AHLA's monthly podcast featuring health lawyer and blogger Norm Tabler's informative and entertaining take on recent health law and other legal developments.
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.
To learn more about AHLA and the educational resources available to the health law community, visit americanhealthlaw.org.
This episode of ala Speaking of Health Law is brought to you by ALA members and donors like you. For more information, visit american health law.org.
Speaker 2:Hi, I'm Norm Taber with this month's edition of the Lighter Side of Health Law. Law can be a foreign language. We lawyers get so used to it that we don't notice, but law is a strange language. Here's an example. In health law recently, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a quote, third interim final rule on the no surprises Billing Act. Health lawyers know what interim final means, but think about it. How can it be both interim and final and what happened to the first and second interim final rules? I guess they were two interim and not final enough. The term interim final reminds me of when I tune into a late night TV show and the announcer in tones. Tonight's guest host is, and I think to myself, which is it a guest or a host? Marjo and of Aer. Okay, I know what's usually pronounced mar of error, but in this case, mar of error might be more appropriate. Rachel Bennett is boiling mad at Mrs. Smith, so mad she's filed a class action on behalf of herself and everybody else who has the same beef with Mrs. Smith. Just what did Mrs. Smith do to make Rachel so angry? Well, according to Rachel's complaint, Mrs. Smith, a brand name owned by Swan's consumer brands sells frozen apple pies that say right on the front label and big letters that they're quote made with real butter. But Rachel says, When you look at the fine print on the side of the box, Mrs. Smith reveals that it's actually a quote shortening butter blend that's made of palm oil, butter and other things, and Rachel goes on. Even that disclosure is misleading. Why? Because it lists butter. Second and butter doesn't deserve to be second, because in terms of relative weight, it ranks behind some other ingredients. In conclusion, Rachel argues Mrs. Smith has been defrauding her customers, whether they like the pies or not. Sure, the side of the box reveals that it's a shortening butter blend, but who reads the side of the box? And even if they did, they'd be misled by seeing butter listed second when it deserves a lower rank. In short, Rachel says, Mrs. Smith is defrauding her customers by splashing the words real butter on the front, but giving them margarine. So is Mrs. Smith guilty of fraud or is the amount of shortening she added within the margarine of error? The case is Rachel Barnett versus Swan's. Consumer brands Southern District of Illinois read the whole statement. I recently had a lesson on the importance of reading the whole statement, not just part of it. It happened when I was reading an article in Becker's Hospital Review. The headline promised seven expert opinions on why wrong site surgeries continue to occur even in the most prestigious hospitals. The very first one of the seven caught my eye. The problem the surgeon opined is that they're so rare. Wow. I thought this surgeon thinks the problem is that there aren't enough wrong site surgeries. But then I read the rest of the sentence. It said that because they're so rare, surgeons don't focus on the problem as much as they should. What a relief. You can't make this stuff up. Have you heard about the quote chip challenge school children Dare one another two at a chip topped off with two of the hottest peppers known to mankind. The result, well, often the eaters end up in the er. That's what happened to three children in Tyler, Texas and three more in Lodi, California, At least one school district in Colorado has banned the chips. What I wanna know is why they call it a chip challenge. Why does the chip take the wrap when it's the peppers that are to blame? Think the chip challenge is the dumbest thing you've heard of lately. How about the FDA having to issue a warning against another viral social media challenge? Cooking chicken in NyQuil? You can't make this stuff up. Dope of the Month. This month's Dope of the Month award goes to Troy Faulkner. Why is he a dope? Let me count the ways. First. On January 6th of last year, he kicked in a window of the US capital building. Second, when he did it, he was wearing a coat with his name and phone number emblazoned on the back in huge letters. Third, he wanted to haggle over the$10,500 price tag to replace the window arguing that he wasn't responsible for the full amount, but he didn't say so until after he signed a guilty plea agreement requiring him to pay that amount. As for his claim that he wasn't responsible, the judge said, quote, I've seen the videotape. It was Mr. Faulkner's foot who went through that window pane. It was his foot that succeeded in breaking into that building, and she might have added that. It was that same foot that he put in his mouth when he waited until after agreeing to the price, before deciding to haggle over it. Keep it current. Here's a linguistic tip for lawyers, especially those who appear in court. Don't use archaic terms. Just to ask Illinois attorney David Faller. When Judge Anna Delos ruled against him on an objection, he exclaimed Gad Zus. Yes, Gad Zus, and he said it again. Even after the judge told him to shut up later to sanction hearing, she found David in direct criminal contempt and find him$1,000 and Illinois Court of Appeals affirmed when the matter came before the Illinois Disciplinary Commission. The judge testified that she didn't know what Gad Zus meant, but the way David used it, she considered defensive. The commission rejected allegations that David intended to disrupt the hearing, tried to embarrass the court or committed a criminal act, but it did reprimand him for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Wow. I guess I'd better stop using for Sue in my closing arguments how not to rebut charges of sexism. I don't know Judge Lynn Hughes of the Southern Federal District of Texas. Nevertheless, I think his rebuttal of a charge of sexism is questionable. Back in 2018, an assistant US attorney, a woman, made the charge after Judge Hughes said, quote, It was simpler when you guys wore dark suits, white shirts and navy ties. We didn't let girls in In the old days. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and ruled that the comment was inappropriate. Now, fast forward to the present day in an unrelated criminal trial. When that same A s A walked into the courtroom, the judge announced that she was permanently banned from his court a lifetime ban. When the DOJ investigated, the judge said he issued it because he thought the 2018 Appeals Court ruling was based on lies and misrepresentations. Back to the present, the Appeals Court vacated the ban writing. It's hard to imagine a less persuasive way for a judge to rebut the charge that he discriminated against a female attorney than by expelling her from his courtroom for every case she may bring for the rest of her career. Hard to disagree. The case is US versus Rodriguez Fifth Circuit always read to the very end. Last pass As a password manager with 33 million users, the company slogan is Simplify your life. Life Pass remembers all your passwords so you don't have to. Well, on September one, Life Pass announced that it had been hacked. It says that no user passwords were compromised, but unfortunately its own source code was stolen. The announcement is full of reassuring words such as Last pass is being praised for its timely response. But if you read to the very end, you may be sobered. The last two sentences are food for thought. You might consider changing your master password anyway. It won't hurt humor in the halls of justice. When the police Department of Parma, Ohio struck a blow against humor, humor struck right back in the form of an amicus brief by the notorious parody publication, The Onion. What was the blow against humor? Well, the Perma Police Department put Tony Novak in jail. Yes, in jail. What had Tony done to deserve being locked up? He had created a parody website making fun of the police department. Fortunately, the jury had a sense of humor as well as a sense of justice and acquitted Tony. But when he filed a civil suit against the department, the Sixth Circuit ruled that the department had qualified immunity and could not be held liable. Hence, Tony's petition to the Supreme Court and the onions amicus brief supporting him. The brief states that the Onion intends to continue its socially valuable role, bringing the disinfectant of sunlight into the Hals of power, and would vastly prefer that sunlight not be measured out to its writers in 15 minute increments in an exercise yard. By the way, the onions motto is Latin to stolts. S translated your dumb. At least he's consistent. You have to give former orthopedic surgeons spars, Panos, and a for consistency. Sparas has been found guilty of fraud, wire fraud, healthcare fraud, and identity theft, and is awaiting sentencing. So when he repeatedly moved for delays in the sentencing dates on the grounds of having covid symptoms, having tested positive for Covid and having complications for covid, all those claims turned out to be, you guess it fraudulent. So he's been jailed and will remain there while awaiting sentencing, at which point he'll move from jail to prison. The case is US versus Panos Southern District of New York. Norman Vincent Peele reports people of a certain age will remember Reverend Norman, Vincent Peele for his best selling book. The Power of Positive Thinking as the title indicates the message was that always looking on the bright side of things makes your life better. It's in that spirit that I report on an article in Becker's Hospital Review on the rate of compliance with the new price transparency rule. Here goes good news. A full 16% of hospitals are complying complaint department. When I was a kid, I loved cartoons, especially the classic Walt Disney characters, Mickey and Minnie Mouse, Daisy and Donald Duck, Goofy and Pluto. But I always felt sorry for Pluto. Can you guess why? It's because he can't talk. Why not? If Mice and Ducks can talk, why can't Pluto? It can't be because he's a dog. Goofy is a dog and he can talk. He's got that goofy laugh. It's unfair and it's always bothered me. I used to think it was just an oversight on Walt's part, but something happened in 2006 that made me think there may be more to it. In 2006, all the astronomers in the world got together and decided to demote one planet, just one out of all the planets and which one was it? Pluto. Of course, the one planet sharing a name with a classic Disney character gets demoted to dwarf planet status. You can't tell me. It's a coincidence. If you have a complaint, send it in. Well, that's it for this month's edition. I hope you enjoyed it. I'll be back next month with another edition of the Lighter Side of Health Law.
Speaker 1:Thank you for listening. If you enjoy this episode, be sure to subscribe to ALA Speaking of Health Law wherever you get your podcasts. To learn more about ALA and the educational resources available to the health law community, visit American health law.org.