Foreign Massage Therapists Win First Round Against Private College in Class Action Lawsuit

6 Indest-2008-3By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

A federal court judge in Orlando, Florida, ruled on July 30, 2015, that a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of a group of foreign licensed massage therapists could proceed against the FCNH, Inc., which does business as Florida College of Natural Health. This was the first round in a multi-count suit filed initially by The Health Law Firm, of Altamonte Springs, Florida.

The case was originally filed by The Health Law Firm in September 2014, but was later amended in February 4, 2015. For the Amended Complaint, click here. The Amended Complaint was served on FCNH, Inc., which has campuses for its private, for-profit colleges around Florida. After this occurred, another law firm joined in with The Health Law Firm in prosecuting the case on behalf of the massage therapists. The attorneys for the Defendants removed the case to federal court on February 23, 2015, in part because the damages sought by the plaintiff massage therapists in the class action exceeded $5 million. The case has been proceeding in federal court since that time.

The Amended Complaint also named as Defendants other affiliated organizations including Steiner Education Group, Inc, Steiner U.S. Holdings, Inc., and Steiner Leisure Ltd, which also have offices in the Fort Lauderdale/Pompano area. The Amended Complaint make allegations of fraudulent conduct, including violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and activities of other FCNH employees.

The case is based upon a course of action over at least a six (6) year period by an official of the Florida College of Natural Health who took foreign students’ fees and tuition and either did not actually enrolled them in the college or later destroyed their enrollment records. The foreign students had attended accredited colleges in other states and were told that they could transfer the credits from the other schools to FCNH if they enrolled and paid tuition and fees. The college official then apparently embezzled the money from the college, and issued phony degrees and certificates to the foreign students. When FCNH found out, it is alleged in the amended complaint, it did not report the college official to law enforcement but, instead, blamed the foreign students claiming they knowing purchased phony credentials from the college official. It reported them to the Florida Department of Health to revoke their licenses. Based on these facts, the Florida Department of Health wrongfully issued hundreds of emergency suspension orders and administrative complaints against the victims, further victimizing them, the complaint alleges.

The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on multiple grounds. A hearing was held before U.S. District Court Judge Roy B. Dalton on July 30, 2015. At the hearing, Judge Dalton denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss against FCNH, Inc, for each of the eight (8) counts of the amended complaint. Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to dismiss several of the Steiner defendants from the case, without prejudice, pending the outcome of discovery. Those defendants may later be added back in to the suit once additional discovery has been conducted.

Attorney George F. Indest III, President of The Health Law Firm, and the attorney to file the class action case stated: “This is a big victory for the plaintiffs. It is a disgrace that foreign students seeking a better life in the U.S. should have been victimized like this. And then victimized for a second time by the school responsible for it.”

For more information about The Health Law Firm, visit:
http://www.thehealthlawfirm.com
For printable, downloadable photos of Mr. Indest, visit:
http://www.thehealthlawfirm.com/resources/online-press-kit.html.

The Health Law Firm was established in 1999, bringing together a team of experienced attorneys with decades of work in the legal and healthcare fields. With offices in Florida and Colorado, the firm represents healthcare providers, including hospitals, nursing homes, physicians, dentists, mental health professionals and other licensed health professionals and entities. For more information about The Health Law Firm, visit our website at http://www.thehealthlawfirm.com.

For additional information contact:
Director of Communications
The Health Law Firm
Office: (407) 331-6620, ext. 228
KBrant@TheHealthLawFirm.com
or
George F. Indest III
(407) 331-6620
For related stories see:
https://massagelawblog.wordpress.com/2014/03/04/administrative-law-judge-recommends-dismissal-of-all-charges-against-massage-therapist/

https://massagelawblog.wordpress.com/2013/02/07/florida-board-of-massage-therapy-revokes-more-licenses/

http://www.thehealthlawfirm.com/blog/posts/department-of-health-doh-asking-suspended-florida-massage-therapists-to-voluntarily-relinquish-their-licenses.html

https://massagelawblog.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/florida-suspends-the-licenses-of-81-massage-therapists/

“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 © 1996-2015 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Employers are Liable in Tort Actions for HIPAA Violations

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

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Omnibus Rule, implemented in 2013, modified HIPAA’s privacy and security rules. However, solutions aimed at health privacy challenges such as data and information collected by mobile apps generally lie outside the scope of HIPAA. To solve this problem, some states are working on a solution to the problem of patients not having a private right of action. One solution is to hold employers liable for privacy torts resulting from a breach of confidential medical information through the legal doctrine of respondeat superior.

Walgreen Co. v. Hinchy.

In the recent case, Walgreen Co. v. Hinchy, 21 N.E.3d 99 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), Withers, the defendant’s employee-pharmacist, accessed a patient’s prescription profile for personal reasons. The patient, Hinchy, filed claims against Walgreen and Withers for breach of privacy. Hinchy filed claims against Walgreen claiming vicarious liability and direct negligence. A jury verdict of $1.8 million was awarded to Hinchy for breach of privacy in this case.

The Doctrine of Respondeat Superior.

Vicarious liability will be imposed upon an employer through the doctrine of respondeat superior when “the employee has inflicted harm while acting ‘within the scope of employment.'” For an act to fall within an employee’s scope of employment, “the injurious act must be incidental to the conduct authorized or it must, to an appreciable extent, further the employer’s business.” An employer is not held liable because it did something wrong, but rather “because of the employer’s relationship to the wrongdoer.”

Court’s Decision in Walgreen Co. v. Hinchy.

The court pointed out in Hinchy that Withers was authorized to use Walgreen’s computer system and printer, handle prescriptions for customers, look up the customers information on the computer system, review a patient’s prescription history, and make prescription-related printouts. When Withers committed the confidentiality violation she was at work, on the job, and using the company’s equipment. Withers owed the plaintiff a duty of privacy protection by virtue of her employment as a pharmacist. The court concluded that Withers caused harm to the plaintiff while acting within the scope of her employment.

Editor’s Comments.

This case is good law. An employer should be held liable when it places an employee in a position where the employee can injure another. Employers have a separate duty to closely supervise their employees, as well.

Healthcare employers must take precautions to prevent such breaches as occurred in the Hinchy case. Under traditional tort analysis, the employer is in the best position to prevent the injury. Under HIPAA, the employer has a number of additional duties including training its employees properly and securing information.

Comments?

What are your thoughts on respondeat superior? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Contact a Health Law Attorney Experienced in Defending HIPAA Complaints and Violations.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm represent physicians, medical groups, nursing homes, home health agencies, pharmacies, hospitals and other healthcare providers and institutions in investigating and defending alleged HIPAA complaints and violations and in preparing Corrective Action Plans (CAPs).

For more information about HIPAA violations, electronic health records or corrective action plans (CAPs) please visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com or call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001.

Sources:

Terry, Nicolas. “Employer Liability for Privacy Torts.” Health Law Professor Blog. (Dec. 21, 2014). From:
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/healthlawprof_blog/2014/12/employer-liability-for-privacy-torts.html

Walgreen Co. v. Hinchy, 21 N.E.3d 99 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). From:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14802759292316058625&q=Walgreen+Co.+v.+Hinchy,+21+N.E.3d+99+(Ind.+Ct.+App.+2014).&hl=en&as_sdt=40006

About the Authors: Shelby Root is a summer associate at The Health Law Firm. She is a student at Barry University College of Law in Orlando.

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.

Keywords: Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), Walgreen Co. v. Hinchy, HIPAA Omnibus Rule, HIPAA compliance, data security, protected health information (PHI), patient privacy, patient rights, HIPAA violation, privacy, defense attorney, defense lawyer, HIPAA defense attorney, HIPAA attorney, HIPAA lawyer, health law firm, The Health Law Firm

“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 © 1996-2015 The Health Law firm. All rights reserved.

S:\Website additions\Blog Blurbs\HIPAA Breach Basis for Tort Actions.wpd

Appeals Court Upholds Medical Malpractice Law Changes

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

On July 21, a state appeals court in Tallahass2 Indest-2009-1ee upheld the constitutionality of a controversial change in Florida’s medical malpractice law. It ruled that some privacy rights are waived when patients pursue medical malpractice lawsuits. A federal appeals court last year also upheld the change in Florida’s law.

The decision by a three-judge panel of the First District Court of Appeal resulted from a 2013 change in the medical malpractice law. The Republican-controlled Florida Legislature passed the amendments to the laws after a lobbying dispute between groups like doctors and plaintiffs’ attorneys.

Ex Parte Communications Play a Major Role.

The disputes in whether the changes were constitutionally valid centered around what is known as “ex parte communications.” The amended statute allowed doctors being sued for malpractice (or their attorneys) to speak with the patients’ other physicians, whether the patient consents or not. The new law also requires patients to sign forms authorizing the release of medical information before filing malpractice claims.

Ex parte communications allow a patient’s personal health information be obtained and used in a case. Other doctors who have treated the patient could provide the information. Additionally, without the patient’s knowledge or the patient’s attorney present, a disclosure of medical information could occur.

This Ruling Stemmed From a 2013 Case in Escambia County.

In 2013, Emma Gayle Weaver of Escambia County, Florida wanted to file a medical-malpractice lawsuit against a physician. According to court documents, her concern was about the constitutionality of the ex parte provision of the law. She challenged having to disclose her medical information to the other physician she was suing in order to bring her case.

The challenge raised legal questions about privacy rights given to all citizens by the Florida Constitution. But the panel of appeal judges disagreed that the ex parte provision violates her privacy rights.

The appeal decision, written by Judge James Wolf, stated: “It is well-established in Florida and across the country that any privacy rights that might attach to a claimant’s medical information are waived once that information is placed at issue by filing a medical malpractice claim. Thus, by filing the medical malpractice lawsuit, the decedent’s medical condition is at issue.”

To read more about the Weaver v. Myers decision, click here.

Another Issue Was Addressed.

Another issue questioned whether the ex parte change violated the constitutional separation of powers. The contention dealt with whether the Legislature overstepped the role of the Florida Supreme Court. But the appeals court ruled that the change was not procedural but rather was “integral to the substantive pre-suit notice” requirements that are in the law and mandated before the filing of a medical malpractice case.

The Federal Appeals Court Also Said the Law Doesn’t Violate HIPAA.

Last year, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ex parte change in a ruling that focused on whether the 2013 law violates the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which prevents disclose of personal medical information. The federal appeals court said the law did not violate HIPAA, a decision also cited in the First District Court of Appeal’s decision.

Comments?

Do you agree the court’s ruling? Do you think this provision violates privacy rights? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Consult With a Health Law Attorney Experienced in the Representation Health Care Professionals.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm provide legal representation to physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, CRNAs, dentists, pharmacists, psychologists and other health providers in academic disputes, contract negotiations, license applications, board certification applications and hearings, credential hearings and civil and administrative litigations.

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

Source:

Saunders, Jim. “Appeals court upholds waiver of privacy rights in malpractice cases.” (July 22, 2015). Palm Beach Post. From: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/florida-appeals-court-backs-controversial-medical-/nm48m/

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.

KeyWords: Medical malpractice, medical malpractice defense attorney, medical malpractice defense lawyer, Florida defense attorney, Florida defense lawyer, health law attorney, health law lawyer, privacy rights, privacy rights violation, appeals court, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, HIPAA, health law, The Health Law Firm

“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 © 1996-2015 The Health Law firm. All rights reserved.

Breach of HIPAA Privacy Regulations May be a Basis for Negligence Actions

By Shelby Root and George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by the Florida Bar in Health Law

00011_RT8Given the advances in information technology, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) was enacted by Congress as a comprehensive legislative and regulatory scheme to ensure basic protections of patients’ right of privacy regarding their health information. HIPAA, standing alone, does not provide a private right of action. It also preempts contrary state laws. A recent case in the Supreme Court of Connecticut, Byrne v. Avery Center for Obstetrics and Gynecology, P.C., 102 A.3d 32 (Conn. 2014), addressed these issues. The decision answered the question of whether HIPAA preempts state law claims for negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress against a healthcare provider who released medical records in the course of complying with a subpoena.

The Facts of Byrne v. Avery Center for Obstetrics and Gynecology, P.C.

During May 2004, Byrne started a personal relationship with Andro Mendoza, which lasted four months. At some point during May 2004 and July 12, 2005, the Avery Center provided Byrne with gynecological and obstetrical care and treatment. During the visit she was given the center’s privacy policy regarding protected health information. The policy, and the law, state that a patient’s health information will not be disclosed without their authorization. After Byrne’s relationship with Mendoza ended she instructed the center not to release her medial records to him.

On May 31, 2005, Mendoza filed paternity actions against Byrne. The Avery Center was served with a subpoena requesting its presence, along with Byrne’s medical records, at Probate Court. The center did not alert Byrne of the subpoena, file a motion to quash or appear in court. Instead, it mailed a copy of Byrne’s medical file to the court.

The Supreme Court of Connecticut’s Holding.

The Supreme Court of Connecticut reasoned that the fact a state law that allows an individual to file a civil action to protect their privacy exist does not mean that the law conflicts with the HIPAA penalty provisions. Therefore, the court concluded that HIPAA does not preempt causes of action when they are based on a state common or statutory law due to a healthcare provider’s breach of confidentiality.

The court found that a number of federal and state courts have ruled that a breach of the HIPAA Privacy Rule may be the basis for a breach of a duty of care in state court negligence actions. A patient’s private right of action does not conflict with or complicate healthcare provider’s compliance with HIPAA. In fact, negligence claims in state courts are furthering HIPAA’s goal of deterring wrongful disclosure of patient’s healthcare information. To view a past blog on a HIPAA violation case in California, click here.

Editors’ Comments on Byrne.

This is the latest of several recent cases where state courts have allowed cases to proceed against health care providers who breached the medical confidentiality of their patients, based in part on the HIPAA Privacy Regulations. In this case, the court correctly held that, although HIPAA does not afford a private right of action by itself, it does establish the duty that is owed by a healthcare provider to its patients to protect their medical information. With this duty being established, the plaintiff can then proceed under a straight negligence tort cause of action.

It is also noteworthy that the HIPAA Privacy Regulations are just one source of “evidence” or standards that can be used to establish th duty owed by medical professionals and theories.

This case also helps to put to rest the spurious defense that HIPAA might “preempt” such a cause of action that is brought under state law. We have seen this theory used by defendants just about any time a federal statute or federal regulation might come into play in a tort law suit. The court correctly determined that this defense theory was not valid.

If anything, HIPAA has better defined and strengthened a duty that has been owed to patients by physicians, nurses, health professionals and health facilities since the time of Hippocrates.

Comments?

What are your thoughts on the Supreme Court of Connecticut’s ruling? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Contact a Health Law Attorney Experienced in Defending HIPAA Complaints and Violations.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm represent physicians, medical groups, nursing homes, home health agencies, pharmacies, hospitals and other healthcare providers and instiuttions in investigating and defending alleged HIPAA complaints and violations and in preparing Corrective Action Plans (CAPs).

For more information about HIPAA violations, electronic health records or corrective action plans (CAPs) please visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com or call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001.

Source:

Byrne v. Avery Center for Obstetrics and Gynecology, P.C., 102 A.3d 32 (Conn. 2014). From:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6869878125055474806&q=Byrne+v.+Avery+Center+for+Obstetrics+and+Gynecology,+P.C.,+102+A.3d+32+(Conn.+2014)&hl=en&as_sdt=40006

About the Authors: Shelby Root is a summer associate at The Health Law Firm. She is a student at Barry University College of Law in Orlando. 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.

KeyWords: Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, HIPAA, HIPAA Privacy Rules, HIPAA compliance, protected health information, patient privacy, patient rights, HIPAA violation, penalties for HIPAA violation, civil penalties for HIPAA violation, privacy, defense attorney, defense lawyer, HIPAA defense attorney, HIPAA violation help, HIPAA attorney, HIPAA lawyer, compliance plans, health law, The Health Law Firm

“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 © 1996-2015 The Health Law firm. All rights reserved.

Apopka Woman to Serve 18-Month Prison Sentence After $47K Medicaid Scam

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

IndestAn Apopka businesswoman was recently sentenced to 18 months in prison after she was found guilty of a Medicaid scam. According to the Florida Attorney General’s Office, Shanqual Marshall-Gunn was arrested in September on suspicion of submitting more than $47,000 in fraudulent Medicaid claims.

Company Provided Targeted Case Management Services (TCMs).

Marshall-Gunn owned Second Chances TCM, Inc. TCMs are intended to provide Medicaid recipients who have mental-health disorders with connections to resources in their community, and to assist them in leading a more normal life. Prosecutors said Marshall-Gunn gave employees and clients kickbacks when they submitted referrals to her company.

Three of her employees were also arrested in September 2014 for billing Medicaid for targeted case management services that were fraudulent or not authorized.

Marshall-Gunn Entered a No Contest Plea.

Media reported that court records show Marshall-Gunn entered a no contest (or “nolo contendere”) plea and was found guilty of Medicare fraud, a second-degree felony. Circuit Court Judge Jenifer Davis sentenced Marshall-Gunn on July 2. Davis also ordered Marshall-Gunn to serve five years of probation.

In addition, she cannot work for any Medicaid provider and must pay more than $47,000 in restitution.

The Investigation Was Conducted by the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit.

The investigation was conducted by Attorney General Pam Bondi’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MFCU). And it was prosecuted by the Attorney General’s Office of Statewide Prosecution.

Bondi’s MFCU investigates and prosecutes providers that intentionally defraud Florida’s Medicaid program. According to Bondi’s MFCU press release in this case: “From January 2011 to August 2014, Attorney General Bondi’s MFCU has obtained more than $460 million in settlements and judgments.”

To read the press release, click here.

To read more about the MFCU, click here.

Comments?

Have you ever been a victim or suspect of Medicaid fraud? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Handling Medicaid Audits, Investigations and other Legal Proceedings.

Medicaid fraud is a serious crime and is vigorously investigated by the state MFCU, the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), the Zone Program Integrity Contractors (ZPICs), the FBI, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Often other state and federal agencies, including the U.S. Postal Service (USPS), and other law enforcement agencies participate. Don’t wait until it’s too late. If you are concerned of any possible violations and would like a confidential consultation, contact a qualified health attorney familiar with medical billing and audits today. Often Medicaid fraud criminal charges arise out of routine Medicaid audits, probe audits, or patient complaints.

The Health Law Firm’s attorneys routinely represent physicians, dentists, orthodontists, medical groups, clinics, pharmacies, assisted living facilities (ALFs), home health care agencies, nursing homes, group homes and other healthcare providers in Medicaid and Medicare investigations, audits and recovery actions.

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

Sources:

Attorney General’s Press Office. “Four Central Florida Residents Arrested for Medicaid Fraud.” (Sept. 5, 2014). WCTV. From: http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/Four-Central-Florida-Residents-Arrested-for-Medicaid-Fraud-274154191.html

Connolly, Kevin P. “Apopka woman sentenced to prison for 18 months after Medicaid scam.” Orlando Sentinel. Print.

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.

KeyWords: Medicaid, Medicaid fraud, defense attorney, Medicaid investigation, defense lawyer, defense counsel, Medicaid claims, fraudulent claims, home health care, criminal defense, health law criminal defense, health law criminal representation, criminal representation, Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, MFCU, targeted case management provider, TCM, Florida’s Medicaid program, overbill Medicaid, Medicaid scam, Medicaid fraud defense attorney, Medicaid fraud defense lawyer, Medicare, Medicare fraud, Medicare Investigation, overbill Medicare, health care fraud, Florida Attorney General, The Health Law Firm

“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 © 1996-2015 The Health Law firm. All rights reserved.

Medical Staff Involved in Peer Reviewers Can Receive Compensatory and Punitive Damages for Violations of their Confidentiality: Part 1 of 2

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by the Florida Bar in Health Law and Shelby Root

6 Indest-2008-3An important decision was delivered by the Supreme Court of New Mexico involving peer reviewers’ statutory right to confidentiality. In the decision, the New Mexico court allowed peer reviewers to recover compensatory and punitive damages resulting from confidentiality violations. The court recognized that peer reviewers are members of the class protected by the peer review statute in New Mexico. Thus, the court stated, they deserve remedies for violations of their confidentiality right. To view the New Mexico Peer Review Statute, click here.

Yedidag v. Roswell Clinic Corp., the New Mexico Case.

Dr. Emre Yedidag was an employee of Roswell Clinic Corp. and Roswell Hospital Corp. During a peer review of another employee, Dr. Akbar Ali, Dr. Yedidag allegedly “verbally attacked” Dr. Ali when he questioned the physicians’ involvement in a patient’s death. The hospital subsequently terminated Dr. Yedidag’s employment for “unprofessional conduct.” In response, Dr. Yedidag filed a complaint against the hospital for utilizing confidential peer review information to support his termination.

The Supreme Court of New Mexico did not agree with the hospital’s argument that the physician’s unprofessional conduct justified the doctor’s termination. The court held that the doctor’s questions were privileged, even if they were “uncivilized.” Also, the court ruled, the hospital may not use information from a peer review proceeding as a reason to terminate his employment. The court upheld an award to Dr. Yedidag of his compensatory and punitive damages. To read the case in its entirety, click here.

The New Mexico Supreme Court Estimated that the Peer Review Statute is too Lenient.

The Supreme Court of New Mexico also estimated that the criminal penalty imposed by the New Mexico peer review statute was “too lenient” to discourage violators. Therefore, allowing peer reviewers to sue violators will result in greater deterrence, the court ruled. The court held that peer reviewers’ confidentiality is a “mandatory rule of law incorporated into physician-reviewer employment contracts.”

Comments?

What are your thoughts on the Supreme Court of New Mexico’s ruling of compensatory and punitive damages for peer review violations? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Contact a Health Law Attorney Experienced in Representing Health Care Professionals.

At the Health Law Firm we provide legal services for all health care providers and professionals. This includes physicians, nurses, dentists, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors, Durable Medical Equipment suppliers, medical students and interns, hospitals, ambulatory surgical centers, pain management clinics, nursing home and any other health care provider. We represent facilities, individuals, groups and institutions in contracts, sales, mergers and acquisitions.

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

Source:

Stein, Alex. “Doctors Conducting Peer Review Can Recover Compensatory and Punitive Damages for Confidentiality Violations.” (February 21, 2015). From:
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/billofhealth/2015/02/21/doctors-conducting-peer-review-can-recover-compensatory-and-punitive-damages-for-confidentiality-violations/

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. Shelby Root is a summer associate at The Health Law Firm. She is a student at Barry University College of Law in Orlando.

Keywords: Yedidag v. Roswell Clinic Corporation, peer review, defense attorney, defense counsel, defense lawyer, medical staff attorney, fair hearing attorney, peer review fair hearing, clinical privileges attorney, hospital clinical privileges, confidentiality right, compensatory damages, punitive damages, New Mexico peer review statute, healthcare law, healthcare attorney, healthcare lawyer, The Health Law Firm

“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 © 1996-2015 The Health Law firm. All rights reserved.

Report: Florida Received an F in Medical Pricing Transparency

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

6 Indest-2008-3In Florida, it’s difficult to compare prices for medical services and procedures because the various prices are not made public. In part because of this, a recent study by a health-care advocacy group gave Florida an F for transparencies in pricing.


What Did the Analysis Look For?

The report analyzed whether or not states have laws and regulations that require health prices be made public.

Only One State Received an A.

The only state to receive an A in the study was New Hampshire. This is because of its NH Health-Cost site. The site provides consumers prices based on geography, type of insurance and other factors for everything from a basic visit to complicated medical tests. Consumers are able to go on the site and compare prices.

Florida Was Not the Only State to Receive an F.

Every state except five received the lowest grade from the Catalyst for Payment Reform and the Health Care Incentives Institute. So, if F was the average grade, I guess that means that Florida actually only received a C. Maybe there should be a “No State Left Behind” policy.

Comments?

Would you have given Florida an F? Do you think every state should have a health-cost website? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys.

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

Sources:

Kassab, Beth. “Hidden prices for health care earn Florida an F for transparency.” Orlando Sentinel. (July 16, 2015). Print.

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.

KeyWords: Florida attorney, health care lawyer, health care attorney, law, health law, health care law, medical services, physician attorney, health care defense attorney, health care defense lawyer, health care, health care coverage, health law attorney, health law lawyer, The Health Law Firm

“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 © 1996-2015 The Health Law firm. All rights reserved.