AHLA's Speaking of Health Law

The Lighter Side of Health Law – April 2021

April 27, 2021 AHLA Podcasts
AHLA's Speaking of Health Law
The Lighter Side of Health Law – April 2021
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. 

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, an exception as broad as the rule. Jenny Pisano claimed that her son's death at Rutgers University affiliated Robert Wood Johnson Hospital was the result of malpractice by statute. She had 15 months to serve notice if she intended to sue, but she didn't file until six days after the deadline. When the trial court dismissed her case as barred by the statute, she appealed arguing that she was excused from the deadline because of extraordinary circumstances and just what were the extraordinary circumstances? Well, she was grieving because her son had died. I'm no expert, but my guess is that if death of a loved one is an exception to the deadline for filing a wrongful death notice, then it's not much of a deadline. The court was as hardhearted as I am and affirmed dismissal of Jenny's case. The case is a state of Pisano versus Rutgers's, superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division, more pathology than they bargained for. When McLaren Port Huron Hospital contracted with pathologist Michael Barna, they got more pathology than they bargained for Last November, Dr. Mike dropped explosive devices in three trash cans in the hospital, then stood back to watch the fund as some nurses ran and died for cover. While others phoned relatives to report that an active shooter was on the premises, Dr. Mike had placed dries and water in sealed plastic containers, which he knew as a scientist would produce a gunshot like explosion and scared the bejesus out of everyone in earshot. Dr. Mike was sentenced to 93 days in jail and three years probation. He's also enrolled in community college to prepare for a new career environmental impact goldmine. If the state of Arizona is successful in its new lawsuit against the Secretary of Homeland Security, you may want to advise your children to go into the environmental impact business because it's going to be booming in the lawsuit. Arizona alleges that the Homeland Security Secretary has violated the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 by not building more border wall. According to the complaint, the government is required to conduct an environmental study before not building more wall. You heard correctly, Arizona says it's illegal to not build a wall without first doing an environmental study. Think of the implications. Consider all the things the federal government will not be doing in coming years. I'm guessing. For example, the government will not build a moat around Arizona. They'll have to be an environmental impact study before they don't do that. What if they don't rename a bridge after me? They'll need an environmental impact study before they don't do that. If I have to testify, I hope it's in the winter. The case of state of Arizona versus Secretary of Homeland Security District of Arizona. Riddle of the month. When Nina Morris arrived at St. David's North Austin Medical Center for induced Labor, everything seemed normal after trial labor, Nina consented to a cesarean section, all seemed well after the C-section, but then, then Nina began to hemorrhage heavily. The doctors tried for three hours to stop the hemorrhaging before proceeding with a hysterectomy. Nina coded twice. She survived, but with brain damage, she sued the doctors for malpractice. Now, for the riddle, does the normal negligence standard apply or is it the emergency standard? It makes a difference because under Texas law, the emergency standard presents a very high bar for the plaintiff requiring proof of willful and wanted negligence rather than ordinary negligence. Naturally, Nina argued that the lower ordinary negligence standard applied because when she checked in and when the doctors began her treatment, she was not in an emergency condition. The doctors, of course, argued for the emergency standard reasoning that the situation became an emergency when Nina began hemorrhaging. So when do you determine an emergency? Is it when the patient goes under the care of the doctor or can an emergency arise after the patient goes under the doctor's care? The answer is the latter. At least in Texas, a stable patient undergoing treatment can become an emergency patient triggering the wantan or willful standard the doctors won. The case is Morris versus Papao, Texas Court of Appeals. You've been served. It was either good news or bad news for folks in Bucks County, Pennsylvania when Greg Shore rang their doorbell and announced you've been served. It was bad news if Greg was acting in his capacity as first assistant DA because it meant you are a defendant and a criminal prosecution. But it was good news if Greg was acting in his DoorDash delivery driver capacity because it meant your food is here. How to explain the confusion Easy. Unbeknownst to his boss, the DA Greg was moonlighting as a DoorDash delivery guy, not only on weekends and evenings, but also during business hours. The DA demoted Greg and ordered him to forfeit vacation time. The DA took a lot of heat for declining to fire Greg, but there's no truth to the rumor that he defended his decision by commenting, Hey, he's a great employee. He really delivers department of self-fulfilling prophecies alerted by a nine one one. Call seven Wichita emergency responders raced to the site of an attempted suicide, although shot in the head, the man had a pulse, was breathing, albeit with difficulty, and was moaning loudly. The responders waited five hours before deciding to act. Then, although the man was in the same condition with a pulse breathing and moaning, the responders covered him with a sheet and took him to hospice. Yes, I said hospice not the nearby hospital er. He died in hospice 10 hours and 39 minutes after the nine one one call asked to review the incident. The county e m s medical director ruled it good and proper opining that the patient had been unsalvageable. The State Board of E M S begs to differ and has cited all seven responders for unprofessional conduct. Noting that protocol requires that any patient who has a heartbeat or is breathing must be taken to a hospital ER lawyer plagiarizes himself. I wouldn't bother you with a story about a lawyer who got in hot water by lifting paragraphs from another lawyer's pleadings. My guess is that happens all the time, but this case is different. The third Circuit Court of Appeals has sanctioned lawyer, Joshua Thomas, and required him to pay the opposition appellate legal fees. Why? Because he filed a frivolous appeal. And why was it frivolous? Because his brief was basically a copy of a brief that he had filed when he lost in the district court level below. All he heung was changed defendant to App Ali. The Tipoff was that the brief failed to discuss what the District Court's errors were supposed to be. The court not only ruled against Joshua on the appeal, but also ordered him to pay the opposition attorney's fees, and that's the story of the lawyer who was sanctioned for plagiarizing himself, the Devil War. Nike's sneaker giant. Nike has filed a lawsuit against a company called Ms C H F, which I will pronounce mischief. It seems that mischief has been buying up Nike shoes, customizing them to feature a Satanic theme, then reselling them as quote Satan shoes. Nike wants an immediate and permanent injunction against Mischiefs Ping of Satan. Shoes attached to Nike's complaint are screenshots of people expressing they're disgust with Nike and swearing never to buy Nike's again, you can't make this stuff up. Can't blame a guy for trying. It was a heroic, albeit failed effort by psychiatrist Ignacio Valdez. Patient. Pamela Shields sued him after tripping and falling on a rug in his waiting room. Dr. Valdez argued that the case was really a medical malpractice case, which should be dismissed because Pamela had not submitted it to a medical review panel. Why was tripping on a rug? A medical malpractice case? Dr. Valdez counted the ways. A, I'm a doctor. B, she was my patient when she fell if she fell. C, although I'm a psychiatrist, I had given her advice on her sore toe and on walking safely. D, she had an orthotic boot on her left foot and it takes an expert to say whether the boot caused the accident. E. She was on medications for anxiety and insomnia, which likely affected her balance and F my favorite. I had planned to prescribe Tramadol in the future for her sore toe, and Tramadol would have affected her balance if I had prescribed it. A last without crediting Gertrude Stein, the court ruled in effect that a slip and fall is a slip, and fall is a slip and fall. The case is Valdez versus Shields, Texas Court of Appeals. Well, that's it for this month 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.