NPDB Case Will Have Its Day in Court
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s decision to dismiss a physician’s claims against the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) asking it to reconsider a National Practitioner Data Bank (“NPDB”) Adverse Action Report (“AAR”). After repeated attempts to have an NPDB AAR removed from his file, a physician learned new evidence he believed would justify the report being removed. When he asked HHS to reconsider the administrative action, it denied his request on the grounds that he was ineligible for reconsideration. However, when the physician sued HHS to compel reconsideration, HHS claimed the request was denied because after reviewing the physician’s new evidence, it did not justify opening his case. The court indicated that because HHS changed its rationale, the court did not have to give either explanation credit, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Doe v. United States Department of Health and Human Services
Non-Compete Clause Not a Basis for Medical Group’s Claims
The Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed the dismissal of a medical group’s claims against a health system after it hired a former physician who was subject to a non-compete clause. After the physician left the medical group and began working at the hospital, the medical group filed suit against the hospital, alleging among other things, tortious interference with a business relationship and contract. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s ruling to dismiss claims of tortious interference with a business relationship because the non-compete provision in the physician’s contract had been deemed, at least preliminarily, unenforceable. Additionally, the court affirmed that the medical group failed to state a claim for tortious interference with a contract because the fact that an employer hires someone knowing that employment would violate an agreement with the employee’s former employer, does not satisfy the inducement of breach element for tortious interference with a contract. Lutheran Medical Group, LLC v. Parkview Health Systems, Inc.
Subpoena Seeking Transgender Patient Information Blocked
The United States District Court of Maryland quashed a subpoena issued by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), demanding the hospital disclose the identities of adolescent patients who have received or are currently receiving transgender healthcare and medical records pertaining to such. After the subpoena was issued, eight patients’ families filed suit claiming the subpoena lacked a proper investigatory basis and was issued, instead, to pursue the Executive branch’s aim to end and block access to gender affirming healthcare for transgender adolescent patients. The court found the subpoena lacked proper investigative purpose because there was no evidence the DOJ believed the hospital committed any offense, there was no affidavit attesting to the grounds of the investigation, and the subpoena was not limited in scope to any legitimate purpose. Accordingly, the court reasoned that the minor patients had a constitutionally reasonable expectation of privacy for their medical records. However, the court indicated that while the subpoena was an overreach untethered to any lawful purpose, the eight families did not have standing to raise the matter for persons not parties before the court. Accordingly, the subpoena was squashed only with respect to the eight families that challenged the action. In re 2025 Subpoena to Children’s National Hospital