Contact
Boston
Providence
“Official Immunity” for Private Research Institutions: How a recent federal court decision impacts civil tort lawsuits arising out of research misconduct inquiries / investigations.
On March 31, 2016, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia released a decision in the case of Rakesh Kumar v. George Washington University that, for the first time, examined whether a private research institution can enjoy immunity from civil tort claims arising out of a research misconduct inquiry or investigation.
Dr. Kumar’s suit against George Washington followed the familiar pattern of several other recent high-profile lawsuits arising out of institutional research misconduct proceedings: after being found guilty of research misconduct involving federally funded research during the institutional inquiry and investigation, Dr. Kumar sued the school alleging an unfair process and violations of the University’s research misconduct policy and Washington D.C. law. In response, George Washington filed two motions to dismiss, including one that offered the novel argument that it should be immune from tort liability under the doctrine of “official immunity” because federal regulations required it to conduct its research misconduct proceedings thereby rendering them “governmental functions” to which “official immunity” attaches.
The Court, somewhat surprisingly, agreed with George Washington, and it dismissed one of Dr. Kumar’s tort claims on “official immunity” grounds. Although the Court did not dismiss Dr. Kumar’s suit in its entirety, the decision is still an important one for research institutions and researchers who are, or could potentially become, embroiled in civil litigation arising from research misconduct proceedings. As these types of lawsuits have recently become more common, there are at least two very important lessons that both sets of potential parties can and should draw from this case.
Lesson 1: Institutional inquiries and investigations that concern federally funded research will likely qualify as “official functions” for immunity purposes.
Based on its name alone, one would expect that the doctrine of “official immunity” could not be applied to private (i.e., non-government) entities like most research institutions. However, the legal history of the doctrine makes clear that this is not the case. While the “official immunity” doctrine came into being to prevent the threat of litigation from disrupting the government’s performance of “official” functions, the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that the immunity attaches to the function and not the governmental office. Thus, when the government delegates an “official” function to a private party (as it is permitted to do), the same interest in preventing the threat of litigation from disrupting the performance of that function arises, and the private entity should be entitled to the same immunity from civil tort liability.
The Kumar decision represents the first examination of that legal principle in the context of the research misconduct setting. In its motion, George Washington argued that it was entitled to “official immunity” for conducting the research misconduct inquiry and investigation out of which Dr. Kumar’s tort claims arose because it was performing an “official function” that had been delegated to it by the federal government. Specifically, George Washington pointed to the Public Health Service (“PHS”) Act and its implementing regulations that it claimed expressly delegated the responsibility for investigating allegations of research misconduct to the private research institution at which the potentially fraudulent research was conducted.
The Court agreed with this analysis, and cited numerous sections of the Act and the PHS regulations that it held make clear that PHS delegated the responsibility for investigating research misconduct to the Office of Research Integrity (“ORI”) who, in turn, delegated it to the private institutions. Based on the litany of detailed PHS regulations (which are found in 42 C.F.R parts 50 and 93) requiring institutions to investigate research misconduct and report the results of those investigations to ORI, the Court concluded that “[i]t is hard to see this regulatory scheme as anything less than the deputizing of research institutions to serve ‘as adjuncts to the government…in investigating research misconduct on behalf of ORI and by extension HHS.”
Due to the limited precedential value of a District Court opinion, it is difficult to predict the impact this holding will have. However, the legal reasoning employed by the Court is objectively persuasive, and it would not be surprising to see other courts follow its lead. Moreover, given that the same regulatory scheme applies to all PHS-funded research, there is little (if anything) to prevent every future private research institution sued under a theory of tort liability from asserting an identical “official immunity” defense.
Lesson 2: Although research misconduct inquiries/investigations may qualify as “official functions,” immunity may not attach to the imposition of disciplinary action.
Although the Court set forth a compelling holding that institutional inquiries/investigations are “official functions” to which “official immunity” should attach, it also made clear that a private institution may not enjoy immunity for every action it takes after the conclusion of those processes.
In his suit, Dr. Kumar alleged two categories of tort claims against George Washington representing two different types of disciplinary action the school imposed on him after finding him guilty of misconduct. The first category is his tortious interference claim that alleges that the school’s relinquishment of his grants was improper because it made him a less desirable candidate to be hired by another institution. The second category is his tortious invasion of privacy claims that allege that the school improperly disassociated him from one of his student’s dissertation and that it humiliated him publicly by having a security guard escort him out of his lab. After examining both categories of discipline, the Court found that only the first category was entitled to “official immunity.”
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, once an entity is found to be eligible for “official immunity” (by virtue of it having performed an “official function”) there is a two-pronged test for determining whether the immunity bars the tort actually alleged. To satisfy the first prong, the entity’s actions must be within the scope of the “official function.” According to the Supreme Court, this is not “particularly demanding” as the action must only bear some reasonable relation to and connection with the “official function.” Here, the Court found that both categories of discipline imposed by George Washington satisfied this prong because each was reasonably related to the school’s federally imposed duty to respond to findings of research misconduct.
It was with respect to the second prong that the Court’s view of the two categories of discipline began to diverge. To satisfy the second prong, the entity’s action must be “discretionary.” As the Supreme Court instructs, the first step in making this determination is determining whether there was a statute, regulation, or policy that specifically proscribed the course of action George Washington was required to take vis-à-vis Dr. Kumar once he was found to have committed research misconduct. The Court found no such statute, regulation, or policy existed, so it proceeded to the second step which was to determine whether George Washington’s actions implicated policy considerations. It is in answering this question that the Court drew a line between the two categories of discipline imposed by George Washington.
With respect to the conduct underlying Dr. Kumar’s tortious interference claim (i.e., George Washington’s relinquishment of his federal grant), the Court found that it was sufficiently grounded in policy considerations to enjoy immunity. Specifically, the Court drew a direct line between George Washington’s decision to relinquish Dr. Kumar’s grant and what it identified as one of the principal purposes of the federal research misconduct regulations, namely, conserving public funds. Based on this, the Court found that George Washington’s “assessment of how to treat federal grants implicated in a finding of research misconduct is grounded in the very essence of the regulatory regime,” and was, thus, entitled to immunity.
However, the Court found the opposite with respect to the conduct underlying Dr. Kumar’s invasion of privacy claims (i.e., George Washington disassociating him from his student’s thesis and publicly humiliating him by escorting him from his lab). Critically, the Court found that neither action by George Washington was “fraught with public policy considerations.” Although the Court acknowledged that George Washington acted in a discretionary manner toward Dr. Kumar, these discretionary choices did “not implicate the necessary ‘social, economic, or political goals’ to qualify for official immunity,” nor did they “further effective governance as necessary to justify granting immunity.”
Sign up for email alerts
© 2021 | website: visual dialogue
News
Health Law
-
August 27, 2020
Best Lawyers in America® 2021 Recognizes Summit Health Law Partners Attorneys
-
June 03, 2020
Adelita Orefice, Esq. Honored by Rhode Island Monthly
-
April 17, 2020
Healthcare fraud warning from the Massachusetts U.S. Attorney arising out of COVID-19
-
April 10, 2020
Financial Solutions for Small Businesses Disrupted by COVID-19
-
March 26, 2020
Massachusetts and the Federal Government Expand Telemedicine Services and Coverage in Response to COVID-19
-
March 23, 2020
COVID-19 Update for Our Clients
-
August 27, 2019
Best Lawyers in America® 2020 Recognizes Summit Health Law Partners Attorneys
-
November 06, 2018
Sweeping New Opioid Law Extends Anti-Kickback Liability to Private Insurance Market in Three Areas
-
November 05, 2018
Adelita Orefice Earns Certification in Healthcare Compliance
-
October 22, 2018
Super Lawyers® Recognizes Summit Health Law Partners Attorneys
-
September 18, 2018
| Crystal Bloom, Andrew Levine
DPH releases proposed amendments to Determination of Need regulation
-
August 20, 2018
| Robert Blaisdell
Governor Baker Signs Sweeping Reform on Employee non-Competition Agreements Law
-
August 15, 2018
Best Lawyers in America® recognizes Summit Health Law Partners attorneys for their excellence in law.
-
October 24, 2017
| Jeffrey Chase-Lubitz
Legal Issues and the Aging Physician
-
October 11, 2017
| Andrew Levine
Department of Public Health Presentation on DoN Regulations
-
August 22, 2017
Best Lawyers, Lawyers Weekly, and Superlawyers Recognize DBS Attorneys
-
July 20, 2017
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules that terminating an employee for using medical marijuana may constitute handicap discrimination.
-
February 16, 2017
| Diane Moes
The ACA May Be in Jeopardy, but MACRA Isn’t Likely to Go Away
-
January 16, 2017
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom
DPH Adopts New Determination of Need Regulations
-
November 09, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom, Adelita Orefice
UPDATE: Preliminary Injunction Temporarily Halts Implementation of Final Rule Prohibiting Pre-Dispute Arbitration Contracts in LTC Facilities
-
October 24, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom, Adelita Orefice
UPDATE: Nursing Facilities Sue HHS to Block Ban on Pre-Dispute Binding Arbitration Agreements
-
October 17, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom, Adelita Orefice
HHS Prohibits Long-Term Care Facilities from Using Pre-Dispute Binding Arbitration Agreements
-
August 31, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell,
Massachusetts Enacts Equal Pay Act: What employers can do now to prepare for its implementation
-
August 29, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom
Massachusetts Department of Public Health Announces Major Determination of Need Regulatory Reform Initiative
-
August 29, 2016
New MA Prescription Monitoring Program Goes Live August 22, 2016
-
August 15, 2016
| Crystal Bloom, Amanda Beauregard
OPPS 2017 – Implementation of Section 603 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015
-
August 12, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell
CMS cracks down on “abuse” of nursing home residents via social media
-
July 20, 2016
| Kelly McGee, Adelita Orefice
Rhode Island Prohibits Physician Non-Competes
-
June 28, 2016
Massachusetts Trial Court Dismisses Wrongful Employment Termination Claim Based on Medical Marijuana Use
-
May 17, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell,
Noncompliance with Security Deposit Law Could Be a Defense to Eviction
-
April 19, 2016
| Crystal Bloom
Update Regarding DPH Increased Oversight of Long-Term Care Facilities
-
April 11, 2016
| Crystal Bloom
DPH Strengthens Oversight of Long-Term Care Facilities
-
March 23, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Andrew Ferrer
Governor Baker Signs Legislation Designed To Address Opioid Crisis
-
March 23, 2016
| Kelly McGee
Phase 2 HIPAA Compliance Audits Set To Begin
-
March 22, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell,
Failure to execute HIPAA business associate agreement and conduct risk analysis costs health system $1.55M
-
February 11, 2016
| Kelly McGee
Proposed Rule Modifies 42 CFR Part 2, the Confidentiality of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Patient Records Regulations
-
November 16, 2015
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom, Nicole Sexton
Medicare Hospital Reimbursement Changes
-
October 26, 2015
Diane Moes named one of Mass Lawyers Weekly’s “Top Women of Law”
-
June 12, 2015
OIG Fraud Alert Warns Doctors That They Will Be Personally Accountable for Violations of Federal Anti-Kickback Statute
-
May 15, 2015
| Andrew Levine
Long Term Care Facility Regulatory Update
-
April 23, 2015
| Andrew Levine
Department of Public Health - new process for the addition of licensed mobile or portable health care units
-
April 21, 2015
| Paul Barrett, Jeffrey Chase-Lubitz
OIG Releases Compliance And Oversight Guide for Healthcare Boards
-
April 20, 2015
| Andrew Levine,
Massachusetts Department of Public Health Revamps Application Process for Registered Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
-
April 16, 2015
| Crystal Bloom, Andrew Levine
Proposed Legislation Will Increase Legal Authority of Health Policy Commission and Attorney General
-
March 15, 2015
| Andrew Levine
Health Policy Commission Releases Proposed Regulation Concerning Nurse-to-Patient Ratios | Public hearings scheduled for late March and early April
-
March 06, 2015
| Robert Blaisdell
Court Holds Officers and Directors of Non-Profit Healthcare Facility Personally Liable to Creditors for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
-
September 17, 2014
| Andrew Levine, Robert Blaisdell, Kathleen Harrell
Legal Issues Associated with MA Registered Marijuana Dispensaries: An article by Andrew Levine, Robert Blaisdell, and Kathleen Harrell
-
July 14, 2014
| Andrew Levine
Important Compounding Pharmacy Law Empowers Board of Registration in Pharmacy
-
June 20, 2014
| Crystal Bloom, Andrew Levine
Public Health Council Approves Amendments to Determination of Need Regulations
-
June 03, 2014
| Diane Moes
U.S. District Court Ruling Vacating HRSA’s 340B Program Orphan Drug Exclusion Rule Casts Uncertainty on Forthcoming "Mega-Rule"
-
May 28, 2014
| Andrew Levine
New Guidelines for Dementia Special Care Unit Regulations
-
January 10, 2014
| Andrew Levine
MassHealth Changes regulations to comply with Affordable Care Act
Litigation
-
August 27, 2020
Best Lawyers in America® 2021 Recognizes Summit Health Law Partners Attorneys
-
May 12, 2020
First Federal Indictment Arising Out of Fraudulent Applications for Paycheck Protection Program Loans Highlights Focus on COVID-19 Related Investigations
-
April 30, 2020
Impact of COVID-19 on Reporting Foreign Components
-
March 27, 2020
| Michelle Peirce
Scam Warning for Massachusetts Physicians
-
August 27, 2019
Best Lawyers in America® 2020 Recognizes Summit Health Law Partners Attorneys
-
October 22, 2018
Super Lawyers® Recognizes Summit Health Law Partners Attorneys
-
August 15, 2018
Best Lawyers in America® recognizes Summit Health Law Partners attorneys for their excellence in law.
-
April 05, 2018
In Russia probe, the difference between ‘target’ and ‘subject’ matters a great deal
-
February 22, 2018
Landmark Supreme Court Decision Substantially Narrows the Applicability of the Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Provision
-
August 22, 2017
Best Lawyers, Lawyers Weekly, and Superlawyers Recognize DBS Attorneys
-
July 20, 2017
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules that terminating an employee for using medical marijuana may constitute handicap discrimination.
-
August 31, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell,
Massachusetts Enacts Equal Pay Act: What employers can do now to prepare for its implementation
-
August 12, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell
CMS cracks down on “abuse” of nursing home residents via social media
-
June 28, 2016
3 Things Every Massachusetts Podiatrist Should Know About the Proposed Amendments to Podiatry Regulations
-
June 01, 2016
How Recent Changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act’s “White Collar” Exemptions May Affect Your Small Business
-
March 25, 2015
Avoiding Securities Fraud Prosecution: Using the SEC’s 2015 examination priorities as a compliance roadmap when dealing with retail investors.
-
December 29, 2014
| Bruce Singal
Was the Ferguson grand jury rigged?
-
March 26, 2014
Employer Avoids Discrimination Trial Thanks to Robust Investigation and Documentation Policies
-
February 13, 2014
| Michelle Peirce
Shielding Companies Against Whistleblower Suits
-
March 01, 2010
Trials Facing Women Litigators and Tips For Success: Michelle Peirce
-
Research Misconduct Penalties and How to Avoid Them
Corporate
-
August 20, 2018
| Robert Blaisdell
Governor Baker Signs Sweeping Reform on Employee non-Competition Agreements Law
-
March 16, 2018
Massachusetts Equal Pay Act: 5 Things Every Employer Should Do Before It Takes Effect On July 1, 2018
-
August 22, 2017
Best Lawyers, Lawyers Weekly, and Superlawyers Recognize DBS Attorneys
-
June 28, 2016
Massachusetts Trial Court Dismisses Wrongful Employment Termination Claim Based on Medical Marijuana Use
-
June 28, 2016
3 Things Every Massachusetts Podiatrist Should Know About the Proposed Amendments to Podiatry Regulations
Research Misconduct
-
May 18, 2020
Why Grantees Must be Prepared for Heightened Scrutiny of Conflicts of Interest in Foreign Support for US Research
-
March 23, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Andrew Ferrer
Governor Baker Signs Legislation Designed To Address Opioid Crisis
-
What is Research Misconduct and Why Should I Care?
-
Research Misconduct Penalties and How to Avoid Them
This website presents general information about Barrett & Singal and is not intended as legal advice nor should you consider it as such. You should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.
Please note that contacting Barrett & Singal by email, telephone or facsimile will not establish an attorney-client relationship, obligate us to act as your attorney or impose an obligation on either the law firm or the receiving lawyer to keep the transmitted information confidential. Completion of Barrett & Singal’s new client intake protocol, including without limitation the firm’s conflicts checking process and an engagement letter, is necessary to establish an attorney-client relationship. Absent a current attorney-client relationship with Barrett & Singal, any information or documents communicated or transmitted by you to Barrett & Singal will not be treated as confidential, secret or protected in any way. If you are not a current client of Barrett & Singal, please do not send any confidential information to us through this web site or otherwise concerning any potential or actual legal matter you have. Before providing any confidential information to us, you must obtain permission to do so from one of the firm’s lawyers. By clicking "Accept," you acknowledge that we have no obligation to maintain the confidentiality of any information you submit to us unless we already represent you or unless we have agreed to receive limited confidential material/information from you as a prospective client.
If you would like to discuss becoming a client, please contact one of our attorneys to arrange for a meeting or telephone conference. If you wish to disclose confidential information to a lawyer in the firm before an attorney-client relationship is established, the protections that the law firm will provide to such information from a prospective client should be discussed with the firm attorney before such information is submitted. Thank you for your interest in Barrett & Singal.