361 Pa.Super. 491, 495 n. 3, 522 A.2d 1138, 1140 n. 3 (Pa.Super.Ct.1987) (listing state statues and statues that recognize a medical review privilege); IIA Hospital Law Manual (Medical Books) 78-106 (1996) (listing state statues dealing with discovery and admissibility of medical records, and giving a summary of each)); D.C.Code Ann. § 32-505 (1981). Thus, as in Jaffee, the nearly unanimous state legislative recognition of the self-critical analysis privilege in the medical peer review context confirms the appropriateness of recognizing the privilege in this forum. See 518 U.S. at 13,116 S.Ct. 1923. Recognizing the self-critical analysis privilege in this case is also supported by New Mexico’s own statutory privilege. See Memorial Hosp. for McHenry County v. Shadur, 664 N.Y.1976) (<HOLDING>). It is true that unlike the psychotherapist
holding that federal courts should apply state substantive law holding that in diversity cases federal courts are to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law holding that federal courts presiding over causes of action created by state law should apply state substantive law but federal procedural law recognizing a strong policy of comity between state and federal sovereigns impels federal courts to recognize state privileges where this can be accomplished at no substantial cost to federal substantive and procedural policy holding that a federal court may resort to state law analogies for the development of a federal common law of privileges in instances where the federal rule is unsettled