U.S. Code » Title 42 » Chapter CHAPTER 117— ENCOURAGING GOOD FAITH PROFESSIONAL REVIEW ACTIVITIES › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— REPORTING OF INFORMATION

42 U.S.C. § 11133

Reporting of certain professional review actions taken by health care entities

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Reporting by health care entities(1) On physiciansEach health care entity which—(A) takes a professional review action that adversely affects the clinical privileges of a physician for a period longer than 30 days;(B) accepts the surrender of clinical privileges of a physician—(i) while the physician is under an investigation by the entity relating to possible incompetence or improper professional conduct, or(ii) in return for not conducting such an investigation or proceeding; or(C) in the case of such an entity which is a professional society, takes a professional review action which adversely affects the membership of a physician in the society,shall report to the Board of Medical Examiners, in accordance with section 11134(a) of this title, the information described in paragraph (3).(2) Permissive reporting on other licensed health care practitioners

A health care entity may report to the Board of Medical Examiners, in accordance with section 11134(a) of this title, the information described in paragraph (3) in the case of a licensed health care practitioner who is not a physician, if the entity would be required to report such information under paragraph (1) with respect to the practitioner if the practitioner were a physician.

(3) Information to be reportedThe information to be reported under this subsection is—(A) the name of the physician or practitioner involved,(B) a description of the acts or omissions or other reasons for the action or, if known, for the surrender, and(C) such other information respecting the circumstances of the action or surrender as the Secretary deems appropriate.(b) Reporting by Board of Medical Examiners

Each Board of Medical Examiners shall report, in accordance with section 11134 of this title, the information reported to it under subsection (a) and known instances of a health care entity’s failure to report information under subsection (a)(1).

(c) Sanctions(1) Health care entities

A health care entity that fails substantially to meet the requirement of subsection (a)(1) shall lose the protections of section 11111(a)(1) of this title if the Secretary publishes the name of the entity under section 11111(b) of this title.

(2) Board of Medical Examiners

If, after notice of noncompliance and providing an opportunity to correct noncompliance, the Secretary determines that a Board of Medical Examiners has failed to report information in accordance with subsection (b), the Secretary shall designate another qualified entity for the reporting of information under subsection (b).

(d) References to Board of Medical Examiners

Any reference in this subchapter to a Board of Medical Examiners includes, in the case of a Board in a State that fails to meet the reporting requirements of section 11132(a) of this title or subsection (b), a reference to such other qualified entity as the Secretary designates.

(Pub. L. 99–660, title IV, § 423, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3789.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 141 cases (25 in the last 5 years), 1989–2025 · leading case: Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 562 F.3d 599 (4th Cir. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 562 F.3d 599 (4th Cir. 2009). · cites it 3× “” See 42 U.S.C.A. § 11133 . Accordingly, we find that the statute does not confer to CAMC powers traditionally reserved to the state, and it does not turn CAMC’s actions into state action for a § 1983 claim.”
Doe v. Leavitt, 552 F.3d 75 (1st Cir. 2009). · cites it 7× “42 U.S.C. § 11133 (a)(l)(B)(i). The question is one of first impression at the federal appellate level.”
Wheeler v. Methodist Hosp., 95 S.W.3d 628 (Tex. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “06(b); 42 U.S.C.A. § 11133 (a)(1). State law (the TMPA) provides immunity from liability for a hospital’s peer review activity or peer review report as follows: (l) A cause of action does not accrue against the members, agents, or employees of a medical peer review committee or…”
Mem'l Hosp.-The Woodlands v. McCown, 927 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. 1996). · cites it 7× “See 42 U.S.C. § 11133 (a)(1). The impetus behind these requirements is set out in the federal Act: Congress concluded there was a “national need to restrict the ability of incompetent physicians to move from State to State without disclosure or discovery of the physician’s…”
Doe v. Rodgers, M.H.A., 139 F. Supp. 3d 120 (D.D.C. 2015). · cites it 4× “12 (a)(l)(ii)(A), with 42 U.S.C. § 11133 (a)(l)(B)(i). As a result, with respect to the term “investigation,” it seems to the Court that the NPDB Guidebook interpretation technically constitutes an interpretation of the statute and not an interpretation of the regulation.”
Simpkins v. Shalala, 999 F. Supp. 106 (D.D.C. 1998). · cites it 6× “(B) accepts the surrender of clinical privileges of a physician (i) while the physician is under an investigation by the entity relating to possible incompetence or improper professional conduct, or (ii) in return for not conducting such an investigation or proceeding----” 42…”
Odom v. Fairbanks Mem'l Hosp., 999 P.2d 123 (Alaska 2000). · cites it 4× “In compliance with 42 U.S.C. § 11133 , FMH reported to a national reporting system that Odom's staff privileges had been terminated.”
Adventist Healthcare v. Behram, 322 A.3d 1 (Md. 2024). · cites it 4× “” 42 U.S.C. §§ 11133 , 11134; 45 C.F.R. § 60.”
Freilich v. Bd. of Directors of Upper Chesapeake Health, Inc., 142 F. Supp. 2d 679 (D. Maryland 2001). · cites it 4× “To remedy these problems, the Act established a national reporting system which, among other things, requires hospitals to provide information about adverse professional review actions, 42 U.S.C. § 11133 , and provides immunity from damages for persons participating in peer…”
Moore v. Williamsburg Reg'l Hosp., 560 F.3d 166 (4th Cir. 2009). · cites it 3× “The next day, WRH submitted a report to the National Practitioner Data Bank (“NPDB”), as it believed was required by 42 U.S.C. § 11133 , 1 stating that plaintiffs clinical privileges had been summarily suspended indefinitely because of “serious allegations of sexual misconduct…”
Simon J. Pinhas v. Summit Health, Ltd. Midway Hosp. Med. Ctr. the Med. Staff of Midway Hosp. Med. Ctr. Mitchell Feldman, 894 F.2d 1024 (9th Cir. 1990). · cites it 3× “1989), and to hospitals throughout the entire country pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 11133 , 11135 (Supp. IV 1986) in order to preclude him from practicing elsewhere.”
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). “6 Hospitals are required by 42 U.S.C. § 11133 (a)(1)(A) and 45 CFR § 60.”
Show all 141 citing cases →
— 42 U.S.C. § 11133(a)(1)(B)(i) — 2 cases
Doe v. Rodgers, M.H.A. (D.D.C. 2020).
Doe v. Rodgers, M.H.A. (D.D.C. 2023).
— 42 U.S.C. § 11133(c)(1) — 1 case
Doe v. Rodgers, M.H.A., 139 F. Supp. 3d 120 (D.D.C. 2015). “12 (a)(l)(ii)(A), with 42 U.S.C. § 11133 (a)(l)(B)(i). As a result, with respect to the term “investigation,” it seems to the Court that the NPDB Guidebook interpretation technically constitutes an interpretation of the statute and not an interpretation of the regulation.”
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.