A young Surgeon started working for a
Clinic as Surgical Consultant and performed diagnostic tests
and Surgical Procedures. The Clinic provided the patients,
advertised, and performed billing under the surgeon's Medicare
number and other providers’ Medicare and Medicaid provider
numbers. Surgeon was salaried and worked for Five (5) years
for the Clinic.
Medicare contacted the Surgeon two years
after he left the practice and requested information and
medical records for 30 patients, when Surgeon tried to provide
the same by going to medical records of the Clinic in no
avail. Medicare requested $750,000 refund pending further
investigations and punitive measures. Medical Board was
engaged and demanded hearing.
Legal Argument: This matter was tackled
through legal Federal Administrative Hearing process. Federal
Administrative channels are complex and yet very fair, and a
medically oriented lawyer could provide proper evidence and
documents to provide the necessary information for the Federal
Administrative Judges, experts may be retained, and records
may be subpoenaed
In this case, the Clinic billed multiple
surgical procedures and diagnostic tests under providers’
numbers, although many were not authentic. Clinic was sued and
called in the Civil and Administrative Hearings; Medical Board
contacted to Estopp proceedings pending administrative and
civil resolution-- fortunately fairness and equity
prevailed
A DOCTOR WHO HAD A CONSENSUAL SEXUAL
ENCOUNTER WITH A HOSPITAL EMPLOYEE IN THE HOSPITAL
PREMISES
A Doctor had a consensual sexual encounter
with a Hospital employee in the Hospital premises. Unbeknown
to our Doctor the proceeding was recorded by employee and the
Doctor was asked to pay some money to the sexual partner to
stop the publication of the videotape. Doctor refused, film
came to the hand of Hospital Medical Staff. Doctor was
terminated from the medical staff and a copy of the videotape
was sent to that State Medical Board to start disciplinary
measures against the good Doctor.
We aver; The Hospital will be liable in
forthcoming proceedings since the affair was consensual and
Doctor has violated no ethical or professional rule. Further,
Hospital will be sued for invasion of privacy and publication
of the recording to hold our Doctor to shame and disgrace.
That State’s Medical Board is better cease the proceeding
against the Doctor since no Medical Practice Act boundary is
violated by a consensual amorous relationship of two adults.
THE DOCTOR SINGING
INSURANCE BLUES
Orthopedic doctor
billed the insurance company for procedures performed on
patients. Insurance company requested information about every
single procedure, and later reduced the payments, and then
stopped paying. Doctor inquired from expert medically oriented
legal team: “Could I sue the Insurance Company.”
Advise: 1.) Be
honest and Ethical in your billing and do not perform tests
that are not indicated. 2.) Let us provide you with certain
legal documents and ask the patients to sign them if they wish
assigning the rights to you for legal action directly against
the insurance company. 3.) Try to find if any other physician
has the same problem and let us know. 4.) Start discussing the
issue with your patients and see if they are interested to
take legal action against the insurance company since they are
in direct privity with their health plan.
Few months later…
Five Physicians, Fifteen Patients joined requested taking
action against Insurance Company. Success is
foreseeable
I SETTLED THE LAWSUIT, WHY AM I SUED BY
CODEFENDANT?
Patient filed Malpractice
claim against two Pediatricians working in the same clinic.
Dr. A settled before trial and agreed to pay as recommended by
Malpractice Company attorneys. Dr. B went to trial and lost
considerable amount of judgment; Dr. B filed a claim against
DR. A seeking affirmative relief under cause of action of
vicarious liability [you are the boss, I am employee you
should pay my expenses since I followed your
recommendations]. Malpractice Insurance attorneys did not
handle the affirmative defense per the terms of Malpractice
Insurance; now what...
We say: Nonsense, this
claim is a disguise to bypass the bar against indemnity claims
promulgated by California legislative; You may have a
chance if your
settlement was in“ good faith”.
One of the benefits of
settlement before trial is that the settling party becomes
immune against “comparative contribution”. [Under CCP §877(b),
a “good faith” settlement before verdict or judgment
discharges the settling defendant from ‘all liability for any
contribution to any other parties.’
Interesting enough, a
“good faith” settler defendant [Dr. A] is shielded from all
claims for comparative indemnification or contribution by
non-settling defendants [Dr. B]. Here, even an affirmative
claim for damages is barred if its substance is really one for
indemnity or contribution disguised to look different. Our
great California court judges are
able to ferret out those disguised claims. However, the court
must have found that settlement prior to judgment was in “good
faith”, which is a procedural hearing after a settlement is
made for judge to see in to settlement agreements and render
the settlement a “good faith” settlement. Unfortunately, Dr.
A’s attorney assigned by malpractice insurance did not seek
court’s opinion about settlement at the time
of settlement and this opened a can of worm during this
new bifurcated trial.
This shows that you
may sometimes need a CO-counsel to assist you when you want to
settle, or when the insurance company recommends trial.
GYNECOLOGIST WHO
WAS VERY UNHAPPY WITH HIS MALPRACTICE
INSURANCE
Gynecologist said; I lost
the lawsuit because of my Malpractice Insurance Bad faith.
Recommendation: You may sue the insurance company.
A Gynecologist was called
in a Medical Malpractice lawsuit. Malpractice Insurance
Company hired a legal team to defend. After more than a year
of legal complication, plaintiff made an offer to settle. The
requested amount to settle was well within the coverage rate
of Malpractice Insurance. Reportedly, Gynecologist’s legal
team hired by insurance company was not completely informed
about surgical and medical issues and they did not recommend
settlement. Reportedly, insurance company adjuster did not
agree with settlement in settlement conference either, and the
case was tried.
Jury came with a verdict
far more than what was offered by plaintiff for settlement.
Unfortunately, the verdict was not completely covered by
limits of coverage by insurance and Gynecologist stood to be
responsible for the difference in judgment.
Under these
circumstances, insurance company may be responsible to the
insured (Gynecologist) for lack of due diligence and bad faith
in settlement.
Gynecologist sought legal
consult and two things happened:
1). Appeal the judgment
for reconsideration of excessive verdict
2). Calling Malpractice
Insurance Company in a lawsuit for bad faith breach of
contract
IN A MEDICAL BOARD HEARING THE MEDICAL
BOARD EXPERT DOCTOR TESTIFIED AGAINST OUR
PHYSICIAN: This
physician was an internist who took care of a 10 years
old patient with asthma and prescribed some medication
for severe asthmatic attack for three months. Two
years later the patient required some complicated dental work
lasting for one year. Patient developed mandibular bone
fractures and osteopenia was diagnosed. Patient's family was
informed that osteopenia was due to prescription of medication
for Asthma by internist. Patient's family filed a
complaint with proper authorities at Medical Board that
initiated the investigation. Unfortunately, our internist
appeared for interview at Medical Board's office without
proper legal representation. Medical Board's expert
who interviewed the internist opined that said
medication was the cause of complication and the
internist ought to be disciplined. A proper
hearing demand was submitted to the Medical Board after the
good internist sought legal advise. One of the most
important aspects of each administrative hearing and any other
legal dispute is proper expert legal Discovery. The expert
medically oriented legal team was able to make advanced
discovery about all aspects of the case and backgrounds of
Medical Board's Expert. During the hearing the Board's expert
was disqualified and impeached when making expert
testimony on the ground that his/her training was not within
the scope of his/her testimony [Oncologist]. Interesting
enough, the expert was impeached again since she/he prescribed
the same medication to a similar patient during the course of
practice; Internist
exonerated.
DOCTOR ACTED TO
IMPRISON EX-WIFE THAT VIOLATED VISITATION RIGHT; VERDICT
IN TORT FOR INTENTIONAL PSYCHOLOGICAL
DISTRESS:This is a Physician who did not
believe in law after he suffered from abuse of his previous
wife who manipulated him and did not let him visit his
children for years. This professional hard working physician
was severely depressed and disappointed to the point that he
was not able to practice. California Law is quite strict about
abusive behavior by ex-partners who manipulate the children
and deprive the children and the other parent from
constitutional rights of parenting. It is not rare to see that
the abused children become very obedient and love the abusing
parent due to their long lasting psychological abuse[Stockholm
Syndrome].Unfortunately, under these circumstances the abusive
parent becomes very creative and establishes some false reason
for the ill conduct. This father was able to win in the court
since the private investigators and collateral team of experts
in the law office were able to perform a long course of
tedious investigation on the abusive mother and all evidence
in court showed that this criminal mother defrauded the court,
the State of California, and IRS. Father opted to prosecute
this evil parent to imprisonment. The investigation in
progress could lead to filing a complaint in Civil Court in
this case seeking remedies in tort for severe psychological
distress of the physician caused by this bad
parent.
FILE A LAWSUIT FOR SLANDER WHEN
SOMEONE PUBLISHES FALSEHOOD ABOUT YOU OR YOUR
PRACTICE:
You are
entitled to seek considerably handsome financial damage
without showing proof of loss when a
disgruntled ex-spouse or friend asserts false
and humiliating remarks about you or your practice in
public or publishes falsehood on internet; when a competing
physician falsifies his identity and makes remarks about
you on internet websites, etc. In one recent case doctor and
the office secretary properly refused to renew
abusive patient's narcotic medications and disgruntled patient
falsified information about the physician, the office,
and the office secretary and published the same under alias
name in few websites that provide forum of
discussion for patients about their experience with their
doctors . Three different plaintiffs joined
and filed multiple causes of action against the patient,
the rest is very bad news for the wrongdoer. If the publishers
of falsehood believe that they may hide by
using alias names or naming themselves
as 'anonymous' on line they are naive
and today's technology trace the criminals and place
them under strict legal scrutiny very
fast. A medical professional who has been held to
shame and disgrace due to publication of falsehood
by a disgruntled, ex-wife/girlfriend and her friends/
families, is able to file lawsuit for
a considerable financial damage against all these
entities under multiple state and federal causes of
action including slander, defamation, invasion of privacy, and
negligent or intentional infliction of
severe psychological distress, etc.
This is the very term
specified by Black Letter of Law-- "[H]olding a professional
to shame and disgrace by publication of falsehood". Remarks
about a physician's caliber to practice when false, and
specially in writing, bear a heavy burden of liability against
publisher and courts have repeatedly frowned upon defendants
that defame medical professionals by making
false assertions about their medical practice and their
caliber as a physician. Under these circumstances damage is
presumed and there is no need to prove any financial
loss. Internet has recently become a new forum for defaming
physicians and federal law expanded the common
law liability under strict federal rules.
We are able to get
engaged in an intense and meticulous discovery and our
law firm private investigators are able to provide admissible
evidence by technical private investigation of publication of
falsehood via Internet, and success shall be imminent.
Further pursuit of defendants by observation and other legal
means may become necessary. Publication of falsehood via
internet is banned by multiple recent federal rules and
regulation in addition to common law defamation lawsuit, and
our client will be able to seek financial remedies through
multiple legal avenues if he/she so desires.
When the disgruntled
publisher opts to misrepresent herself as an ex-patient of our
client who is a reputable physician and furthers to vent her
frustration through publication of some false information
in few of the Internet advertising websites the lawsuit
becomes ripe. Recently, many internet websites invite public
to discuss their experience with their physicians as a mean of
frequency of public to sell their advertisements. These
sites provide a free forum for public to make remarks
about their doctors and abuse by frivolous and frustrated
people is dangerously common. Many defendants believe that
they may not be traced by providing wrong identification when
asserting a falsehood about physicians through internet; in
this, they are making the biggest mistake.
Under current
circumstance at hand, it is very easy to trace the publisher
through very meticulous technical software that we use at our
daily work. This publisher and her CO-conspirators providing
wrong information about their email addresses and
alias names shall not remain anonymous for long. The
website will not be immune since republication of libelous
remarks is actionable per se.
Freedom of speech is
one of the paramount amendments
to the constitution of the United States.
Nonetheless, defendants lose the argument when they opt to
publish falsehood and commit criminality under this
defense.
Interesting enough,
publication of falsehood in writing "Libel" is actionable
without proof of damage and success is not uncommon in
presenting physicians against defendants with libelous
publications. Although truth is a palpable defense, yet if the
assertion is clearly incompatible with truth and seems to be
harmful to our reputable physician we shall not hesitate to
prosecute the evil to the fullest extent of law. Mind you
that, any person or otherwise that republish the falsehood
again is subject to serious civil liability to the same
extent as original publisher. Moreover, publication of
some information about a doctor, his practice, his likeness,
and/or any remark with a taint of sexuality or
alleged sexual misconduct may be
colorfully actionable, even if true.
As such, when you
believe that you are held to shame and disgrace by publication
of falsehood, or when you or your likeness is used by others
without your knowledge and permission, do not hesitate to
contact us for hot pursuit.
