1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |HHS Clarifies NPDB Reporting Obligations

HHS Clarifies NPDB Reporting Obligations

Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.24.03

Some health care entities have expressed concern that the National Practitioner Data Bank regulations require health care entities to report adverse actions taken against practitioners to both the NPDB and the applicable State Board of Medical Examiners, while the NPDB Guidebook directs health care entities to report directly to the NPDB first, and then subsequently to send to the State Board the Report Verification Document that the NPDB sends to the plan confirming receipt of the adverse action report in satisfaction of the plan's Board reporting obligation. We requested confirmation of health care entity obligations from the NPDB, and received the attached letter from HRSA Deputy Administrator Cynthia Grubbs in response. The letter confirms the process set forth in the Guidebook, and should provide additional comfort to health care entities who may have been unsure of their obligations.

Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25

Defining Claim Terms by Implication: Lexicography Lessons from Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation

Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims.  Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution.  Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication....