AHLA's Speaking of Health Law

The Lighter Side of Health Law – December 2019

December 19, 2019 AHLA Podcasts
AHLA's Speaking of Health Law
The Lighter Side of Health Law – December 2019
Show Notes Transcript

AHLA's monthly podcast featuring health lawyer and blogger Norm Tabler's informative and entertaining take on recent health law and other legal developments. Sponsored by Coker Group.   

To learn more about AHLA and the educational resources available to the health law community, visit americanhealthlaw.org.

Speaker 1:

Hi, I'm Norm Taber with this month's edition of the Lighter Side of Health Law, brought to you by Coca Group, a national healthcare advisory firm working with hospitals and physician groups to develop customized solutions that ensure strategic differentiation in the marketplace and the achievement of goals. Through principled professional consulting, Coca Group assists healthcare providers in their pursuit of a sound business model and an enhanced patient experience lawyer. Lawyer pants on fire. Here's a lesson for health lawyers who litigate. When Claude Charles was arrested for setting fire to his car to collect insurance, he hired Steven Gutierrez as defense counsel. At trial, Steven argued that the fire was caused by a collision. It was an uphill battle because the prosecution had a video of Claude setting the fire. To make matters worse, as Steven made his closing argument, smoke began to billow from his pants. That's right, his pants caught fire. He ran to the restroom and extinguished the fire. Back in the courtroom, he told the judge the fire was caused by a battery he kept in his pocket to charge his cell phone and e-cigarettes. The jury found it hard to believe a lawyer whose pants were on fire finding Claude guilty at no time flat. Despite the arson conviction and the video, Steven filed a civil suit on Claude's behalf against his auto insurer, again, alleging the fire was caused by a collision. Following an investigation into the Flaming Pants episode, the state found that Steven had set his pants on fire on purpose. Surprise, surprise. To make the jury believe spontaneous combustion caused the car fire. Despite all this, Steven waited a year to dismiss Claude's civil suit against his auto insurer. The state Bar brought an action against Steven for violating a raft of ethical rules. He admitted to all the charges, was suspended from practice, put on two years probation, and ordered to participate in the State's Lawyer Assistance program. You can't make this stuff up. The case is Florida Bar versus Gutierrez, Florida. Supreme Court. The value of a smile. Okay, you're a health lawyer, so you think you know how to choose a doctor. After all, you know how to check on board certification and find health grade scores. But according to a recent study from the University of Michigan Medical School, you may be overlooking an important and easy indicator. Is the doctor happy? Why is that important? Because according to the study of 22,000 physicians, if a doctor is depressed, the chance of a medical error goes up 100%. That's right. A depressed doctor is twice as likely to screw up as a doctor who is not depressed. So when you're checking a doctor's credentials, look for a smile. Too good to be true. Here's a story from the Wall Street Journal that might be subtitled your federal tax dollars at work. It seems the Indian Health Service IHS had trouble recruiting doctors to work on Indian reservations. That's understandable. After all the locations are remote, the hours long and the payload. What's less understandable is the strategy the IHS chose to address the problem. They decided to skip basic inquiries about physician recruits, work histories, even

Speaker 2:

Those available online. So they missed such information as drug addiction and sexual misconduct. For example, a doctor sanctioned by the State Medical Board for making sexual abuse part of his surgical exams, or my favorite, the doctor disciplined by medical boards of two different states for prescribing pills for her boyfriend. On a single day, she prescribed 1,350 oxycodone pills. Her explanation was a variation on the old dog ate my homework excuse. She said. A pet monkey threw the pills into a swimming pool. The result of the IHS strategy 163 malpractice claims that IHS lost or settled$55 million in tax dollars paid down in settlements and countless Native Americans victimized by medical malpractice. The moral is that if a recruiting strategy seems too good to be true, it probably is left out. Again. Good news and bad news from Nike, the shoe company. The good news is that Nike has unveiled a fabulous new shoe, specifically designed for everyone in the healthcare industry. The new Air Zoom pulse is designed to easily slip on and off. It's laceless to simplify cleaning while cushioning and traction systems work to secure footing under all conditions. Truly a dream come true for your feet. The bad news and designing and testing the Air zoom pulse. Nike consulted and collaborated with doctors, nurses, even home care workers. But Nike Conspicuously ignored one vital group in the healthcare industry. You guessed it. Healthcare attorneys. It's a glaring omission. You have to wonder whether it was motivated by anti attorney bias. If you're like me, you're sick of being treated as a second class citizen. You want easy on and off slip-ons with heavenly cushioning? Why not email Nike today? Tell them loud and proud. I'm a healthcare attorney, and I deserve comfortable shoes. Just like anybody else in healthcare, email Nike. Today. You have nothing to lose except sore feet. The wages of sin. This federal case demonstrates the risks of failing to tell the truth. In a lawsuit, dentist Mitchell Poll sued for a copyright infringement alleging the defendant had infringed by using before and after tooth photos. He took in 2004 and put on his website. The defendant said, Hey, your copyright is for your website. As it appeared in 2004 years before you took the photos and moved for summary judgment, Mitch responded, no, my copyright is for the website as it was in 2005. So the 2004 photos are covered. Relying on Mitch's word, the court denied the defendant's motion and the case proceeded for two and a half years. In discovery, the defendant asked for correspondence between Mitch and the copyright office. Mitch said he didn't have any. He said the same thing during his deposition. He was lying as the defendant and the court learned when the copyright office turned over. Correspondence proving that Mitch had expressly elected to be registered as of 2000 rather than 2005. Mitch and his lawyer had had that correspondence all along. Here's where Mitch learned the price for his deceit. When he tried to voluntarily dismiss the case, the court said nothing. Doing the case won't be dismissed until you pay all the defendant's litigation costs all two and a half years worth. The case is poll versus MH sub one, llc, Northern District Florida. Someone's head needs examining. This is a story about a neurologist and the daughter of one of his patients. You decide whose head needs examining. Kelly Beavers took her dad to see Dr. Nandigam. She says the doctor threw a tantrum when he saw that she was recording the session on her phone, she went on Yelp and posted a negative review of the experience. Angry at the bad review. Dr. Nandigam sued Kelly for$25,000, claiming defamation. How do you think people reacted when they heard the doctor sued a woman for a bad Yelp review? You guessed it. They went on Yelp and gave him a bunch more bad reviews. You can't make this stuff up. Another Ebola death. Remember the scary Ebola outbreak of 2014? A Liberian citizen visiting the United States died in a Dallas hospital and two nurses involved in his treatment were diagnosed with the virus. You may not have heard of another death resulting from the virus. It occurred a thousand miles away from Dallas in Ohio. The deceased was a business coming attractions, bridal shop. The shop had to close when Word got out that an Ebola infected nurse from that same Dallas hospital had visited the shop. The shop never recovered from the bad press and stigma. The shop's owner sued the hospital alleging that the death of the shop was due at the negligence of the hospital, namely poor infection, training of its nurses. And last year a Texas appellate court agreed that the shop had stated a valid claim for relief. Pretty good for the shop, right? Well, no. Why? Because the court went on to note that the plaintiff was alleging negligence of a hospital. So the Texas Med Mouse statute requires submission of an expert report and the shop had not submitted one. So the case was thrown out. Now though, the shop has gone to the Texas Supreme Court arguing. Come on, you guys get real. The expert's report is for when the victim is a human being, not a business. At least one. Justice seemed to be sympathetic, observing that if the case call for an expert, an economist would be more appropriate than a physician, the outcome is still pending. The case is coming Attractions, bridal versus Texas Health Resources, Texas Supreme Court. Well, that's it for this month's edition of the LE's Head of Health Law. I hope you enjoyed it. Check your A H L A Weekly and Connections magazine for the next edition.