(a) Persons and entities are responsible for the accuracy of information which they report to the NPDB. If errors or omissions are found after information has been reported, the person or entity which reported it must send an addition or correction to the NPDB and, in the case of reports made under § 60.12 of this part, also to the Board of Medical Examiners, as soon as possible. The NPDB will not accept requests for readjudication of the case by the NPDB, and will not examine the underlying merits of a reportable action.
(b) An individual or entity which reports information on licensure or certification, negative actions or findings, clinical privileges, criminal convictions, civil or administrative judgments, exclusions, or adjudicated actions or decisions under § 60.8, § 60.9, § 60.10, § 60.11, § 60.12, § 60.13, § 60.14, § 60.15, or § 60.16 must also report any revision of the action originally reported. Revisions include, but are not limited to, reversal of a professional review action or reinstatement of a license. In the case of actions reported under § 60.9, § 60.10, § 60.13, § 60.14, § 60.15 or § 60.16, revisions also include whether an action is on appeal. Revisions are subject to the same time constraints and procedures of § 60.5, § 60.8, § 60.9, § 60.10, § 60.11, § 60.12, § 60.13, § 60.14, § 60.15, or § 60.16 as applicable to the original action which was reported.
(c) The subject will be sent a copy of all reports, including revisions and corrections to the report.
(d) Upon receipt of a report, the subject:
(1) Can accept the report as written;
(2) May provide a statement to the NPDB that will be permanently appended to the report, either directly or through a designated representative; (The NPDB will distribute the statement to queriers, where identifiable, and to the reporting entity and the subject of the report. Only the subject can, upon request, make changes to the statement. The NPDB will not edit the statement; however the NPDB reserves the right to redact personal identifying and offensive language that does not change the factual nature of the statement.); or
(3) May follow the dispute process in accordance with § 60.21.
[78 FR 20484, Apr. 5, 2013, 78 FR 25860, May 6, 2013]
Notes of Decisions
Subhash C. Batra v. Covenant Health Sys., 562 S.W.3d 696 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2018).
“§ 11133 (a)(1)(A) and 45 CFR § 60.6 to report to the National Practitioner Data Bank any peer review action that adversely affects clinical privileges for longer than thirty days.”
Robinson v. E. Carolina Univ., 329 F. Supp. 3d 156 (E.D.N.C. 2018).
· cites it 2× “See 45 C.F.R. § 60.6 (a) (Those entities that submit reports to the NPDB "are responsible for the accuracy of information which they report to the NPDB.”
Doe v. Cmty. Med. Ctr., Inc., 2009 MT 395, 221 P.3d 651.
· cites it 2× “” 45 C.F.R. §§ 60.6 (b) and 60.9; NPDB Guidebook, E-5–7; NPDB Fact Sheet.”
Ashraf v. Adventist Health Sys./Sunbelt, Inc., 200 So. 3d 173 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).
“See 45 C.F.R. § 60.6 (2014). Thus, all plaintiffs will have actual knowledge of the contents of their NPDB report well before the limitations period expires.”
Robert W. Van Boven M.D. v. Scott Freshour, 659 S.W.3d 396 (Tex. 2022).
· cites it 5× “; see 45 C.F.R. § 60.6 (b), including “[a]ny adverse action taken by the licensing or certification authority of the state as a result of a formal proceeding,” 45 C.”
Long v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 422 F. Supp. 3d 143 (D.D.C. 2019).
“See 45 C.F.R. § 60.6 (d)(2). Upon request, HHS will review the “accuracy of the reported information,” but it “will not consider the merits or appropriateness of the action or the due process that the” reported physician received.”
Scott Freshour v. Robert W. Van Boven M.D., 628 S.W.3d 513 (Tex. App.—Austin 2020).
“2 See 45 C.F.R. § 60.6 (b) (providing that entity “which reports information on licensure” “must also report any revision to the action originally reported”).”
Bonzani v. Goshen Health Sys. Inc, 459 F. Supp. 3d 1139 (N.D. Ind. 2020).
“45 C.F.R. § 60.6 . The contract obligation, prohibiting the making of untrue statements, and the regulatory obligation may not be coextensive.”
Doe v. Cmty. Med. Ctr., 2010 MT 395.
“” 45 C.F.R. §§ 60.6 (b) and 60.9; NPDB Guidebook, E-5–7; NPDB Fact Sheet.”
Amjad Butt v. Iowa Bd. of Med., No. 14-1764 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2015).
“10 45 C.F.R. § 60.6 (2013). This provision requires the board to inform the NPDB of our conclusion in Part IIA concerning the unauthorized and largely unsupported remand finding and the striking of that finding.”
45 C.F.R. § 60.6(b): 1 case
Robert W. Van Boven M.D. v. Scott Freshour, 659 S.W.3d 396 (Tex. 2022).
“; see 45 C.F.R. § 60.6 (b), including “[a]ny adverse action taken by the licensing or certification authority of the state as a result of a formal proceeding,” 45 C.”
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.