Tag Archives: health lawyer

Sexual Misconduct by Rogue Employees Can Cost Big Money: Your Responsibility as an Employer

2 Indest-2009-1By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

Johns Hopkins Health System agreed to shell out $190 million to more than 7,000 women and girls, in one of the largest settlements ever in the United States involving sexual misconduct by a physician.

A gynecologist, practicing in a Baltimore-based Johns Hopkins Hospital, one of the nation’s most prestigious medical institutions, was accused of using a tiny camera to secretly take videos and pictures of his patients. The doctor worked at the hospital for 25 years, but was fired after admitting to the misconduct and surrendering his recording devices to authorities.

This is a chilling example of how employers can be held responsible for “rogue” employees clearly not working under the consent of the employer. In general, employers have a responsibility to properly supervise their employees’ actions. As in this case, failure to do so can cost millions.

Background of the Case.

According to the Wall Street Journal, a co-worker tipped off Johns Hopkins officials that the gynecologist was wearing a pen around his neck that looked like a camera. In February 2013, an investigation revealed that the gynecologist secretly used the device in question to photograph and videotape thousands of women and girls during pelvic exams. The investigation found that the doctor’s camera captured 1,200 videos and 140 images of his patients, that were then stored on his computer. The doctor was fired in February 2013, and committed suicide days later.

Click here to read the entire article from the Wall Street Journal.

“Rogue” Employee.

In this case, Johns Hopkins states that insurance will cover the entire $190 million settlement. The preliminary agreement is awaiting final approval from a judge. In a statement, Johns Hopkins’ attorney said that the hospital was unaware of the doctor’s conduct, and that he had become a “rogue” employee. The hospital sent out letters of apology to the gynecologist’s patient list, calling the incident a “breach of trust.”

Click here to read all of the statements from Johns Hopkins Medicine in regard to this incident.

Employer’s Responsibility.

The lawsuit against Johns Hopkins alleged that the hospital failed to properly supervise the doctor and should have known of his alleged misconduct.

This situation brings up an interesting point, even though the employee was acting on his own accord, the health system would still likely have been held liable if the case was not settled.

Employers are generally “vacariously liable” for their employees’ actions. The basic idea of vicarious liability or the doctrine of respondeat superior is that an employer is held responsible for the negligent acts of its employee that cause injuries to a third party, provided that such acts were committed during the course of and within the scope of the employment.

To establish that the employee’s conduct was within the scope of employment:

1. The conduct must have occurred substantially within the time and space limits authorized by the employment;
2. The employee must have been motivated, at least partially, by a purpose to serve the employer; and
3. The act must have been of a kind that the employee was hired to perform.

In certain circumstances, including the example of the gynecologist, an employer’s vicarious liability can extend to intentional or even criminal acts committed by the employee.

Vicarious liability is a powerful concept and, as evident by the Johns Hopkins case, can result in an employer being responsible for significant sums of money. Employers should institute policies which curb activities that could be injurious to others. The employer has a responsibility to monitor employees and immediately investigate any suspicious activity.

Despite the fact that Johns Hopkins acted quickly, the hospital system will still most likely be left holding a settlement sum of $190 million for actions of an employee.

Comments?

As an employer, how do you make sure your employees aren’t acting on their own or violating company policies and procedures? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Contact Health Attorneys Experienced in Health Law and Employment Law.

The Health Law Firm represents both employers and employees in the health care industry in defending allegations of sexual misconduct and other complaints from employees and patients. We represent employers in unemployment compensation hearings, in defending against EEOC (discrimination) complaints, and in defending litigation involving wage and hour disputes, as well as other types of contract or employment litigation. We also can investigate such allegations and attempt to negotiate settlements where warranted. Our attorneys represent individuals and institutions in litigation, civil or administrative, state or federal.

To contact The Health Law Firm please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at http://www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Sources:

Linderman, Juliet. “Hopkins Pays $190M in Pelvis Exam Pix Settlement.” Associated Press. (July 22, 2014). From: http://apne.ws/UquXOI

Levitz, Jennifer. “Johns Hopkins Agrees to $190 Million Exam-Photos Settlement.” Wall Street Journal. (July 21, 2014). From: http://online.wsj.com/articles/johns-hopkins-hospital-agrees-to-190-million-exam-photos-settlement-1405961572

Johns Hopkins Hospital. “Statement from Johns Hopkins Medicine on the recent news surrounding Nikita Levy, M.D.” Hopkins Medicine. (July 21, 2014). From: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/Nikita_Levy.html

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. http://www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

 

The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 1996-2014 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

MedPAC Wants to Hold Accountable Care Organizations More Accountable

Lance Leider headshotBy Lance O. Leider, J.D., The Health Law Firm

As the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) prepares to designate the next class of accountable care organizations (ACOs), the agency sought the advice and input of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) on how to proceed.  MedPAC is an independent Congressional Agency established to advise the U.S. Congress on issues affecting Medicare.

Click here to read our previous blog on the background and purpose of ACOs.

MedPAC Suggests All Medicare Shared Savings Program ACOs Join the Two-Sided Risk Model.

In response to the request from the CMS, MedPAC reiterated its previous position that it would like to see all Medicare ACOs take on greater financial risk.  As it presently stands, some Medicare-contracted ACOs do not share in the risks associated with the ACOs patients’ healthcare costs exceeding certain target ranges.  Even though those ACOs do not bear any financial risk if the goals are not met, they nevertheless stand to benefit if they are.

MedPAC found that the one-sided risk model being used by most Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) ACOs to be insufficient to reach the goals of the MSSP.

Specifically, MedPAC wants to see all MSSP ACOs in the two-sided risk model.  That model requires the ACO to reimburse Medicare for some of the costs which exceeded the target ranges. This pressure is important to note because only 13 of the 32 Pioneer ACOs generated enough savings to Medicare to qualify for MSSP savings payments.

Understand an ACO Agreement Before You Sign.

As we see more and more physicians being approached to join or form ACOs, it is crucial to understand exactly what type of arrangement you are getting into.

Many ACO contracts we see are simply for participation as a provider in the organization.  However, some of the contracts we see require that the physician make a financial investment in the ACO or otherwise require that the physician pay a “pro rata” share of any penalty assessed by CMS.

Current ACO participation and recruiting is something akin to the gold rush of the nineteenth century.  Everyone is rushing to stake a claim in fear of being left out.  Be careful about what kind of an agreement you sign and be sure that you understand the long-term consequences of tying your practice to an as-yet unproven model. To read our previous blog on the first year pioneer ACO results, click here.

If you are approached to join an ACO, or are considering signing a participation agreement/contract with one, make sure to read the contract carefully and consult with an experienced healthcare attorney.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced With Healthcare Business Practices.

The Health Law Firm routinely represents physician groups and practices with issues involving establishing, licensing, selling, merging, and intergroup affiliation.  If you are considering establishing an ACO or have been approached to become a participant in one, you can contact The Health Law Firm at (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 or you can visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Comments?

What do you think of MedPAC’s position on ACOs? Have you considered joining an ACO? Why or why not? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

About the Author: Lance O. Leider is an attorney with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com  The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714, Phone:  (407) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 1996-2012 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

The American Academy of Family Physicians Releases Third List for Choosing Wisely Campaign

IndestBy George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

On September 24, 2013, the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) released its third list of commonly prescribed tests and procedures that may not be necessary. This list is part of the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Foundation’s Choosing Wisely campaign.

The Choosing Wisely Campaign was initiated to give patients a catalog of procedures, tests and treatments that have been overused, misused or have been identified as ineffective. Since its launch in April 2012, more than fifty (50) medical specialty societies have created lists of procedures, tests and drug treatments that deserve to be questioned before a physician orders them or patients accept them.

The purpose is to help patients become more discriminating about what care they receive. Physicians and health care providers also need to use this information to review the latest research and use that information to help avoid any litigation.

I’ve previously written about the Choosing Wisely campaign. Click here for part one and here for part two.

AAFP’s Updated List of Commonly Prescribed Tests and Procedures That May Not be Necessary.

1. Do not prescribe antibiotics for otitis media in children aged 2-12 years with non-severe symptoms where the observation option is reasonable.

2. Do not perform voiding cystourethrogram routinely in first febrile urinary tract infection in children aged 2-24 months.

3. Do not routinely screen for prostate cancer using a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test or digital rectal exam. Evidence suggests that PSA-based screening leads to an overdiagnosis of prostate tumors.

4. Do not screen adolescents for scoliosis. Potential harms include unnecessary follow-up visits resulting from false-positive test results.

5. Do not require a pelvic exam or other physical exam to prescribe oral contraceptive medications. Hormonal contraceptives are safe, effective, and well tolerated by most women.

Click here to read the AAFP’s previous recommendations.

Health Care Providers and Professionals’ Responsibility to Patients.

A doctor should have the knowledge, skill, training, and confidence to know when such tests and procedures are not warranted. Also, a health care professional or provider should not be swayed by increasing his/her personal bottom line. Specifically, physicians that work in a fee-for-service setting that rewards doctors for performing more procedures are at risk for ordering unnecessary tests or procedures. If a physician persists in ordering these tests solely for the means of increasing profits, he or she should be penalized. If not, the physician should be able to justify them.

Laws Protect Patients from Unnecessary Testing.

This situation may have the side effect of promoting additional litigation against doctors, healthcare clinics and hospitals that provide the unnecessary tests and procedures. Many states have laws that prohibit unnecessary tests and procedures and sanction those who provide them. For instance, Section 766.111, Florida Statutes, provides a private cause of action by a patient against a health provider who orders or furnishes such “unnecessary” diagnostic tests, but unlike other tort and medical malpractice statutes, it allows the prevailing party in such a case to recover attorney’s fees and costs. This law may by itself promote litigation in the face of the lists of tests produced by the specialty groups in the Choosing Wisely campaign.

Look for More Whistleblower/Qui Tam Cases.

As this list continues to grow, I believe that we will see more qui tam/whistleblower and false claims cases.

Qui tam cases have been brought under the federal False Claims Act for the recovery of Medicare payments from hospitals, physicians, nursing homes, diagnostic testing facilities, clinical laboratories, radiology facilities and many other types of healthcare providers. These cases allege that a false claim was submitted to the government. If the test or procedure was unnecessary, then it seems almost axiomatic that a claim for it is false. The plaintiff bringing such cases receives a percentage of the recovery, which often amounts to millions of dollars in successful cases.

Most states now have similar false claims act or qui tam laws providing similar causes of action and recoveries to individual plaintiffs in the case of state Medicaid payments as well.

Because medical necessity is a requirement for practically every Medicare and Medicaid service, as well as most services paid by private health insurers, the lists provided by the specialty may very well be exhibit one in future lawsuits.

We’ve recently written about a couple of whistleblower/qui tam cases stemming from unnecessary procedures. To read a blog on a group of Florida radiation oncology service providers accused of performing unnecessary and improperly supervised procedures, click here. To read a blog on Winter Park Urology’s settlement over allegations stemming from radiation therapy used to treat cancer patients, click here.

Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys.

The Health Law Firm routinely represents pharmacists, pharmacies, physicians, nurses and other health providers in investigations, regulatory matters, licensing issues, litigation, inspections and audits involving the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Health (DOH) and other law enforcement agencies. Its attorneys include those who are board certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law as well as licensed health professionals who are also attorneys.
To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Comments?

As a health care professional or provider what do you think of the Choosing Wisely campaign? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Sources:

Hand, Larry. “AAFP Releases Third Choosing Wisely List.” Medscape. (September 25, 2013). From: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/811638

Carman, Diane. “Useless, Costly Medical Procedures Targeted by Choosing Wisely Campaign.” Health Policy Solutions. (October 15, 2013). From: http://www.healthpolicysolutions.org/2013/10/15/useless-costly-medical-procedures-targeted-by-choosing-wisely-campaign/

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 1996-2012 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Poll Shows Majority Supports the Legalization of Marijuana

4 Indest-2009-3By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

For the first time in four decades, a majority of Americans support the legalization of marijuana, according to a national survey conducted by Pew Research. The results from the survey, released on April 4, 2013, show fifty-two percent (52%) of adult Americans back making marijuana legal.

To read all of the poll results from Pew Research, click here.

The Pew Research polled 1,501 American adults from March 13 to 17, 2013, for this survey.

Demographics on Adults Who Support Legal Marijuana.

According to the survey results, forty-eight percent (48%) of poll respondents said they have used marijuana at some point in their life. Younger Americans are more likely to support legalization than their elders. However, the poll does show legalization gaining support among all generations. According to the survey, fifty percent (50%) of baby boomers support legalized marijuana.

Two Big Shifts in Opinion to Support Legalizing Marijuana.

According to an article in the Los Angeles Times, there are two big opinion shifts Americans have gone through that have swayed their way of thinking. The first thought is most Americans no longer see marijuana as a gateway drug, and the second is most adults no longer see the use of marijuana as immoral.

In fact, according to the survey results, most respondents feel the federal government’s efforts to criminalize marijuana “cost more than they are worth.”

Government’s Stance on Marijuana.

Currently, 24 states and the District of Columbia either have decriminalized personal use of medical marijuana, legalized it or allowed it to be used for medical purposes. These state laws clash with federal law that treats marijuana as a dangerous drug with no legitimate medical uses, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Click here to read the article from the Los Angeles Times.

Florida’s Fight for Medical Marijuana.

According to an article in the Orlando Sentinel, Florida attorney John Morgan of Morgan & Morgan recently jumped behind an effort to legalized medical marijuana in Florida. Morgan’s reputation throughout the community and his personal story on why he is lobbying for medical marijuana has people listening.

Morgan’s father suffered from emphysema and cancer, according to the Orlando Sentinel. His appetite was suppressed apparently due to the medicine he was on near the end of his life, and medical marijuana gave him some relief. Morgan said he was motivated to join this cause when he saw a poll that stated seven out of ten Floridians would support a constitutional amendment to support legalized medical marijuana. According to the Orlando Sentinel, Morgan has seen the benefits of medical marijuana firsthand.

Click here to read the entire Orlando Sentinel article.

Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys.

The Health Law Firm routinely represents pharmacists, pharmacies, physicians, nurses and other health providers in investigations, regulatory matters, licensing issues, litigation, inspections and audits involving the DEA, Department of Health (DOH) and other law enforcement agencies. Its attorneys include those who are board certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law as well as licensed health professionals who are also attorneys.

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Comments?

Do you think marijuana should be legalized? Do you think Florida will legalize medical marijuana? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

|Sources:

“Majority Now Supports Legalizing Marijuana.” Pew Research. (April 4, 2013). From: http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/04/majority-now-supports-legalizing-marijuana/#comfort-level

Kassab, Beth. “John Morgan Could Take Medical Marijuana Mainstream.” Orlando Sentinel. (March 18, 2013). From: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/os-beth-kassab-medical-marijuana-20130318,0,2558234.column

Lauter, David. “Marijuana Legalization Wins Majority Support in Poll.” Los Angeles Times. (April 4, 2013). From: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-marijuana-legalization-majority-support-20130404,0,2533952.story

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 1996-2012 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Two National Recalls Prompt Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to Update Metal-on-Metal Hip Implant Safety Concerns

GFI Blog LabelBy George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law and Carole C. Schriefer, R.N., J.D., The Health Law Firm

On January 17, 2013, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an updated public health communication about hip replacement components that have both a metal ball and a metal socket, or metal-on-metal hip devices. This comes after two recent hip replacement recalls that are sparking thousands of lawsuits. Click here to read the FDA communication.

In August 2010, Johnson and Johnson’s DePuy Orthopaedics implemented a DePuy ASR hip recall, withdrawing more than 93,000 hip implants from the market. (Click here to read the press release on the recall from DePuy.) In July 2012, Stryker Orthopaedics implemented a similar recall on the Rejuvenate and ABG II modular neck components. (Click here to read the Stryker recall press release.)

Updated Information on Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants From the FDA. 

According to the FDA, in metal-on-metal hip implants, metal can be released into the body when two connecting components slide against each other. This can happen during daily activities. Metal release will cause some tiny metal particles to wear off of the device and into the space around the implant. Wear and corrosion at the connections may also occur. Some of the metal ions from the implant can enter the bloodstream. If this happens, patients can suffer from muscle, nerve and bone damage.

Click here to read more on metal-on-metal hip implants from the FDA.

Second Trial Over DePuy Hip Implant in Progress.

The president of DePuy testified during the second DePuy ASR hip trial. According to an article in Bloomberg News, the DePuy president said that the metal-on-metal hip implants were recalled because of a high rate of corrective surgeries required in patients, not because the device’s design was defective. Click here to read the Bloomberg article.

You may remember on March 8, 2013, in the first ASR hip recall trial, a California jury awarded the plaintiff $8.3 million in compensation damages after finding the ARS’s design defective. This result will have significant impact in the 10,750 other lawsuits against DePuy. Click here to read a previous blog on the first trial over the DePuy hip implants.

Stryker Orthopaedics Facing Similar Lawsuits.

As of February 2013, more than 80 lawsuits against Stryker have been consolidated into multicounty litigation (MCL) in the Superior Court in New Jersey. Stryker is currently in the process of sending out letters to surgeons urging them to perform clinical exams, such as blood work and cross sectional imaging, on any patient who had implants installed. Click here to read a previous blog on the Stryker lawsuits.

We’ve also learned some Stryker patients are being contacted by Broadspire. This company is trying to discuss settling with these patients. We want to encourage any metal-on-metal hip implant recipients to contact and experience attorney first, because there is still time to file a claim for injuries.

Contact an Attorney Experienced in Products Liability Litigation.

Although The Health Law Firm represents predominantly physicians and other health care providers, we are involved in products liability litigation. The Health Law Firm has recently undertaken plaintiffs’ products liability cases against the manufacturers of defective hip implants. We are now representing plaintiffs in a number of products liability cases involving both the DePuy hip and the Stryker hip implants. We are able to combine our knowledge of the health law industry with our litigation experience for the benefit of patients.

If you received a DePuy or Stryker hip replacement and have experienced pain, swelling, high levels of metal in your blood, a corrective revision surgery, or other complications, we may be able to help you.

To learn more about your legal rights, contact The Health Law Firm for a consultation by calling (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 or visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Comments?

What are your thoughts on these recalls? Are you a Stryker or DePuy hip implant recipient? Please leave thoughtful comments below.

Sources:

Harris, Andrew and Voreacos, David. “J&J’s Ekdahl Says Hip Recalled for Clinical Reaons.” Bloomberg. (March 13, 2013). From: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2013-03-13/depuy-chief-questioned-over-records-calling-asr-defective.html

Hooks, Beau. “Stryker Hip Replacement Lawsuits.” Drug Watch. (February 2013). From: http://www.drugwatch.com/stryker/lawsuit-hip-replacement/

Guilfoyle, Jeanine. “Stryker Initiates Voluntary Product Recall of Modular-Neck Stems.” Stryker. (July 6, 2012). From: http://www.stryker.com/stellent/groups/corporate/documents/web_prod/147504.pdf

About the Authors: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law.  He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice.  Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area.  www.TheHealthLawFirm.com  The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone:  (407) 331-6620.

Carole C. Schriefer is an attorney with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com  The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714, Phone:  (407) 331-6620.

 

The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.

Copyright © 1996-2012 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Why You Should Not Voluntarily Relinquish Your Medical License or DEA Registration Number

8 Indest-2008-5By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

I am often contacted by clients who are health professionals or own businesses in the health care industry who have been approached by government agents or investigators regarding possible complaints or charges. In many cases, the individuals involved do not think to consult with an attorney until many months later, and this may be too late to save the business or professional practice involved. This holds for physicians, dentists, nurses, pharmacists, pharmacies, pain management clinics, physician assistants, group homes, assisted living facilities (ALFs) and home health agencies, among others.

“Voluntary” Relinquishment Treated the Same as a Revoked License.

We have seen a trend recently, especially here in Florida, of investigators immediately offering the person being investigated the option to voluntarily relinquish his or her professional license. This is offered as an option to being investigated, even in the event of very minor or frivolous complaints. The problem is that once an investigation has been opened, then a voluntary relinquishment of a license is treated the same as if it were revoked for disciplinary reasons. It will be very difficult, if not impossible, to ever get a new license under the circumstances.

Furthermore, if the professional has other licenses or similar licenses in other states, then this will be reported to the other states and disciplinary action will probably be initiated against those other licenses.

We have heard horror stories of investigators, accompanied by police or sheriff’s deputies or Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents, making all sorts of threats against a health professional in order to intimidate him or her into giving up a DEA registration number or professional license, including medical licenses, nursing licenses and pharmacy licenses.

In the case of such an incident occurring in Florida, the “voluntary” relinquishment must still be presented to the applicable professional Board and voted on at a scheduled meeting, since it is considered to be disciplinary. It may be possible to withdraw the “voluntary” relinquishment before it is voted on, so all may not be lost.

Think Long and Hard About Relinquishing DEA Registration Number.

However, in the case of the DEA, a DEA registration number is considered gone as soon as the “voluntary” relinquishment paper is signed. This is one of the reasons it is crucial to talk with a knowledgeable health law attorney before making such a decision. The ones putting pressure on you to do this will do everything they can to persuade you not to talk to an attorney. But it is your right to do so. Don’t be rushed or intimidated into making a foolish decision you will regret.

We have represented clients attempting to obtain a new DEA registration number or a new professional license many years after they did a voluntary relinquishment. In most cases, it is an extreme uphill battle and is often not successful.

Additional Consequences of Voluntary Relinquishment of a Professional License or DEA Registration Number.

The following are some of the additional consequences of voluntary relinquishment of professional license or DEA number after notice of an investigation:

1. Disciplinary action will be commenced against any other professional licenses in the state.

2. Disciplinary action will be commenced against any similar licenses in other states.

3. The matter will be reported to any national certification boards of which you are a member and they will most likely commence action against you to revoke your national certification.

4. You will be placed on the Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) List of Excluded Entities and Individuals (LEIE) and excluded from the federal Medicare Program.

5. You will be terminated from the state’s Medicaid Program, if you are a Medicaid provider.

6. You will be terminated from the panels of any health insurers or managed care plans of which you are a provider member.

There are many other possible repercussions to such actions, so it is extremely important to be prepared if such an event occurs. To prepare you can:

1. Purchase professional licensing defense insurance coverage through Lloyd’s of London, Healthcare Provider’s Service Organization (HPSO), Nurses Service Organization (NSO) or one of the other reputable insurance companies that provide such coverage.

2. Have the names, telephone numbers and other information on good, reputable criminal defense and health law attorneys at hand at all times. Make sure your practice manager has this information as well.

3. Call as soon as an investigator walks in. Don’t wait.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced with Investigations of Health Professionals and Providers.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm provide legal representation to physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, CRNAs, dentists, pharmacists, psychologists and other health providers in Department of Health (DOH) investigations, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) investigations, FBI investigations, Medicare investigations, Medicaid investigations and other types of investigations of health professionals and providers.


To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Comments?

Have you ever been approached by government agents or investigators about possible complaints or changes? What was the experience like? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

 

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 1996-2012 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

First Trial Over DePuy Hip Implants Finished – Plaintiff Receives $8.3 Million

GFI Blog LabelBy George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law and Carole C. Schriefer, R.N., J.D., The Health Law Firm

On March 8, 2013, a California jury ruled that Johnson and Johnson’s DePuy unit designed a defective metal-on-metal ASR XL hip implant and was negligent, according to Bloomberg News. The plaintiff in this case was awarded $8.3 million in compensation damages, after the jury found that the design of the hip implant was the reason behind the plaintiff’s injuries. This is the first trial, out of 10,750 lawsuits filed against DePuy’s ASR XL hip implant. Click here to read more on the first trial against DePuy from Bloomberg News.

In August 2010, DePuy recalled 93,000 ASR XL hip implants after 12 percent (12%) failed within five years. Last year, 44 percent (44%) allegedly failed in Australia within seven years. (Click here to see the press release on the recall from DePuy.) We recently blogged on similar problems with Stryker brand hip implants and similar litigation. Click here to read that blog.

Hip Implants Allegedly Sold with Design Flaws.

During the trial, attorneys for the plaintiff argued DePuy knew that the design flaws in the defective device could cause it to shed particles into patients.

Almost all the patients who filed lawsuits complain that DePuy’s ASR XL hip implants have caused them constant pain and follow-up surgeries, according to Bloomberg News.

DePuy Believes Product is Solid.

During the trial a DePuy spokeswoman said the company believes the ASR XL was properly designed and that the actions they took concerning the product were appropriate.

According to Bloomberg News, an attorney for DePuy said three things have to work well for a successful surgery: a doctor who does his/her job; a device that works properly; and a patient whose body responds to the implant. The attorney went on to say that the bodies of some patients with existing medical conditions did not react well to the implants, and they do not know why.

Second Lawsuit in Court in Illinois.

On March 12, 2013, a second trial began in Illinois. This time a nurse claims her DePuy hip failed after three years and she needed a replacement surgery. Click here to read more on the second trial.

DePuy has a long road ahead. The company faces about 500 lawsuits in state court in Illinois, about three-quarters of the total lawsuits were consolidated in the federal court in Ohio and more than 2,000 are in the state court in California. The next trial is scheduled for May in Ohio federal court.

DePuy Cases Very Similar to Those Against Stryker Orthopaedics.

As of February 2013, more than 80 lawsuits have been consolidated into multicounty litigation (MCL) in the Superior Court in New Jersey against Stryker Orthopaedics. Patients claim the company’s Rejuvenate and ABG II modular-neck femoral hip systems are defective, according to a number of news sources. The case is on track to becoming one of the largest mass-tort litigations in the country.

In July 2012, Stryker issued a voluntary recall of the Rejuvenate and ABG II modular-neck femoral hip systems. (Click here to see the press release from Stryker.) The company is currently in the process of sending out letters to surgeons urging them to perform clinical exams, such as blood work and cross sectional imaging, on patients who had implants installed. Click here to read a letter from Stryker to a surgeon.

Contact a Health Law Attorney Experienced in Products Liability Cases.

Since the implants were recently recalled, it’s expected that there are many more cases out there.  Many of the people who have already filed lawsuits claim Stryker marketed and sold a defective device and failed to warn the public, among other issues.

If you or a family member received a Stryker Rejuvenate or ABG II hip implant and suffered complications, you don’t have to face the medical issues alone. Contact an experienced attorney that is board certified in health law. Before you talk about settling, please call an attorney. Our attorneys include those who are board certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law, as well as licensed health professionals who are also attorneys.

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

What Do You Think?

What do you think of the DePuy and Stryker lawsuits? Have you experienced complications for a hip implant? Please leave thoughtful comments below.

Sources:

Possley, Maurice, Voreacos, David and Pettersson, Edvard. “J&J Must Pay $8.3 Million Over Defective Hip, Jury Says.” Bloomberg. (March 8, 2013). From: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-08/j-j-must-pay-8-3-million-in-suit-over-defective-hip-jury-says.html

Harris, Andrew and Voreacos, David. “J&J Faces Second Trial Over Recalled Hip After Loss.” Bloomberg. (March 12, 2013). From: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-11/j-j-faces-second-trial-over-recalled-hip-after-losing-first-case.html

About the Authors: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law.  He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice.  Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area.  www.TheHealthLawFirm.com  The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone:  (407) 331-6620.

Carole C. Schriefer is an attorney with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com  The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714, Phone:  (407) 331-6620.

The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.Copyright © 1996-2012 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.