AHLA's Speaking of Health Law

The Lighter Side of Health Law – December 2018

January 03, 2019 AHLA Podcasts
AHLA's Speaking of Health Law
The Lighter Side of Health Law – December 2018
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, host of the A H L A podcast series, the Lighter Side of Health Law, sponsored by Coker Group. I hope you enjoyed this month's edition. Can a person's opinion be false? An NLRB judge recently addressed the question whether a person's opinion can be false, not can it be right or wrong, but can it be false? It came up because Karen Joe Long wrote a letter to the editor about morale at the hospital where she worked. She wrote in response to newspaper articles on hospital morale, including a report that 60 or so nurses had signed a petition calling attention to the lack of adequate staffing that puts our patients at risk. Karen Joe's letter said she applauded the nurses for going public with their concerns about unsafe staffing levels. The day her letter appeared in the paper, the hospital fired Karen Jo on the grounds that her letter was maliciously untrue. Why? Because in the view of the hospital administration staffing levels were not unsafe. Karen Jo filed a complaint with the NLRB. In a 25 page opinion, the judge found in her favor and ordered the hospital to rehire her with back pay and benefits. The decision pointed out that what Karen Joe wrote was not false, let alone maliciously untrue. She didn't say staffing levels were unsafe. She simply applauded the nurses for expressing their concerns about staffing levels. That's her opinion, and an opinion can't be false. The case is Main Coast regional Health versus young in l r. No good deed goes unpunished Mission Hospital in Asheville, North Carolina has learned the truth of Oscar Wild's observation that no good deed goes unpunished. It was because of the hospital's good deed that a federal court denied its motion for summary judgment in a case brought against it by the E E O C. Hospital. Policy required employees to have a flu shot by December one with an exception for employees who requested an exemption based on religion. By September one, three employees refused on religious grounds to have the flu shot, but had not requested exemption by September one. So the hospital fired them. The E E O C sued under Title VII alleging that the firing was based on the religion of the three employees. What was the hospital's good deed? Well, it allowed a grace period for employees who got the flu shot but missed the December one deadline. How about the hospital's punishment for that good deed? Well, the E E O C cited the grace period as proof of religious discrimination because there was a grace period for missing the shot deadline, but not a grace period for missing the religious exemption deadline. The court ruled that was a valid argument. The case is E E O C versus Mission Hospital Western District North Carolina. As others see us, you're walking down the street feeling pretty good. When you accidentally see your reflection in a store window, suddenly you don't feel so good. You've seen yourself as others. Do a post-trial motion in a federal Medicare fraud suit shows us how a non-lawyer, a juror in this case, sees health lawyers and like the store window reflection, it's a little depressing. Executives with Health diagnostic lab

Speaker 2:

And blue Wave consultants were found liable for Medicare fraud. The defendant sought a new trial because of Facebook posts by a juror. According to the posts, the government lawyer is quote, a guy in a not a all expensive suit. The defense lawyer is quote a guy in a really expensive suit. After the guilty verdict, one post said quote, it's funny when rich people fall down. The defense moved for a new trial arguing that the post showed prejudice against the defendants. But the judge ruled that the post did not show prejudice against the defendants, only against their lawyers. And since it's okay to be prejudiced against defense lawyers, motion denied the case is US versus Health Diagnostic Lab District of South Carolina. When words speak louder than actions, sometimes words speak louder than actions. Just ask Allergy Associates of Hartford. When a patient showed up for treatment, she was turned away because she had brought an animal with her, even though she insisted it was a service animal and not just a pet. She reported the incident to the Connecticut Disability Office, which referred it to the US attorney, who in turn opened a joint investigation with hhs. As far as we know, the disability discrimination investigation went nowhere. So Allergy Associates was off the hook for its action turning away a patient with a service animal. But what about its words you see besides reporting the matter to the disability office? The patient did what people with a gripe do these days. She complained to a local TV station. The TV reporter called the allergist to get his side of the story. Did the allergist say no comment or limit his response to the service animal issue? No. He elaborated and his elaboration included some of the patient's protected health information phi. And remember, he didn't just divulge it, he broadcasted on tv. That's why HHS required the practice to pay$125,000 and enter into a two year corrective action plan. So if you have a chatty doctor for a client, suggest Googling Allergy Associates of Hartford and HHS resolution Agreement prescribing a better pill. Has your doctor ever recommended something you hoped was the wrong medicine because you really didn't want to take it? But it turned out the doctor was right. After all, here's a case like that. Spectrum Heart Hospital in Grand Rapids sent a letter to head of Martin saying they would not go ahead with their heart transplant due to your needing a more secure financial plan for immunosuppressive medication coverage and quote, recommending a fundraising effort of$10,000. Head posted the letter on Facebook the next day it went viral and the world was outraged United in agreement that this was one heartless Heart Hospital. Meanwhile, head's daughter did what the letter suggested. She set up a GoFundMe account in two days. She raised$29,000 about three times the goal in the hospital's letter. Sure, the pill the hospital prescribed was bitter. After all. Who wants to beg strangers to help pay a medical bill? But it did work and it worked fast.

Speaker 3:

Now, headache and get her transplant with more than enough money for the post-op medication. So maybe the Heart Hospital wasn't so heartless after all. Well, that's it for this month's edition of the Lighter Set of Health Law. I hope you enjoyed it. Check your A H L A Weekly and Connections Magazine for the next edition.