The Lighter Side of Health Law – Norm’s Farewell

For more than six years and nearly 80 episodes, Norm Tabler has entertained AHLA with his unique take on recent health law and other legal developments. Now, Norm bids farewell to the Lighter Side of Health Law.

To learn more about AHLA and the educational resources available to the health law community, visit americanhealthlaw.org.

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

<silence>

Speaker 2: 0:07

This episode of A HLA speaking of health law is brought to you by A HLA members and donors like you. For more information, visit american health law.org.

Speaker 3: 0:22

Hi , I am Norm Taper with his MUS edition of the Lighter Side of Health Law. Can an artist sign his work? Here's a riddle for you. When is it illegal for an artist to sign his work? Give up. Well, the H-N-A-H-L-A should provide a hint. That's right. It's when the artist is engaged in healthcare like performing surgery. Just ask British liver surgeon Dr. Simon Bramble. It turns out that on at least two occasions, Simon was so proud of his transplant work that he branded his initial on the patient's liver and maybe no one would've ever known. But one of the livers failed. And when the follow-up surgeon opened up the patient, he could not help noticing that the liver had a great big SB branded on it. Simon pleaded guilty to two counts of assault. The judge charting Simon for quote , professional arrogance, sentenced him to a one year out of prison sentence, including 120 hours of volunteer work at a 10,000 pound fine. Asked for comment, a spokesman for the hospital where the branding occurred. Observed that it had no impact on the success of the operation, but he stopped short of claiming it was good for their brand. Give 'em an inch and you know the rest. Here's a case that illustrates what happens when you give 'em an inch. New Jersey has a statute that protects pedestrians struck by autos or trucks by entitling them to benefits under the No Fault Act. Where does the inch come in? Your wondering? Well, the legislature amended the statute to make it clear that a bicyclist gets the same benefits. It does so by expanding the definition of pedestrian to include bicyclists. Well , David, Geico was struck by a car while he was riding a motor powered scooter, and you can see where this is going. David sued his insurer claiming he's entitled to coverage as a pedestrian. His reasoning, Hey, a bicyclist is a pedestrian. My scooter is just like a bicycle except for its motor, which is teeny weenie, especially compared to a car engine. So I should be covered like a pedestrian. When the judge has stopped laughing, they ruled against David. The case is Geico , not to be confused with Geico versus Progressive New Jersey Supreme Court. Another cost of working at home since 2020 and the Covid crisis, we've all talked about the upside of working at home. The elements are easy to identify. No commute time, no auto, bus or subway cost , no parking hassle or fees. Lower clothing and laundry costs. The downside elements haven't had as much discussion. Maybe you have to spring for a printer. Maybe you even need an extra bedroom to serve as a home office. That's about it. But another cost is starting to emerge. It's the cost when your spouse or partner gathers inside information by on your calls or secretly going through your files and correspondence . The latest victim is Emily Kraus and m and a manager for Petroleum Giant bp. Her husband, Tyler Eaves dropped on her phone discussions about BP's acquisition of Travel Centers of America, and he used the information to buy up all the TCA shares he could afford for an eventual $1.76 million profit. As soon as Emily found out, she informed BP got fired and filed for divorce. This is not the first case of this kind. It's happening often enough to merit factoring in what I'll call the eavesdropping husband slash boyfriend as a cost of working at home. Yankee ingenuity and action. Here's an example of Yankee ingenuity and action. Actually, two examples. By the same New Hampshire attorney, Justin NATO had a problem. The New Jersey Bar had brought him up on ethics charges for borrowing hundreds of thousands in loans from a brain damaged client, supposedly secured by property Justin did not own, and there was the matter of failing to disclose referral fee. That's when Justin's Yankee ingenuity kicked in. First he created and backdated letters with all the appropriate disclosures, and he printed copies for those busy bodies on the ethics panel. Then he destroyed his computer. So Justin has made his problems go away, right? Well, no, not of the panel did what it did, which was to hire a computer expert to inspect Justin's office server, and the expert did what he did, which was to take about two minutes to discover that the documents were completely fake from being backdated to containing content. The client never saw Justin has been disbarred, accidental versus stupid. Well, here's a case focusing on how to tell the difference between accidental and stupid. Dr. Alexander Goldfarb set off with an expert guide in the dead of winter to climb a mountain in Pakistan. His guide turned back because of the dangerous terrain , which he described as quote , a labyrinth of hidden crevasses either covered with loose snow or stones with black ice on the surface. Dr. Goldfarb said he'd stay another night at the base camp and returned the next morning, but when morning came, he called to say it changed his mind and would proceed up the mountain alone. That's the last anyone ever heard from Dr. Goldfarb . A few days later, a helicopter spotted what they thought was a lifeless body, but they were unable to reach it. Pakistan issued a quote , presumptive death certificate. Reliance insurance paid the basic death benefit, but declined to pay the additional accidental death benefit. Reasoning that without a body there was no way to tell how he died, and therefore whether it was from an accident. The District Court disagreed ruling that sure what Dr. Goldfarb did was pretty stupid, but acting stupid doesn't mean you can't have an accident. Reliance has appealed The case is Goldfarb versus reliance on 11 Circuit. It's AI's fault. Well , it looks like blame it on AI has replaced the dog ate my homework as the number one go-to excuse for attorneys New York attorney Ms . J Lee represented a client before the Second Circuit. In her brief, she cited a decision with the distinguished sounding name matter of Bogen y versus coordinated Behavioral Health Services, Inc. When the judges and their clerks could not find Bogen y , the court ordered Ms. Lee to submit a copy. Ms. Lee responded with a filing stating that she was unable to furnish a copy of the decision. She did not say why she was unable to furnish a copy, but the reason was that the decision does not exist. She went on to say that she had relied on chat GPT at Alas chat . GPT had let her down . She added a comment deserving of the nerve of a burglar award quote . It would be prudent for the court to advise legal professionals to exercise caution when utilizing this new technology translation. It's the court's fault for not warning me not to rely on ai. Well, the court did not like that one bit, pointing out that it's a lawyer's duty to verify the accuracy of her submissions and going on to declare that Ms. Lee had violated Rule Eleven's requirement of reasonable inquiry to assure the accuracy of submissions to the court. The court referred her to the court's grievance panel for investigation and possible referral to the committee on grievances. The case is Park v Kim Second Circuit, and it really does exist. Complaint department, camouflage clothes . What's the deal with camouflage clothes? I don't mean the camouflage clothes for soldiers or hunters, although I do wonder why hunters wear day glow orange vests over the camouflage jackets. Don't they cancel each other out? No. I mean, the camouflage shirts, pants, and jackets I see everywhere I go. The grocery, the drug store , everywhere. What's the point? Do they wear camouflage because they're trying to hide? If so, they're failing miserably because camouflage clothes in a department store make the shopper stand out , not disappear. And how do they want me to react? If I encounter a guy in camouflage, am I supposed to pretend I can't see him? Act like he's not there after all, he is camouflaged. If he stopped in front of me in the drugstore aisle , should I walk into him or over him like I can't see him? I have no idea. All I know is that camouflage clothing for everyday wear looks dumb. This is the point where I usually say I'll be back next month with another edition of the lighter side of health law. But I'm not saying at this time because this is the final episode. I've enjoyed bringing the podcast to you for the past seven years. I'm grateful to the A HLA for the opportunity and to the A HLA staff for their support. And I'm grateful to you for listening. I hope that from time to time you found the podcast interesting, maybe even amusing. Goodbye.

Speaker 2: 8:23

Thank you for listening. If you enjoy this episode, be sure to subscribe to A HLA speaking of health law wherever you get your podcasts. To learn more about a HLA and the educational resources available to the health law community, visit American health law org .