With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". did not arise out of the matters which were the subject of evaluation and review by the peer review committee, Section 4 does not preclude him from obtaining a copy of the tape recording of the Medical Board’s deliberations. We agree. In the present case, the subject of the peer review proceeding was the quality of medical care provided by Dr. Hayes to a particular patient. If, as in fact happened, the patient in question were to sue Dr. Hayes and/or the Hospital to recover damages for Dr. Hayes’ allegedly substandard care, the confidentiality provision of Section 4 would apply, as such a lawsuit would “arise out of’ the matter—the quality of care rendered by Dr. Hayes—which was the subject of the peer review proceeding. See Sanderson, 361 Pa.Super. at 501, 522 A.2d at 1143 (<HOLDING>). Dr. Hayes’ challenge to the proceeding,

A: holding that hospitals may be found liable for conspiring with members of medical staff and that evidence of pretextual sham peer review proceedings presented jury question whether hospitals conspired with peer review committees in violation of sherman act
B: holding that the medical review panel is authorized to review the medical records and other submitted material pertaining to each defendants treatment of a patient and that while a medical malpractice plaintiff must as a prerequisite to filing suit present the  proposed complaint for review and expert opinion by a medical review panel there is no requirement for such plaintiff to fully explicate and provide the particulars or legal contentions regarding the claim
C: holding that section 4 precludes medical malpractice plaintiff from discovering peer review information related to his own and other patients cases
D: holding that the state privilege should not apply when the peer review records sought directly related to the allegations challenging the peer review process
C.