June 1, 2006 Recent Legal News
 | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
Henne v Jefferson Health
Filed
D. Henne, the chief of the ED at Methodist Hospital in Philadelphia, has filed a defamation case against Jefferson and Dr. Feldman, Chair of Medicine at Thomas Jefferson. Apparently Feldman sent an email accusing Henne of criminal conduct and unethical behavior. This should make for an interesting case, if it ever comes to trial.
Schwaiger v Avera Queen of Peace
Health
S. Dakota Supreme Ct.
Sweiger was accused in an email of improper behavior toward the staff and patients. The email was from the Director of Radiology to the hospital Vice-President to a partner of the professional corporation that employed the radiologist. The court ruled there was no defamation since there was no malice or reckless disregard for the truth. Also the hospital did not break its medical staff bylaws in the investigation.
Rodsuwan v Christus Health
La. Ct. App.
In an interesting case, an employed physician was deemed to pay his employer all the money he made while moonlighting at another hospital. His agreement precluded moonlighting and stated that any accounts receivable made by the physician belonged to the hospital. This was interpreted as including the moonlight wages.
Schindler v Marsfield Clinic
WD Wisc.
A fired neurosurgeon passed his initial threshold and won the summary judgment motion so he can sue for intentional and negligent emotional distress. Schindler had one error during surgery and was suspended for two weeks without notice. A subsequent peer review did not follow protocol and then recommended Schindler's termination. While on appeal he was not allowed to return to work and the Clinic lied to his patients about him. The Clinic also failed to provide the physician the required documentation for his appeal. The MEC and Board upheld the termination on the basis of two people that were threatened by the physician's productivity. The Clinic had inappropriate contact with Schindler's new employer and he lost this job as well. Good for Schindler.
Employees v Haddad
Filed
Dr. Robert Haddad was the CEO of Boston's Caritas St. Elizabeth and the Caritas Christi Health Care System.
Temple Health v Abington Hosp.
Settlement
There was a three way regional cardiac care network formed in 2002. Abington, for business reasons, pulled out in 2005 and was sued in 2006. A non binding arbitration stated that Abington owed over $5 million as an agreed to penalty and $100,000 as their share of expenses for the time they were in. The settlement is secret but all parties seem happy and Abington is still out.
Aurora Health v Oconomowoc
Decided
A judge has ruled for Aurora Health in it's law suit against the city of Oconomowoc, Wisconsin. The city tried to keep Aurora Health from building a hospital due to its competition to an already existing hospital. They re-zoned the land and this was illegal. Aurora has immediately applied for a building permit on the land they own. This is the third judge to rule on the city's decision. Aurora is also seeking %59 million from the city for it's delay in allowing the hospital to be built. Top
Watts v NHS
European Union
Watts, a 75 year old Britisher, sued the National Health Service of Britain for costs she put out of pocket for care due to the wait time in Jolly Olde. The EU Court ruled that Watts could now reapply to NHS for reimbursement since the waiting time for treatment for her arthritis operation on the hip may have exceeded the time that is flexible and individual. This means that the Service may have to pay for care rendered outside its system due to the long waits. Top
US v Lincare
Settlement
In the largest civil penalty Lincare, the major durable supply company in the country, has agreed to a fine of $10 million and 5 years of a corporate integrity agreement. They were giving to physicians tickets, gifts, meals, medical equipment for using their company. The company disguised the kickbacks as compensation.
US v Tenet
Settlement
Tenet has weighed the possibility of going to trial a third time on the kickback suit against Alvarado Hospital in San Diego or paying a fine. They have decided to pay $21 million plus sell or close the hospital. The hospital has also been up for the fed exclusion list, which would kill it. The problem is the settlement clears the way for other settlements with the states and feds. These could amount to up to $2 Billion.
US v St. Luke's
9th Circ.
The CEO of St. Luke's Hospital in San Leandro, California, was convicted for Medicare fraud. The CEO, Guy Seaton, told employees to falsify reports. He was sentenced to 78 months in prison and three years of supervised release. the hospital was placed on probation for five years.
Mueller v Auker
D. Idaho
The plaintiff sued the physician and the hospital, St. Luke's, for failure of obtaining informed consent. The hospital went for summary judgment since the physician is responsible for obtaining informed consent, not the hospital. The court disagreed. They stated that some the hospital's employees may have been involved, that the hospital could be vicariously liable under certain conditions. The case needs to go to the triar of fact.
Fukushima v Patel
Arbitration
Dr. Fukushima sued Dr. Patel for malpractice. The facts are that an x-ray for a chronic cough showed a mass in the right hilum and a scar in another part of the lung. The defendant pulmonologist did a PET which was positive for cancer. A biopsy of both areas were obtained read differently by the community pathologist and UCLA. UCLA only read the slide of the scar and did not read the hilar mass. The pulmonologist did not see the different readings and treated the patient for TB. The patient had Sarcoma with metastasis to the heart. The patient had settled prior for $2.8 million and the arbitration gave the plaintiff physician $6,820,849 less the prior settlement. The non economic damages were $500,000. Who says one cannot get large rewards in California and with arbitration? The arbitration was a three person panel.
Phillips v Franciscan Health
Filed
Dr. Phillips has filed a malpractice suit against his own hospital chain. The anesthesiologist contends that his wife came t the ED with severe abdominal pains and was sent to the storage area outside of radiology to wait for x-rays in a bed without monitoring. She died there and an autopsy showed 20 inches of necrotic intestine. Top
Harrison v Christus St.
Patrick
WD La.
The plaintiff, an uninsured patient, sued the hospital for charging an uninsured patient more than an insured patient. The dumb attorney argued that the hospital must charge an uninsured no more than they charge Medicare. This is so false that it was thrown out immediately on summary judgment. I hope the attorney lost alot of money on this case. Top
East Portland Imaging v Providence
D. Or.
A group of imaging centers sued Providence for monopolization because it was opening two new ventures where most of its business would go. Providence had terminated its contracts with the centers to send the patients to its own centers. Providence won a summary judgment, even though it lost three of the four elements. The court found a jury could side with the centers in that Providence was predatory, that the new centers were anticompetitive, that the long term plan of Providence was intended to monopolize but lost on the plaintiff not proving there was monopolistic power. Top
Kinnard v U. Health
Tex. Ct. App.
The physician, age 71, reapplied for privileges at the hospital and was turned down for failure to demonstrate current competence. He had retired two years previously. The physician then sued the hospital and the Chief of OB who had testified at a hearing. The court said without malice the members of the hearing could not be sued and the hospital wins on qualified immunity.
Feit v Horizon Blues
NJ Superior Ct.
The Court allowed immunity to the insurer for reporting the termination of the physician for being an imminent patient threat. He can still sue on breach of contract but not for defamation and other torts. 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.