherv. S. Peninsula Hosp., 71 P.3d 833, 842 (Alaska 2003) (quoting Jackson v. Power,743 P.2d 1376, 1378 n.2 (Alaska 1987)). “A corporate negligence claim requires proofthat the hospital should have known that the physician would act negligently before thenegligence at issue occurred.” Ward v. Lutheran Hosps. & Homes Soc’y of Am., Inc.,963 P.2d 1031, 1033 n.2 (Alaska 1998). Such proof generally consists of “evidence thatthe physician either lacked standard credentials or previously had been the subject of amalpractice suit or disciplinary proceedings.” Id.14Mat-Su explains on appeal that it is not conceding that the initial credentialsfile is not privileged, but given this court’s prior order in Bolinder compelling disclosureof Dr. Zwiacher’s initial application and “the uncertainty surrounding the extent of theprotection afforded [to the file] by [the peer review privilege],” Mat-Su “felt compelledin good faith to produce the entire credentials file.”-12-7293

However, the credentials file does not contain any concerns or complaintsrelayed to Mat-Su regarding Dr. Zwiacher after he was granted medical staffmembership or regarding Mat-Su’s decision to terminate Dr. Zwiacher’s membership.Mat-Su explained that such materials were not part of the credentials file because theMat-Su Medical Staff Bylaws delegated the decision to discipline or to terminateDr. Zwiacher to the Peer Review Committee and the Executive Committee, not thecredentials committee.Accordingly, “[a]ll of the documents generated afterDr. Zwiacher’s appointment to the medical staff relating to complaints and concernsabout him . . . are outside the credentialing process and [are instead] reported tothe . . . [Peer Review Committee and Executive Committee].”After receiving the credentials file, Brandt sent six discovery requests toMat-Su that form the basis of his appeal. Like the requests in Bolinder, Brandt’s requestscan be divided into two broad groups: (1) documents related to any complaints madeabout Dr. Zwiacher, the identity of individuals making and reviewing the complaints, andany action taken in response; and (2) documents and statements related to Mat-Su’sdecisions to renew or terminate Dr. Zwiacher’s medical staff membership and theidentity of individuals involved in those decisions.Mat-Su objected to these discovery requests, asserting that each requestsought information covered by the peer review privilege.15 In March 2016 Brandt moved15Brandt quibbles with Mat-Su’s purported failure to produce a privilege login refusing to respond to the discovery requests. However, Brandt represents that MatSu ultimately did produce a privilege log that identified more than 1900 pages ofprivileged materials. This privilege log is not part of the appellate record because it wasproduced after the petition for review was granted. Brandt does not appear to take issuewith the adequacy of the privilege log that was ultimately produced; accordingly, we donot address this issue.-13-7293

to compel Mat-Su’s responses to the discovery requests.16 In its opposition, with respectto the first group of requested information, Mat-Su argued that the identities both ofindividuals reporting complaints about Dr. Zwiacher and of individuals considering thecomplaints were privileged. It explained that such complaints initiated the peer reviewprocess and were directed to peer review committee members, and they were thus partof the committee proceedings. Regarding the second group of requested information,Mat-Su conceded that it had not produced “the files and meeting minutes of the [PeerReview Committee] and the [Executive Committee], the purpose of which was to reviewthe quality of care provided by Dr. Zwiacher at the hospital subsequent to his obtainingprivileges,” but argued these materials were privileged. Mat-Su explained that, otherthan the credentials file and this privileged material, it possessed “no other documentedcommunication relating to Dr. Zwiacher’s renewal or termination.”In August 2016 the superior court granted Brandt’s motion to compel andordered production of all the information sought in the six production requests. Thecourt reasoned that the names of the individuals making complaints about Dr. Zwiacherand the content of those complaints were not privileged because they were based on thepersonal knowledge of individuals not acting in the capacity of peer review committeemembers. The superior court thus concluded that Mat-Su had failed to meet its burdenof establishing that the discovery requests fell within the scope of the privilege andaccordingly ordered Mat-Su to produce the requested materials. The superior court’sanalysis appears to have considered only one group of discovery requests (relating to16In his motion to compel, Brandt argued that by voluntarily producing thecredentialing file, Mat-Su had waived the protection of the peer review privilege asapplied to any of its files. However, Brandt does not renew this argument on appeal(despite Mat-Su mentioning this argument in its brief ); thus we deem it forfeited and donot address it.-14-7293

complaints) and not the other (relating to Mat-Su’s credentialing decisions). However,it ultimately compelled disclosure of all requested information.Mat-Su andDr. Zwiacher jointly petitioned for interlocutory review of the superior court’s order, andwe granted the petition.III.STANDARD OF REVIEWWe generally review discovery rulings for abuse of discretion, “but whethera privilege applies is a question of law we review independently.”17 Here, the scope ofthe privilege is codified in a statute.18 When interpreting statutes, we apply ourindependent judgment,19 adopting the “rule of law that is most persuasive in light ofprecedent, reason, and policy.”20IV.DISCUSSIONA.Alaska Statute 18.23.030 Provides Robust Protections For The MedicalPeer Review Process.This case requires us to interpret the scope of the medical peer reviewprivilege in the context of a wrongful death action and a medical malpractice claimagainst a surgeon, and a negligent credentialing claim against the surgeon’s hospital.The privilege, codified in AS 18.23.030, contains two subsections relevant to this case.The first, subsection (a), sets out the scope of the privilege and provides a specific17Peterson v. State, 280 P.3d 559, 561 (Alaska 2012).18See AS 18.23.030.19In their Bolinder briefs, Mat-Su and Dr. Zwiacher contend that the scopeof the peer review privilege also presents a question of fact: when the medical peerreview process begins at Mat-Su. This framing impermissibly invades the legislativeprovince by allowing a hospital to define AS 18.23.030’s scope. The issue here — thescope of the peer review privilege — presents only a question of law.20State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, 366 P.3d 86, 90 (Alaska 2016)(quoting Se. Alaska Conservation Council v. State, 202 P.3d 1162, 1167 (Alaska 2009)).-15-7293

limitation on it. The second, subsection (b), outlines two exceptions where the privilegedoes not apply. Aside from our 2013 limited order, we have never considered the scopeof either subsection.21This case thus requires interpretation of the peer review statute.“Interpretation of a statute begins with its text.”22 In addition to the text, we alsoconsider a statute’s legislative history and purpose.23 In construing a statute, we haveadopted a sliding scale approach whereby “[t]he plainer the statutory language is, themore convincing the evidence of contrary legislative purpose or intent must be.”24Whenever possible “we interpret each part or section of a statute with every other partor section, so as to create a harmonious whole.”25 Finally, because Alaska’s “civil rules21The court of appeals considered whether AS 18.23.030 applied in criminalcases in Grandstaff v. State, 171 P.3d 1176, 1190-97 (Alaska App. 2007). The court ofappeals concluded that the privilege applied only in civil cases based on the statute’splain language and legislative history. Id. at 1194. This appeal does not directlyimplicate the decision in Grandstaff.22City of Kenai v. Friends of The Recreation Ctr., Inc., 129 P.3d 452, 458-59(Alaska 2006).23Oels v. Anchorage Police Dep’t Emps. Ass’n, 279 P.3d 589, 595 (Alaska2012).24State, Dep’t of Commerce, Cmty. & Econ. Dev., Div. of Ins. v. AlyeskaPipeline Serv. Co., 262 P.3d 594, 597 (Alaska 2011) (quoting Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co. v.Graham-Gonzalez, 107 P.3d 279, 284 (Alaska 2005)).25McDonnell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 299 P.3d 715, 721 (Alaska2013) (quoting State, Dep’t of Commerce, Cmty., & Econ. Dev., Div. of Ins. v.Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 165 P.3d 624, 629 (Alaska 2007)).-16-7293

favor a system of liberal pretrial discovery,”26 we generally construe an evidentiaryprivilege narrowly.27Subsection (a) outlines the scope of the peer review privilege in threesentences. The first sentence protects from discovery “all data and information acquiredby a review organization in the exercise of its duties and functions.”28 This s

Dr. Zwiacher performed at Mat-Su. In each case, Mat-Su refused to respond to discovery requests for materials related to (1) Mat-Su's decisions to renew Dr. Zwiacher's medical staff membership at Mat-Su; and (2) complaints that Mat-Su had received regarding Dr. Zwiacher. Mat-Su asserted that, because all the requested