September 15, 2014 Recent Legal News
 | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
Center
for Reproductive Rights v Louisiana
Fed Court
A federal judge said the law banning abortions by physicians who do not have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion center may continue but all can ignore it while a challenge is heard.
Whole
Women's Health v Texas
Fed Court
Texas' law requiring abortion clinics to meet hospital building standards was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge. The law was found to be too restrictive of women's right to have an abortion. This will be appealed. Top
Patients
v Memorial Hermann Health
To Be Filed
For seven years an employee of the hospital had been hacking undetected the electronic medical records. He had over 10,000 medical and financial patient information until he was finally found. This hospital deserves a huge fine for lack of security.
Patients
v Duke Univ.
To Be Filed
A thumb drive was stolen from an administrative office at Duke. It contained the medical information of patients but not financial information. Why do people use thumb drives and not erase them after the use?
Patients
v Diatherix Labs
To Be Filed
The Lab just found that its billing contractor had a server linked to Google. This meant that over 7000 patients information had been accessible to all for over three years. This brings the total number of people to have their health information breached to about 39,000,000. Top
Herrera
v JFK Hospital and HCA
Filed
The suit seeking class status claims that the hospital is overcharging for the x-rays in their emergency room. The patient was in an auto accident. At the ER she had a CT scan of her spine and brain as well as x-rays of her lumbar and thoracic spine. The total charged for these were $18,000. Medicare would pay under $500 for the lot. The suit claims that the huge initial costs uses up the Personal Injury Protection insurance limits and forces the patient to pay out of pocket for all other care. Gee, I thought Obamacare insurance would cover all else. I guess the patient did not have the required insurance.
Highmark
v UPMC
Filed
The insurer states the hospital billed for $300 million more than they should have for oncology services. The hospital billed for chemotherapy in the physicians offices as if it was done in the hospital. They accuse the hospital of doing this since 2010. This is the latest in the battle between the two since Highmark purchased a rival hospital in the Pittsburgh area. Top
US
(Helfer) v Associated Anesthesiologists
CD Ill
A consultant told the anesthesiology group that they should resubmit billing for epidural OB anesthesia attesting to giving the anesthesia from the time of the injection through the delivery of the child. Dr. Helfer was present for the presentation and after researching the issue told the board of directors that what the consultant asked was illegal since none stayed the entire time. He was told he was a troublemaker and he went to the CMS. He was then asked to resign or be fired. He sued. He won summary judgment regarding wrongful termination and his claim that the group violated the False Claims Act. I see a settlement with the feds and the physician in the future.
US
(Guardioloa) v Renown Health
D Nev
In another case for hospital and hospital attorney stupidity, Renown billed for inpatients when the hospital discharged the patient in one day. The compliance person told the hospital and the hospital in their infinite wisdom fired the messenger. She sued and won summary judgment. This will never go to trial as the hospital will settle with all parties soon.
US
v Babu
Guilty
Dr. Sathish Babu of the Chicago area and owner of the Anik Life Science Medical Group pled guilty of writing prescriptions for narcotics after his medical license was suspended earlier this year. He also was guilty of billing insurance for procedures never performed. His guilty plea cost him his medial license and his DEA license as well as $126,000 that he had in his possession when arrested and three automobiles, 2013 BMW, 2001 BMW and a 2010 Lexus. He will be sentenced later this year.
US
v Sabit
Filed
The fed has filed a suit against Dr. Aria Sabit of Michigan and Reliance Medical Systems as well as Kronos Spinal Technology for false claims. They say the Spinal company paid physicians including Dr. Sabit for using Reliance implants. The information alleging Dr. Sabit performing unneeded implants came from two physicians. The feds also say that two physicians in southern California Dr. Ali Mesiwala and Dr. Gowriharan Thaiyananthan also received illegal kickbacks for using Reliance implants.
US
v Phoebe Putney
Filed
This case has gone on for an eternity. The first case went to the Supreme Court and the government won. They are now going after the system again for the dissolution of their purchase of Palmyria.
US
v Sleep Medical Center
Settled and Joined
The feds settled a case for false claims against the Jacksonville, Florida, sleep center and two of the physicians, Drs. Hubert Zachery and George Restea. They pled guilty of doing unneeded sleep studies. The center paid $200,000 and both the center and Dr. Zachery agreed to be barred from fed medical programs for eight years. Dr. Restea paid $100,000. The feds will continue on their case against Dr. John DeCerce and Dr. George Young for saying they were paid as a medical director but did nothing thereby receiving illegal kickbacks. The feds allege the former signed sleep studies when the machines were broken and the latter signed for DME for patients he never saw.
US
v Maitra
Sentenced
Dr. Subir Maitra of Chicago was sentenced to six months in prison for his part in a kickback scheme at Sacred Heart Hospital. He received $2000 a month for teaching students. This way way above fair market value and was an inducement for him to bring patients to the hospital. In a separate fraud case against Maitra he billed $500 per cystometrogram that he never did. This urologist was also a drunk who treated patients while intoxicated. Top
Adams
v Cedar-Sinai Medical Center
Ca Ct app
Dr. Adams was acting weird and the CMO summarily suspended him. He was offered a peer review hearing on several occasions but never did it. He was reported to the California Medical Board and the NPDB. For some reason he was readmitted to the staff several years later and then sued for lack of income during the years he was suspended. Of course and rightly he lost. He never took advantage of the peer review process and therefore did not exhaust administrative actions and also lost on the anti-SLAPP law in the state.
Vosough
v Kierce
NJ Superior Ct
A independent group of OBs working in a hospital all quit because of the "harassment" by a supervisor. They sued for over $1 million for lost pay due to their having to quit. Wrong! They are at will employees and deserve nothing beyond the time of their contract.
McDaniel
v Loyola Univ Med Ctr
ND Ill
The university lost its summary judgment fight to keep the resident from suing it for illegally terminating his residency. The resident was terminated after he missed time due to first a legitimate medical leave and then an also legitimate National Guard responsibility. It seem incomprehensible that in this day and age a hospital with any type of HR or minimum attorney could do this.
Access
Endocrine v Health Care Service Corp.
WD Okla
The health plan terminated its contract with the physician enterprise after 30 years for excessive testing. The medical company sued for slander and interference with business as well as breach of contract. The court dismissed all charges except for the breach. Top
Salazar
v Boston Scientific
Trial Decision
The plaintiff claimed she was in chronic pain since she had a vaginal mesh implant. The left leaning Dallas Texas jury said she deserves $73 million for her pain and her four surgeries. This is the first jury to arrive at this decision. The other two cases that have gone to trial against Boston Scientific were won by the manufacturer. Two trials against J&J and Bard went against the makers for a total of $13 million.
Exeter
Hospital v Kwiakowski
D NH
The hospital attempted to sue Maxim Healthcare Services, a staffing agency, and the American Registry of Radiological Technicians (ARRT) for contribution after it settled the law suits relating to their hiring of the infamous technician. The court dismissed the case against the staffing agency since it had no duty to the patients. It refused to dismiss the claim against ARRT since it had some greater range of duties as well as knowledge of the technician's drug use. To trial on this.
US
v Kaplan
D Nev
Although not strictly a malpractice case, Dr. Michael Kaplan, a urologist?, allegedly reused prostate biopsy needles which is against the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act as well as stupid. He argued in summary judgment that the law is vague and he never sold the needles. The court said Bah Humbug. To trial.
Rivers
v Yorkville Endoscopy
To Be Filed
As all know Joan Rivers died following a procedure at Yorkville Endoscopy in New York. The physician who performed the upper GI endoscopy, Dr. Lawrence Cohen, was the medical director of the outpatient facility. When he was doing his procedure he had an uncredentialed ENT physician present who did a biopsy of the larynx of Ms. Rivers. The facility stated that no biopsy of the larynx has ever been performed at the facility. Now, Dr. Cohen has resigned or was asked to resign as the medical director and of the facility and has resigned from the facility. The actual cause of the death is still unknown. Top
DeLouis
v Iowa Medical Board
Iowa Ct App
In a case of physician and or attorney stupidity the physician agreed to a settlement with the Board on the charge of prescribing a controlled substance to a family member. The Board then did what it is supposed to do and reported the settlement to the NPDB. The physician then lost her insurance and sued to revoke her settlement. She sued after the time allotted. She lost her case on summary judgment. She actually lost her case because of lack of judgment for not understanding all the ramifications of her actions. 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.