Mass. Gen. Laws » Part I Title XVI Chapter 112
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 5F (2026)

Reports of violations by health care providers; discrimination; liability of employers; exemption

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 5F. Any health care provider, as defined in section one of chapter one hundred and eleven, shall report to the board any person who there is reasonable basis to believe is in violation of section five, or any of the regulations of the board, except as otherwise prohibited by law.

No employer or duly authorized agent of an employer shall discharge, refuse to hire or in any other manner discriminate against an employee because the employee has made a report to the board as required under this section, or has testified or in any manner cooperated with an inquiry or proceeding pursuant to this chapter, unless the employee knowingly participated in a fraudulent proceeding. Any person claiming to be aggrieved by a violation of this section may initiate proceedings in the superior court department of the trial court for the county in which the alleged violation occurred. An employer found to have violated this paragraph shall be exclusively liable to pay to the employee lost wages, shall grant the employee suitable employment, and shall reimburse such reasonable attorney fees incurred in the protection of rights granted by this section. The court may grant whatever equitable relief it deems necessary to protect rights granted by this section. The board may, by regulation, exempt a health care provider from the reporting obligation under this section, as to a physician who is in compliance with the requirements of a mental health, drug or alcohol program satisfactory to the board, or who has successfully concluded such a program subsequent to the actions or circumstances as to which reporting would otherwise be required.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2023 · leading case: Wright v. Shriners Hosp. for Crippled Child., 589 N.E.2d 1241 (Mass. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wright v. Shriners Hosp. for Crippled Child., 589 N.E.2d 1241 (Mass. 1992). · cites it 2× “In fact, Wright testified that she did not consider the patient care that caused her concern to be abuse, neglect, or mistreatment warranting a report to the department, nor did she feel that there was an issue of physician incompetence warranting a report to the board of…”
Roe No. 1 v. Child.'s Hosp. Med. Ctr., 16 N.E.3d 1044 (Mass. 2014). “111, § 53B, which requires hospitals to report disciplinary action taken against registered physicians to the board; and G. L. c. 112, § 5F, which requires health care providers to report to the board “any person who there is reasonable basis to believe” has engaged in the…”
Beth Israel Hosp. Ass'n v. Bd. of Reg. in Med., 515 N.E.2d 574 (Mass. 1987). “111, § 53B (requiring hospitals to report curtailment of physician privileges to the board), and G. L. c. 112, § 5F (requiring each health care provider to report to the board any person it reasonably believes has violated G.”
Vranos v. Franklin Med. Ctr., 448 Mass. 425 (Mass. 2007). “00, is that a reporting entity report any ‘disciplinary action’ to the Board relating to any employment practice, association for the purpose of providing patient care, or privileges”); G. L. c. 112, § 5F (“Any health care provider .”
Berk v. Kronlund (Mass. App. Ct. 2023). · cites it 3× “112, § 5F ("Any health care provider . . . shall report to the board any person who there is reasonable basis to believe is in violation of .”
Boudreault v. Chesapeake Biological Labs., Inc., 19 Mass. L. Rptr. 484 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2005). “Further, the plaintiff had testified that “she did not consider the patient care that caused her concern to be abuse, neglect, or mistreatment warranting a report to the department, nor did she feel that there was an issue of physician incompetence warranting a report to the…”
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.