|
A SURGEON PROSECUTED FOR CLINIC'S
MALICE
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.
doctor@lawprn.com
310.804.5225
publisher@mdchronicle.com | 
