Hooda v. W.C.A. Serv. Corp. (Summary)

HCQIA IMMUNITY

Hooda v. W.C.A. Serv. Corp., No. 11-CV-504-A (W.D. N.Y. May 17, 2013)

The United States District Court for the Western District of New York (“district court”) upheld a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation by denying in part and granting in part a hospital’s motion for summary judgment.

The hospital was sued by a physician for filing an Adverse Action Report (“Report”) with the National Practitioner Data Bank (“NPDB”).  The hospital filed the Report with the NPDB based on the physician’s resignation of his medical staff privileges while he was under investigation for refusing to attend the delivery of a critically ill infant when the physician was on call.

The physician claimed the Report was filed because he expressed concerns with hospital management and complained that the hospital did not have the proper facilities to deliver and care for the infant.

The hospital and CEO argued that they were immune from the damage claims under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (“HCQIA”).  The district court agreed.  It first noted that the hospital enjoyed “report immunity” under HCQIA because of its legal obligation to file a report with the NPDB when a doctor is under investigation at the time he surrenders his clinical privileges.

In the alternative, the district court found hospital might have invoked “professional review action immunity” because the hospital’s actions qualified as a “professional review action” and the physician did not rebut the presumption that the hospital had satisfied the requirements for immunity.  Also, based on HCQIA immunity, the review of the physician’s assertion that the hospital’s Report was filed in bad faith was irrelevant.

The district court dismissed the physician’s request for injunctive relief to order the hospital to withdraw the Adverse Action Report as the district court had no authority to do so.  The physician had no right to sue the reporting hospital for an inaccurate report.  Instead, he was only permitted to challenge an Adverse Action Report based on its accuracy and request a review by the Secretary, but the Secretary found the Report to be accurate and appropriate.

Finally, the district court denied the hospital’s motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim seeking attorney’s fees.

https://www.hortyspringer.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Hooda_v_WCAServiceCorporation_May2013-ReportRecommendationOrder.pdf

https://www.hortyspringer.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Hooda_v_WCAServiceCorp_May2013-Order.pdf