Liberty Univ. v US
Liberty University sued the United States to overturn the Obamacare law. The University erroneously sued on the basis of making the religious facility pay for abortions. The court rightly stated that abortions were not a part of the law. They also sued on the basis of the individual tax and that was also dismissed by the judge who had been appointed by President Clinton. There is another case down the road in Virginia that has already heard arguments and will be decided by the end of the year. This judge was appointed by a Republican.
A federal judge in New Jersey has dismissed a suit against the Obamacare plan by physicians and a patient stating they did not have standing to sue.
See Recent Legislation regarding the Virginia suit and the ruling against Obamacare. Top
West Penn Allegheny v UPMC,
After the lower court dismissed the suit the 3rd Circuit reinstated it. The 3rd Circuit named several anticompetitive actions by both entities against West Penn. Both defendants denied the charges and will get a chance to show why when the lower court hears the case. Top
US v Tai
Dr. Abdur Razzak Tai, a Florida Cardiologist, has been accused of fraud during the Fen-Phen trial. He was paid $100 per EKG and also $1500 for filling out the claim form. He is just one of many physicians who have been accused of falsely filling out claims and erroneously reading EKGs for trial attorneys.
Abbott Labs and two others have agreed to pay to the feds $421 million for overcharging for medications. This was a whistleblower suit. They get $88 million of the settlement. Top
Pensler v Patients
Dr. Jay Pensler, a Chicago cosmetic surgeon, has filed suit against three patients who stated on web sites that Dr. Pensler botched their breast surgery. The women called the physician dangerous, ruthless, liar and horrible. They have since removed their postings. The women will defend on the First Amendment right of free speech. However, if they lied that will not protect them. The women stated that he had multiple med mal suits. The physician states he has had one filed by one of the women involved but has not ever paid any money in any suit or settlement. If nothing else the women will need to pay alot of money to their attorneys.
NMT Medical v Wilmshurst
The hight court has ruled that the medical company must pay into the court a bond of 200,000 pounds to cover the legal costs of Dr. Wilmshurst should they lose their libel suit against him. If they do not pay the bond their case would be forfeit. The doctor disputed some of the information about the company that they gave out concerning migraines. The company's financial situation is "dire". The company's product was found to be no better than a control group. Top
Rimedio v Summacare
A group of physicians sued Summacare for withholding payments in violation of their contracts. The court allowed the action to be consolidated to a class action suit which could cost Summacare significant money, much more than they withheld plus attorney fees for both sides. Now that they lost the class action appeal they should settle quickly.
Washington Med Assn. v Washington
The medical association and the American College of Emergency Room Physicians want the state to force insurers to pay the full price of services when a patient goes to an ER and the ER physician is not contracted with the insurer. That has been tried before in California and the courts have ruled that the insurer only needs to pay the amount a contracted physician would receive. California has a law against balance billing. It will be interesting how Washington handles the same issue. Top
Stoner v Penn Med Board
This case shows the political problems of medical boards. They suspended the physician's license to practice medicine because he did pelvic and breast exams on women patients who came for physician exams. The women had not had these exams in years and had no other physician to do them. The Board needed expert opinion about whether the exams were of the standard of care. Guess who the experts were, themselves. They need outside people hired by both sides to give opinions. Top
Oliver v Magnolia Clinic
The Court threw out the $500,000 cap on non economic damages against nurse practitioners and in the process probably against physicians as well. The nurse practitioner was grandfathered in and had no advanced degrees. The nurse saw the patient 32 times without telling her physician. Top
Smith v Adventist Health
In a major rebuff to the attorney for the hospital who attempted to get Dr. Smith tossed out of a second hospital where he had no problems on the basis of a problem at another hospital. There were two cases here and the court consolidated them. The attorney tried and failed to get the hospital protected by an anti-SLAPP statute. After the summary suspension the physician sued the first hospital and obtained an injunction against the hospital. When the injunction lapsed he filed for re-appointment and was denied and sued again. The hospital attempted but failed to defend itself by using the anti-SLAPP statute. The case may proceed to trial. Dr. Smith has sued Adventist on many occasions since they failed to purchase his practice and then suspended him. He has won all that went to court. Adventist and the attorneys should just give up unless the attorneys are churning the case, which is possible.
Stratienko v Chatanooga Hamilton
In another case that shows the court is biased against physicians, the court upheld a summary suspension against a physician. In doing so it stated that following medical staff bylaws is not mandatory for due process. In this case he was offered a hearing but sued instead and won an injunction against the hospital for the summary suspension. He continued to sue all involved and lost all cases.
Ray v Pinnacle Health
Ray is an Asian-Indian and was reprimanded for quality issues. Several years later he again was reprimanded and sued for racial discrimination. The day following the filing of the suit and without any knowledge of the suit, the credentials committee recommended suspending him. The case went to trial and he lost as expected.
Tio v Washington Hospital
Tio was employed by the hospital and let go. There was an arbitration agreement in place so Tio filed for arbitration. Tio lost. He then went to court to claim bias by the arbitrator for not letting in certain evidence. The court stated that Tio could show no bias and therefore the arbitration stood. Top
Nurses v Delano Reg. med Ctr.
The Filipino nurses of the above hospital in Kern County, California, have sued for the hospital demanding that they speak only English and not require the same of the Spanish or Hindi speaking employees. They were told they could only speak English on breaks as well as when on duty and that security cameras would be installed to monitor them. They are seeking to join a current law suit against the hospital by the EEOC for the same activity. Under California law it is legal for a hospital to have an English only rule if there is a business necessity. The hospital defended itself in the news by stating, if one can believe, that the suit threatens the medical care in the area. That is a dumb defense that will carry no weight. Top
DISCLAIMER: Although this article is updated periodically, it reflects the author's point of view at the time of publication. Nothing in this article constitutes legal advice. Readers should consult with their own legal counsel before acting on any of the information presented.