findings and deliberations are not exempt from discovery ... unless they specifically concern the health care provided a patient.” Id. (interpreting section 537.085.4 discovery limitation on peer review documents). The qualifying language used in the various provisions of section 537.035 suggests to us that the legislature has limited a cause of action based on actions taken in reliance on a peer review committee, but has not abrogated it. See Larson v. Wasemiller, 738 N.W.2d 300, 304, 311 (Minn.2007). Research Belton concedes that it “has never [alleged] that it has actual immunity under section 537.035.” Thus, dismissal was not justified for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted based on this statute. See Edwards v. Gerstein, 237 S.W.3d 580, 582 (Mo. banc 2007) (<HOLDING>). Sufficiency of the Petition Research Belton
recognizing that absolute immunity is immunity from charges of either constitutional or statutory violations holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also immunity from suit holding that where defendant claiming qualified immunity relies on facts that are in dispute qualified immunity cannot be granted holding that as a general rule interlocutory trial court orders rejecting defenses of common law sovereign immunity governmental immunity public official immunity statutory immunity or any other type of immunity are not appealable under the maryland collateral order doctrine holding trial court improperly granted dismissal on ground of immunity because the defendant had qualified statutory immunity rather than absolute immunity