45 C.F.R. § 60.6

Reporting errors, omissions, revisions or whether an action is on appeal

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

(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.

(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

Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2009–2025 · leading case: Subhash C. Batra, M.D. v. Covenant Health Sys. D/B/A Covenant Med. Ctr./Covenant Med. Ctr.-Lakeside, 562 S.W.3d 696 (Tex. App. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Subhash C. Batra, M.D. v. Covenant Health Sys. D/B/A Covenant Med. Ctr./Covenant Med. Ctr.-Lakeside, 562 S.W.3d 696 (Tex. App. 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 (Mont. 2009). · 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., D.D.S. v. Scott Freshour, Margaret McNeese, Chris Palazola, Amy Swanholm, Timothy Webb, & Sherif Zaafran, M.D., in Their Off. Capacities as Officers of the Texas Med. Bd. (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. (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, Margaret McNeese, Timothy Webb, & Sherif Zaafran, M.D., in Their Off. Capacities as Officers of the Texas Med. Bd.// Robert W. Van Boven M.D., D.D.S. v. Robert W. Van Boven M.D., D.D.S.// Amy Swanholm & Christopher Palazola, in Their Off. Capacities as Officers of the Texas Med. Bd. (Tex. App. 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”).”

Parks v. Ala. State Bd. of Pharmacy (Ex parte Ala. State Bd. of Pharmacy), 253 So. 3d 972 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017). “" 45 C.F.R. § 60.6 (b). Reporting of revisions is subject to the same time constraints as set forth in 45 C.”

Bonzani v. Goshen Health Sys. Inc (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.”

Roland Chalifoux, Jr. v. Wetzel Cnty. Hosp., Inc. (4th Cir. 2025). “For example, 45 C.F.R. § 60.6 (a) requires that a facility inform the NPDB about an erroneous or unnecessary report, and § 60.”

Doe v. Cmty. Med. Ctr., 2010 MT 395 (Mont. 2009). “” 45 C.F.R. §§ 60.6 (b) and 60.9; NPDB Guidebook, E-5–7; NPDB Fact Sheet.”

Amjad Butt, M.D. v. Iowa Bd. of Med. (Iowa Ct. App. 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., D.D.S. v. Scott Freshour, Margaret McNeese, Chris Palazola, Amy Swanholm, Timothy Webb, & Sherif Zaafran, M.D., in Their Off. Capacities as Officers of the Texas Med. Bd. (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.