Colorado Health Law Blog

Home/Colorado Health Law Blog

OSHA Issues Series of Citations for COVID-19-Related PPE Violations

By Carole C. Schriefer, J.D.

On September 14, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued a citation against a healthcare system in Louisiana. Christus Shreveport-Bossier Health System is facing fines for failing to safeguard its employees with the appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) during the coronavirus pandemic. OSHA has proposed $13,494 in penalties, the maximum allowed by law.

OSHA’s Investigation for COVID-19 Exposure Risk.

After receiving reports of employee exposure, OSHA opened a coronavirus–related investigation. The agency found that the health system violated workplace safety protocols and put employees at risk of COVID-19 exposure.

In a press release, OSHA stated, “emergency facility employees often shared used protective gowns or did not have protective gowns to wear while treating patients.” Click here to read the press release in full.

Christus Health had 15 business days from receipt of the citation and penalties to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA’s area director, or contest the findings. In a statement, Katy Kiser, a spokesperson for Christus Health, said, “We are actively contesting the citation and the penalty. We have worked hard to secure the PPE we have needed to get us through many phases of the pandemic and maintain a local contingency supply of at least ten days. To date, we have experienced no gaps in PPE supply during pandemic response.”

COVID-19 Citations for Several Different Health Systems.

After receiving criticism that it was not adequately investigating COVID-19 complaints, OSHA announced it would ramp up enforcement. As a result, the agency said it would also issue fines against New Jersey-based Bergen New Bridge Medical Center and Hackensack Meridian Health. The two healthcare systems were cited for failing to provide appropriately fit respirator masks to its home healthcare employees. Additionally, after providing respirators, they didn’t provide adequate training and compliant medical evaluations.

Click here for more on this story.

To read OSHA’s Enforcement Response Plan for Coronavirus Disease memo that was released in May, 2020, click here.  For additional resources, visit OSHA’s COVID-19 response page on their website here.

Click here to read one of our recent blogs on this topic and learn more.

Health Care Providers Can and Should File Complaints with OSHA for Workplace Violations.

What these cases show is that health professionals whose employers fail to provide proper safety equipment, PPE, and other job-related protections, can file OSHA complaints. OSHA’s main purpose for existing is to protect employees from unsafe working environments. Although the fines OSHA assesses may be small, if the employer is fined, this may provide the basis for a workers compensation claim, a law suit, a union complaint or all of three of these.

Furthermore, if the employer retaliates against the employee for filing an OSHA complaint, then the employee has a valid cause of action against the employer, regardless of any other rights, under OSHA’s “whistle blower protection” provisions.

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

Sources:

Campbell, Braden. “OSHA Ramps Up Physical Inspections, COVID Case Reporting.” Law360. (May 19, 2020). Web.

Kutner, Max. “OSHA Fines La. Health System Over COVID-19 Violations.” (September 14, 2020). Web.

Shinkman, Ron. “OSHA fines 3 hospital systems for PPE violations.” Healthcare Dive. (September 15, 2020). Web.

About the Author: Carole C. Schriefer is an attorney and former registered nurse. She practices with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its regional office is in the Northern Colorado, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 155 East Boardwalk Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525. Phone: (970) 416-7456 or Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida area.

KeyWords: Health law defense lawyer, legal representation of health care professionals, reviews of The Health Law Firm, The Health Law Firm attorney reviews, Department of Health defense attorney, healthcare employment law representation, legal representation for physicians, nurse defense lawyer, nursing complaint defense attorneys, board of nursing defense attorney, nurse defense legal representation, legal representation for healthcare professionals, complex health care litigation attorney, complex civil litigation attorney, complex healthcare litigation lawyer, complex medical litigation lawyer, representation for complex medical litigation, representation for healthcare business litigation matters, representation for administrative hearing, representation for Department of Health (DOH) representation, DORA defense attorney, DOH defense attorney, representation for DOH hearings, representation for DOH investigations, representation for disciplinary charges, representation for disciplinary complaint

“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 © 2020 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

 

 

Federal Judge Dismisses Florida Dentist’s COVID-19 Business Interruption Insurance Claim

George Indest Headshot

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

On September 3, 2020, a Florida federal judge dismissed a suit for business interruption insurance payments by a Florida dentist. The dentist claimed he sustained damages caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and related civil authority shutdowns of dental services. The dismissal freed Allied Insurance Company of America from having to pay the dentist’s for COVID-19 related losses, holding that the policy’s “virus exclusion” barred coverage of the insurance claim made.

Insurance Coverage for COVID-19 Related Losses.

The dentist sued his insurance carrier for damages that he argued were “caused by or result[ing] from a Covered Cause of Loss.” The causes of the alleged loss, he maintained, included the COVID-19 virus’s impact on his dental practice and the Florida governor’s emergency declaration that limited dental services during a period of time. Specifically, he claimed that he incurred costs to decontaminate his dental office and lost valuable income because of the governor’s dental services limitation. The dentist alleged that Allied breached the insurance contract by denying coverage in April.

Allied’s insurance policy provides coverage “for direct physical loss or damage to covered property at the [plaintiff’s] premises” that is “caused by or result[s] from any Covered Cause of Loss.” Allied argued that there was no direct physical loss or damage to covered property at the clinic due to appointment cancellations or the closure of the dental practice.

Dismissal of the Law Suit.

U.S. District Court Judge John Badalamenti, for the Middle District of Florida, dismissed the case. He found that the dental practice’s loss or damage asserted was “not due to a covered cause of loss.” More importantly, he found that the policy contained an exclusion for loss or damage caused “directly or indirectly,” by “[a]ny virus, bacterium or other microorganisms that induces or is capable of inducing physical distress, illness or disease.”

According to the judge’s order, in order for the insurer to provide coverage, losses from business suspension must be caused by direct physical loss or damage. He ruled that the dentist failed to demonstrate what the policy required in order to be a covered loss. To read the order in full, click here.

With such a specific exclusion as this policy contained, it was difficult for the judge in the case to rule any other way.

 

Litigation on Whether Insurance Policies Should Cover Losses Due to Coronavirus Closures.

This recent Florida dismissal is another in a string of cases where insurers have prevailed in Coronavirus business loss cases, because of similar exclusions in their policies. In a similar case, a Michigan federal judge sided with the insurance company saying it didn’t have to cover a chiropractic office’s COVID-19 claimed losses. Like the case above, the judge said the business failed to allege physical loss and, therefore, the policy’s virus exclusion barred coverage. Click here to read the judge’s order in this case.

According to insurance experts and regulators, most businesses and professionals will probably find it difficult to obtain an insurance payout because of policy changes made after the 2002-2003 SARS outbreak. SARS, which infected 8,000 people, led to millions of dollars in business-interruption insurance claims. As a result, many insurers added exclusions to standard commercial policies for virus losses. The added policy language potentially allows insurance companies to avoid hundreds of billions of dollars in business-interruption claims because of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Since a wide-scale virus outbreak is such a rare event, most policy purchasers overlooked this exception. There certainly wasn’t any concerted effort to make insureds aware of the exclusion nor to offer them the opportunity to purchase specific virus outbreak insurance coverage.

A global pandemic presents unique problems for insurance companies. After the SARS outbreak at the beginning of this millennium, many insurance companies realized they would not be able to cover such a broad-scale event causing massive losses. Such an event could have damages greater than those sustained in the largest hurricane to strike the U.S. The insurance industry argued to state regulators that such policy exclusions were necessary, considering the overwhelming number of claims that might arise from a single disease outbreak.

This foresight on the part of the insurance companies saved their shareholders billions, if not trillions, of dollars. Unfortunately business and professionals have had to shoulder the losses.

So, it begs the question: Did insurers actually know the potential damage a viral pandemic could wreak on businesses and, therefore, purposefully exclude coverage? Disputes over the precise wording of business insurance policies will most likely continue to generate court battles like those discussed above.

Read my prior blog on this subject to learn more.

Recommendation for the Future.

There are several options that businesses and state insurance regulators should consider to try to prevent such massive losses from going uncompensated in the future.

First would be to create and provide virus damage insurance similar to that provided for flood insurance by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The biggest problem would be that losses could easily exceed the largest hurricane that one could imagine. However, the NFIP has shown this type of plan works.

Second would be similar programs provided at the state level. At the present time, many states, have captive insurance companies to fund losses from wind damage caused by storms. In Florida, the Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (CPIC) provides such coverage.

The biggest problem I see with both of the above is that short-sighted and selfish people don’t want to purchase such insurance and, thereby, make it less expensive for all involved. They figure that the government will bail them out anyway in such an event, so why should they pay. Therefore, either making it paid for completely with taxpayer money or a requirement of obtaining a business license or professional license or some combination, may be a way to finance it.

Creating a trust fund with assessments to employers and employees, similar to what is currently done for social security, would be another option. Creating a large trust fund that could cover such tragic events might work best. However, this would have to be made “raider safe” so that Congress does not come back and raid these funds and use them for other purposes like it has done to the United States Postal Service (USPS).

At the very least, some type of universal virus pandemic business loss insurance should be mandated by law or, at least, partially funded by the government. Making it mandatory means making it cheaper and making it work.

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. 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 (407) 331-6620 or toll-free (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.ThehealthLawFirm.com

Sources:

Zhang, Daphne. “Fla. Dentist’s Bid For COVID-19 Loss Coverage Axed.” Law360. (September 3, 2020). Web.

Zhang, Daphne. “State Farm Needn’t Cover Chiropractor’s COVID-19 Losses.” Law360. (September 3, 2020). Web.

Frankel, Todd. “Insurers knew the damage a viral pandemic could wreak on businesses. So they excluded coverage.” The Washington Post. (April 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 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.

KeyWords: healthcare employment law representation, legal representation for physicians, doctor defense legal representation, legal representation for healthcare professionals, complex health care litigation attorney, complex civil litigation attorney, complex healthcare litigation lawyer, complex medical litigation lawyer, representation for complex medical litigation, representation for healthcare business litigation matters, business insurance representation, business interruption insurance claims defense, COVID-19 business insurance claim representation, The Health Law Firm, reviews of The Health Law Firm Attorneys, The Health Law Firm attorney reviews, legal representation for physicians and health care professionals, attorney for physician suits against insurers, complex medical business litigation against health insurers

“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 © 2020 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

 

New Policy Changes to USMLE Exams and How They Impact Medical Students, Graduates

Attorney Achal A. AggarwalBy Achal A. Aggarwal, J.D. and Carole C. Schriefer, J.D.

The United States Medical Licensing Examination (“USMLE”) is a three-step examination required to obtain a medical license. It is written and administered by the USMLE Secretariat of the National Board of Medical Examiners (“NBME”) and is sponsored by the Federation of State Medical Boards (“FSMB”) and the USMLE.

Medical students desiring to practice in the U.S. are under immense pressure to not only pass the exams but to excel at them. Specifically, the USMLE Step 1 Examination, the USMLE Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (“CK”) Examination, and the USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skills (“CS”) Examination are the most significant deciding factors that residency programs use for selecting applicants to interview for residency positions. However, a lot is about to change.

Important Policy Changes.

On February 12, 2020, the FSMB and the NBME announced the following policy changes:

1. The Step 1 Exam will be changed to pass/fail grading;

2. The number of examination attempts for each exam will be reduced from six (6) to four (4); and

3. All examinees must pass the Step 1 Exam before taking the Step 2-CS Exam.

Changing the Step 1 Exam to Pass/Fail.

The USMLE has announced that it will change the Step 1 exam’s grading system from a three-digit score to a pass/fail grading system. This change will go into effect on January 1, 2022.  A statement published on the website states that changing to pass/fail could help reduce some of the current overemphasis on USMLE performance while also retaining the ability of medical licensing authorities to use the exam for its primary purpose of medical licensure eligibility. Click here to visit the USMLE website and read the statement.

It appears that USMLE, FSMB, NBME, and the American Medical Association (AMA) are attempting to alleviate the stress and pressure the Step 1 exam puts on medical students. However, this change may cause issues for residency programs that are trying to screen for which students they want to interview.

In the current system, the Step 1 score is a three-digit score that is graded on a bell-curve. The minimum passing score for each Step 1 exam is different and depends on the performance of the total universe of the students who take that particular examination.

The three-digit score helps residency programs assess which students were more likely to excel in their program and which students would not. By changing the exam to a pass/fail scoring system, residency programs will be forced to rely more heavily on the Step 2-CK scores, medical school performance, and overall curriculum vitae.

Greater Emphasis to Be Placed on Step 2-CK Exam.

Currently, the Step 2-CK exam is only the fourth-most deciding factor in how residency programs select applicants for interviews. Approximately 80% of residency program directors stated that it was an important factor, but not the most.

On the other hand, the Step 2-CS exam score is a less influential factor, with only 56% of residency program directors saying that it was essential to their decision. Students should anticipate that the Step 2-CK and Step 2-CS will become more important as program directors shift their attention to the scores of those exams.

For more information click here.

What remains to be seen is how these changes will impact international medical graduates (“IMG”), commonly referred to as “foreign medical graduates.” To distinguish themselves, IMGs often tried to get the highest possible USMLE score, as this was the most objective way for them to be compared to other U.S. medical school students.

Since each domestic and international medical school has its own unique clinical grading system, the USMLE Step 1 was one of the most objective ways to compare residency applicants. Now that Step 1 scoring has been eliminated, it might be harder for IMGs to make themselves attractive to competitive residency programs.

Reducing Overall Exam Attempts from Six to Four.

Additionally, the USMLE is changing the limit on the total number of times an examinee may take the same Step exam from six (6) attempts to four (4) attempts. This means that after the policy is implemented, it will be ineligible to take a Step exam if the examinee has made four (4) prior attempts on that Step exam, including incomplete attempts.

The policy is set to be implemented on July 1, 2021. Learn more about the policy here.

Examinees Must Pass Step 1 Before Taking Step 2-CS.

Although the USMLE has suspended the Step 2-CS exam administration at the present time because of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is set to implement a rule requiring all examinees to pass the Step 1 exam before qualifying to take the Step 2-CS exam.

Implementing such a rule would reduce the USMLE’s burden of administering the Step 2-CS exam multiple times since students will be required to qualify for the exam. Students can currently take the Step 1 exam, Step 2-CS exam, and Step 2-CK exam in any order they choose, depending on the requirements of their medical school. This new rule seeks to shift that burden by funneling students through the Step 1 exam.

The impact of such a change remains to be seen, however, we anticipate that this policy will reduce the testing burden on the USMLE while also maintaining the importance of the Step 1 exam despite changing its scoring to pass/fail.

It does represent a complete shake-up in how the system of testing has previously been administered.

Tips for the New Rules.

The following are suggestions we have concerning the new rules:

1. Take the Step 1 Exam as soon as you can, and begin preparing for the others.

2. Always treat every test administration extremely seriously, as though your future life and career depend on it; they do!

3. Take maximum advantage of commercial preparation courses and always try to take one of the recommended live ones before you take your examination.

4. Take off several weeks prior to the examination and find a hotel within walking distance of the test site where you will take the examination to study. Get rid of all distractions while studying for and immediately prior to taking the examination.

5. Never solicit actual test content or offer to share it with someone else.

For additional common-sense tips on preparing for and taking the USMLE Step exams, see another blog on this subject here.

Contact a Health Care Attorney Experienced in the Representation of Medical Students, Interns, Residents and Applicants, Fellows and Those Involved in Graduate Medical Education, and those being challenged by the National Board fo Medical Examiners (NBME), the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Secretariat, and the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG)

The Health Law Firm and its attorneys represent interns, residents, fellows, and medical school students in disputes with their medical schools, supervisors, residency programs, and in dismissal hearings. We 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. We routinely help those who have disputes with the National Board fo Medical Examiners (NBME), the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Secretariat, and the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG), including on hearings and appeals concerning “Irregular Behavior,” “unprofessionalism,” and “Irregular Conduct.”

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 Authors: Carole C. Schriefer J.D., and Achal A. Aggarwal, M.B.A., J.D. practice health law with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice.  Its main office in the Orlando, Florida area.   1101 Douglas Ave. Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714
Phone: (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620.  Its regional office is in the Northern Colorado, area. 155 East Boardwalk Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525. Phone: (970) 416-7456.  www.TheHealthLawFirm.com

KeyWords: Irregular behavior defense lawyer, irregular conduct legal representation, graduate medical education (GME) defense attorney, international medical graduate attorney, graduate medical education defense lawyer, lawyer for medical students, medical resident physician attorney, residency program legal dispute, residency program litigation, medical school litigation, legal representation for medical residents, legal dispute with medical school, medical students legal counsel, disruptive physician attorney, impaired medical student legal counsel, impaired resident legal defense attorney, United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) defense lawyer, USMLE defense attorney, National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) defense counsel, Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG) defense lawyer, ECFMG defense attorney, legal representation for USMLE investigations, legal representation for NBME investigations, legal representation for irregular behavior, irregular behavior defense attorney, irregular behavior defense counsel, health law attorney, The Health Law Firm reviews, reviews of The Health Law Firm attorneys, Philadelphia attorney for ECFMG hearing, Philadelphia lawyer for NBME hearing, Philadelphia legal counsel for USMLE hearing

“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 © 2020 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Oncology Practice in Florida Reaches $100 Million Deal With DOJ in Antitrust Probe

Attorney Carole C. Schriefer

By Carole C. Schriefer, J.D.

On April 30, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that a major Florida oncology group will pay $100 million to resolve a criminal charge that it conspired with competitors to divvy up cancer treatments in the area. This marks the first settlement in an ongoing oncology market allocation probe against Florida Cancer Specialists & Research Institute LLC (FCS).

Details of the Antitrust Complaint.

The oncology group, which is based in Fort Myers, Florida, admitted to a single felony antitrust charge under the agreement, the DOJ said. Additionally, FCS inked a civil antitrust settlement with the Florida attorney general requiring it to pay the state $20 million, plus interest.

According to the DOJ, federal prosecutors filed a one-count felony charge against the company in Florida federal court. Prosecutors allege the company of participating “in a criminal antitrust conspiracy” with unnamed oncology competitors in the southwest Florida counties of Lee, Collier, and Charlotte.

The antitrust complaint states: “FCS and its co-conspirators agreed not to compete to provide chemotherapy and radiation treatments to cancer patients in Southwest Florida. Beginning as early as 1999 and continuing until at least 2016, FCS entered into an illegal agreement that allocated chemotherapy treatments to FCS and radiation treatments to a competing oncology group.” Therefore, according to the DOJ, “This conspiracy allowed FCS to operate with minimal competition in Southwest Florida and limited valuable integrated care options and choices for cancer patients.”

We want to point out that the quotations above are statements that were made by the government in relation to this case and were not necessarily proven or agreed to by FCS.

The Settlement Agreement.

Under the settlement agreement, the Florida oncology company admitted to a conspiracy to divvy up the radiation and chemotherapy treatments. In addition to the $100 million, which is the statutory maximum, FCS will have to “cooperate fully with the Antitrust Division’s ongoing investigation” being run with the FBI’s Fort Myers satellite office and must keep up a compliance program aimed at stopping and ferreting out criminal antitrust violations.

Additionally, the deal also obliges FCS to follow a “non-compete waiver” under which it promises not to enforce any non-compete provisions with current and former oncologists. Other employees who open an oncology practice in southwest Florida or join one are also included in the provision, said the DOJ.

Criminal Antitrust Charges are Rarely Sought.

Criminal antitrust charges are rarely brought by the government, especially under the current administration. Anyone that has ever been involved in bringing or defending an anti-trust case knows that it is difficult enough to even have the government open a civil case or investigation, much less a criminal case.

Click here to read the press release issued by the DOJ.

To view the antitrust complaint about this case on our website, click here.

You can read the state of Florida’s deal with FCS here.

To learn more, click here and read one of my prior blogs on a similar antitrust case.

Contact Health Care Attorneys Experienced in Negotiating and Evaluating Physician’s Complex Business Litigation, and Transactions

At the Health Law Firm, we provide legal services for health professionals and facilities. This includes physicians, medical groups, nurses, pharmacists, pharmacies, dentists, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors, ambulatory surgical centers, pain management clinics, assisted living facilities, home health agencies, nursing homes, and any other health care provider.

The services we provide include representation in complex state and federal litigation, reviewing and negotiating contracts, preparing contracts, business transactions, professional license defense, opinion letters, representation in investigations, fair hearing defense, representation in peer review and clinical privileges hearings, litigation of restrictive covenant (covenants not to compete), Medicare and Medicaid audits, commercial litigation, and administrative hearings.

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com

Sources:

Koenig, Bryan. “DOJ Cuts $100M Deal In Oncology Antitrust Probe.” Law360. (April 30, 2020). Web.

Office of Public Affairs. Press Release. “Leading Cancer Treatment Center Admits to Antitrust Crime and Agrees to Pay $100 Million Criminal Penalty.” U.S. Department of Justice. (April 30,2020). Web.

About the Author: Carole C. Schriefer is an attorney and former registered nurse. She practices with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its regional office is in the Northern Colorado, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 155 East Boardwalk Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525. Phone: (970) 416-7456. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida area.

KeyWords: Noncompetition agreement litigation, representation for noncompetition agreements, noncompetition agreement litigation attorney, noncompetition agreement attorney, restrictive covenant attorney, representation for restrictive covenants, covenant-not-to-compete representation, health care litigation representation, representation for employer enforcement of restrictive covenants, representation for complex litigation, restrictive covenant defense attorney, complex healthcare litigation attorney, anti-trust legal counsel, physician employment agreements, health professional employment contracts, legal counsel for defeat of noncompetition agreement, physician employment contract litigation, health professional contracting, negotiating health business transactions, health care business contract attorney, health care professional contract litigation, healthcare complex business litigation, representation for physician agreements, representation for physician business transactions, representation for physician complex litigation, representation for antitrust, representation for healthcare facilities, oncologist defense, licensed oncologist defense lawyer, The Health Law Firm reviews, The Health Law Firm attorney reviews

“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 © 2020 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

CO Board of Pharmacy Ordered to Give DEA Patient Data

Attorney Carole C. SchrieferBy Carole C. Schriefer, J.D.
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 Audits and 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 & Data.

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 Authors: Carole C. Schriefer is an attorney and former registered nurse. She practices with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its regional office is in the Northern Colorado, area. The Health Law Firm, 155 East Boardwalk Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525. Phone: (970) 416-7456.

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. 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.

KeyWords: DEA order to show cause (OSC) defense lawyer, legal representation for administrative hearings, DEA hearing defense attorney, reviews of The Health Law Firm, The Health Law Firm attorney reviews, DEA order to show cause (OSC) defense attorney, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) defense attorney, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) investigation defense attorney, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) subpoena defense lawyer, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) inspection defense attorney, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) hearing defense attorney, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) order to show cause (OTSC) defense lawyer, DORA defense attorney, Department of Health defense attorney, Florida Board of Pharmacy defense legal representation, legal defense for pharmacists, pharmacist defense lawyer, board of pharmacy defense lawyer, board of pharmacy hearing legal representation, pharmacy license disciplinary charges defense attorney, legal representation for pharmacist, legal representation for pharmacy, pharmacy defense lawyer, pharmacy audit defense representation, pharmacy audit defense attorney, board representation for pharmacists, board representation for pharmacies, board representation for physicians, board of pharmacy investigation representation, legal representation for board investigations, The Health Law Firm, administrative hearing defense attorney

“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 © 2020 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

By |2020-06-03T14:53:03-04:00June 10th, 2020|Categories: Colorado Health Law Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |0 Comments

Government Deems Marijuana Dispensaries ‘Essential’ During COVID-19 Shutdowns

By Carole C. Schriefer, J.D.
On March 17, 2020, amid Coronavirus shutdowns, multiple cities and state health departments have declared medical marijuana dispensaries essential to health care. Many cities are closing or considering closing business and retail operations to stop the spread of the virus. Other “essential” businesses that will remain open include pharmacies, grocery stores, and financial institutions.
As of this date (3/23/2020), Florida still has not joined the ones declaring them to be essential.


“Marijuana is Essential Medicine for Many.”

After residents were told to stay home, a number of cities, including Colorado, revised their position in other states and deemed cannabis “an essential medicine,” allowing stores to stay open. Read Colorado’s Essential Business Order and Public Health guidance.

San Fransico’s Mayor London Breed announced adjustments to the city’s public health order clarifying that dispensaries and marijuana deliveries are critical. “In terms of the cannabis dispensaries, the Department of Public Health [in California] today clarified that since cannabis has medical uses, dispensaries will be allowed to operate as essential businesses, just as pharmacies are allowed to do,” she added.

According to the New York State Department of Health, “In the event nonessential businesses are forced to shut down due to COVID-19, registered organizations in the medical marijuana program will be considered essential and allowed to remain open because they are considered medical providers.” Read the guidance issued by the state of New York.

Following right along, Illinois’ Department of Financial and Professional Regulation issued new, temporary guidelines, relaxing where medical marijuana sales can take place in order to “help reduce contact between individuals.” The state will allow medical dispensaries to sell cannabis “on the dispensary’s property or on a public walkway or curb adjacent to the dispensary.”  Read the temporary guidance issued by Illinois.

In addition, other states, such as Michigan, Massachusetts, and Washington have issued bulletins relaxing regulations regarding delivery and in-store transactions in order to limit contact between patients and vendors.

What Will Florida Do?

The question is, will Florida and other states continue to follow suit if necessary? On March 16, 2020, Florida’s Gov. Ron DeSantis enacted Emergency Order 20-002 to temporarily allow qualified physicians to use telemedicine. However, so far, there has not been any guidance issued specifically on medical marijuana dispensaries. View Florida’s Emergency Order 20-002.

Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys for Medical and Recreational Marijuana Concerns.

The Health Law Firm attorneys can assist health care providers and facilities, such as doctors, pharmacists, and pharmacies, wanting to participate in the medical marijuana industry. We can properly help to complete and submit the applications for renewals, registration, permitting, and/or licensing, complying with Florida law. We also represent health facilities, health clinics, and pharmacies facing proceedings brought by state regulators or agencies.

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

Sources:

Booker, Brakkton. “Amid Coronavirus, San Francisco, New York, Deem Marijuana Businesses ‘Essential’.” NPR. (March 17, 2020). Web.

Reisman, Sam. “Medical Pot Deemed ‘Essential’ Amid COVID-19 Shutdowns.” Law360. (March 17, 2020). Web.

Smith, Jeff. “Medical cannabis businesses increasingly deemed ‘essential’ during coronavirus pandemic.” Med Biz Daily. (March 18, 2020). Web.

About the Author: Carole C. Schriefer is an attorney and former registered nurse. She practices with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its regional office is in the Northern Colorado, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 155 East Boardwalk Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525. Phone: (970) 416-7456. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida area.

KeyWords: Florida medical marijuana center regulations and legislation, Florida medical marijuana treatment center representation, medical marijuana regulation attorney, medical marijuana lawyer, legal representation for medical marijuana issues, Florida health care business application attorney, health law defense attorney, health lawyers for marijuana distributors in Florida and Colorado, legal counsel for marijuana growers and distributors in Florida and Colorado, Florida health facility legal representation, Florida health facility defense attorney, health facility defense lawyer in Florida and Colorado, The Health Law Firm reviews, reviews of The Health Law Firm Attorneys, Florida and Colorado administrative hearing defense legal representation, administrative hearing defense attorney in Colorado and Florida, administrative hearing defense lawyer in Florida and Colorado, Florida and Colorado medical administrative regulation attorney, formal administrative hearing defense attorney in Colorado and Florida

“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 © 2020 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Is Exposure to COVID-19 for Health Care Professionals, Covered as Employment-Related Injury For Workers Comp?

Attorney Amanda I. ForbesBy Amanda I. Forbes, J.D. and Carole C. Schriefer, J.D.
In answering the question posed in the title of this blog, first, it should be noted that the World Health Organization (WHO) classifies COVID-19 as an “occupational disease.”  (Reference:  World Health Organization, “Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak: Rights, Roles and Responsibilities Of Health Workers. . . .”) Click here to view the classification by the WHO on our website.

Most state workers’ compensation laws cover the worker for occupational diseases if the worker acquires it during the course and scope of their employment.
For example, Section 440.151(2), Florida Statutes, states:

Whenever used in this section the term “occupational disease” shall be construed to mean only a disease which is due to causes and conditions which are characteristic of and peculiar to a particular trade, occupation, process, or employment, and to exclude all ordinary diseases of life to which the general public is exposed, unless the incidence of the disease is substantially higher in the particular trade, occupation, process, or employment than for the general public. “Occupational disease” means only a disease for which there are epidemiological studies showing that exposure to the specific substance involved, at the levels to which the employee was exposed, may cause the precise disease sustained by the employee.

Section 440.151(2), Florida Statutes, (emphasis added).  Many other states have similar requirements to those of Florida.

Healthcare workers are at the front line of any outbreak response and as such are exposed to hazards that put them at an increased risk of infection with the COVID-19 virus.  Therefore, as COVID-19 meets the criteria as an “occupational disease.”

Moreover, Section 440.151(1)(a), Florida Statutes, states:

Where the employer and employee are subject to the provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law, the disablement or death of an employee resulting from an occupational disease as hereinafter defined shall be treated as the happening of an injury by accident, notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, and the employee or, in case of death, the employee’s dependents shall be entitled to compensation as provided by this chapter, except as hereinafter otherwise provided; and the practice and procedure prescribed by this chapter shall apply to all proceedings under this section, except as hereinafter otherwise provided.  Provided, however, that in no case shall an employer be liable for compensation under the provisions of this section unless such disease has resulted from the nature of the employment in which the employee was engaged under such employer, was actually contracted while so engaged, and the nature of the employment was the major contributing cause of the disease. Major contributing cause must be shown by medical evidence only, as demonstrated by physical examination findings and diagnostic testing. “Nature of the employment” means that in the occupation in which the employee was so engaged there is attached a particular hazard of such disease that distinguishes it from the usual run of occupations, or the incidence of such disease is substantially higher in the occupation in which the employee was so engaged than in the usual run of occupations. In claims for death under s. 440.16, death must occur within 350 weeks after last exposure. Both causation and sufficient exposure to a specific harmful substance shown to be present in the workplace to support causation shall be proven by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 440.151(1)(a), Florida Statutes.

It is important to note that COVID 19 or any other communicable disease (TB, H1N1, etc.):  The employee has to test positive for the disease/contagion and it must be determined with a reasonable amount of certainty that their exposure to the virus occurred in the workplace and was not community-acquired.

In addition,  per Section 440.151(1)(c), Florida Statutes states:

Where an occupational disease is aggravated by any other disease or infirmity, not itself compensable, or where disability or death from any other cause, not itself compensable, is aggravated, prolonged, accelerated or in anywise contributed to by an occupational disease, the compensation shall be payable only if the occupational disease is the major contributing cause of the injury. Any compensation shall be reduced and limited to such proportion only of the compensation that would be payable if the occupational disease were the sole cause of the disability or death as such occupational disease, as a causative factor, bears to all the causes of such disability or death, such reduction in compensation to be effected by reducing the number of weekly or monthly payments or the amounts of such payments, as under the circumstances of the particular case may be for the best interest of the claimant or claimants. Major contributing cause must be demonstrated by medical evidence based on physical examination findings and diagnostic testing.

Section 440.151(1)(c), Florida Statutes, (emphasis added).

With regard to emergency medical technicians (EMTs) or paramedics Section 440.09(3), Florida Statutes, states:

If an emergency medical technician or paramedic is appointed or employed full time by a municipality, the state, or any political subdivision, is certified under chapter 401.23, in an emergency situation in this state, any such activities would be considered to be within the course of his or her employment and an emergency medical technician or paramedic and covered by the employer’s jurisdiction or area of responsibility, such activities are considered to be within the course of employment. The provisions of this subsection do not apply if the emergency medical technician or paramedic is performing activities for which he or she is paid by another employer of contractor.

Section 440.09(3), Florida Statutes (emphasis added).

Workers Compensation Benefits for Healthcare Professionals.

As of March 26, 2020, Florida has not issued any order or legislation explicitly stating that healthcare professionals exposed to COVID-19 will be entitled to Workers Compensation benefits.

By way of example, In the City of Phila. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Sites), 889 A.2d 129 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005), a claimant was successful in proving that his hepatitis C was caused by his exposure to blood that occurred while working as a firefighter and emergency medical technician  (EMT).  Similar to COVID-19, hepatitis C was also classified as a compensable “occupational disease.”  Therefore, it is likely that a healthcare professional’s exposure to COVID-19 would result in a-viable workers’ compensation claim.

Federal workers’ compensation laws are similar to those quoted above. Therefore, federal health care providers and those working in federal facilities will also most probably be entitled to federal employment compensation (FECA) benefits under similar situations.

We want to emphasize that this is merely our preliminary opinion based on limited analysis and research.  It is provided for informational purposes only. It does not constitute the provision of legal advice.  Each state has different workers’ compensation laws and different case law, as does the federal government. Each individual set of circumstances may be different. Contact your local workers’ compensation plaintiff’s (claimant’s) attorney for advice and representation in your individual case.

For more information and more examples of employment compensation benefit cases for health care professionals, click 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, Durable Medical Equipment suppliers, medical students and interns, 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 student professors and clinical staff. We represent 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, in patient complaints and in Department of Health investigations.

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

About the Authors:  Amanda I. Forbes, J.D., and Carole C. Schriefer J.D., practice 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.

“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 © 2020 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

By |2020-04-16T12:27:13-04:00April 16th, 2020|Categories: Colorado Health Law Blog|0 Comments

Finding a Healthcare Providers Service Organization (HPSO) Insurance Attorney to Defend you in a Complaint Against Your Pharmacist or Pharmacy License

Carole C. SchrieferBy Carole C. Schriefer, J.D.
Many pharmacists or their pharmacies carry professional malpractice insurance through Healthcare Providers Service Organization (HPSO) or one of the other similar professional liability insurance companies. What they may not realize is that this insurance will pay for their legal defense expenses if there is a complaint filed against their pharmacist license or the pharmacy’s license. It will also pay for legal defense expenses if they receive a subpoena for records, if they are required to attend a deposition, or if they are accused of violating HIPAA or a client’s medical confidentiality.

Under this type of policy, the insurance company will pay the legal fees and other costs related to your defense or legal representation. However, you will be required to locate and retain the appropriate attorney to represent you in the matter.

What to Look For When Retaining an Attorney to Defend You.

1. The primary qualification for any attorney you hire to represent you should be his or her experience in working with health professionals in the same field. If the attorney is not familiar with your area of health practice, with the type of legal proceeding you have, or with your professional licensing board, it may be difficult for that attorney to represent you properly.

2. If consult with an attorney who states that she or he will help you make a statement to the investigator or assist you in the investigation, but will not agree to appear and represent you in hearings, then this is the wrong attorney. You need an attorney that can represent you from start to finish.

3. Seek and retain an attorney who accepts the insurance that you have, whether it is HPSO Insurance, CPH & Associates Insurance, Philadelphia Insurance, Pharmacist Mutual Insurance Company (PMIC), Trust Management Services, Philadelphia Insurance, Firemans Fund, or another national company. This will ensure that you have an attorney who will give you the lower rates the insurance company has negotiated and will have a good working relationship established with your insurance company. If an attorney with our firm cannot represent you, we will try to find you an attorney who will.

4. You also want to retain the services of an attorney who has appeared before your professional board or professional licensing authority in investigations and hearings, especially in formal administrative hearings.

5. Often you will come across an attorney who only wants you to accept a consent order, stipulation, or settlement agreement. Remember that these are all merely plea bargains and you will be pleading guilty to whatever offenses are charged. This is teh easy way out and often the easy way is not the right way. IF you plead guilty then, from that point on, you are guilty. In most cases, however, you will actually be innocent of the charges and will need a formal administrative hearing in order to prove this.

6. You don’t necessarily need an attorney who resides in your city, state, or location. Almost all the work on the case will be done by telephone and e-mail. You usually have only one meeting or hearing and, depending on what type of hearing it is, it could be located in many different locations. Our attorneys will travel to those locations for meetings and hearings.

7. Beware of attorneys who hold themselves out in Internet advertising as health attorneys or professional license defense attorneys but are really some other type of attorneys. We see this a lot from medical malpractice attorneys, criminal defense attorneys and attorneys who sue insurance companies. Be sure you get an attorney who concentrates his or her practice in defending those in the specialty of pharmacy and in board of pharmacy complaints, investigations, and hearings.

8. If you can’t find an attorney to meet your immediate needs through our firm or an Internet search, you may contact your insurance company or professional association and ask if they have a list of attorneys that can do the legal work you require.

For example, you may reach Healthcare Providers Service Organization (HPSO) at (800) 982-9491; you can reach Nurses Service Organization (NSO) at (800) 247-1500; you can reach CPH & Associates at (800) 875-1911 or (312) 987-9823; you can reach Pharmacists Mutual Insurance Company (PMIC) at (800) 247-5930.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced Investigations of Pharmacists and Pharmacies.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm provide legal representation to pharmacists, pharmacies, prescribing physicians, dispensing physicians and nurse practitioners, and other health providers in pharmacy board complaints and investigations, Department of Health (DOH) investigations, Colorado DORA investigations, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) investigations, Medicare and Medicaid audits, Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MFCU) investigations, and other types of investigations of health professionals and providers. To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

In cases in which the health care professional has professional liability insurance or general liability insurance which provides coverage for such matters, we will seek to obtain coverage by your insurance company and will attempt to have your legal fees and expenses covered by your insurance company. If allowed, we will agree to take an assignment of your insurance policy proceeds in order to be able to submit our bills directly to your insurance company.

We also defend health professionals and health facilities in general litigation matters and business litigation matters.

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

About the Author: Carole C. Schriefer is an attorney and former registered nurse. She practices with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its regional office is in the Northern Colorado, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 155 East Boardwalk Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525. Phone: (970) 416-7456. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida area.

KeyWords: Healthcare Providers Service Organization (HPSO) Insurance defense attorney, HPSO defense lawyer, Florida HPSO defense attorney lawyer, Colorado HPSO defense attorney lawyer, legal representation for HPSO matters in Colorado, legal representation for HPSO matters in Florida, representation for professional liability insurance cases, Louisiana HPSO defense attorney lawyer, legal representation for HPSO matters in Louisiana, HPSO deposition defense coverage, representation for licensed mental health counselors (LMHCs), pharmacist defense lawyer, pharmacy defense attorney lawyer, medical prescriber legal representation, pharmacist complaint cases, pharmacy complaint cases, Florida Colorado Louisiana pharmacy complaint cases, defense lawyer for pharmacists, Florida health law defense attorney, medical license defense, Florida Department of Health (DOH) attorney, representation for Louisiana and Florida Department of Health (DOH) complaint investigations, Louisiana and Florida Department of Health (DOH) defense lawyer, Colorado Division of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) defense attorney, representation for Florida Colorado Division of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) complaint investigations, Colorado Division of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) defense lawyer, Lousiana LPC Board defense attorney lawyer, Board of Pharmacy defense, Board of Pharmacy complaints, representation for Board of Pharmacy investigations, Florida Board of Pharmacy defense lawyer, Colorado Board of Pharmacy defense lawyer, Health Law Firm reviews, reviews of The Health Law Firm attorneys, administrative complaint defense lawyer, administrative complaint defense attorney, administrative hearing defense lawyer, administrative hearing defense attorney, administrative hearing defense legal counsel, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) investigation defense attorney lawyer, Medicare and Medicaid audit defense attorney lawyer, Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MFCU) investigation defnse attorney lawyer

“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 © 2020 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

By |2020-02-04T16:56:51-05:00February 4th, 2020|Categories: Colorado Health Law Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |0 Comments

Nursing Student Claims Sexual Harassment, Retaliation in Lawsuit Filed Against North Carolina Lawsuit

Attorney Carole C. Schriefer Headshot By Carole C. Schriefer, R.N., J.D.
On November 29, 2019, a former University of North Carolina nursing student sued the school’s Greensboro campus, saying it improperly dismissed from her a program a month before graduation. She filed two separate suits. She claims she was forced to endure sexual harassment as a student for years. Then, when she accused a supervisor of misconduct, she was gradually pushed out of the nursing program, according to the lawsuit.

She is suing the University of North Carolina’s Greensboro nursing department in state court and UNC’s Board of Directors along with the Raleigh School of Nurse Anesthesia in federal court.

Lawsuit Describes Alleged Sexual Harassment, Retaliation.

According to the suit, the harassment began less than a year after she enrolled in the Doctor of Nursing Program at UNCG in August 2015, with hopes of becoming a nurse anesthesiologist. She was put under the supervision of a male certified registered nurse anesthetist, or CRNA. In her suit, she alleges that her supervisor began acting inappropriately almost immediately.

When she reported the harassment in July 2016, that’s when the retaliation started, claims the lawsuit. “They started trying to find things,” she reportedly said. She claims that one supervisor told her “If I can’t get you for this, I can get you for something else.” A few months later, on October 31, 2016, she states she was given additional clinical work and reassigned to work with the same CRNA she had previously reported for harassment, according to court documents.

In June 2018, a month before she was to graduate, she was dismissed from the program for what the school said were unsafe nursing practices. She appealed and UNCG allowed her to re-enroll in January 2019 for a tuition of $10,000. However, a month later, she was dismissed again for unsafe nursing practices. UNCG then refused any further appeals and upheld her dismissal in May 2019.

The nursing student is seeking unspecified damages, including loss of income and repayment of tuition, according to the lawsuit.

To read one of my prior blogs on a similar case dealing with a harassment lawsuit at Rutgers University, click here.

Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys Representing Medical Students, Residents and Fellows.

The Health Law Firm routinely represents medical students, residents, and fellows who run into difficulties and have disputes with their medical schools or programs. We also represent other health providers in investigations, regulatory matters, licensing issues, litigation, inspections, and audits involving the DEA, Department of Health (DOH) and other law enforcement agencies. Its attorneys include those who are board-certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law as well as licensed health professionals who are also attorneys.

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Sources:

“Lawsuit describes harassment, retaliation at UNCG nursing school.” Greensboro News & Record. (December 3, 2019). Web.

Waggoner, Martha. “Lawsuit describes harassment, retaliation at Nursing School.” The Washington Post. (December 3, 2019). Web.

About the Author: Carole C. Schriefer is an attorney and registered nurse. She practices with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its regional office is in the Northern Colorado, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 155 East Boardwalk Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525. Phone: (970) 416-7456. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida area.

KeyWords: Legal representation for nursing students, legal representation for nurse practice students, legal representation for nurse anesthetist students, nursing student attorney, nurse practice attorney, nurse anesthetist student attorney, nursing student legal counsel, nurse practice legal counsel, nurse anesthetist legal counsel, education law attorney for health professionals, education law legal counsel for health professional students, education law lawyer for health professional students academic review hearing attorney, nursing board defense attorney, nursing board defense legal representation, nursing school attorney, nursing school lawyer, nursing school legal counsel, nursing school legal defense counsel, legal dispute with nursing school, legal representation for CRNAs, attorney for CRNAs, lawyer for CRNAs, The Health Law Firm reviews, reviews of The Health Law Firm attorneys, board of nursing legal defense counsel, board of nursing defense lawyer, board of nursing defense attorney

“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 © 2020 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Finding an HPSO Attorney to Defend you in a Complaint Against Your Mental Health Counselor or Social Workers License

Attorney Carole C. Schriefer HeadshotBy Carole C. Schriefer, R.N., J.D.
Many licensed mental health counselors (LMHCs), licensed clinical social workers (LCSWs), Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists (LMFT), and other mental health professionals carry professional malpractice insurance through Healthcare Providers Service Organization (HPSO) or one of the many other insurance companies. What they may not realize is that their insurance will pay for their legal defense expenses if there is a complaint filed against their license, they receive a subpoena, or they are accused of violating HIPAA or a client’s medical confidentiality.

Under such policies, the insurance company will pay the legal fees and other costs related to your defense. However, you will be required to locate and retain the appropriate attorney to represent you in the matter.

What to Look For When Retaining an Attorney to Defend You.

1. The primary qualification for any attorney you hire to represent you should be her experience in working with health professionals in the same field. If the attorney is not familiar with your area of health practice, it may be difficult for that attorney to get up to speed to represent you properly.

2. If you come across an attorney who states that he or she will help you make a statement or assist you in the investigation, but does not appear in hearings, then this is the wrong attorney. You need an attorney that can represent you from start to finish.

3. Seek and retain an attorney who accepts the insurance that you have, whether it is HPSO Insurance, CPH & Associates Insurance, Philadelphia Insurance, Trust Management Services, or another national company. This will ensure that you have an attorney who will give you the lower rates the insurance company had negotiated and will have a good working relationship established with your insurance company. If an attorney with our firm cannot represent you, we will try to find an attorney who will.

4. You also want to retain the services of an attorney who has appeared before your professional board or professional licensing authority in investigations and hearings, especially formal administrative hearings.

5. Often you will come across an attorney who only wants you to accept a consent order, stipulation, or settlement agreement. Remember that these are all merely plea bargains and you will be pleading guilty to whatever offenses are charged. In most cases, you will be innocent and need a formal administrative hearing in order to prove this.

6. You don’t necessarily need an attorney in your city, state, or location. Almost all the work on the case will be done by telephone and e-mail. You usually have only one meeting or hearing and, depending on what type of hearing it is, it could be located in many different locations. Our attorneys will travel to those locations for meetings and hearings.

7. Beware of attorneys who hold themselves out in Internet advertising as health attorneys or professional license defense attorneys but are really some other type of attorneys. We see this a lot from medical malpractice attorneys and criminal defense attorneys. Be sure you get an attorney that concentrates his or her practice in defending those in your specialty board complaints, investigations and hearings.

8. If you can’t find an attorney to meet your immediate needs through an Internet search, you may contact your insurance company or professional association and ask if they have a list of attorneys that can do the legal work you require.

For example, you may reach Healthcare Providers Service Organization at (800) 982-9491; you can reach Nurses Service Organization (NSO) at (800) 247-1500; you can reach CPH & Associates at (800) 875-1911 or (312) 987-9823. You can also access a list of professional license defense attorneys online at https://taana.org/referral/.

To learn more about finding an HPSO attorney to defend you in such matters, click here to read one of my prior blogs.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced Investigations of Mental Health Counselors, Psychologists, Social Workers and Family Therapists.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm provide legal representation to mental health counselors, psychologists, social workers, and family therapists in Department of Health (DOH) investigations, FBI investigations and other types of investigations of health professionals and providers. To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

In cases in which the health care professional has professional liability insurance or general liability insurance which provides coverage for such matters, we will seek to obtain coverage by your insurance company and will attempt to have your legal fees and expenses covered by your insurance company. If allowed, we will agree to take an assignment of your insurance policy proceeds in order to be able to submit our bills directly to your insurance company.

We also defend health professionals and health facilities in general litigation matters and business litigation matters.

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

About the Author: Carole C. Schriefer is an attorney and registered nurse. She practices with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its regional office is in the Northern Colorado, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 155 East Boardwalk Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525. Phone: (970) 416-7456. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida area.

KeyWords: Healthcare Providers Service Organization (HPSO) Insurance defense attorney, HPSO lawyer, representation for HPSO matters, representation for professional liability insurance cases, representation for licensed mental health counselors (LMHCs), mental health counselor defense lawyer, mental health counselor representation, social worker defense lawyer, representation for social workers, social worker defense attorney, social worker complaint cases, mental health counselor complaint cases, defense lawyer for psychologists, Florida health law defense attorney, medical license defense, Florida Department of Health (DOH) attorney, representation for DOH investigations, DOH defense lawyer, representation for Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) investigation, AHCA complaint defense, administrative complaint lawyer, administrative complaint defense, administrative hearings defense, representation for health care professionals, representation for doctors, representation for nurses, The Health Law Firm reviews, reviews of The Health Law Firm attorneys

“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 © 2020 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Load More Posts
Go to Top