Recently, on September 7, 2012, the United States District Court, for the District of Columbia, revisited the issue in a case filed by plaintiff, Ziad Akl, M.D., who argued that the summary suspension of his hospital privileges was motivated by malice and bad faith, and therefore the resulting Adverse Action Report should either be voided or amended. (Case No: 08-0461). In Akl, the Court dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof in showing the inaccuracy of the NPDB reports at issue. Nevertheless, the Court re-affirmed the Doe Court’s general holding that the Act does provide a viable legal theory to challenge the factual accuracy of an Adverse Action Report, where the internal review processes contained in the NPDB regulations have been unsuccessfully exhausted.
High Quality Services And Personal Attention