42 U.S.C. § 11111

Professional review

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In general(1) Limitation on damages for professional review actionsIf a professional review action (as defined in section 11151(9) of this title) of a professional review body meets all the standards specified in section 11112(a) of this title, except as provided in subsection (b)—(A) the professional review body,(B) any person acting as a member or staff to the body,(C) any person under a contract or other formal agreement with the body, and(D) any person who participates with or assists the body with respect to the action,shall not be liable in damages under any law of the United States or of any State (or political subdivision thereof) with respect to the action. The preceding sentence shall not apply to damages under any law of the United States or any State relating to the civil rights of any person or persons, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq. and the Civil Rights Acts, 42 U.S.C. 1981, et seq. Nothing in this paragraph shall prevent the United States or any Attorney General of a State from bringing an action, including an action under section 15c of title 15, where such an action is otherwise authorized.(2) Protection for those providing information to professional review bodies

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person (whether as a witness or otherwise) providing information to a professional review body regarding the competence or professional conduct of a physician shall be held, by reason of having provided such information, to be liable in damages under any law of the United States or of any State (or political subdivision thereof) unless such information is false and the person providing it knew that such information was false.

(b) Exception

If the Secretary has reason to believe that a health care entity has failed to report information in accordance with section 11133(a) of this title, the Secretary shall conduct an investigation. If, after providing notice of noncompliance, an opportunity to correct the noncompliance, and an opportunity for a hearing, the Secretary determines that a health care entity has failed substantially to report information in accordance with section 11133(a) of this title, the Secretary shall publish the name of the entity in the Federal Register. The protections of subsection (a)(1) shall not apply to an entity the name of which is published in the Federal Register under the previous sentence with respect to professional review actions of the entity commenced during the 3-year period beginning 30 days after the date of publication of the name.

Except as provided in paragraph (2), subsection (a) shall apply to State laws in a State only for professional review actions commenced on or after October 14, 1989.

(2) Exceptions(A) State early opt-in

Subsection (a) shall apply to State laws in a State for actions commenced before October 14, 1989, if the State by legislation elects such treatment.

(B) Effective date of election

An election under State law is not effective, for purposes of,11 So in original. Probably should be “for purposes of subparagraph (A),”. for actions commenced before the effective date of the State law, which may not be earlier than the date of the enactment of that law.

(Pub. L. 99–660, title IV, § 411, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3784; Pub. L. 100–177, title IV, § 402(c), as added Pub. L. 101–239, title VI, § 6103(e)(6)(A), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2208.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, referred to in subsec. (a)(1), is Pub. L. 88–352, July 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 241, which is classified principally to subchapters II to IX (§ 2000a et seq.) of chapter 21 of this title. Title VII of this Act relates to equal employment opportunities, and is classified generally to subchapter VI (§ 2000e et seq.) of chapter 21 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2000a of this title and Tables.

The Civil Rights Acts, referred to in subsec. (a)(1), are classified generally to chapter 21 (§ 1981 et seq.) of this title.

Amendments

1989—Subsec. (c)(2)(B), (C). Pub. L. 101–239 added Pub. L. 100–177, § 402(c), see 1987 Amendment note below.

1987—Subsec. (c)(2)(B), (C). Pub. L. 100–177, § 402(c), as added by Pub. L. 101–239, redesignated subpar. (C) as (B), struck out “subparagraphs (A) and (B)” after “for purposes of”, and struck out former subpar. (B) which read as follows: “Subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to State laws in a State for actions commenced on or after October 14, 1989, if the State by legislation elects such treatment.”

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1987 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–177 effective Nov. 14, 1986, see section 402(d) of Pub. L. 100–177, as renumbered and amended, set out as a note under section 11137 of this title.

Effective Date

Pub. L. 99–660, title IV, § 416, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3788, provided that: “This part [part A (§§ 411–416) of title IV of Pub. L. 99–660, enacting this subchapter] shall apply to professional review actions commenced on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [Nov. 14, 1986].”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 254 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: Verska v. Saint Alphonsus Reg'l Med. Ctr., 265 P.3d 502 (Idaho 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Verska v. Saint Alphonsus Reg'l Med. Ctr., 265 P.3d 502 (Idaho 2011). · cites it 6× “42 U.S.C. § 11111 (a). However, in order to obtain such immunity, the actions of a professional review body must meet all of the standards specified in 42 U.”

Lee Med., Inc. v. Paula Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515 (Tenn. 2010). · cites it 2× “60 42 U.S.C.A. § 11111 (a). 61 See, e.g., Virmani v.”

Wojewski v. Rapid City Reg'l Hosp., Inc., 2007 SD 33 (S.D. 2007). · cites it 8× “See 42 U.S.C.A. § 11111 (a)(1) ("If a professional review action .”

Granger v. Christus Health Cent. Louisiana, 144 So. 3d 736 (La. 2013). · cites it 5× “” See Public Law 99-660, Title IV, § 402; 42 U.S.C.A. § 11111 (c). HCQIA became effective in Louisiana on July 15, 1988, via 1988 La.”

Colantonio v. Mercy Med. Ctr., 135 A.D.3d 686 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). · cites it 4× “nstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the portions of the second, third, fifth, eighth, eleventh, twelfth, and fourteenth causes of action that remained after this Court’s decision and order dated May 18, 2010, which are predicated upon…”

Singh v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc., 308 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2002). · cites it 3× “” 42 U.S.C. § 11111 (a). In order for immunity to attach to a professional review action, it must be taken— (1) in the reasonable belief that the action was in the furtherance of quality health care, (2) after a reasonable effort to obtain the facts of the matter, (3) after…”

Ching v. Methodist Child.'s Hosp., 134 S.W.3d 235 (Tex. App. 2003). · cites it 8× “By eleven issues, Ching contends the trial court erred (1) in awarding the Hospitals’ summary judgment based on statutory immunity; (2) in denying his motion for partial summary judgment because the evidence demonstrated that the procedures employed by the Hospitals did not…”

Reyes v. Wilson Mem'l Hosp., 102 F. Supp. 2d 798 (S.D. Ohio 1998). · cites it 7× “” 42 U.S.C. § 11111 (a)(1). The statute provides that a professional review body, any person acting as a member or staff to such a body, any person acting under contract or formal agreement with the body, or any person who participates with or assists the body, shall not be held…”

Imperial v. Suburban Hosp. Ass'n, 37 F.3d 1026 (4th Cir. 1994). · cites it 12× “42 U.S.C. § 11111 (a)(2). The conditions for granting such immunity are set forth in 42 U.”

Babb v. Centre Cmty. Hosp., 47 A.3d 1214 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2012). · cites it 3× “42 U.S.C.A. § 11111 . (9) The term “professional review action” means an action or recommendation of a professional review body which is taken or made in the conduct of professional review activity, which is based on the competence or professional conduct of an individual…”

Fuste v. Riverside Healthcare Ass'n, Inc., 575 S.E.2d 858 (Va. 2003). · cites it 2× “4 The defendants also assert that the federal Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986, specifically 42 U.S.C. § 11111 (a) (2000), provides immunity to them in the context of a professional review action.”

Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 562 F.3d 599 (4th Cir. 2009). “) He asserts he has satisfied the requirements for obtaining an injunction requiring CAMC to provide him a hearing and remove his name from the NPDB list because he cannot acquire gainful employment so long as his name is on the NPDB list, monetary damages will not restore his…”

Show all 254 citing cases →

— 42 U.S.C. § 11111(a) — 1 case

Georgopoulos v. Humility of Mary Health Partners, Inc., 958 N.E.2d 1268 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).

— 42 U.S.C. § 11111(a)(1) — 2 cases

Burney v. East Alabama Med. Ctr., 939 F. Supp. 1514 (M.D. Ala. 1996).

McLeay v. Bergan Mercy Health Sys. Corp., 714 N.W.2d 7 (Neb. 2006).

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.