Psychiatric Practice, Owner Agree to Pay $310,000 in FCA Settlement for Employing Doctor on OIG Exclusion List

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

On February 23, 2022, a psychiatric practice and its owner agreed to pay $310,874 to resolve allegations they improperly hired and employed a physician who was excluded from federal healthcare programs. The physician who was hired was on the OIG’s exclusion list, the “List of Excluded Individuals and Entities” (LEIE). As a result, the government took the position that claims for services the physician provided filed against government programs were illegal pursuant to the false Claims Act (FCA). Details were disclosed in a Press Release by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut.

Geriatric & Adult Psychiatry, LLC (GAP), along with the owner, entered into a civil settlement agreement to resolve their liability under the federal and state False Claims Acts, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) said in a press release.

Past Conviction Overlooked.

In 2006, the physician had been convicted in the Southern District of Florida of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud. Because of his conviction, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) excluded him from all federal healthcare programs. Such an exclusion includes Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, Veterans Administration (V.A.), and Indian Health Service (I.H.S.) programs.

When the OIG excludes an individual or entity from federal health care programs, no payments may be made for items or services furnished by that excluded individual. Additionally, the law prohibits any person or organization that receives such funds from employing or contracting with a person on the LEIE, in any way. To avoid potential liability, it advised that health care providers check the List of Excluded Individuals/Entities (LEIE) on the OIG website: http://oig.hhs.gov/exclusions.

In addition, the OIG has issued a Special Advisory Bulletin to providers who might employ or contract with an excluded individual or entity to provide guidance. To review this OIG Bulletin, click here.

For more helpful information, click here.

Despite this, to medical group hired the former physician as the clinical director in 2016 where he served in that position until 2021. During that time, both the practice and its owner billed and sought reimbursements from Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, and the Railroad Retirement Medicare Program. Additionally, GAP’s reimbursements were used to pay the physician’s salary and benefits.

Payment Prohibition & Civil Monetary Penalties (CMPs).

Health care providers receiving funds from federal health care programs must check to see if potential employees and contractors are excluded by searching the LEIE to ensure that person is not listed. Providers have mistakenly assumed that exclusion does not apply to an individual or entity that provides services that extend beyond direct patient care; this is wrong. Payment prohibition extends to anyone who chooses to employ or contract with an excluded individual or entity in any capacity. Providers who violate this prohibition are required to pay back all federal health care program funds inappropriately received and may also be subject to civil monetary penalties (CMPs) and action under the False Claims Act (FCA).

Furthermore, payment of an excluded individual’s salary, benefits, or expenses, directly linked to federal health care program funds is expressly prohibited. Click here to read my prior blog and learn more about this.

Little Known Fact: You Must Actively Apply to Get Taken Off the LEIE.

A little-known fact, often overlooked, is that a person or entity on the LEIE must actually apply to be removed from it, no matter how short the period of exclusion. Thus if a person is excluded and placed on the LEIE for only two years, they must apply to the OIG after that period of time, completing its detailed, notarized application, and be removed from the list. Removal is not automatic.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Defending Against Action to Exclude an Individual or Business from the Medicare Program and Assisting in Reinstatement Applications.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm have experience in dealing with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and defending against action to exclude an individual or business entity from the Medicare Program, in administrative hearings on this type of action, in submitting applications requesting reinstatement to the Medicare Program after exclusion, and removal from the List of Excluded Individuals and Entities (LEIE).

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:

Yankowski, Peter. “Officials: Hamden psychiatric practice to pay $310,000 settlement over employee who lost medical license.” Stamford Advocate. (February 23, 2022). Web.

Health Law Weekly. “Psychiatric Practice, Owner Pay $310K for Employing “Excluded” Individual.”American Health Law Association (AHLA). (February 25, 2022). 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 © 2022. The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

By |2023-07-29T20:00:24-04:00July 31, 2023|Categories: Nursing Law Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |0 Comments
Read More

Harvard Med School Morgue Director Allegedly Sold Body Parts, Class Action Alleges

Author headshot standing in dark suit with red tie against a dark grey backgroundBy George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

In a morbid but extremely popular class action lawsuit filed on June 16, 2023, illegal body parts sales was alleged. The lawsuit against Harvard University contained allegations that its morgue manager was selling body parts from 350-400 donated cadavers. Many donors have now requested their bodies back.

Family members of the deceased had voluntarily donated the cadavers to the prestigious institution to further the medical and scientific study of the human body.

Massachusetts state law recognizes that human beings are entitled to be treated with decency and digital after death, which includes the bodies not being mishandled, viewed, dismembered, or sold by those entrusted with them. The previous morgue manager allegedly violated this law and countless other state, federal, and international laws and treaties. State and federal law prohibits the sale of body parts, often referred to as anatomical donations. These laws have been derived from international laws and conventions that prohibit such conduct, mostly written and agreed to as a result of the Nazi atrocities of World War II.

The Class Action Lawsuit.

The manager allegedly allowed unauthorized third-party members to view the cadavers in the morgue and select which body parts they wanted to purchase. The lawsuit did not state what times and days the store was open. However, once the order was placed, the morgue manager would unlawfully dissect and sell the body parts in person and online. Additionally, the defendant would allegedly ship the body parts to various locations in the United States on demand. Officials believe that this scheme occurred from at least 2018 until March 2023. During that time, the entrepreneurial morgue manager is suspected of having done his dastardly deeds to 350 to 400 separate cadavers.

The lawsuit did not reveal what the purchasers used the body parts for. However, this is expected to come out in discovery.

The class action lawsuit claims negligence and breach of care for the morgue manager and Harvard. According to the suit, the class is defined as: “all individuals whose family members donated their bodies to Harvard and Harvard Medical School for medical research and academic study and whose cadavers were mishandled, dissected, and/or sold by the morgue manager.”

The suit claims that Harvard breached its fiduciary duty of care by allowing the cadavers to be mishandled, dissected, and sold. The negligence claim focuses on the university not taking reasonable steps to ensure that the cadavers were appropriately handled, maintained, and used for their intended purposes. The class claims that Harvard is liable for its employee’s actions because the morgue manager acted within his scope of duty when he unlawfully dissected and sold body parts from the cadavers in the medical school’s onsite morgue.

This argument made in the lawsuit seems somewhat internally inconsistent. It does not seem logical that it could have possibly been within the morgue manager’s scope of duty to act illegally. One cannot have a contract that has for its purpose carrying out an illegal act. Otherwise, I would like to see a copy of that job description (it obviously would not have been written by a Harvard lawyer)!

Massachusetts law imposes a statutory duty to preserve the rights and dignity of a deceased person’s body when a medical school takes custody for scientific and academic purposes, which is another basis for the negligence claims by the class. The plaintiffs are also claiming negligent infliction of emotional distress from both Harvard and the morgue manager since Massachusetts recognizes emotional distress in situations of knowing that the remains of a deceased family member have not been preserved as the family desired.

Harvard will undoubtedly defend itself by arguing that the acts of the errant morgue manager were intentional torts and illegal acts outside of his scope of duties. The doctrine of caveat emptor, by which an employer is held vicariously liable of the negligent acts of its employee, does not apply to intentional torts.

The plaintiffs are requesting a decision from the court stating that both Harvard and the morgue manager are liable for negligence, that the class is awarded damages for the emotional distress, and that the defendants are enjoined from continuing their unlawful practices.

Click here to visit our website and read the complaint in full (but don’t expect to be able to fall asleep after you do!)

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

The Health Law Firm provides legal services for all healthcare providers and professionals. This includes scientists, pathologists, morgue directors (technically not usually licensed health professionals), clinical professors, medical researchers, clinical investigators, 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, fellows, medical school professors, and clinical staff. Our representation includes the defense of complex medical litigation. 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 health litigation and both formal and informal administrative hearings. We also represent professionals accused of wrongdoing, patient complaints, and in audits and 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:

Dowling, Brian. “Harvard Sued Over Morgue Director’s Alleged Body Part Sales.” Law360. (June 16, 2023). Web.

Levenson, Michael. “Harvard Medical School Morgue Manager Sold Body Parts, U.S. Says.” The New York Times. (June 14, 2023). 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.

Current Open Positions with The Health Law Firm. The Health Law Firm always seeks qualified individuals interested in health law. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. If you are a current member of The Florida Bar or a qualified professional who is interested, please forward a cover letter and resume to: KBrant@TheHealthLawFirm.com or fax them to (407) 331-3030.

“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 © 2023 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

 

By |2023-06-26T12:08:28-04:00July 12, 2023|Categories: Nursing Law Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |0 Comments
Read More

Medications and Other Substances that Mimic Prohibited Drugs on Urinalysis Drug Tests: Cocaine and Imposter Substances (Part 2 of Series)

Author Headshot

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

When representing nurses and other licensed health professionals, our firm often encounters issues regarding positive drug tests that employers request. These clients include nurses, pharmacists, dental professionals, mental health counselors, therapists, etc. Job seekers should be aware that employers, particularly large companies and government organizations, may require drug tests as part of the hiring process.

These issues are particularly relevant when a health professional has applied to a hospital, a medical organization, or a placement agency for work in a hospital and is required to submit to a pre-employment drug test. The client often contends that a positive result is a false positive and that some other substance must be responsible for it.

A positive result for any drug for which you do not have a valid prescription from a physician, including marijuana, can have severe and far-reaching consequences. It could result in being eliminated from consideration for a new job or termination from a current position. It can also result in a complaint against your professional license, which could lead to its suspension or revocation. This could be devastating to your career and your future job prospects. Our firm is routinely called on to defend health professionals in such situations.

Remember to read Part 1 and Part 3 of this blog series! Part 1 deals with substances that may cause a false positive for amphetamines. Part 3 deals with substances that may cause a false positive for Marijuana and THC.

Routine Drug Testing.

Most routine drug tests are “five-panel” urinalysis drug tests to detect marijuana, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, and phencyclidine. Sometimes a “ten-panel” or “21-panel” test is used, depending on the employer. These drug tests are often immunoassay (IA) tests that screen for the common classes of drugs mentioned above. An IA drug test is typically used to evaluate the use of illegal substances and not prescribed medications or the abuse of prescribed medications. These drug tests will test for the drugs and their metabolites to assess usage.

A false positive is when a drug test detects a substance or metabolite that is not actually one that is from the prohibited drug. Instead, the test detects an imposter substance acting like the one it is looking to detect. Another urinalysis drug test used is a gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC/MS) test. This test is considered the “gold standard” of drug tests. But, due to its complexity and its cost, it is typically used only to confirm positive IA test results.

Cocaine False Positives.

Cocaine is known to have one major substance that will yield false positives in drug screens: coca leaf and coca leaf tea. Coca leaf is the source of cocaine, which is a Schedule II narcotic in the United States. Due to cocaine being an illegal substance, coca leaf and coca leaf tea are also illegal in the United States, both for brewing as a tea and for chewing.

Consumption of coca tea and the chewing of its leaves is common in South America, especially where coca leaf is grown in Peru, Bolivia, and Columbia. While coca leaf is illegal in the United States, it is still easily accessible for purchase over the Internet and in other countries. Urine analysis of subjects who ingested coca tea indicated that cocaine and two of its metabolites, benzoylecgonine (BE) and ecgonine methyl ester, were present in varying quantities.

Examples of False Positives from Coca-Leaf Tea.

We have had several clients who screened positive for cocaine on employer-ordered drug tests because of their earlier ingestion of coca leaf tea.

In one case, a nurse was visiting his grandmother from South America. The grandmother had a container of tea bags that looked like regular, commercial tea sold in the United States. He brewed a cup of tea and drank it, not knowing that it was coca leaf tea.

The next day, he had an employer-ordered drug test. His drug test was positive for cocaine. Backtracking to try to determine the source, we discovered the package that the coca leaf tea bags were in. They were clearly labeled “coca leaf” but were not labeled as containing cocaine, being illegal, or with any other warnings. The grandmother had brought these back with her on her last trip to South America.

In another case, someone had given a pharmacist a gift basket containing crackers, honey, teas and other different food products. A box of various different teas was included in the gift basket.

The pharmacist sampled the different teas at different times. However, when her employer ordered a drug test, it came back positive for cocaine. The pharmacist was suspended.

Backtracking to find the reason for the positive drug test, we located the gift basket’s label and contents and the tea box, showing that the coca leaf tea was included. The gift basket had been assembled in a foreign country and shipped to the pharmacist from outside the United States.

Amoxicillin and False Positives for Cocaine.

Amoxicillin is also rumored to be a potential source for a cocaine false positive for a urinalysis drug screening. However, a study in the Journal of Analytical Toxicology 2008 seemed to find otherwise. The results from the study found amoxicillin to be an unlikely imposter substance, although the scientific validity of the study might be questioned.

The study tested 33 urine samples from subjects who had been administered a course of amoxicillin. 31 urine samples tested negative; however, two tested positive for BE, a cocaine metabolite. The amount in the two samples that tested positive for the cocaine metabolite was less than 150 nanograms per milligram, the federal cut-off for cocaine. Therefore, the study concluded that amoxicillin is unlikely to cause a false positive urinalysis drug test for cocaine. Click here to read the full study.

I personally take issue with this conclusion. A big red flag here, however, is that this study does show that two out of the 33 samples were, in fact, positive for a cocaine metabolite, or at least its imposter. That’s six percent (6%) of the universe tested. With the millions of people who take amoxicillin every day, that equates to a pretty large number. If one million people each day are on amoxicillin, then this means 60,000 of them could test positive for cocaine on a urinalysis test.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) states that in 2019, 54.1 million prescriptions for amoxicillin were written in the U.S. If the same percentage were applied to this group, then 3,346,000 people would test positive for cocaine.

Furthermore, the drug screening tests used by many employers, especially those used by state-sponsored provider health programs or peer assistance programs such as the Florida Intervention Project for Nurses (IPN) and the Florida Professional Resources Network (PRN), often use a much lower cut-off level than the federal level.

One must also question whether the study used statistically significant samples and whether it would be considered scientifically valid. From the small numbers, it probably isn’t. However, it did produce some evidence that amoxicillin can cause a false positive for cocaine.

Other Discussions in Future Blogs.

Remember to read Part 1 and Part 3 of this blog series! Part 1 deals with substances that may cause a false positive for amphetamines. Part 3 deals with substances that may cause a false positive for Marijuana and THC.

Sources:

Algren M.D, Adam D., Micheal R. Christian M.D.. “Buyer Beware: Pitfalls in Toxicology Laboratory Testing.” Missouri Medicine: The Journal of the Missouri State Medical Association. (May 2015). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6170116/

“Can I Bring Coca Leaves into the United States?” U.S. Customs and Border Protection. (21 June 2023). https://help.cbp.gov/s/article/Article-725?language=en_US#:~:text=It%20is%20illegal%20to%20bring,in%20Bolivia%2C%20Peru%20and%20Colombia.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Outpatient antibiotic prescriptions–United States, 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/antibiotic-use/data/report-2019.html (accessed June 30, 2023)

“Cutoff levels for drugs and drug metabolites.” 10 Code of Federal Regulations Section 26.133. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-10/chapter-I/part-26/subpart-G/section-26.133 (accessed 6/30/2023, last amended 6/26/2023)

Jenkins, Amanda J., Teobaldo Llosa, Ivan Montoya, and Edward J. Cone. “Identification and Quantitation of Alkaloids in Coca Tea.” Forensic Science International. (9 February 1996). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2705900/#:~:text=This%20study%20has%20shown%20that,urine%20drug%20test%20for%20cocaine.

Olsson, Reagan. “What Medications Can Cause False Positives on Drug Tests?” Banner Health. (7 Janurary 2023). https://www.bannerhealth.com/healthcareblog/teach-me/what-can-cause-false-positives-on-drug-tests

Raouf PharmD., Mena, Jeffrey J. Bettinger PharmD, and Jeffrey Fudin PharmD. “A Practical Guide to Urine Drug Monitoring.” Federal Practitioner. (2018). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6368048/

Reisfield, G. M., Haddad, Johannsen, Voorhees, Chronister, Goldberger, Peele, & Bertholf. “Failure of amoxicillin to produce false-positive urine screens for cocaine metabolite.” Journal of analytical toxicology, 32(4), 315–318. (2008). https://academic.oup.com/jat/article/32/4/315/750650

Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys in Matters Involving PRN or IPN.

The Health Law Firm’s attorneys routinely represent nurses, pharmacists, counselors, physicians, dentists, and other health professionals in matters involving allegations of impairment, drug diversion, and drug abuse, and referrals to the Intervention Project for Nurses (IPN), the Professional Resource Network (PRN), physician health programs, and peer assistance program.

About the Authors: 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

Hartley Brooks is a law clerk at The Health Law Firm. She is preparing to attend law school.

Current Open Positions with The Health Law Firm. The Health Law Firm always seeks qualified individuals interested in health law. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. If you are a current member of The Florida Bar or a qualified professional who is interested, please forward a cover letter and resume to: Kbrant@TheHealthLawFirm.com or fax them to (407) 331-3030.

“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 © 2023 George F. Indest III. All rights reserved.

By |2023-08-16T22:08:39-04:00July 11, 2023|Categories: Nursing Law Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |0 Comments
Read More

State Nursing Boards Delay Nursing Licenses Across the U.S. Even As COVID-19 Pandemic Continues

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

Staffing shortages at hospitals across the U.S. are worsening helped along by state boards and other licensing authorities taking months to process nursing licenses, a recent NPR survey claims. As a result, thousands of new nurses who want to help during the COVID-19 pandemic are reportedly getting sidelined by state bureaucratic red tape. Now, it’s resulted in a considerable backlog in nurses waiting for jobs.

State nursing boards are usually created and charged with safeguarding the public. But there are those who claim they have become an obstacle to ensuring public safety by preventing qualified nurses from getting into the workforce. A review of statistics from nursing boards shows that new applications are taking months to be reviewed and approved when basic vetting should take only weeks.

An Investigation Into Nursing Applications.

In 2021, National Public Radio (NPR) examined license applications and found that newly graduated nurses and those moving to new states often get sidelined by state bureaucracies for months, waiting for state approval to treat patients. This is occurring at a time of extreme nursing shortages and increased demand for nurses to work during a pandemic.

Of course, we may have those who want to challenge whether or not there is a pandemic still going on. But we feel that those nurses working in hospitals right now can tell us. We also believe that not enough time has passed since the last wave went over us to state that the pandemic has ended.

The Following are some key findings from NPR’s investigation:

1. How long is too long to wait for your license? Almost one (1) in ten (10) nurses issued new licenses last year waited six (6) months or longer, according to an analysis of licensing records from 32 states. More than a third of these 226,000 registered nurses and licensed practical nurses had to wait at least three (3) months. The processing time varies because each state has its own rules. Generally, state boards have to check a nurse’s education, run a criminal background check, and wait for new graduates to pass a national exam. This all does take time. However, some of the procedures, such as fingerprinting and background checks have speeded up tremendously over the past decade.

2. Applicants are stuck in license limbo. Some state nursing boards blame slow processing times on staff shortages, increased workloads, and remote work. California’s nursing board, for example, has just 47 people on staff handling tens of thousands of applications for licenses. That’s for a state with nearly a half-million RNs. To put it into more perspective, that works out to 10,000 nurses for each employee to assist.

3. When does the clock start? NPR’s investigation found that states often start the clock on processing times only after an application is marked complete. Some nurses NPR spoke with described scenarios where they spent weeks or longer arguing with the licensing authority that their applications were complete. In addition, many state boards don’t count that lost time when measuring how long it takes to process an application.

4. Some states aren’t part of any interstate agreement. Several large states have refused to join the Nurse Licensure Compact, which allows nurses to use licenses across state lines — sort of like a driver’s license lets you drive across state lines. One reason cited for this is that many nursing boards make most of their money, sometimes tens of millions of dollars, just from the licensing fees.

Overall, researchers found that one (1) in ten (10) nurses who received new licenses from nursing boards in 2021 waited six (6) months or longer. More than one-third of the nurses waited at least three (3) months. NPR reported: “[Nurses are] emotionally exhausted. They’re physically exhausted. We add to that the frustration of not being able to get your license,” Betsy Snook, BSN, RN, who is CEO of the Pennsylvania State Nurses Association, reportedly told NPR.

To learn some helpful tips if you are applying for your nursing license, click here to read my prior blog.

Contact Health Law Attorneys With Experience Handling Licensing Issues.

If you are applying for a nursing or health care 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 nurses, physicians, dentists, 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:

“Nurses are waiting 6 months or more for licenses despite hospitals’ need for nurses.” Georgia Public Broadcasting. (March 10, 2022). Web.

Fast, Austin. “Nurses are waiting months for licenses as hospital staffing shortages spread.” NPR. (March 11, 2022). Web.

Gooch, Kelly. “Nurse license wait times complicating staffing shortages.” Becker’s Hospital Review. (March 11, 2022). 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 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 © 2022 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

By |2023-07-04T20:02:43-04:00July 6, 2023|Categories: Nursing Law Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |0 Comments
Read More

Fight Back in National Practitioner Data Bank Disputes and Appeal Adverse Reports

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

The National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB), created in 1986, was part of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA). Its purpose is to improve the quality of health care by encouraging state licensing boards, hospitals, health care entities, and professional societies to report into a national data bank those physicians and health professionals who demonstrate substandard skills or engage in unprofessional behavior.  In part, it is used to make sure that incompetent physicians do not move from one state to another in order to avoid the consequences.

Adverse Reports Stay in the NPDB for Life.

How long does an adverse NPDB report stay in the Data Bank?  I have received two (2) different answers to this question from different authorities.  I was originally informed that adverse NPDB reports are for life, and believed that for my first 25 or so years of practice.  However, more recently I have been informed that they only stay in the Data Bank for 50 years.  However, there is little difference whether it is actually 50 years or for life.  For most physicians 50 years is a lifetime for a medical career.

A Negative NPDB Report Has the Ability to Ruin Your Career.

All reports in the NPDB on an individual can and are queried by state licensing boards, hospitals, and other health care facilities to assist in investigating adverse incidents and disciplinary actions that may have been taken against a physician applying for a license or clinical privileges. Therefore, adverse NPDB reports can have long-lasting, devastating effects on the career of a health care provider.

Additionally, the real-world consequences of being the subject of an NPDB report include possible exclusion from the panels of health plans and independent physician organizations, termination for cause from state Medicaid programs, loss of medical staff privileges at hospitals and health facilities, increases in professional liability insurance premiums, exclusion from the Medicare Program, and additional licensing investigations and potential discipline by other organizations and states.

If you are the subject of an adverse NPDB report, there are several actions you should take to correct any errors, provide your side of the facts, and possibly have the adverse report removed or corrected.

What Happens If You Disagree With Your Report?

Reports to the NPDB are, for all practical purposes for life, as explained above.  But healthcare professionals may appeal adverse reports through a dispute resolution process involving the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). You can dispute reports if you disagree with factual accuracy of the report or if the event reported are not proper under NPDB guidelines.  For example, getting fired from a job or having a contract terminated for cause are not proper events to cause an adverse NPDB report. We have had to represent physicians in the past having these types of reports removed from the NPDB.

It’s important to note that entering the report into dispute status does not automatically trigger a review. When in dispute status, you have to notify the reporting organization.  The reporting organization can correct, void, or choose to leave the report unchanged. If after 60 days you have received no response from the reporting organization, or you are unsatisfied with the response you received, you can elevate the report to dispute resolution (appeal).

Visit the NPDB website here for more details on this process.

For more reference, you can see what a successful voided NPDB report looks like here. This example results from The Health Law Firm’s recent successful appeal of an adverse NPDB report for a client.

Your Career May Depend On Having Legal Counsel Who Understands the NPDB.

If you have received a negative National Practitioner Data Bank report and wish to appeal it, contact The Health Law Firm. Our attorneys routinely represent physicians, dentists, and other healthcare professionals in disputing and appealing NPDB reports. To learn more, click here to read one of my prior blogs.

Don’t Wait Until It’s Too Late, Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys.

The Health Law Firm attorneys routinely represent physicians, physician assistants (PAs), nurses, nurse practitioners (NPs), dentists, and other health professionals in dealing with reports being made to the NPDB, disputing NPDB reports and appealing NPDB reports, hospital clinical privileges hearings, medical staff fair hearings, medical staff peer reviews. 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 Toll-Free (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., 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 © 2022 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

By |2023-06-23T20:00:44-04:00June 25, 2023|Categories: Nursing Law Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |0 Comments
Read More

Supreme Court Rules FCA Case Liability Requires Defendants’ Subjective Belief

Author and attorney headshot leaning with hands folded in frontBy George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

On June 1, 2023, the Supreme Court handed down an opinion on the knowledge standard required in False Claims Act (FCA) cases in a precedential decision that leaves the whistleblower plaintiffs bar reeling. In a unanimous ruling, the high court said liability of defendants in FCA cases would be based on their own belief in the falsity of their claims, rather than an “objectively reasonable” interpretation of the law or regulation. This appears to set the age-old maxim of “ignorance of the law is no excuse” on its head. Now, apparently, a defendant can argue that he, she or it was ignorant of the law and win.

The case before the Supreme Court was consolidated from two lower court decisions in the cases United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc. and United States ex rel. Proctor v. Safeway.

When Subjective Belief is Relevant in FCA Cases.

In the cases which the Supreme Court decided, the whistleblowers accused SuperValu and Safeway of violating the FCA by overcharging Medicare, Medicaid, and the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program for prescription drugs.

According to the rules of these programs, pharmacies cannot charge the government more than the “usual and customary” price for a drug, which is the cash price charged to the general public. The plaintiffs claimed that the pharmacies overbilled the government when they started offering discounted prices to consumers under a price-match program to compete with other pharmacies. They also offered a membership discount program but did not adjust their “usual and customary” prices, continuing to charge the government more than they should have.

The Lower Court’s Ruling.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in April 2022, that the pharmacies had submitted false claims by not reporting their discounted prices, which were the “usual and customary” prices. The appeals court also stated that the retailers had made reasonable interpretations of ambiguous laws without being warned against it by authoritative guidance. The circuit court referred to the Safeco standard from the Supreme Court’s 2007 Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Burr case in its decision.

Click here to learn more about the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal’s ruling.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling.

The Seventh Circuit’s perspective was rejected by the Supreme Court, which instead focused on the defendant’s intentions when submitting false claims. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for a unanimous court stated, “What matters for an FCA case is whether the defendant knew the claim was false. Thus, if [the defendants] correctly interpreted the relevant phrase and believed their claims were false, they could have known their claims were false.” Read the opinion in full here.

Under this rationale, a defendant could successfully make the argument, “I didn’t know the claim was false and I never bothered to do anything to make sure of that fact.” Even objectively unreasonable claims, such as charging a million dollars for a drug which only cost one dollar, could be successfully defended.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Handling Health Care Fraud Investigations and other Legal Proceedings.

The Health Law Firm represents healthcare providers in Medicare and Medicaid audits, and in RAC audits throughout Florida and across the U.S. We also represent health providers in civil and administrative litigation by government agencies and insurance companies attempting to recoup claims that have been paid.

The Health Law Firm’s attorneys routinely represent physicians, dentists, pharmacists, psychotherapists, medical groups, clinics, pharmacies, assisted living facilities (ALFs), home health agencies, nursing homes, group homes and other healthcare providers in Medicaid and Medicare investigations, audits and recovery actions.

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.

Sources:

Elberg, Jacob. “Supreme Court maintains focus on defendant’s subjective beliefs in False Claims Act cases.” SCOTUS Blog. (June 1, 2023). Web.

Wilson, Daniel. “Justices Say FCA Liability Hinges On Defendants’ Beliefs.” Law360. (June 1, 2023). Web.

Gaivin, Kathleen. “False Claims Act ruling by High Court a ‘clear win’ for government, expert says.” McKnights Senior Living. (June 2, 2023). 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, Florida 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620.

Current Open Positions with The Health Law Firm. The Health Law Firm always seeks qualified individuals interested in health law. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. If you are a current member of The Florida Bar or a qualified professional who is interested, please forward a cover letter and resume to: PAlexander@TheHealthLawFirm.com or fax them to (407) 331-3030.

“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 © 2023. The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

By |2023-06-09T14:23:34-04:00June 9, 2023|Categories: Nursing Law Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |0 Comments
Read More

Medicare Revocation and the Collateral Damage It Can Cause Health Care Providers

Attorney and Author 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
Many healthcare professionals are unaware of the adverse long-term collateral effects of Medicare revocation or exclusion on their careers and future employment. However, if you are a physician, dentist, nurse, mental health counselor, psychologist, pharmacist, physician assistant, nurse practitioner, massage therapist, or other licensed health professional whose license is revoked or suspended, there may still be hope.


Lasting Consequences of Medicare Revocation. 

A revocation or exclusion from Medicare is often a severe consequence of license discipline on a professional license and can devastate a provider’s career. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) can revoke a healthcare provider’s agreement to participate in Medicare. When this occurs, their Medicare billing privileges are terminated.  Their legal authority to write prescriptions, referrals or orders for tests paid by Medicare also vanishes.
Additionally, the exclusion can last for many years. This can be a career-ending move for many healthcare providers especially physicians, as Medicare revocation is reported to the National Practitioner Databank (NPDB). In addition, it can potentially affect their opportunities to work in hospitals with other Medicare providers, or on health insurance panels.
For this reason, healthcare providers need to retain a health law attorney with experience in licensing issues who can help them navigate the complex legal system Medicare presents. A skilled attorney can review the facts of the case, develop a strategy for defending the provider’s license, recommend actions to avoid or mitigate the damages, and represent them in administrative hearings or proceedings in court. In some cases, an effective legal strategy may minimize the impact of discipline or even prevent Medicare revocation or exclusion. However, the best way to protect against license discipline and its consequences is to ensure that you are in compliance with Medicare standards, regulations and procedures.
To learn more, read one of my prior blogs here.

Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys in Healthcare Licensing Issues.

If you have had a license suspended or revoked, or you are facing imminent action against your license, it is imperative that you contact an experienced healthcare attorney to assist in defending you.  Remember, your license is your livelihood. It is not recommended that you should not attempt to pursue these matters without the assistance of an experienced health care attorney. The Health Law Firm routinely represents physicians, dentists, nurses, medical groups, clinics, and other healthcare providers in Medicare issues and in defense of actions in personal and facility licensing actions.
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:

Hollender, Allison and Wortley, Mackenzie. “Collateral Consequences of Medicare Revocations.” AHLA. (March 9, 2021). Web.
Simas, Steven. “Collateral Consequence of Healthcare License Discipline – Medicare Exclusion.” SIMAS & Associates. (October 3, 2017). 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 or Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620.

Attorney Positions with The Health Law Firm.  The Health Law Firm is always looking for qualified attorneys interested in the practice of health law. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. If you are a member of The Florida Bar and are interested, forward a cover letter and your resume to: PAlexander@TheHealthLawFirm.com or fax to: (407) 331-3030.

“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 © 2023 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.
By |2023-05-17T14:08:53-04:00June 9, 2023|Categories: Nursing Law Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |0 Comments
Read More

Florida Surgeon Gets 7 Years for Committing $28 Million in Health Care Fraud

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

On November 18, 2021, a Tallahassee surgeon was sentenced to seven years in federal prison for committing health care fraud, conspiracy to commit health care fraud, and aggravated identity theft. The scheme involved performing hundreds of medically unnecessary, invasive surgical procedures on his patients.

The defendant, a dual citizen of the United States and Ghana, pled guilty to all 58 counts against him in federal court on December 18, 2020. Jason R. Cody, Acting United States Attorney for the Northern District of Florida, announced the sentence. Read more about the sentencing here.

Compromising the Health and Safety of Patients For Illegal Profit.

For almost four years, beginning in 2016 until his arrest in February 2020, it is alleged that the surgeon solicited his victims by establishing relationships with churches, nursing homes, hospitals, and outreach organizations. The 58-count indictment alleges the surgeon defrauded Medicare and Medicaid by billing for dozens of procedures that he never performed. A detailed list shows each claim was for more than $21,000. Federal prosecutors said that the claims that were improperly billed reached $23 million.

A later motion filed by the government alleges that the doctor’s calendar showed that he performed 14 surgeries in one day.

In addition to performing unnecessary surgical procedures, the doctor was accused of victimizing others by falsifying their medical records to reflect surgical procedures that he did not perform. He created erroneous and misleading medical records that could cause doctors who treated the same patients in the future to commit errors in their treatment of the same patients.

The Consequences of the Surgeon’s Actions.

In addition to prison time, the sentence included forfeiture of the surgeon’s assets in the United States and overseas. The assets included luxury vehicles, jewelry, and homes located in Manhattan, Miami, and Houston. The court also ordered the payment of $28.4 million in restitution.

“Instead of caring for his patients, this defendant targeted vulnerable members of our community, subjected them to unnecessary surgical procedures, and falsified documents so he could line his pockets with millions of taxpayer dollars,” a law enforcement authority reportedly stated.

Click here to read the press release in full issued from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to learn more.

To read about a similar case involving another healthcare professional, click here to read my prior blog.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced with Investigations of Health Professionals and Providers.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm provide legal defense representation to physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, CRNAs, dentists, pharmacists, psychologists, and other health providers in healthcare fraud investigations, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) investigations, FBI investigations, Medicare and Medicaid investigations, Office of Inspector General (OIG) actions, Department of Health (DOH) investigations, and other types of investigations of health professionals and providers.

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.

Sources:

Paavola, Amy. “Florida physician gets 7-year sentence for $29M fraud scheme.” Becker’s Hospital Review. (November 18, 2021). Web.

AHLA. “Florida Surgeon Draws Seven-Year Prison Term for $28 Million Health Care Fraud.” American Health Law Association. (December 3, 2021). Web.

Casey, Monica. “Florida Surgeon Draws Seven-Year Prison Term for $28 Million Health Care Fraud.” WCTV. (November 18, 2021). 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 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 © 2022 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

 

By |2023-05-30T20:02:53-04:00June 1, 2023|Categories: Nursing Law Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |0 Comments
Read More

Medications and Other Substances that Mimic Prohibited Drugs on Urinalysis Drug Tests (Part 1 of a Blog Series)

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law
In representing nurses and other licensed health professionals, we constantly discuss positive drug screenings, usually from employer-ordered drug testing, with our clients.  These clients include nurses, pharmacists, dental professionals, mental health counselors, therapists, etc.  Often these individuals need to remember that if they apply for a job with a new employer or are working for a large corporation or the government, they are subject to employer-ordered drug screenings.  Most problems arise when the professional has applied to a hospital or a placement agency for work in a hospital and they must submit to a pre-employment drug test.
The client often contends that the result is a false positive and that some other substance must be responsible for it.

A positive result for any drug for which you do not have a valid prescription from a physician, including marijuana, will cause you to be eliminated from consideration for a new job or terminated from a current position and a complaint against your professional license, which could cause you to lose it.  We are routinely called on to defend such situations.

Series of Blogs to Discuss Substances that Can Mimic Prohibited Drugs on Drug Tests.

In the years I have been doing this, I have encountered many cases in which other substances have caused a positive result for a prohibited substance on a drug screening test.

In this series of blogs, I intend to discuss some of the substances scientifically shown to cause false positives on employer-ordered drug screening tests.  This is the first in the series.

Over-the-Counter Medications Mimicking Amphetamines on Drug Tests.

Following is a discussion of substances that can cause a false positive for amphetamines on a urinalysis drug test.  This material comes from an article in Case Reports in Psychiatry published in 2013. (Ref. 1)
Many prescription pharmaceuticals and over-the-counter (OTC) medications have been previously reported in the literature to cause a false-positive result for amphetamines on urine drug screens. Many OTC medications have been reported in scientific literature to produce false positives for amphetamines on urine drug screenings, chiefly antihistamines.

The OTC medications that have been documented to and are well known as causing false positives for amphetamines on drug tests include nasal decongestants, Vicks inhaler, MDMA (3,4-Methylenedioxy methamphetamine;  commonly known as ecstacy, molly, mandy or X), and pseudoephedrine.  (Refs. 1-5)  Some of these are prohibited medications that cannot be prescribed and are only available as “street drugs” such as MDMA.

Prescription Medications Documented as Mimicking Amphetamines.

Prescription medications known to have mimicked amphetamines on testing include antipsychotics and antidepressants.  (Refs. 1 & 2)
The prescription medications known to cause false-positive amphetamine urine drug screen include fluoxetine, selegiline, ranitidine, trazodone, nefazodone, brompheniramine, phenylpropanolamine, chlorpromazine, promethazine, ephedrine, methamphetamine, and labetalol.  (Refs. 2-5)  However, the fact that the individual taking the drug test might have a prescription for one of these might cause the employer to disqualify the employee or potential employee from consideration for the job.
Bupropion (an atypical antidepressant that inhibits norepinephrine and dopamine re-uptake), is a drug used to treat depression and smoking cessation, but may also be used off-label to treat ADHD.  It has also been documented as causing false positive results for amphetamines on drug screenings.  (Ref. 6)
The drug atomoxetine has metabolites that are similar to those of amphetamines (phenylpropan-1-amine verses phenyl-propan-2-amine).  This could also result in a false positive on a urine drug screen.  (Ref. 1)

 

Other Discussions in Future Blogs.

In future blogs, I intend to discuss false positive claims associated with use of ibuprofen, amoxicillin, coca leaf tea, poppy seeds and other common substances and medications.  Stay tuned.

Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys in Matters Involving PRN or IPN.

The Health Law Firm’s attorneys routinely represent physicians, dentists, nurses and other health professionals in matters involving PRN or IPN. Our attorneys also represent health providers in Department of Health investigations, before professional boards, in licensing matters, and in administrative hearings.

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.

References:

1. Fenderson JL, Stratton AN, Domingo JS, Matthews GO, Tan CD. Amphetamine positive urine toxicology screen secondary to atomoxetine. Case Rep Psychiatry. 2013;2013:381261. doi: 10.1155/2013/381261. Epub 2013 Jan 30. PMID: 23424703; PMCID: PMC3570929.
(Accessed on May 20, 2023.)
2. Brahm NC, Yeager LL, Fox MD, Farmer KC, Palmer TA. Commonly prescribed medications and potential false-positive urine drug screens. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2010 Aug 15;67(16):1344-50. doi: 10.2146/ajhp090477. PMID: 20689123.
3. Vincent EC, Zebelman A, Goodwin C, Stephens MM. Clinical inquiries. What common substances can cause false positives on urine screens for drugs of abuse? J Fam Pract. 2006 Oct;55(10):893-4, 897. PMID: 17014756.
4. Rapuri SB, Ramaswamy S, Madaan V, Rasimas JJ, Krahn LE. ‘Weed’ out false-positive urine drug screens. Current Psychiatry. 2006;5(8):107–110. [Google Scholar]
5. Moeller KE, Lee KC, Kissack JC. Urine drug screening: practical guide for clinicians. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008 Jan;83(1):66-76. doi: 10.4065/83.1.66. Erratum in: Mayo Clin Proc. 2008 Jul;83(7):851. PMID: 18174009.
6. Reidy L, Walls HC, Steele BW. Crossreactivity of bupropion metabolite with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays designed to detect amphetamine in urine. Ther Drug Monit. 2011 Jun;33(3):366-8. doi: 10.1097/FTD.0b013e3182126d08. PMID: 21436763.

 

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 Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620.

Current Open Positions with The Health Law Firm.  The Health Law Firm always seeks qualified individuals interested in health law.  Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area.  If you are a current member of The Florida Bar or a qualified professional who is interested, please forward a cover letter and resume to: PAlexander@TheHealthLawFirm.com or fax them to (407) 331-3030.

“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 © 2023 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.
By |2023-05-23T11:42:48-04:00May 23, 2023|Categories: Nursing Law Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |0 Comments
Read More
“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A.
The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2022 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.
FacebookInstagramLinkedInTwitterYouTube
Toggle Sliding Bar Area
Go to Top