Murphy v. Oregon Medical Board
3:14-cv-01135
| D. Or. | Jan 26, 2015Background
- The Oregon Medical Board (OMB) issued a Final Order reprimanding Dr. James Michael Murphy for consuming alcohol while on cardiac call, finding this was unprofessional conduct and a risk to patient safety.
- OMB reported the Final Order to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) as required by the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA), answering “Yes” that the action was based on professional competence or conduct adversely affecting patient health.
- Murphy does not challenge the Final Order itself but alleges the OMB’s NPDB report was incorrect and brings claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of substantive due process and equal protection.
- Defendants (OMB members and an OMB employee) moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, asserting various immunities: Oregon state/common-law immunity, federal common-law/quasi-judicial immunity, and HCQIA immunity for NPDB reports.
- The court held that Oregon statutory immunity cannot bar § 1983 claims, quasi-judicial absolute immunity does not extend to the administrative act of reporting to the NPDB, and HCQIA § 11137(c) immunity applies only if the reporter lacked actual knowledge of falsity.
- Plaintiff’s complaint did not allege Defendants had actual knowledge that the NPDB report was false; Plaintiff conceded actual knowledge was unknown. The court dismissed the Amended Complaint without prejudice and allowed 14 days to replead.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Oregon statutory/common-law immunity bars § 1983 claims | Murphy: state immunity shields defendants | OMB: ORS § 677.335 grants absolute immunity | Court: State law cannot immunize conduct under § 1983; immunity not applicable to § 1983 claims |
| Whether federal common-law absolute immunity covers NPDB reporting | Murphy: reporting was actionable conduct | Defs: reporting is quasi-judicial/prosecutorial and absolutely immune | Court: Absolute quasi-judicial immunity does not extend to administrative NPDB reporting |
| Whether HCQIA § 11137(c) provides immunity for NPDB reports | Murphy: report was incorrect; liable | Defs: HCQIA bars civil liability absent actual knowledge of falsity | Court: HCQIA provides complete immunity unless reporter had actual knowledge the report was false; plaintiff alleged no such knowledge |
| Sufficiency of pleading to state § 1983 claim based on NPDB report | Murphy: alleged incorrect report suffices | Defs: plaintiff failed to plead actual knowledge of falsity required by HCQIA | Court: Complaint deficient for failing to allege actual knowledge; dismissal without prejudice granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir.) (pleading standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 668 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir.) (construing well-pleaded facts in plaintiff’s favor)
- Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992 (9th Cir.) (pleading sufficiency standards)
- Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir.) (plaintiff must plead factual content to give fair notice)
- Newcal Indus. v. Ikon Office Solution, 513 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir.) (draw reasonable inferences for plaintiff)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must contain factual allegations, not conclusions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must be plausible)
- Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916 (9th Cir.) (state medical board members entitled to absolute immunity for quasi-judicial acts)
- Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998 (9th Cir.) (limits of quasi-judicial immunity; administrative reporting outside absolute immunity)
- Martinez v. State of California, 444 U.S. 277 (state law cannot immunize conduct under § 1983)
- Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193 (functional approach to immunity)
- Brown v. Presbyterian Healthcare Servs., 101 F.3d 1324 (10th Cir.) (HCQIA reporting immunity unless actual knowledge of falsity shown)