(a) What actions must be reported. Peer review organizations and private accreditation entities are required to report any negative actions or findings (as defined in § 60.3 of this part) which are taken against a health care practitioner, health care entity, provider, or supplier to the NPDB and provide a copy to the appropriate state licensing or certification agency. The health care practitioner, health care entity, provider, or supplier must be licensed or otherwise authorized by the state to provide health care services. The actions taken must be as a result of formal proceedings (as defined in § 60.3).
(b) What information must be reported. Each peer review organization and private accreditation entity must report the information as required in § 60.9(b) of this part.
(c) What information may be reported, if known. Each peer review organization and private accreditation entity should report, if known, the information as described in § 60.9(c).
(d) Access to documents. Each peer review organization and private accreditation entity must provide the Secretary (or an entity designated by the Secretary) with access to the documents underlying the actions described in this section as may be necessary for the Secretary to determine the facts and circumstances concerning the actions and determinations for the purpose of carrying out section 1921.
Notes of Decisions
Jacksonian v. Temple Univ. Health Sys. Found., 862 A.2d 1275 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004).
· cites it 2× “See 45 C.F.R. § 60.11 (a)(5). In addition, if the interrogatories reveal that the hospital failed to make a requisite query, the hospital’s error will bolster Plaintiffs claim of corporate negligence against the hospital and the Temple University Health System.”
Troescher v. Grody, 869 A.2d 1014 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005).
· cites it 3× “In other words, the defendants were required to disclose whether they had complied with 45 C.F.R. § 60.11 (a) by seeking information from the Data Bank.”
Agee v. United States, 72 Fed. Cl. 284 (Fed. Cl. 2006).
“45 C.F.R. § 60.11 (a)(3). A physician can dispute the information in the NPDB as outlined in 45 C.”
Pfenninger v. Exempla, Inc., 116 F. Supp. 2d 1184 (D. Colo. 2000).
· cites it 2× “See 45 C.F.R. § 60.11 (a). Where communications are not made public, they cannot form the basis of a claim for impairment in one’s good name and reputation.”
Osuagwu v. Gila Reg'l Med. Ctr., 850 F. Supp. 2d 1216 (D.N.M. 2012).
“See 45 C.F.R. § 60.11 (b). The HCQIA also “provide[s] qualified immunity from damages actions for hospitals, doctors and others who participate in professional peer review proceedings.”
Costa v. Leavitt, 442 F. Supp. 2d 754 (D. Neb. 2006).
“§§ 11137 (a); 45 C.F.R. §§ 60.11 . In fact, hospitals are required to request information from the NPDB whenever a physician applies for a position on its medical staff or for clinical privileges, and also every two years to check the status of each physician who currently is on…”
Murphy v. Goss, 103 F. Supp. 3d 1234 (D. Or. 2015).
“See 45 C.F.R. § 60.11 (b). HCQIA provides for immunity from damages actions for hospitals, doctors, and others who participate in professional peer review proceedings or file reports with the NPDB.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.