In this hospital fall case, after a jury returned a verdict for the estate, Defendants appealed four evidentiary rulings. First, defendants objected to the introduction of statistical evidence consisting of bar graphs in a nursing journal article and information kept by Defendants regarding other patient fall cases. The objections were not preserved because Defendants did not object to the bar graphs when they were used and did not properly renew their objection to the evidence of other patient falls after their motion in limine was denied. Defendants objection to introduction of its orientation and nurse training materials was rejected because they were not used as private rules nor were they used to establish a standard of care, but were relied on by the Plaintiffs’ expert in formulating an opinion regarding standard of care and Defendants did not object to her reliance on those materials. The court did not err in admitted an accident report despite Defendants objection that it was subject to the peer review privilege; it was not generated by a peer review or other quality care committee; factual patient care incident information that does not contain or reflect any committee discussion or action by the committee reviewing information is not the type of information that must “necessarily be confidential” in order to allow participation in the peer or quality review assurance process. Decided: November 3, 2006.