 | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
MDs v Rome Memorial Hospital
NY Dist. Ct.
Twenty three physicians sued their hospital, Rome Memorial, for antitrust. The District Court refused to dismiss the suit and it will continue. The physicians accuse the hospital of attempting to drive a physician surgical center out of business. The Surgical Center closed weeks after the suit was filed. The suit alleges the hospital conspired to omit the center from all contracts and to terminate the privileges of those physicians with investments in competing facilities. The Hospital is the only acute care and surgical center provider in Rome, New York. I hope the Columbus, Ohio physicians see this and follow suit, literally. Top
Illinois Physicians v Cigna
Settlement
Cigna has settled a class action certified lawsuit filed against it by physicians that alleged the company does not tell physicians how they will be paid. This suit was against Cigna PPO who have contracts with 300,000 physicians in the country. The settlement needs to be approved by the judge. If the settlement is approved Cigna may be liable for $200 million.
Danielson, MD v St. Paul Ins.
Miss. Superior Ct.
Danielson is suing St. Paul for overcharging for tail insurance. He states the insurer included the tail coverage premium in his regular payments. They then asked the physician for an additional $150,000 for the tail coverage he already purchased. A group of West Virginia physicians have already sued St. Paul for the same thing. A judge in West Virginia is allowing discovery to determine if, as reported in a newspaper, St. Paul took $1.1 Billion in reserves and gave it to shareholders as well as used it for company projects. If these suits have merit and St. Paul has to cover the doctors for their tail with no further payments, it could cost over that amount of money. They insured 40,000 physicians. Top
Bird v Saenz
CA Supreme Ct.
The California Supreme Court overruled the Appellate Court and stated that relatives (bystanders) of a medical malpractice claimant have no right of negligent infliction of emotional distress unless they were actually present at the time of the malpractice. In this case the malpractice was in the OR and the family saw the results of the incident when the mother was rolled by several times to the CCU and then again to the OR. The bystander does not have to actually see the incident but must be contemporaneously aware of the incident and that it caused injury. This is from the Golstein v Superior Court case where the Supreme Court ruled that a invisible radiation beam that injured a child could not be used by the parents as a source for contemporaneous seeing of the injury.
Smith v Price
Ohio Superior Ct.
Smith, a 54 year old male, was a patient of Dr. Franklin Price. He had gone four years with abnormal EKGs, diabetes, obesity and smoking. He was not referred to a cardiologist. When he was finally sent to a cardiologist, he died prior to seeing him. This cost Dr. price a jury verdict of $3.5 million. There is no tort reform in Ohio, thanks to the Supreme Court which is now up for re-election.
John Doe v St. Joseph Hospital
Denver Superior Court
John Doe was exposed to Creutzfeldt-Jacob Disease when he underwent brain surgery at St. Joseph's Hospital. The instruments used on Doe and five other people had been used on a woman for a brain biopsy that died from the disease. The suit states the hospital should have had a policy in place to make sure no potential for transmission was possible. Doe does not have the disease but has "emotional distress".
Zilinskas v Yale
Conn. superior Ct.
Zilinskas is suing Yale for the loss of their son's body. The son was a stillborn and the parents tried for two years to find information about what happened to their son. Two months later the baby was lost and there could be no burial. This will cost Yale a significant amount of money as well as the bad publicity that will get worse. It will also cost the facility an investigation by the State and possibly by the accreditation agency.
Heinrich v Mass.
Gen'l Hosp.
1st Circ
The first Circuit tossed out a $8 million verdict against MGH and a neurosurgeon. The original jury had found that the medical people had hastened the deaths of two terminally ill patients by using then in a government funded research project. The Court stated that the plaintiff's experts had relied upon work done after the incident and there testimony could not be counted. The patients were treated in 1961 but didn't learn about the experiments until 1995. Top
Allen v Purdue Pharma
W. VA Circuit Ct.
A judge issued a ruling that the manufacturer of the pain killer OxyContin was not liable when the patient crushed and injected the oral medication. The attorney who took this case of personal responsibility or lack of same is also crushed. This patient was already an addict when she obtained the drug. Top
Conn. v Shah
Conn. Superior Ct.
Two pediatricians, Drs. Shah and Luie have been charged in Connecticut for no reporting the pregnancy of an eleven year old by a 75 year old man. They argue that if the law that requires the reporting under the child abuse statutes is legal that minors will not come forward to be treated for their pregnancies. The representatives of organized medicine in the state had filed briefs in favor of the physicians. Minors may be treated in the state without any notification for sexually transmitted disease and receive abortion counseling. It boggles one's mind to understand how one can have privacy for abortion counseling but not for pregnancy. The seem to be intertwined. The DA seems a little in left field and probably is running for higher office. Top
US v Southcoast Hospital Group
DC Mass.
The Southcoast Hospital Group will pay $3 million for pneumonia upcoding without documentation.
NY
v Mt. Sinai
The
hospital got hit for 33 violations for 93 patient complaints in the past six
months. This is the latest in problems for the once venerable
institution. Their CEO was canned and there have been problems with money
loss and their transplant program. They were fined the maximum and had
their live liver transplant program stopped. Top
Zuckerman
v Bd. of Chiropractic In a setback for California licensees
the California Supreme Court ruled that administrate law judge have the right to
assess costs against a licensee that requests a hearing by the Board. The
Board then has the power to decrease or rid the licensee of the fee. The
Board may not increase the fee. This case is distinguished from the prior
Board of Education case where the Supreme Court stated where there was no
ability by the teacher to pay less than half the cost of a hearing, including
the judge's pay the law was unconstitutional. With the power of the Board
to decrease the fee, Business and Professional Code 125.3 and Code of Regulation
317.5 are constitutional. 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.
CA Supreme Ct.