C.F.R. » Title 45 » SUBCHAPTER A—GENERAL ADMINISTRATION › PART 60—NATIONAL PRACTITIONER DATA BANK › Subpart C—Disclosure of Information by the National Practitioner Data Bank

45 C.F.R. § 60.21

How to dispute the accuracy of National Practitioner Data Bank information

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Who may dispute the NPDB information. The NPDB will routinely mail or transmit electronically to the subject a copy of the report filed in the NPDB. In addition, as indicated in § 60.18, the subject may also request a copy of such report. The subject of the report or a designated representative may dispute the accuracy of a report concerning himself, herself, or itself as set forth in paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) Procedures for disputing a report with the reporting entity. (1) If the subject disagrees with the reported information, the subject must request in the format as determined by the Secretary that the NPDB enter the report into “disputed status.”

(2) The NPDB will send the report, with a notation that the report has been placed in “disputed status,” to queriers (where identifiable), the reporting entity and the subject of the report.

(3) The subject must attempt to enter into discussion with the reporting entity to resolve the dispute. If the reporting entity revises the information originally submitted to the NPDB, the NPDB will notify the subject and all entities to whom reports have been sent that the original information has been revised. If the reporting entity does not revise the reported information, or does not respond to the subject within 60 days, the subject may request that the Secretary review the report for accuracy. The Secretary will decide whether to correct the report within 30 days of the request. This time frame may be extended for good cause. The subject also may provide a statement to the NPDB, either directly or through a designated representative that will permanently append the report.

(c) Procedures for requesting a review of a disputed report. (1) The subject must request, in the format as determined by the Secretary, that the Secretary review the report for accuracy. The subject must return this request to the NPDB along with appropriate materials that support the subject's position. The Secretary will only review the accuracy of the reported information, and will not consider the merits or appropriateness of the action or the due process that the subject received.

(2) After the review, if the Secretary:

(i) Concludes that the information is accurate and reportable to the NPDB, the Secretary will inform the subject and the NPDB of the determination. The Secretary will include a brief statement (Secretarial Statement) in the report that describes the basis for the decision. The report will be removed from “disputed status.” The NPDB will distribute the corrected report and statement(s) to previous queriers (where identifiable), the reporting entity and the subject of the report.

(ii) Concludes that the information contained in the report is inaccurate, the Secretary will inform the subject of the determination and direct the NPDB or the reporting entity to revise the report. The Secretary will include a brief statement (Secretarial Statement) in the report describing the findings. The NPDB will distribute the corrected report and statement(s) to previous queriers (where identifiable), the reporting entity and the subject of the report.

(iii) Determines that the disputed issues are outside the scope of the Department's review, the Secretary will inform the subject and the NPDB of the determination. The Secretary will include a brief statement (Secretarial Statement) in the report describing the findings. The report will be removed from “disputed status.” The NPDB will distribute the report and the statement(s) to previous queriers (where identifiable), the reporting entity and the subject of the report.

(iv) Determines that the adverse action was not reportable and therefore should be removed from the NPDB, the Secretary will inform the subject and direct the NPDB to void the report. The NPDB will distribute a notice to previous queriers (where identifiable), the reporting entity and the subject of the report that the report has been voided.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2014–2025 · leading case: Doe v. Rodgers, M.H.A., 139 F. Supp. 3d 120 (D.D.C. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Doe v. Rodgers, M.H.A., 139 F. Supp. 3d 120 (D.D.C. 2015). · cites it 6× “45 C.F.R. § 60.21 (b)(1) — (2); NPDB Guidebook F-l.”
Robinson v. E. Carolina Univ., 329 F. Supp. 3d 156 (E.D.N.C. 2018). · cites it 4× “Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Defendants assert that the court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiff's declaratory judgment claims regarding the NPDB report for plaintiff's failure to exhaust the administrative remedies afforded her pursuant to 45…”
Shean Satgunam v. Michigan State Univ., 556 F. App'x 456 (6th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “The district court, however, declined to enter preliminary injunctive relief removing the report, finding that administrative exhaustion applied to the question of whether MSU is eligible to file its report with the Data Bank.”
Miller v. Huron Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc., 145 F. Supp. 3d 873 (D.S.D. 2015). · cites it 4× “Miller did not challenge the accuracy of the Adverse Action Report with the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services before filing suit.”
Breda v. McDonald, 153 F. Supp. 3d 496 (D. Mass. 2015). “45 C.F.R. § 60.21 (b)(3). If the reporting entity does not revise its report or does not respond within sixty days, the party may request that HHS review the report for accuracy.”
Reynolds v. United States Dep't of Just., 10 F. Supp. 3d 134 (D.D.C. 2014). “45 C.F.R. § 60.21 (b)(3). If the agency declines, or fails to respond within 60 days, the subject may request that the Secretary of HHS review the report for accuracy.”
Bonzani v. Goshen Health Sys. Inc (N.D. Ind. 2022). · cites it 9× “Under 45 C.F.R. § 60.21 (a), the subject of an NPDB report may dispute its accuracy.”
Long v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (D.D.C. 2019). · cites it 4× “See 45 C.F.R. § 60.21 (c)(2)(ii), (iv). B. Factual Background 1.”
Raymond Long v. HHS (D.C. Cir. 2021). · cites it 4× “45 C.F.R. § 60.21 (c)(1). HHS may revise or void a report that it determines to contain inaccurate information or to address an unreportable adverse action.”
Gudes v. Wilson Health (S.D. Ohio 2023). · cites it 4× “§ 11136 ; 45 C.F.R. § 60.21 . “The subject of the report or a designated representative may dispute the accuracy of a report concerning himself[ or] herself[.”
Bhutta (D. Maryland 2025). · cites it 4× “” 45 C.F.R. § 60.21 (c)(1). The regulations also state that, when reviewing a disputed report, the Secretary may determine whether “the information is accurate and reportable to the NPDB,” whether “the information contained in the report is inaccurate,” whether “the disputed…”
Parks v. Ala. State Bd. of Pharmacy (Ex parte Ala. State Bd. of Pharmacy), 253 So. 3d 972 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “The regulations provide that the subject of the report to the NPDB will be provided with a copy of that report and may either accept it, provide a statement to the NPDB that will be permanently appended to the report, or follow the dispute process set forth in 45 C.F.R. § 60.21…”
Show all 16 citing cases →
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.