Opinion ID: 2259273
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ms. Wilson's Mandatory Duty

Text: In determining whether the law required Ms. Wilson to report Dr. Simpkins' resignation to the Data Bank, we turn to 42 U.S.C. § 11133(a) of the HCQI Act. Under this provision, a health care entity which (B) accepts the surrender of clinical privileges of a physician  (i) while the physician is under an investigation by the entity relating to possible incompetence or improper professional conduct, or (ii) in return for not conducting such an investigation or proceeding; ... . . . . shall report to the Board of Medical Examiners... information described in paragraph (3). [7] 42 U.S.C. § 11133(a). Failure to follow the directives of this section subjects the health care entity to sanctions. See 42 U.S.C. § 11133(c). Dr. Simpkins argues that the HCQI Act does not afford Ms. Wilson absolute immunity principally because no report was required under the Act as he resigned his employment from the Hospital, as contrasted with surrendering his privileges, and he was not under investigation when he left his employment. He further asserts that, in any case, the Hospital was required to submit the report to the Board of Medical Examiners, not the Data Bank. Ms. Wilson, on the other hand, contends that Dr. Simpkins' resignation, which amounted to a surrender of clinical privileges as contemplated by the statute, occurred while he was under investigation by the Hospital for possible incompetence and improper professional conduct. Thus, she asserts, this set of circumstances fell within the reporting requirements of the HCQI Act. The present record does not enable this court to determine whether Dr. Simpkins' resignation was tantamount to a surrender of privileges, nor are we able to discern whether Dr. Simpkins was under investigation, as contemplated by the HCQI Act, at the time of his resignation. Further, even if Dr. Simpkins was under investigation, as matters stand, we cannot determine from the record the point at which the correspondence between Dr. Anderson and Dr. Jean-Jacques became a formal investigation of Dr. Simpkins. This determination is critical, particularly since there is a dispute as to whether Dr. Anderson was required to give his approval of Dr. Jean-Jacques' recommendations regarding review of Dr. Simpkins' alleged improprieties. Therefore, we must remand this case to the trial judge for further proceedings.