Health Law Daily Wrap Up, GENERAL HEALTH CARE NEWS—N.D. Ill.: ABOS not required to produce redacted peer-review portions of credentials report, (Apr 28, 2026)

By Donielle Tigay Stutland, J.D.

Peer reviews in a surgeon’s Credentials Report qualify as protected “third party assessments” an allied medical society solicited to improve quality control and patient care.

The federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois granted a motion filed by the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery (ABOS) for a protective order to prevent the disclosure of information that it had withheld pursuant to the Illinois Medical Studies Act. A surgeon sought discovery of his ABOS Credentials Report without redactions. The court, in granting ABOS’s motion, concluded that the redacted portions of the Credentials Report are privileged and protected from disclosure under the Illinois Medical Studies Act (Aslie v. American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery, No. 25 CV 5678 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 21, 2026)).

Background. The American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery (ABOS) is the primary medical specialty board that assesses the credentials of orthopedic surgeons in the United States. Many hospitals require physicians to have an ABOS certification in order to engage in orthopedic surgeries at their facilities. Physicians seeking ABOS recertification must participate in its Maintenance of Certification process every 10 years.

The plaintiff, an orthopedic spinal surgeon, first received ABOS certification in 2005, and then recertification in 2015. The physician asserted that starting in 2015, he began publicly criticizing the use of pedicle screws in spinal surgeries.

The surgeon submitted a recertification application in 2023 identifying the required peer names and contact information, and ABOS solicited ratings and comments from those peers. The surgeon alleged—and ABOS admitted—that ABOS required the surgeon to complete an oral recertification examination instead of the typical written examination because “questions were raised about” his medical practice since his 2015 recertification. The surgeon did so, but failed the examination, and he believes that ABOS deliberately failed him as retaliation for his public opposition to the use of pedicle screws.

The surgeon served discovery requests on ABOS seeking documents concerning the Credentials Committee’s decision to require he pass an oral reexamination during his 2023 recertification. In response, ABOS produced the surgeon’s Credentials Report with redactions on three pages, reflecting peer reviews and feedback. The surgeon demanded that ABOS produce the Credentials Report without redactions, and ABOS filed a motion to prevent such disclosure pursuant to the Act. In the alternative, ABOS argued that the surgeon agreed to the confidentiality provisions in the recertification application waiving his right to access peer reviews.

Illinois Medical Studies Act. ABOS sought s to withhold as privileged the following portions of the surgeon’s Credentials Report: (1) the names of the peer physicians and their comments about the surgeon; and (2) identifying information of each physician who reviewed the surgeon, as well as ratings for the surgeon across key areas relevant to his professional competence, such as surgical skills, communication skills, behavior, and integrity. The court began by outlining that the Act “protects the records, reports, notes, and the like, of . . . medical societies, and other review groups used in the course of internal quality control or medical study for the purpose of . . . improving patient care.” Buechel v. United States, No. 08 CV 132 (S.D. Ill. Sept. 8, 2010). The Act further provides that “such information . . . shall not be admissible as evidence, nor discoverable in any action of any kind in any court or before any tribunal, board, agency, or person.” The court also noted that ABOS is an “allied medical societ[y]” within the scope of the Act, and “the ABOS recertification program furthers the Act’s purpose, as it seeks to improve orthopedic patient care and quality by ensuring physician competence and conformity to industry-accepted standards of care.”

The court found that that the Act applies to the redactions in the surgeon’s Credentials Report. The Illinois Supreme Court has held that statutorily protected “materials in the hands of any legitimate medical society are protected by the Act so long as those materials were used as part of a study or program to improve quality control or patient care or reduce morbidity or mortality.” Niven v. Siqueira, 109 Ill. 2d 357, 366 (1985). The redacted portions of the surgeon’s Credentials Report qualify as such “materials.” The court detailed that the redacted portions constitute a statutorily protected category of information because they consist of “third party confidential assessments of a health care practitioner’s professional competence.” Additionally, ABOS used the surgeon’s Credentials Report as part of a program to improve quality control and patient care.

The court also stressed that Illinois courts have held that similar peer reviews are privileged when a statutorily protected entity prepared them to further the Act’s purposes. The court referenced Willis v. Highland Med. Ctr., 2019 IL App (1st), in which the Illinois appellate court held that peer comments and letters of reference a hospital credentials committee solicited to evaluate a physician’s professional qualifications for re-credentialing “clearly fell” within the Act’s protection as “third party confidential assessments of a health care practitioner’s professional competence” used to improve quality control and patient care. Here, the court found that the peer reviews in the surgeon’s Credentials Report similarly qualify as protected “third party assessments” an allied medical society solicited to improve quality control and patient care. Ultimately, the court concluded that protection for the peer ratings and comments in the surgeon’s Credentials Report aligns with the Act’s purpose “to ensure that members of the medical profession will effectively engage in self-evaluation of their peers in the interest of advancing the quality of health care.”

The case is No. 25 CV 5678.

Judge: Kim, Y.

Attorneys: Benjamin J. Fenton (Fenton Jurkowitz Law Group, LLP) for Ardavan Aslie. William K. Mcvisk (Tressler LLP) for American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery.

Companies: American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery

Cases: CaseDecisions GCNNews GeneralNews ProviderNews QualityNews IllinoisNews