John Doe v. Judith Rodgers, as Senior Advisor in Division of Practitioner Data Banks, et al.

This is the first case in 37 years since enactment of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 (HCQIA) (42 U.S.C. §§11101–11152) to reach this Court for necessary constitutional review of the HCQIA and its mandated adverse “professional review actions” (Adverse Action Reports (AARs)) from private hospitals. These AAR’s are filed and then released to would-be hospital employers, which by law must “query” the HCQIA’s “databank” (NPDB) before hiring a licensed healthcare-professional. There are currently over 4-million doctors and nurses, and upwards of 21-million healthcare-professionals subject to the HCQIA. Respondents, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Agency (HHS) and its corespondent division, the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB), have implemented the HCQIA by regulations and sub-regulatory guidance (“NPDB Guidebook”). The law and HHS regulations as enacted and applied do not require either the hospital reporting an AAR or HHS to provide physicians under review with any due process. This lack of due process at multiple levels has resulted in over-inclusive AAR reporting of skilled and competent doctors onto the NPBD, which unconstitutionally prevents them from further practice of their lawful profession. The effect of an AAR released by Respondents against a physician is a “career-ender” because it broadly precludes re-employment anywhere in the United States due to hospitals nationwide having adopted policies not to hire physicians with an AAR. The District Court below acknowledged that effect. Petitioner is a graduate of Harvard Medical School and holds degrees of A.B., M.D. and Ph.D. and is a Board-certified surgeon. Prior to the events giving rise