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.
Hi, I'm Norm tab with this must edition of the Lighter Side of health law taking AIM at Covid 19. As we recently discussed, a Duke University study ranked the N 95 mask as the best protection against coronavirus infection. But last month, physician Jeffrey Bark of Orange County, California posted a video suggesting a better protective device. Jeffrey's anti Mask video says that if you want protection against Coronavirus, forget N 95 and all the other masks. What you need is this. He announced as he brandished his trustee nine millimeter handgun. I carry this wherever I go. For some reason, HO Hospital where Jeffrey has outpatient privileges decided to distance itself from him issuing a public announcement, lamenting that people mistakenly associated Jeff with the hospital and assuring the public that to be clear, he is not an employee and does not hold admitting privileges at Houe Hospital. His personal views in no way represent the views of Houe or the Houe staff and are inconsistent with those of all recognized medical and scientific organizations. There's no truth to the rumor that Jeffrey petitioned the hospital to require or personnel to dispense with masks in favor of sidearms Man Bite's dog. Okay. A man didn't really bite a dog, but this story is just as newsworthy. The headline could be Attorney Misuses personal Funds for Client's Benefit Pennsylvania. Attorney Keith Mcw paid four clients over half a million dollars saying he had won it for them, but that was a lie. It was Keith's own money. He had not done the work on their cases as he was supposed to, so he hadn't won anything for them. His punishment by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was about as weird as his offense. In July, 2020, he was suspended from practice for four years, retroactive to February, 2016. You heard correctly, he was suspended for a four year period that ended five months before it started. You can't make this stuff up. The case is Office of Disciplinary Counsel versus mc, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The straight face test to argue effectively on behalf of a client, a lawyer has to keep a straight face no matter what. The argument here is an actual case that will enable you to test your ability to do that. Pretend you're the lawyer for former N F L linebacker Robert McCune charged with submitting false medical equipment claims to the N F L Player's Health Fund. Robert's case is pending in federal court in Kentucky. He wants you to have it moved to Georgia. When you ask what grounds he has, he says that all Kentuckians are prejudiced against him because he did not play college ball for the University of Kentucky. When you ask where he did play, he says the University of Louisville. You're on the verge of explaining that Louisville is in Kentucky when you remember that Robert weighs 245 pounds, so you don't challenge his reasoning. Now for the test, go to your bathroom mirror, look yourself in the eye and recite the following. Your honor, Mr. McCune cannot get a fair trial in Kentucky. Kentuckys hate him for playing football for one Kentucky University instead of another Kentucky University. Were you able to keep a straight face? If so, you pass. If not, keep practicing. The case is US versus McCune Eastern District Kentucky. The what were you thinking Award this month's, what were you thinking? Award goes to Texas lawyer Paul Davis, Paul journey to the District of Columbia on January 6th to join in the storming of the Capitol, which is of course a crime. His employer, goose Head Insurance, 1200 miles away in Texas would never have known about it except for one thing. Paul Live streamed a video of his adventure and leaving nothing unsaid. Paul recited into the microphone that yes, indeed he was part of a crowd storming the capitol to prevent Congress from certifying the results of the presidential election. By the next day, Paul's video had been seen by over 1.2 million viewers, some of whom were goose head clients who contacted Goose Head to express their disapproval of that particular Goose head employees exploits. Goose head promptly announced that Paul had been fired. Paul did not live stream his exit from Goose Head headquarters carrying a cardboard box. The old and or argument the difference between the conjunctions and and or has been the decisive factor in many a lawsuit. Now thanks to Covid, it's at the heart of insurance lawsuits across the country. Take the case of Pittsburgh area dentist Tim Gerrin. When his dentistry business dropped off drastically due to government ordered closure, he filed a claim with his property insurer. You heard correctly his property insurer and whether he wins or not, his argument passes the straight face test. The policy covers losses from physical loss of or damage to property. This is where the conjunction or comes in the conjunction separates loss of from damage to so observes Dr. Tim. He's covered for loss of property even when there's no damage to the property and you can't deny that his office was uninhabitable. The government ordered all businesses to close. Full disclosure, if the shutdown order had an exception for dental emergencies, that could affect the outcome of the case. But you get the point about the and or argument. The case is RIN versus C N a Allegheny County Court of Common. Please. All about about last month, the Federal Circuit Court issued an opinion in a case that had two pharmaceutical companies fighting over the meaning of the word about the companies could not agree on the meaning of the word about, so they made a federal case of it. Specifically the question was, do the words about six to eight milligrams include nine milligrams? In other words, if a patent says about eight, does that include nine? And after hearing experts on both sides of the argument, the court ruled that nine is in fact about eight. Can't you just hear some teenager arguing to his parents that being home by eight really means being home by nine. The case is par Pharmaceutical versus Hasa Corporations don't. Date lawyer, Brian Han's Love life collided with his professional life in patent litigation between his client Jedi Technologies and a dating app called Scruff who would name a dating app Scruff. Brian's client. Jedi alleged that Scruff was infringing on certain technology patents that Jedi owns. When the two companies went to court over the patent dispute, Scruff moved to force the issue into arbitration the grounds. Well, it seems that Jedi's lawyer Brian had signed up for the Scruff dating app and in doing so, he had agreed to the boiler plate terms and conditions, which included guess what? Mandatory arbitration. So Scruff reasoned Brian is counsel of Record for Jedi. In this lawsuit, Brian agreed to arbitration. Jedi is bound by the agreement of its counsel. Q E d. Jedi's response. Brian did that personally on his own. He was looking for a date for himself personally, not a date for the Jedi Corporation Corporations don't date. Brian supported his client's position noting that he had signed up on his own personal phone, used his own personal email address and posted his own personal headshot, not a photo of Jedi headquarters. A sympathetic court agreed with Brian and Jedi dismissed the arbitration motion and wished Brian happy dating. No word on whether Brian has found true love. The case is Perry Street Software versus Jedi Technologies, Southern District of New York. 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 Health Law Connections Magazine for the next edition.