Welcome to The Health Law Blog2019-11-12T16:53:24-05:00

Judge Sides With AdventHealth, Allows Fraud Claims Over $57.5 Million PPE Deal to Move Forward

Headshot of attorney George IndestBy George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

On February 23, 2021, a federal court in Orlando, Florida, ruled that Adventist Health System Sunbelt (now known as AdventHealth, and which owns Florida Hospital, among others) could pursue claims it has over a bad $57.5 million deal to buy personal protective equipment (PPE). The defendants whom the hospital system is suing include Tomax Capital Management, Inc. (“Tomax”), a California corporation; a California attorney and his law firm; and others.

U.S. District Judge Paul G. Byron said the hospital system provided sufficient evidence that Tomax failed to deliver the promised PPE and then conspired to keep the $2 million which was not returned.

The PPE Contract.

According to the complaint in the case, the contract was for AdventHealth to purchase 10 million 3M N95 ventilator masks, according to the May 2020 complaint. Under the terms of the contract, the hospital was to pay a total of $57.5 million for 10 million 3M N95 masks to protect its workers during the Coronavirus pandemic. AdventHealth paid the $57.5 million into a California lawyer’s trust account. The 10 million masks were to be delivered to AdventHealth’s hospital in Orlando, Florida, by April 18, 2020. However, the masks never arrived.

Now, I just have to jump in and point out something. I don’t claim to have ironclad proof of it, but I have seen and read enough about 3M N95 masks on television and in the press while trying to purchase my own. I may be totally off on this figure, but I seem to remember around the beginning of the Coronavirus pandemic that 3M was only manufacturing approximately 1 million masks a month. So where someone would be able to come up with 10 million of these specific masks is mind-boggling to me. Let’s just say that this is my own opinion.

When the hospital system requested a refund of the $57.5 million it had paid, it claims it was only refunded $55.5 million, with $2 million missing in action. According to the complaint, AdventHealth never saw the remaining $2 million despite assurance from the attorneys involved in the deal that AdventHealth would get it back. Hence, the present lawsuit.

I mean, if you can’t trust an attorney nowadays, who can ya’ trust?

A Civil Conspiracy?

In its suit, AdventHealth makes various claims of breach of contract, conversion, and civil conspiracy and requests actual damages, punitive damages, and prejudgment interest. The conspiracy would involve the allegation that the attorney and law firm conspired with Tomax and others to deprive AdventHealth of the $2 million. Because AdventHealth alleged that it suffered damages in Florida, it was able to bring its case to the federal court here in Orlando.

Read the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida for more details.

Granted, $2 million isn’t a lot of money to some people, but it was obviously enough money to get these Defendants sued in federal court.

Judge Sides With the Hospital System’s Position on Motion to Dismiss Complaint.

The federal court judge denied a motion to dismiss the complaint filed by Tomax. In his order, the judge stated: “Plaintiff sufficiently pleads facts supporting the existence of a civil conspiracy that caused injury in Florida.” In addition to allowing the claims of the hospital system to move forward, the judge also ruled that the court has the authority to exercise personal jurisdiction over the attorney and law firm that was involved, under the state’s long-arm statute. To obtain more details, read the judge’s order denying the motion to dismiss.  Click here to visit our Areas of Practice page and learn more on how The Health Law Firm can assist you in legal cases like this.

PPE a “Hot Issue.”

In another recent pandemic-related case, OSHA began issuing fines to health care systems over PPE violations such as lack of proper equipment for their employees. We have also read a number of reports about companies and individuals being fined and injunctions being obtained by the Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration over phony PPE being sold to Americans over the Internet.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Representing Health Care Professionals and Providers.

At the Health Law Firm, we provide legal services for all health care providers and professionals. This includes physicians, nurses, dentists, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors, home health agencies, hospitals, ambulatory surgical centers, pain management clinics, nursing homes, and any other healthcare provider. It also includes medical students, resident physicians, and fellows, as well as medical school professors and clinical staff. The lawyers of The Health Law Firm are experienced in complex litigation in state and federal courts.

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call our office at (407) 331-6620 or toll-free at (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.ThehealthLawFirm.com

Sources:

Hale, Nathan. “AdventHealth’s Fraud Claim Over $57M PPE Deal Advanced.” Law360. (February 23, 2021). Web.

Bolado, Carolina. “AdventHealth Sues Attorney Over Failed $57.5M Masks Deal.” Law360. (May 29, 2020). Web.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law; he is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave. Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2021 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

How Medical Information Bureau (MIB) Reports Affect Your Insurance Rates

Attorney Amanda ForbesBy Amanda I. Forbes, J.D.

When you apply for insurance, an insurance company will look at various factors regarding your history to determine how much your insurance policy will cost. Most insurers obtain a report from the Medical Information Bureau (“MIB”) and use this in determining the risk you pose and, hence, your policy premium.

The MIB checks past records to identify any errors, misrepresentations, or omissions made on an insurance application. An MIB report is similar to a credit report except it is specifically tailored for the insurance process. Click here to learn more.

What Does the MIB do?

Since 1902, the MIB has worked as a not-for-profit organization in the United States and Canada. Its members (e.g., life insurance companies, health insurance companies, disability insurers, etc.) use the MIB to help them determine a person’s “risk and eligibility during the underwriting of life, health, disability income, critical illness, and long-term care insurance policies.” Learn more about the organization here.

Insurance applications, whether for health, life, disability, critical illness, or long-term care, will almost always have several health questions that help the insurance company determine an appropriate risk classification for that individual. The higher the risk, the higher the premium, usually. Traditionally, some applicants in very high-risk categories (transplant patients, those with serious long-term chronic medical conditions) or in high-risk professions (e.g., parachuting instructors, trapeze artists, explosives experts) may not be able to obtain insurance at all.

Sometimes an applicant for an insurance policy may try to obtain lower premiums by knowingly omitting key information on their applications. Because of this, insurance companies started to rely on MIB reports to identify and prevent insurance fraud. The MIB provides information that can be used to identify false or incomplete applications.

It is estimated that the MIB saves its member companies over $1 billion annually (Note: I think this estimate probably comes from the MIB). It can do this because the information it provides to its members allows them to evaluate and assess risk more accurately. MIB’s members share information with MIB in a coded format to protect individuals’ privacy.

MIB Pre-Notices.

When a member company wants to search MIB’s database or report information to the MIB, it must first give the individual MIB a “pre-notice.” However, this is often buried in the fine print of the insurance application. The MIB “pre-notice” advises the individual that a report of their medical condition may be provided to MIB.

When the individual later applies for insurance with a different company that is a member of MIB, then MIB may provide that company with an MIB report.

After the individual receives MIB “pre-notice,” they are requested to sign an authorization. The authorization advises the individual that MIB is an information source, as well as others that may have records about the individual (e.g., primary care physician). The signed authorization permits the member company to receive and share information with MIB. Learn more about MIB “pre-notice” here.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Representing Health Care Professionals and Providers.

At the Health Law Firm, we provide legal services for all health care providers and professionals. This includes physicians, nurses, dentists, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors, home health agencies, hospitals, ambulatory surgical centers, pain management clinics, nursing homes, and any other healthcare provider. It also includes medical students, resident physicians, and fellows, as well as medical school professors and clinical staff. We represent health facilities, individuals, groups, and institutions in contracts, sales, mergers, and acquisitions. The lawyers of The Health Law Firm are experienced in complex litigation and both formal and informal administrative hearings. We also represent physicians accused of wrongdoing, patient complaints, and in Department of Health investigations.

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call our office at (407) 331-6620 or toll-free at (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.ThehealthLawFirm.com

About the Author: Amanda I. Forbes, practices health law with The Health Law Firm in its Altamonte Springs, Florida, office. Its main office is in Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com. The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave. Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 or toll-free: (888) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2021 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

 

Colorado Board of Pharmacy Must Hand Over Patient Identifying Data to DEA Says Judge

George Indest HeadshotBy George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law
On April 22, 2020, a federal judge ordered the Colorado Board of Pharmacy to give the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) prescription drug monitoring program data on two pharmacies that the DEA is investigating. The data includes patient identifying information of more than 14,000 patients. The state must turn over the data by May 15, 2020, according to the order.

Pharmacy Investigations.

Citing concerns about the two pharmacies’ handling of controlled-substance prescriptions, the DEA issued subpoenas under the Controlled Substances Act in 2019. The DEA requested the information as part of an investigation into whether the two unnamed pharmacies broke the law in dispensing opioids and other drugs.

Clash Over Patient Privacy.

The DEA’s requested information is kept under the state’s Prescription Drug Monitoring Program or PDMP. For controlled-substance prescriptions, Colorado pharmacies and pharmacists are required by state law to report information that includes the names of patients, their doctors, and pharmacies.

Colorado state officials refused to release the data citing patient privacy concerns. The DEA’s “overly broad, undifferentiated demand for access would violate the Fourth Amendment right to privacy guaranteed to more than 14,000 patients whose medical data is at issue,” the state said.

According to the order, the Colorado statute allows the prescription-monitoring data to be disclosed but only to specific recipients including in response to law enforcement subpoenas. However, the state argued that the Colorado statute only applies to a “bona fide investigation of a specific individual.”

To read about a similar case involving a DEA investigation into pharmacy prescription practices, click here to read my prior blog.

The Decision.

U.S. District Judge Raymond P. Moore denied Colorado’s objections to the DEA’s subpoenas for the prescription data including patients’ information such as names, birth dates, and addresses. The judge said the DEA has shown that the requested information is relevant and needed for the ongoing investigation of the two pharmacies, and no warrant is needed to obtain it. The order directs the Colorado Board of Pharmacy and Patty Salazar, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) to provide the data to the DEA no later than May 15, 2020.

To read the court’s order in full, click here.

For more information, click here to read the press release issued from the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Colorado.

States Must Act to Protect the Integrity of Such Programs.

State prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) were sold to pharmacists and physicians based on a promise that they were solely for the purpose of protecting patients from overdoses and preventing “doctor shopping” by dishonest, drug-seeking patients. Inherent in these programs was the promise that they would not be used for the purpose of prosecuting or charging physicians or pharmacists, in criminal proceedings or administrative proceedings, based on their contents. Most of the state laws that authorized the creation of PDMPs specifically forbid their use in such cases. This was required in order to get physicians and state medical societies to buy off on them.

Yet here we are. We see this over and over. the Federal government and federal agencies obtaining copies of these reports from the state and using them as direct evidence against physicians, pharmacists, nurse practitioners, and pharmacies, despite the prohibition of the state statutes.

Moreover, not only does this subvert the purpose behind creating such databases, but then it runs afoul of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and similar provisions of most state constitutions. The doctor or pharmacist is required by law to report the prescriptions to the PDMP, but then the federal agency turns right around and uses it as evidence against the individual who reported it.

The feds take the position: “We do not care why you, the state, authorized it or what its purpose was supposed to be. If we want to take that information and use it for something else, something that was specifically prohibited by the state, then we will do it.”

Until state pharmacy associations and medical associations do something to tighten up the state legislation that created the PDMPs, this situation is not likely to change. The feds will continue to use the state PDMPs to prosecute and to take administrative actions to revoke the DEA registrations of physicians, pharmacists, pharmacies, and other health professionals.

Consult With A Health Law Attorney Experienced in the Representation of Pharmacists and Pharmacies.

We routinely provide legal representation to pharmacists, pharmacies, physicians and other health providers. We defend in state and federal administrative hearings, investigations, and litigation. We represent health professionals in formal and informal administrative hearings. We have a great deal of experience in defending against DEA actions.

The lawyers of The Health Law Firm are experienced in both formal and informal administrative hearings and in representing physicians, physician assistants and other health professionals in investigations and at Board of Pharmacy hearings. Call now or visit our website www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Sources:

Zegers, Kelly. “Colo. Must Give DEA Pharmacy Data With Patient Info.” Law360. (April 20, 2020). Web.

Ingold, John. “Why the DEA is suing Colorado’s pharmacy board as part of an opioid investigation.” The Colorado Sun. (November 11, 2019). Web.

Pazanowski, Mary Ann. “Colorado Pharmacy Board Must Give DEA Patient-Identifying Info.” Bloomberg Law. (April 22, 2020). Web.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2021 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Psychologists and Health Professional License Applications: Do’s & Don’ts

George F. Indest III HeadshotBy George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

The process of obtaining a medical or health professional license can be challenging and time-consuming. When seeking initial licensure or applying for a license in another state, you should be aware of delays in the application process due to the investigation of credentials and past practice, as well as the need to comply with licensing standards.

Here is a List of Examples That Would Delay Your Application:

• Disciplinary or academic actions during postgraduate training (probation, suspension, remediation)
• Action by another state’s regulatory or licensing board
• Action by a different professional licensing board
• Misdemeanor or felony convictions
• Results of the criminal background check (remember, it shows arrests, not necessarily the results of the arrests)
• Civil judgments/malpractice
• Medical, physical, mental, or chemical dependence impairment/condition within the last five years
• Adverse action against your clinical privileges by a hospital, ambulatory surgical center, skilled nursing facility, or other health facility or professional organization.
• Adverse action (e.g., termination for cause) by a former employer
• Action by a specialty board
• Lack of recent active practice
• Action by DEA against your DEA registration number
• Disciplinary action (especially court-martial) by the military
• Applications that require a petition of waiver or variance for a job

Not being 100% truthful about your history and education is the number one reason for denial of an application for a license! Don’t try to hide potentially derogatory information from a state licensing board, if it is required by the question or the instructions that further elaborate on the question. It is much better to come forward with the information and be upfront.

This being said, you do not want to volunteer adverse information that a question does not ask. For example, if a question asks about felony convictions, DO NOT disclose misdemeanor convictions or traffic ticket convictions. If a question asks about convictions, DO NOT disclose arrests for which you were acquitted or were dismissed. If a question asks about medical malpractice lawsuits, DO NOT disclose civil lawsuits that were not related to malpractice.

How to Speed up the Application Process.

There are ways to ease the process of applying for a mental healthcare license and get your application processed quicker. Before submitting your application, contact the licensing board and request a copy of its current licensing requirements and the average time it takes to process applications.

The following are tips to help ease the process of applying for Professional licensure:

1. Submit follow-up documents in a timely manner online or mail them to the correct address (as required). If you cannot obtain requested follow-up documentation, provide a separate, detailed explanation (preferably in the form of an affidavit), of why you cannot do so.

2. Keep in mind that any fees you pay have to be processed by the Department vendor. This may take a few days.

3. Identify any variation of names and nicknames.

4. Once you start the process, submit the application within 30 days so that your supplemental documents, including transcripts, will have an application file in which to be filed.

5. Have the correct address on the application for training programs you have attended and the health facilities at which you have worked.

6. Send in necessary back-up documents in a timely manner.

7. Follow up with sources that are sending the Florida Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage & Family Therapy, and Mental Health Counseling your documents.

8. Watch for letters or e-mail from your reviewer. This is how you will be instructed on what additional documents or information may be needed for your application to be complete.

9. If asked for follow-up information from the Board, please read the request carefully to identify exactly what is needed to make your application complete.

10. Answer questions honestly and provide an explanation where appropriate. But do not provide information that is not being requested.

Psychologists and mental health professionals seeking a license should expect at least a 60-day period from the time they initially submit a completed application and the actual date licensure is granted.

For more information and ways that The Health Law Firm can help in licensure matters, visit our Video Q&A section or visit our website’s Areas of Practice page.


Contact Health Law Attorneys With Experience Handling Licensing Issues.

If you are applying for a mental healthcare license, have had a license suspended or revoked, or are facing imminent action against your license, it is imperative that you contact an experienced healthcare attorney to assist you in defending your career. Remember, your license is your livelihood, it is not recommended that you attempt to pursue these matters without the assistance of an attorney.

The Health Law Firm routinely represents psychologists, mental health professionals, physicians, dentists, nurses, medical groups, clinics, and other healthcare providers in personal and facility licensing issues.

To contact The Health Law Firm please call (407) 331-6620 or toll-free (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Sources:

“Obtaining a Medical License.” American Medical Association (AMA). Web.

Florida Board of Medicine, “Licensing FAQs,” http://flboardofmedicine.gov/licensure-faqs/

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave. Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2021 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Florida Court Agrees With University of Miami, Tosses Medical Malpractice Suit

George Indest HeadshotBy George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

On October 28, 2020, a Florida appeals court tossed out a medical malpractice suit accusing a University of Miami doctor of providing negligent treatment at a public teaching hospital. A panel of the Florida Third District Court of Appeal upheld a circuit judge’s ruling that the university is protected by sovereign immunity when faculty members provide care at Jackson Memorial Hospital, a teaching hospital.


Background of the Suit.

The ruling arose out of a case in which a University of Miami physician provided treatment in 2013 to a patient at Jackson Memorial. A medical malpractice lawsuit was filed against parties including Jackson Memorial, the university, and the physician. The suit alleged that a failure to provide anticoagulants resulted in disabilities.

Jackson Memorial Hospital is owned and operated by Miami-Dade County through the Public Health Trust. It is supported by Miami-Dade County residents through a portion of the county’s sales tax. Because of this, it is considered to be the same as a state agency, and its employees have the same sovereign immunity as state employees do.

The judge dismissed the suit against the doctor, saying that because the doctor provided services at the public teaching hospital, pursuant to the University’s agreement with Jackson Memorial, he should be considered an agent of the hospital. Therefore, he is entitled to sovereign immunity.

Pointing to state law and an agreement with Jackson Memorial, the university also argued that it was shielded by immunity from liability. The university claimed it was entitled to immunity under Sections 768.28(9)(a) and (10)(f), Florida Statutes. Since any liability the university had would be vicarious liability based on the alleged negligence of the physician, if the physician was determined to be immune, the university would have the same defense.

Additionally, Section 768.28, Florida Statutes, was amended by the Florida Legislature in 2011 to cover nonprofit independent universities that provide patient care at government-owned teaching hospitals. The same year, Jackson Memorial and Miami University amended the terms of their agreement to incorporate the amended sovereign immunity statute, according to the judge’s opinion in the case.

The Trial Court’s Ruling.

The appellate court panel agreed with the circuit judge, saying it was undisputed that the doctor was a University of Miami faculty member and employee at the time of the treatment. Additionally, the agreement between Jackson Memorial and the University of Miami was properly redrafted in 2011 to reflect the amendment to the statute. “Under the terms of the 2011 agreement and section 768.28, Florida Statutes, the university is immune from suit here because the physician treated the patient while acting as Jackson’s statutory agent,” the appellate panel said in the opinion.

Click here to read the court’s opinion in full.

Contact Health Attorneys Experienced in Health Law and Employment Law.

The Health Law Firm represents both employers and employees in the health care industry in prosecuting and in defending complex civil litigation in state and federal courts. Our attorneys represent individuals and institutions in litigation, civil or administrative, state or federal.

To contact The Health Law Firm please call (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Sources:

“State Appeals Court: University Of Miami Shielded From Medical Malpractice Lawsuit.” Miami CBS Local. (October 28, 2020). Web.

Kang, Peter. “Fla. Court Says Univ. Of Miami Immune To Med Mal Suit.” Law360. (October 28, 2020). Web.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law; he is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2021 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Eight Tips For Academic, Disciplinary or Legal Problems with Your Residency Program

George Indest HeadshotBy George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

Here are some tips to set the record straight on various inaccurate information I have heard from physicians in medical residency programs in representing them in appeals of disciplinary actions including suspension and terminations.

1. Nothing you tell your Program Director, advisor, mentors, attendings, senior resident, or co-resident is confidential. Go ahead and pour your heart out about all of your problems and concerns, but none of it is confidential, even if you said it was “in confidence.” What is confidential: what you tell your priest or religious adviser (preacher, rabbi, imam) and what you tell your own personal physician or psychotherapist (unless you have signed a waiver) that you have hired and you are paying. Anyone else, it is not confidential. So if you tell your program director you were raped when you were younger, not confidential. If you tell your senior resident you suffer from panic attacks, not confidential. You tell your attending that you had cancer ten years ago, not confidential. This applies no matter what “magic words” you attach to it.

2. Take and use whatever time period is offered to you to retain counsel and prepare. If you are given ten (10) days to file an appeal or a request for hearing, take the full ten (10) days. Do not file it on the same day. Otherwise, you are using up valuable preparation time that you cannot get back.

3. Make sure that whatever you are required to file is actually received by the due date indicated. If a request for a hearing must be filed within fifteen (15) days, that means that it must be received within the fifteen days. Check after you send it or deliver it to make sure it has been successfully received.

4. It is never too early to hire an attorney. Hire an attorney to represent and advise you at the first sign of trouble. However, you must be sure to hire an attorney who is experienced in representing residents and fellows in disputes with graduate medical education programs. An experienced attorney can help you prepare any written submissions you make, organize your response and any documents you care to submit, and otherwise assist you in identifying what is relevant and what is not relevant.

5. Always read your program’s graduate medical education (GME) manual, residency manual, due process policy or whatever handbook or manual contains your hearing and appeal rights. Be familiar with them and follow them.

6. If you are given remedial actions you must take, documents your completion of each one. Whether the requirement you must perform is in a corrective action plan (CAP), a remediation letter, or a probation letter, document your completion of it in writing and report it to whatever authority gave you the requirement. Send a courtesy copy (“cc”) to your program director.

7. Make sure any correspondence you send to anyone is complete, correct and in the form of a professional business letter. Make sure it meets all of the requirements of a professional business letter. This is especially true for rebuttals, appeals, hearing requests, etc. What, you don’t know what this is? Then go online and Google it. Your letter should look very similar to any letter you received from your program director or institution. Be sure it has all of your return contact information on it as well as a date. Do not start your letter with “Hi,” “Hello,” or “Good day.” Do place a reference (“Re:”) line or subject line on your letter that states what the subject of your letter is.

8. Do not be afraid to appeal, file a discrimination complaint or exercise any of your legal rights. Often I hear from residents, after they are already terminated from their program, that they are afraid to get a lawyer involved. I usually ask: “What are you afraid of? What is the worst that can happen? You have already been terminated.” Remember, also, that if your program retaliates against you for exercising any of your rights, that is illegal. The ACGME would like to hear about that and in almost all cases, you will then have a legal cause of action upon which you can sue the program.

Contact a Health Care Attorney Experienced in the Representation of Medical Resident Physicians, Fellows, Medical Students, Dental Students and Residents, Pharmacy Students and Residents, Mental Health Counselor Interns, and other health professionals. The attorneys of The Health Law Firm, also represent those applicants accused of irregular behavior by the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME), the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Secretariat, and the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG), in responses, hearings and appeals, including on charges of “unprofessional conduct” and “improper behavior.”

The Health Law Firm and its attorneys have experience representing such individuals and those in graduate medical education programs in various disputes regarding their academic and clinical performance, allegations of substance abuse, failure to complete integral parts training, alleged false or incomplete statements on applications, allegations of impairment (because of abuse or addiction to drugs or alcohol or because of mental or physical issues), because of discrimination due to race, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, and any other matters.

To contact The Health Law Firm please call (407) 331-6620 or toll-free at (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620.

 

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2021 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Feds Charge Three For Role in Multi-Million Dollar Scheme to Defraud Medicare, HIPAA Violations

Attorney George F. Indest IIIBy George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

In October 2020, Massachusetts federal prosecutors charged three people for their alleged roles in a multi-million dollar plot to defraud Medicare. Two individuals allegedly collected patient data and sold it to the purported mastermind, who used it to submit $109 million in false claims.

The two individuals who allegedly obtained the patient information were both located in Florida, wouldn’t ya know. They were each charged with one count of receiving more than $1.6 million kickbacks in connection with a federal health care program. Prosecutors charged the third individual with criminal violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

Fraudulently Collecting & Using Private Patient Information.

According to court documents, both individuals in Florida owned marketing companies that enlisted foreign call centers to contact Medicare beneficiaries. Using a prepared script, they allegedly asked the patients they called if they would be interested in receiving durable medical equipment (DME) such as knee braces or compression sleeves “at little to no cost.”

The call centers would then collect information, including the patient’s name, address, insurance number, Medicare number, and doctor’s name and address, prosecutors said. The information was then sold to the third individual, who filed fraudulent Medicare claims for DME that were never prescribed and not medically necessary.

According to court records, the alleged co-conspirators used the same patients’ information repeatedly through a different shell company each time. More than 1,000 of the claims were made under the names of deceased beneficiaries. Click here to view the criminal information in this case.

Read the DOJ’s press release on this case for additional information.

Also, you can read one of my prior blogs on a similar case in Florida.

Don’t Wait Until It’s Too Late; Consult with a Health Law Attorney Experienced in Medicare Issues Now.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm represent durable medical equipment (DME) suppliers and other health care providers in Medicare audits, ZPIC audits, MAC audits, and RAC audits throughout Florida and across the U.S. They also health care providers in qui tam or False Claims Act (whistleblower) litigation and in other complex medical litigation. They also represent DME suppliers, physicians, medical groups, nursing homes, home health agencies, pharmacies, hospitals, and other healthcare providers and institutions in Medicare and Medicaid investigations, audits, recovery actions, and termination from the Medicare or Medicaid programs, They represent health care providers in formal and informal administrative hearings, federal or state.

For more information please visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com or call (407) 331-6620 or toll-free (888) 331-6620.

Sources:

Sinay, Reenat. “Feds Charge 3 In Alleged $109M Medicare Fraud Scheme.” Law360. (October 2, 2020). Web.

Szaniszlo, Marie. “Three charged in multi-million dollar fraud scheme.” Sentinel Enterprise. (October 2, 2020). Web.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620.

The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2021 The Health Law

Go to Top