Simpkins v. Shalala

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a hospital’s review is “routine or general” when it is “no greater than any normal review of a physician’s care”
• holding that, even where plaintiff sought injunctive and declaratory relief, “[a] plaintiffs sole remedy for action taken by employees acting within the scope of their duties is against the government, even if the government would not be liable due to sovereign immunity.”
• finding that no liberty or property interest was implicated when the District of Columbia General Hospital made an adverse action report to the National Practitioner Data Bank
• explaining that HHS would have no duty to determine whether a health care entity “acted correctly in suspending a doctor,” but that it would be required to “review whether the entity in fact suspended the doctor” as indicated in the report
• applying substitution to claim for interference with contractual, economic, and business relations
• \The common law torts alleged by plaintiff arise out of the actions of federal employees performing their official duties.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).