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.
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.
Hi, I'm Norm tab with this month, addition 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 principle to professional consulting. Coca group assist healthcare providers in their pursuit of a sound business model and an enhanced patient experience on the road with physicians. The British medical journalist published a fascinating study of the driving habits of various physician specialties. In this study of 5,400 physicians ticketed for speeding, orthopedists exceeded the speed limit by the biggest margin on average 16.8 miles over the speed limit. There's a sort of poetic justice here, orthopedists of the specialty most likely to drive at breakneck speed, but when it comes to getting the most tickets for speeding internal medicine doctors take the prize garnering 12% of the tickets in a pool of 5,400 ticketed physicians and 15,000 ticketed non physicians. What about extreme driving? Defined as over 20% higher than the speed limit? Well, appropriately enough when it comes to driving like crazy, psychiatrists take the prize over one third of psychiatrists ticketed for speeding fell into the category of extreme driving. The study footnotes the factoid that of all medical specialties, cardiologists are the most likely to be driving a luxury car when ticketed. You heard it here first. What could be worse? For years I've read about doctors convicted of Medicare fraud because they bill for services they never actually delivered and without thinking too much about it, I said to myself, what could be worse? Well, this month I came across a news report showing me what could be worse than a doctor billing for services he never delivered. What's worse is the behavior of Dr. Jorge's, the Moura cus he actually performed the services he built for. But are you sitting down? The patients didn't need the services. That's right. Dr. Zq told patients they had medical conditions that they didn't actually have and then subjected them to treatment for those phantom conditions, including chemotherapy. A Texas jury convicted him of healthcare fraud and he awaits sentencing. The case is US versus Zamora ceta, Southern District of Texas. Finally, a bright line of guidance. How many times have you said to yourself, I know I can file a pretty bad brief without risking public humiliation or sanctions, but just how bad a brief can I get away with? Well, the seventh Circuit has provided a bright line in considering what it quote an incoherent monstrosity of a brief. The court declared the brief chock full of impenetrable arguments and unsupported assertions. One example, a section of the brief titled Gamesmanship containing just six words. Defendants have been gaming the system. The opinion concluded by drawing the bright line. Bad writing does not normally warrant sanctions, but we draw the line at gibberish. So there you have it. You can submit a badly written brief. Just don't cross the line into gibberish. The author of the Gibberish was ordered to show cause why he shouldn't be sanctioned. He was referred to the State
Speaker 2:Disciplinary Commission and it was ordered to pay the defendant's attorney's fees, which they say amounts to$73,000. The case is MCC Curry versus Kenco Logistics Seventh Circuit. My truly excellent report. Here's my truly excellent report for this month. According to a study published in the British Medical Journal, male researchers are more likely than female researchers to use highly positive terms to describe their own research. Researchers plowed through 62 million life sciences articles looking for 25 highly positive self-congratulatory terms like excellent and novel. They found that male authors were about 12% more likely to include the terms than female authors. And don't forget, it's my own excellent research that brought you this vitally important information. No good deed goes unpunished. Susan Rogers was treated at Ridgecrest Regional Hospital for a hand injury and released hospital personnel believed she was intoxicated and intended to drive in that condition. In order to prevent Susan from killing herself or someone else, they called the police. The police intercepted Susan and cited her for D U I Was Susan grateful to the hospital for averting disaster? Well, not exactly. She sued the hospital on several grounds. One was violation of her right to confidentiality for medical records. My favorite was her claim that she had every right to interpret her discharge as the hospital certification that she was in a suitable condition to drive. The court granted the hospital's motion to dismiss based on a California statute that provides privilege for disclosing information about possible criminal activity to the police on appeal. Susan argued that the hospital should not be protected by the privilege. Why? Because hospital personnel had set her up by allowing her to leave the hospital while intoxicated. The law may sometimes be an as dickens's. Mr. Bumble noted, but this was not one of those times. The appellate court rejected Susan's arguments and ordered her to pay the hospital's costs. The case is Rogers versus Ridgecrest Regional Hospital, California Court of Appeals. The musical scales of justice. Here's a cautionary tale that you may wanna share with your clients in the medical research field in case they're tempted to misuse grant money. It reminds us of the heavy price to be paid by a physician for misuse of federal grant money. Psychiatrist Alexander New Meister was an imminent neurological researcher at first Yale and then nyu. He was at the top of his profession. Then he was caught red-handed stealing tens of thousands of federal research dollars from those institutions brought before the Bar of justice. He had no choice but to admit to the theft. The federal judge hearing the case sentenced him to three years. That is three years of playing the piano for two hours a week at an old folks home. You heard correctly, he was sentenced to play the piano for two hours a week at an old folks home. He gets to pick the times and he gets to pick the music. It doesn't even have to be music. The old folks like you can't make this stuff up. The case is is US versus New Meister District of Connecticut. Man Bites dog health law style Bill Bulky is a big guy, although there's no truth to the rumor that his friends call him bulky. Bill. Bulky Bill was undergoing radiology oncology treatment at Griffin Hospital in Connecticut as he was trying to shift positions of physical injury occurred resulting in a lawsuit alleging negligence. So far it sounds like a million other men mals, but the twist here is that the plaintiff is a nurse and the defendant is, are you sitting down the patient? Bill Buckley, nurse Kate Strife was assisting Bill in changing positions. Bill held onto Kate for support and in doing so, somehow injured her. We don't know exactly how, but as I said, bill is a big guy. Kate alleged that patients owe their nurses a duty of care and that Bill violated that duty by holding onto her the way he did. She argued that if the court didn't recognize that patients owe medical providers a duty of care, then providers will refuse to provide care because they're afraid that patients will hurt them with impunity. The court was as puzzled by that argument as you probably are and agree that Kate's case should be thrown out of court. You can't make this stuff up. The case is strife versus Ley Connecticut. Appellate court lost in the fifties. Back in the mid eighties, country singer Ronnie Milsap had a hit song titled Lost in the fifties. Tonight in the song Ronnie and his girlfriend are so happy that they feel transported back to the good old days and music of the fifties. I felt like I was back in the fifties when I read a report in Becker's Hospital review about a physician recruitment ad placed by a hospital in Bullhead City, Arizona, but it seemed more like the bad old days than the good old days. The recruitment ad was for a hospitalist and it said, are you sitting down? The candidate quote, must have backbone and diplomatic excellent customer service skills. Women don't do well here. You heard correctly. The ad said Women don't do well here. When contacted by the press, the hospital pulled the ad. Clearly the hospital has some fence mending to do. Maybe a good start would be to change the name of the town from Bullhead City to something gender neutral, maybe cattle Head City or Bovine City. You can't make this stuff up. Well, that's it for this month's edition of the Lighter Side of Health Law. I hope you enjoyed it. Check your A H L A Weekly and Connections Magazine for the next edition.