Posted by: Zack Peterson
March 01, 2011
Topic: Legislative Briefs

In Archuleta v. Halverson, 2010 UT 36, the Utah Supreme Court, in a 3-2 decision, reversed and held that Utah now follows the majority of jurisdictions and recognizes a cause of action for negligent credentialing.  The primary basis for recognizing this new cause of action was Justice Durham's determination that the immunity contemplated by the peer review statute only operated between the doctor whose credentials are under review, the suppliers of information, and the decision makers.  Justice Durham determined that the peer review statute did not contemplate immunity between a patient and a hospital.  The Court concluded that "the [peer review] statute was never intended to shield hospitals from potential liability or to provide hospitals protection from medical malpractice claims."

Web Resources

FindLaw
Thomson West
U.S. Courts
Westlaw
United States Chamber of Commerce
FirstGov
Library of Congress
White House
Internal Revenue Service
Yahoo!Legal Blog Directory