U.S. Code » Title 42 » Chapter CHAPTER 117— ENCOURAGING GOOD FAITH PROFESSIONAL REVIEW ACTIVITIES

42 U.S.C. § 11101

Findings

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar
The Congress finds the following:(1) The increasing occurrence of medical malpractice and the need to improve the quality of medical care have become nationwide problems that warrant greater efforts than those that can be undertaken by any individual State.(2) There is a national need to restrict the ability of incompetent physicians to move from State to State without disclosure or discovery of the physician’s previous damaging or incompetent performance.(3) This nationwide problem can be remedied through effective professional peer review.(4) The threat of private money damage liability under Federal laws, including treble damage liability under Federal antitrust law, unreasonably discourages physicians from participating in effective professional peer review.(5) There is an overriding national need to provide incentive and protection for physicians engaging in effective professional peer review.(Pub. L. 99–660, title IV, § 402, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3784.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesShort Title

Pub. L. 99–660, title IV, § 401, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3784, provided that: “This title [enacting this chapter and provisions set out as a note under section 11111 of this title] may be cited as the ‘Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986’.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 368 cases (41 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: St. Luke's Episcopal Hosp. v. Agbor, 952 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
St. Luke's Episcopal Hosp. v. Agbor, 952 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. 1997). · cites it 4× “6384, 6384); see also 42 U.S.C. §§ 11101 (1) & (3). To facilitate this result, Congress established the National Practitioner Data Bank, the national reporting system that tracks doctors' practice history and competency.”
North Colorado Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Nicholas, 27 P.3d 828 (Colo. 2001). · cites it 3× “(2000) (CPRA), and the Health Care Quality Improvement Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 11101 to 11152 (1995) (HCQIA).”
Doe v. Rodgers, M.H.A., 139 F. Supp. 3d 120 (D.D.C. 2015). · cites it 6× “” 42 U.S.C. § 11101 (l)-(2), Congress found that professional review conducted by peers could remedy the medical malpractice problem but incentives and protections to encourage effective professional peer review needed to be established.”
Doe v. Cmty. Med. Ctr., Inc., 2009 MT 395 (Mont. 2009). · cites it 8× “Doe to the national and state boards of medical examiners has eviscerated the careful process provided and required by 42 U.S.C. § 11101 , et seq. and § 37-3-403, MCA (2007).”
Chadha v. Charlotte Hungerford Hosp., 865 A.2d 1163 (Conn. 2005). · cites it 3× “” 3 The Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. § 11101 et seq., authorized the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish the National Practitioner Data Bank.”
Verska v. Saint Alphonsus Reg'l Med. Ctr., 265 P.3d 502 (Idaho 2011). · cites it 2× “The Act is codified beginning at 42 U.S.C. § 11101 . The Act provides broad immunity from damage claims for persons and entities conducting professional review actions.”
Harris v. Bradley Mem'l Hosp. & Health Ctr., Inc., 994 A.2d 153 (Conn. 2010). · cites it 4× “one or all of the following alternate grounds: (1) the trial court properly concluded that the defendant substantially had complied with its bylaws when it suspended the plaintiffs surgical privileges; (2) the plaintiff failed to rebut the statutory presumption that the…”
Alan D. Gordon, M.D. Alan D. Gordon, M.D., P.C., a Corp. Mifflin Cnty. Cmty. Surgical Ctr., a Corp. v. Lewistown Hosp., 423 F.3d 184 (3rd Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “42 U.S.C. § 11101 ; H.R.Rep. No. 99-903 at 2, reprinted in 1986 U.”
Freilich v. Bd. of Directors of Upper Chesapeake Health, Inc., 142 F. Supp. 2d 679 (D. Maryland 2001). · cites it 5× “Specifically, she alleges that the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA), 42 U.S.C. § 11101 et seq., which provides immunity from damages to those who participate in physician peer review, and the Maryland statute (Section 19-319(e) of the Health-General Article of the…”
Pierson v. Orlando Reg'l Healthcare Sys., Inc., 619 F. Supp. 2d 1260 (M.D. Fla. 2009). · cites it 4× “ORHS also filed an Adverse Action Report with Defendant National Practitioner Data Bank (“NPDB”), “a mandatory reporting and alert system for the comprehensive review of the professional credentials of physicians and other health care professionals in the United States” that was…”
Fahlen v. Sutter Cent. Valley Hospitals, 318 P.3d 833 (Cal. 2014). · cites it 2× “As we discuss below, the federal Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 (HCQIA; 42 U.S.C. § 11101 et seq.) appears to require an even broader state immunity from monetary liability for both individuals and health care facilities that participate in reasonably informed,…”
Granger v. Christus Health Cent. Louisiana, 144 So. 3d 736 (La. 2013). · cites it 3× “At issue in this case are: the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 (“HCQIA”), 42 U.S.C.A. § 11101 et seq.; Louisiana’s peer review immunity statute, LSA-R.”
Show all 368 citing cases →
— 42 U.S.C. § 11101(3) — 1 case
Gilbert v. Kent Cnty. Mem'l Hosp., 64 F.4th 44 (1st Cir. 2023).
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.