Section 11111 - Professional review

3 Analyses of this statute by attorneys

  1. Healthcare Litigation - February 2017

    Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLPBarry LandsbergFebruary 23, 2017

    This statute immunizes peer review participants from money damages stemming from peer review actions and proceedings unless the physician can establish that certain enumerated conditions have not been met. 42 U.S.C. §§ 11111, 11115(a). HCQIA presumptively immunizes peer review participants and hospitals from damages claims stemming from objectively reasonable peer review actions1 in which the affected physician received or was offered an internal administrative hearing that meets certain fair hearing standards.

  2. Health Update - February 2017

    Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLPKinda SerafiFebruary 22, 2017

    This statute immunizes peer review participants from money damages stemming from peer review actions and proceedings unless the physician can establish that certain enumerated conditions have not been met. 42 U.S.C. §§ 11111, 11115(a). HCQIA presumptively immunizes peer review participants and hospitals from damages claims stemming from objectively reasonable peer review actions1 in which the affected physician received or was offered an internal administrative hearing that meets certain fair hearing standards.

  3. Immunity for Actions of Hospital Internal Review Committees

    Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLCBruce GreenbergNovember 26, 2014

    Div. 2014). The Healthcare Quality Improvement Act of 1986 (“HCQIA”), 42 U.S.C. §§11111-11112, creates an immunity from damages claims arising out of a “professional review action of a professional review body,” provided that the action was taken in the reasonable belief that it furthered quality healthcare, that the professional review body made a reasonable effort to obtain the facts of the matter, and that adequate notice and hearing procedures were afforded to the physician involved. To defeat HCQIA immunity, a physician plaintiff must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, “that the defendant took action without a reasonable belief in initiating the action, failed to provide adequate notice and hearing procedures, or otherwise took action without a reasonable belief it was warranted by the facts after a reasonable investigation.”