42 U.S.C. § 11115

Construction

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

(a) In general

Except as specifically provided in this subchapter, nothing in this subchapter shall be construed as changing the liabilities or immunities under law or as preempting or overriding any State law which provides incentives, immunities, or protection for those engaged in a professional review action that is in addition to or greater than that provided by this subchapter.

(b) Scope of clinical privileges

Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed as requiring health care entities to provide clinical privileges to any or all classes or types of physicians or other licensed health care practitioners.

Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed as affecting, or modifying any provision of Federal or State law, with respect to activities of professional review bodies regarding nurses, other licensed health care practitioners, or other health professionals who are not physicians.

(d) Treatment of patient malpractice claims

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as affecting in any manner the rights and remedies afforded patients under any provision of Federal or State law to seek redress for any harm or injury suffered as a result of negligent treatment or care by any physician, health care practitioner, or health care entity, or as limiting any defenses or immunities available to any physician, health care practitioner, or health care entity.

(Pub. L. 99–660, title IV, § 415, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3787; 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 NotesAmendments

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

1987—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 100–177, § 402(c), as added by Pub. L. 101–239, inserted before period at end “or as preempting or overriding any State law which provides incentives, immunities, or protection for those engaged in a professional review action that is in addition to or greater than that provided by this subchapter”.

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.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 15 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital v. Agbor

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital v. Agbor (1997) tex · cites it 4× “42 U.S.C. § 11115 (d) (emphasis added). Second, the Federal Act also provides: Except as specifically provided in this subchapter, nothing in this subchapter shall be construed as changing the liabilities or immunities under law or as preempting or overriding any State law which…”

West Florida Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. See (2012) fla · cites it 2× “” 42 U.S.C. § 11115 (a) (2006). Based on this provision, the Fourth District held that Congress clearly intended not to preempt state law with regard to confidentiality or discovery of peer review documents.”

Granger v. Christus Health Central Louisiana (2013) la “However, HCQIA allows a state to legislate additional immunity for peer review, as stated in 42 U.S.C.A. § 11115 (a), which provides: Except as specifically provided in this subchapter, nothing in this subchapter shall be construed as changing the liabilities or immunities…”

Pierson v. Orlando Regional Healthcare Systems, Inc. (2009) flmd “” 42 U.S.C. § 11115 (a). Subchapter II of HCQIA contains mandatory reporting requirements regarding professional review actions.”

Freilich v. Board of Directors of Upper Chesapeake Health, Inc. (2001) mdd “” 42 U.S.C. § 11115 (a). The Maryland Court of Appeals in Goodwich stated its view on the interplay of the state and federal peer review immunity statutes, stating that “because the Maryland statute requires that a member of a review committee act in good faith, while the HCQIA…”

Freilich v. Upper Chesapeake Health, Inc. (2002) ca4 “” 42 U.S.C. § 11115 . We thus agree with the district court’s conclusion that the HCQIA “does not require the state to do anything that the state itself has not already required, authorized, or provided by its own legislative command.”

Paulino v. QHG of Springdale, Inc. (2012) ark “See 42 U.S.C. § 11115 (d). The circuit court ultimately agreed with NMC that the Pau-linos could not show causation, because Mrs.”

Columbia Hospital Corp. of South Broward v. Fain (2009) fladistctapp “42 U.S.C. § 11115 (a) (emphasis supplied).”

Patton v. St. Francis Hospital (2003) gactapp “See also 42 USC § 11115 (a) (Act does not preempt state laws to extent they provide greater protections for peer reviewers).”

Agbor v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital (1996) texapp · cites it 2× “See 42 U.S.C.A. § 11115 (a) (West 1995). The Federal Act also provides that it does not affect the rights and remedies available to a patient for the negligence of a physician, health-care provider or health-care entity.”

Bender v. Suburban Hospital, Inc. (2000) mdctspecapp “§ 11115 (a) provides that “nothing in this subchapter shall be construed as changing the liabilities or immunities under law or as preempting or overriding any State law which provides incentives, immunities, or protection for those engaged in a professional review action that…”

Goodwich v. Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Inc. (1995) mdctspecapp “42 U.S.C. § 11115 (a) provides that “nothing in this subchapter shall be construed as changing the liabilities or immunities under law or as preempting or overriding any State law which provides incentives, immunities, or protection for those engaged in a professional review…”

Show all 15 citing cases →

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.