Funderburk v. Peterson

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Funderburk v. Peterson

1999 OK 37, 981 P.2d 301, 1999 WL 261696

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 3, 1999

DocketNo. 92,389

StatusPublished

This text of 1999 OK 37 (Funderburk v. Peterson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Funderburk v. Peterson, 1999 OK 37, 981 P.2d 301, 1999 WL 261696 (Okla. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

¶ 1 Original jurisdiction is assumed. Let the writ issue directing the respondent-judge, or any other judge assigned or to be assigned to Funderburk v. Utica Part Clinic, Cause No. CJ-97-1827, on the docket of the District Court, Tulsa County, forthwith to order that Hillcrest Medical Center deliver for the respondent’s in camera inspection all the insurance and malpractice claims’ information which has been withheld from production. Upon inspection, the respondent-judge shall allow discovery of those materials that pertain to credentialing and peer rfeview activities affecting Dr. Tillum. Materials tending to shozv facts that were known and knoivable about Dr. Tillum’s level of skills are discoverable. 12 O.S. § 3226, Wisdom v. McCall, 1998 OK 31, 956 P.2d 155, Strubhart v. Perry Memorial Hospital Trust, 1995 OK 10, 903 P.2d 263, Tuller v. Shallcross, 1994 OK 133, 886 P.2d 481; see in this connection Buzzard v. McDanel, 1987 OK 28, 736 P.2d 157, 160-161.

¶ 2 DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE THIS 3rd DAY OF MAY, 1999.

¶ 3 ALL JUSTICES CONCUR.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

¶ 1 Original jurisdiction is assumed. Let the writ issue directing the respondent-judge, or any other judge assigned or to be assigned to Funderburk v. Utica Part Clinic, Cause No. CJ-97-1827, on the docket of the District Court, Tulsa County, forthwith to order that Hillcrest Medical Center deliver for the respondent’s in camera inspection all the insurance and malpractice claims’ information which has been withheld from production. Upon inspection, the respondent-judge shall allow discovery of those materials that pertain to credentialing and peer rfeview activities affecting Dr. Tillum. Materials tending to shozv facts that were known and knoivable about Dr. Tillum’s level of skills are discoverable. 12 O.S. § 3226, Wisdom v. McCall, 1998 OK 31, 956 P.2d 155, Strubhart v. Perry Memorial Hospital Trust, 1995 OK 10, 903 P.2d 263, Tuller v. Shallcross, 1994 OK 133, 886 P.2d 481; see in this connection Buzzard v. McDanel, 1987 OK 28, 736 P.2d 157, 160-161.

¶ 2 DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE THIS 3rd DAY OF MAY, 1999.

¶ 3 ALL JUSTICES CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1999 OK 37, 981 P.2d 301, 1999 WL 261696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/funderburk-v-peterson-okla-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack