In the News

The field of health care is frequently in the news with technology updates, privacy breaches, innovative procedures, malpractice claims, etc. Learn more about the happenings of health care providers (physicians, nurses, dentists, hospitals, nursing homes, pain management clinics, medical students, mental health counselors, etc.) in Florida and around the United States.

New Law Passed in Florida Aimed at Healthcare Professional Background Screening

Attorney Michael L. SmithBy Michael L. Smith, R.R.T., J.D., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

For several years, many healthcare professionals have been required to pass a Level II background check in order to work in most Florida healthcare facilities licensed by the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA). Many healthcare professionals are also required to pass a Level II background check in order to be licensed by the Florida Department of Health (DOH). In March 2020, the Florida Legislature passed House Bill 713, which will add the offenses of battery on a vulnerable adult and battery on a patient or resident of certain healthcare facilities (primarily nursing facilities) as a disqualifying offense. The law took effect on July 1, 2020. Previously, only felony battery and battery on a minor were disqualifying offenses for purposes of the Level II background screening.

More Details on the New Legislation.

A health professional who previously passed the Level II background check may nevertheless be deemed “not eligible” for employment in a licensed health facility on the next Level II background check. This would occur if the practitioner has been found guilty of, regardless of adjudication, or entered a plea of nolo contendere or guilty to battery of a vulnerable adult, or battery on a patient or resident of a healthcare facility. (This is the wording of the statute, not mine.)

A practitioner who is determined to be “not eligible” on a Level II background check due to a disqualifying offense must apply for an exemption from that disqualifying offense, in order to be permitted to work. The practitioner seeking an exemption has the burden of proving that the exemption should be granted. The provider must prove this with clear and convincing evidence, a standard that is higher and stricter than that in a civil trial.

Any health professional seeking an exemption from a disqualifying offense should seek the assistance of an experienced health law attorney familiar with the application process, and the types of evidence that can prove that the health professional should be granted an exemption.

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

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

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

About the Author: Michael L. Smith, R.R.T., J.D., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is an attorney with 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.

KeyWords: representation for medical license defense, legal representation for nursing license defense, background screening exemption attorney, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) exemption attorney, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) background screening exemption attorney, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) practice disqualification lawyer, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) practice disqualification waiver legal counsel, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) letter disqualifying for employment, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) administrative hearing lawyer, disqualification from employment working in health facility lawyer, healthcare business litigation matters, The Health Law Firm, reviews of The Health Law Firm Attorneys, The Health Law Firm attorney reviews, legal representation for medical license investigation, legal representation for nursing license investigation, professional license defense lawyer, legal representation for physicians, doctor defense legal representation, legal representation for nurses, nurse defense legal representation, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) formal hearing on work exemption, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) formal 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 © 2021 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

How an American Board of Internal Medicine Policy is Robbing America of Qualified Physicians

By Achal A. Aggarwal, M.B.A., J.D.

In July 2012, the American Board of Internal Medicine (“ABIM”) implemented a policy change placing limits on how long a physician could be considered “board eligible.”  This policy nearly ended the ability of many otherwise qualified physicians to become certified in internal medicine.  In many cases, this also caused them to lose hospital clinical privileges or to not qualify for them.

Board eligibility and board certification are big deals in the medical community, as you know.  A physician who is not board eligible or board certified stands to lose a lucrative career. Insurance companies will not allow the physicians on their panels; medical groups refrain from hiring them, and hospital medical staffs refuse them privileges.  This then forces many physicians to open private practices on a cash-basis, a business model that may be impossible to sustain in today’s healthcare system.

Details of the Policy.

Prior to 2012, internal medicine physicians could practice medicine under the designation “board eligible” and still get hired by hospitals and get onto health insurance panels.  Additionally, ABIM did not have a time limit on when a physician needed to become board certified.  This allowed many safe, capable, and qualified physicians to provide health care to patients throughout the United States without having to become board certified, meeting hospital or insurance company requirements.

ABIM Sets a Deadline.

If the physician failed to become board certified within those seven years, then the physician could only regain their board eligibility by completing one-year of retraining.  ABIM’s policy provided physicians who finished an internal medicine residency before 2012 a seven (7) year time period to become board certified in internal medicine.  Many physicians did not even realize this rule applied until 2019 when the seven (7) year period ran, and applications began being denied.

With the ABIM’s policy change, many of those physicians have lost their board eligible status, lost their clinical privileges or had insurance contracts terminated.  The term “board eligible” is no longer even recognized by the ABIM.  Physicians are prohibited from even using the term any longer.

Retraining is required to be at a U.S. training program accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (“ACGME”) or at a Canadian training program accredited by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (“RCPSC”).

However, no such limited retraining program appears to exist.  Many physicians who have been practicing for ten years or longer cannot apply for board certification because they are unable to find or complete an accredited training program that will retrain them for just one year.


So What Can You Do If You Missed the Time Limit?

An alternative is that a physician can submit a request for an exception from the ABIM’s 2012 policy. A physician can request that their board eligibility be extended to take the internal medicine board certification exam.  The request for such an exception must be submitted to the ABIM’s Staff Credentials Committee.  However, these exceptions are rarely granted.

If you are in a residency of fellowship program in internal medicine, be sure you do not forget about the seven (7) years limitation on applying for certification.

If you decide to petition for an exception to the time period for applying for, we recommend contacting a qualified health law attorney who has experience in dealing with the ABIM and can assist in preparing such a request.  There is no guarantee of success, but at least you will have attorneys working for you who know what they are doing.

For even more information, read my prior blog here.


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

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm provide legal representation to physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, CRNAs, dentists, pharmacists, psychologists and other health providers in investigations and hearings of all types.  This includes board certification hearings, medical board hearings, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) hearings, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) hearings, medical staff peer review and clinical privileges hearings, FBI Investigations, DOJ Investigations, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) investigations, Medicare and Medicaid overpayment demands and hearings, and other types of investigations of health professionals and providers.  We also undertake civil litigation in the same types of cases.

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: Achal A. Aggarwal, M.B.A., J.D. practices health law with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice.  Its main office in the Orlando, Florida area.   The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave. Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone:  (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com

KeyWords: American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) defense lawyers, legal representation for ABIM investigations, legal representation for ABIM discipline, legal representation for ABIM certification, legal representation for Board representation, legal representation for Board investigations, defense attorney for Board investigations, attorney for Board representation, legal representation for medical students, legal representation for medical residents, legal representation for medical fellows, legal representation for physician employment agreement, physician employment contract attorney, legal representation for physician license revocation, licensure defense attorney, legal representation for health care professionals, health law defense attorney, The Health Law Firm, reviews of The Health Law Firm, The Health Law Firm attorney reviews board certification hearings, medical board hearings

“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.

Two Admins at a Veterans Home Criminally Charged For Mishandling Deadly COVID-19 Outbreak

George Indest Headshot

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

On September 25, 2020, two administrators at a Massachusetts veterans home were criminally charged with negligence for their role in a COVID-19 outbreak that killed 76 veterans. Attorney General (AG) Maura Healey reportedly stated that the criminal case involving Soldiers’ Home in Holyoke (SHH) is the first in the country against nursing home operators related to the pandemic.

Mishandling of the Coronavirus Outbreak.

The superintendent and the facility’s former medical director were indicted by a grand jury and charged with recklessly permitting bodily injury or abuse to the residents. The charges stem from their decision to combine two dementia units in March of 2020. They are accused of packing residents who were positive for the coronavirus into the same space as those with no symptoms. According to the AG, the decision contributed to the death of at least 76 residents at the facility.

The Investigation.

The AG’s Office began investigating in early April 2020 after learning of serious issues with COVID-19 infection control procedures at SHH. The investigation found that staffing shortages led to the decision to consolidate the two dementia units, totaling 42 residents. It resulted in confirmed COVID-19-positive residents being placed within feet of other veterans at the facility. The AG’s Office alleges that this decision was reckless from an infection control perspective and put the asymptomatic veterans at an increased risk of contracting COVID-19 from the positive ones.

Since March 1, 2020, 76 veterans who contracted the coronavirus at SHH have died, officials said. Click here to read the Attorney General’s press release on the case.

To read about a similar case against a Florida nursing home, click here.

Contact a Health Law Attorney Experienced in the Representation of Veterans Administration (VA) Physician Representation and Military Physician Representation.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm have represented nursing home administrators, health care executives, nurses, nurse practitioners, assisted living facilities, skilled nursing facilities, and health professionals working for the Veterans Administration (VA) throughout the United States. Representation has included personnel and employment issues, disciplinary action, investigations, peer review investigations, clinical privileges actions, fair hearings, National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) actions, and appeals.

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

Sources:

Durkin, Alanna. “2 Charged Over Handling of Virus Outbreak at Veterans Home.” Associated Press. (September 25, 2020). Web.

Dowling, Bryan. “Mass. Vet Home Leaders Charged Over Deadly Virus Outbreak.” Law360. (September 25, 2020). Web.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas 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 © 2020 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

 

New Sweeping Privacy Legislation Announced: The SAFE DATA Act

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

On September 17, 2020, Republican members of the Senate Commerce Committee introduced sweeping federal privacy legislation. The proposed law is called the Setting an American Framework to Ensure Data Access, Transparency, and Accountability (SAFE DATA) Act. The Act is a combination of bills previously introduced in the Senate: the Consumer Data Protection Act, Filter Bubble Transparency Act, and the Deceptive Experiences to Online Users Reduction Act. It hasn’t passed, yet, so let’s wait and see.

HAH! You thought you had learned all of the acronyms and abbreviations because you know what HIPAA, HITECH, FERPA, USCDPA, and FOIA mean. Let’s see how long it takes you to remember what this one stands for.

Details of the SAFE DATA Act.

This proposed legislation has three main components if passed into actual law. It:

1. Provides consumers with more choice and control over their data (allegedly),
2. Directs business to be more transparent and accountable (allegedly), and
3. Strengthens the FTC’s enforcement power (allegedly).

The Act would provide consumer rights, such as access, notice, deletion, opting-out, correction, and a right to data portability. It also prohibits covered entities from discriminating against consumers who utilize some of the proposed rights. It will prohibit organizations from denying goods or services to individuals because they have exercised any of their rights as set forth in the bill.

Implementation of the bill would be financed through a $100 million appropriation to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to enforce its provisions. Therefore, the FTC would gain the authority to obtain injunctions and impose other sanctions for violations.

Integrating Other Privacy Bill Provisions.

The SAFE DATA Act incorporates three main bill provisions into the proposal.

First, it includes the Filter Bubble Transparency Act (don’t ask). It requires a notice on public-facing websites that use algorithmic ranking systems

Second, it contains provisions from the Deceptive Experiences To Online Users Reduction (“DETOUR”) bill (ouch!). This provision makes it unlawful for an online service with more than 100 million authenticated users to use a user interface to impair user autonomy.

Third, like the United States Consumer Data Privacy Act (CDPA), the proposal requires companies to obtain affirmative, express consent from the customer before processing or transferring individuals’ sensitive data.

According to Julie Brill, former Commissioner of the FTC, a comprehensive privacy law would also address consent and collection issues related to COVID-19 health data, while at the same time promoting racial equality and prohibiting data discrimination. Boy, that’s great; who knew this was likely to be accomplished in our lifetimes.

View the proposed Safe Data Act in full.

You may also read one of my prior blogs to learn more about HIPAA privacy rights violations and medical confidentiality.


Contact a Health Law Attorney Experienced in Defending HIPAA Complaints and Violations.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm represent physicians, medical groups, nursing homes, home health agencies, pharmacies, hospitals, and other healthcare providers and institutions in investigating and defending alleged HIPAA complaints and violations and in preparing Corrective Action Plans (CAPs).

For more information about HIPAA violations, electronic health records or corrective action plans (CAPs) please visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com or call (407) 331-6620 or toll-free (888) 331-6620.

Sources:

Cox, Ayeisha. “Lawmakers Introduce the SAFE DATA Act.” American Health Lawyers Association (AHLA). (October 2, 2020). Web.

Traylor. Christian. “Federal Data Privacy Legislation: Will it Help the US Remain Competitive in the Global Marketplace?” JD Supra. (September 29, 2020). Web.

Panakal, Dominic Dhil. “Senate Republicans Stitch Together Safe Data Ideas into New Bill.” The National Law Review. (September 24, 2020).

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.

“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.

HHS Changes Regulatory Process: Secretary Must Sign All Agency Rulemaking

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

In a September 15, 2020 memorandum, the current Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Alex Azar, barred the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other federal health agencies under his authority from independently enacting any new federal regulations. The memo establishes that the Secretary must sign all agency rulemaking. This new policy affects all rules coming from all HHS agencies and offices, the department said, including the FDA, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and Office for Civil Rights. It doesn’t apply to guidance documents, emergency use authorizations, or vaccine or drug approvals.

How long this policy stands after President-elect Biden is sworn in is anybody’s guess. It is my guess that it won’t last long.

Why Make the Changes?

According to HHS, the new regulation-making procedures are to ensure consistency within HHS, compliance with congressional intent, the need to minimize the risk of litigation, and to provide public accountability. HHS regulations have been challenged in court based on the argument that officials who signed new regulations did not have the proper authority to do so.

The memo attempts to rationalize the change in the face of critics who claim that the move could negatively affect public trust in approval of COVID-19 vaccines and the entire approval process.

Rulemaking Process Before and After the Memo.

Before the policy change, the law and established departmental procedure required that all new regulations go through departmental and White House clearance and receive the Secretary’s approval. The regulations were typically signed by the Secretary and by the head of the agency involved. In some instances, other officials to whom authority had been delegated signed the new regulations.

Now, all HHS regulations will still go through departmental and White House clearance and will continue to be approved by the Secretary. But, the change effectively bars the FDA and other health agencies from signing off on any new regulations regarding the nation’s food, medicine, and other products under the HHS umbrella. The HHS Secretary himself must now sign all final regulations.

HHS released the following statement on this action:

“Before and after this action, no regulation issues from any part of HHS without the approval of the Secretary and the White House. The only change made by this memo is that, instead of the Secretary’s just approving all agency regulations, each regulation now also will be formally signed by him.”

Click here to read the HHS Statement on Regulatory Process.

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:

Stein, Shira. “HHS Secretary to Sign All Rules in Bid to Stem Litigation.” Bloomberg Law. (September 21, 2020). Web.

Keller and Heckman LLP. “A New Policy by HHS Secretary Alex Azar Will Prevent FDA and Other Health Agencies From Signing Final Rules.” National Law Review. (September 21, 2020). Web.

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

 

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2020 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Florida Dentist’s COVID-19 Interruption Insurance Claim Dismissed by Judge

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.

 

Two Administrators Charged With Negligence For Deadly COVID-19 Outbreak at Veterans Home

George Indest Headshot

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

On September 25, 2020, two administrators at a Massachusetts veterans home were criminally charged with negligence for their role in a COVID-19 outbreak that killed 76 veterans. Attorney General (AG) Maura Healey reportedly stated that the criminal case involving Soldiers’ Home in Holyoke (SHH) is the first in the country against nursing home operators related to the pandemic.

Mishandling of the Coronavirus Outbreak.

The superintendent and the facility’s former medical director were indicted by a grand jury and charged with recklessly permitting bodily injury or abuse to the residents. The charges stem from their decision to combine two dementia units in March of 2020. They are accused of packing residents who were positive for the coronavirus into the same space as those with no symptoms. According to the AG, the decision contributed to the death of at least 76 residents at the facility.

The Investigation.

The AG’s Office began investigating in early April 2020 after learning of serious issues with COVID-19 infection control procedures at SHH. The investigation found that staffing shortages led to the decision to consolidate the two dementia units, totaling 42 residents. It resulted in confirmed COVID-19-positive residents being placed within feet of other veterans at the facility. The AG’s Office alleges that this decision was reckless from an infection control perspective and put the asymptomatic veterans at an increased risk of contracting COVID-19 from the positive ones.

Since March 1, 2020, 76 veterans who contracted the coronavirus at SHH have died, officials said. Click here to read the Attorney General’s press release on the case.

To read about a similar case against a Florida nursing home, click here.

Contact a Health Law Attorney Experienced in the Representation of Veterans Administration (VA) Physician Representation and Military Physician Representation.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm have represented nursing home administrators, health care executives, nurses, nurse practitioners, assisted living facilities, skilled nursing facilities, and health professionals working for the Veterans Administration (VA) throughout the United States. Representation has included personnel and employment issues, disciplinary action, investigations, peer review investigations, clinical privileges actions, fair hearings, National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) actions, and appeals.

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

Sources:

Durkin, Alanna. “2 Charged Over Handling of Virus Outbreak at Veterans Home.” Associated Press. (September 25, 2020). Web.

Dowling, Bryan. “Mass. Vet Home Leaders Charged Over Deadly Virus Outbreak.” Law360. (September 25, 2020). Web.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas 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 © 2020 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

 

Senate Republicans Announce Comprehensive Privacy Legislation: The SAFE DATA Act

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

On September 17, 2020, Republican members of the Senate Commerce Committee introduced sweeping federal privacy legislation. The proposed law is called the Setting an American Framework to Ensure Data Access, Transparency, and Accountability (SAFE DATA) Act. The Act is a combination of bills previously introduced in the Senate: the Consumer Data Protection Act, Filter Bubble Transparency Act, and the Deceptive Experiences to Online Users Reduction Act. It hasn’t passed, yet, so let’s wait and see.

HAH! You thought you had learned all of the acronyms and abbreviations because you know what HIPAA, HITECH, FERPA, USCDPA, and FOIA mean. Let’s see how long it takes you to remember what this one stands for.

Details of the SAFE DATA Act.

This proposed legislation has three main components if passed into actual law. It:

1. Provides consumers with more choice and control over their data (allegedly),
2. Directs business to be more transparent and accountable (allegedly), and
3. Strengthens the FTC’s enforcement power (allegedly).

The Act would provide consumer rights, such as access, notice, deletion, opting-out, correction, and a right to data portability. It also prohibits covered entities from discriminating against consumers who utilize some of the proposed rights. It will prohibit organizations from denying goods or services to individuals because they have exercised any of their rights as set forth in the bill.

Implementation of the bill would be financed through a $100 million appropriation to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to enforce its provisions. Therefore, the FTC would gain the authority to obtain injunctions and impose other sanctions for violations.

Integrating Other Privacy Bill Provisions.

The SAFE DATA Act incorporates three main bill provisions into the proposal.

First, it includes the Filter Bubble Transparency Act (don’t ask). It requires a notice on public-facing websites that use algorithmic ranking systems

Second, it contains provisions from the Deceptive Experiences To Online Users Reduction (“DETOUR”) bill (ouch!). This provision makes it unlawful for an online service with more than 100 million authenticated users to use a user interface to impair user autonomy.

Third, like the United States Consumer Data Privacy Act (CDPA), the proposal requires companies to obtain affirmative, express consent from the customer before processing or transferring individuals’ sensitive data.

According to Julie Brill, former Commissioner of the FTC, a comprehensive privacy law would also address consent and collection issues related to COVID-19 health data, while at the same time promoting racial equality and prohibiting data discrimination. Boy, that’s great; who knew this was likely to be accomplished in our lifetimes.

View the proposed Safe Data Act in full.

You may also read one of my prior blogs to learn more about HIPAA privacy rights violations and medical confidentiality.


Contact a Health Law Attorney Experienced in Defending HIPAA Complaints and Violations.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm represent physicians, medical groups, nursing homes, home health agencies, pharmacies, hospitals, and other healthcare providers and institutions in investigating and defending alleged HIPAA complaints and violations and in preparing Corrective Action Plans (CAPs).

For more information about HIPAA violations, electronic health records or corrective action plans (CAPs) please visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com or call (407) 331-6620 or toll-free (888) 331-6620.

Sources:

Cox, Ayeisha. “Lawmakers Introduce the SAFE DATA Act.” American Health Lawyers Association (AHLA). (October 2, 2020). Web.

Traylor. Christian. “Federal Data Privacy Legislation: Will it Help the US Remain Competitive in the Global Marketplace?” JD Supra. (September 29, 2020). Web.

Panakal, Dominic Dhil. “Senate Republicans Stitch Together Safe Data Ideas into New Bill.” The National Law Review. (September 24, 2020).

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.

“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.

OSHA Fines Several Health Care Systems Over COVID-19 PPE Violations

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

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 Coronavirus-related Investigation.

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.”

A Series of COVID-19 Citations for 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 Providers Can and Should File Complaints with OSHA.

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

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2020 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

 

 

Two Criminally Charged For Mishandling Deadly COVID-19 Outbreak at Veterans Home

By Carole C. Schriefer, J.D.

On September 25, 2020, two administrators at a Massachusetts veterans home were criminally charged with negligence for their role in a COVID-19 outbreak that killed 76 veterans. Attorney General (AG) Maura Healey reportedly stated that the criminal case involving Soldiers’ Home in Holyoke (SHH) is the first in the country against nursing home operators related to the pandemic.


Did They Mishandle the Deadly Coronavirus Outbreak?

The superintendent and the facility’s former medical director were indicted by a grand jury and charged with recklessly permitting bodily injury or abuse to the residents. The charges stem from their decision to combine two dementia units in March of 2020. They are accused of packing residents who were positive for the coronavirus into the same space as those with no symptoms. According to the AG, the decision contributed to the death of at least 76 residents at the facility.

AG’s Investigation.

The AG’s Office began investigating early April 2020 after learning of serious issues with COVID-19 infection control procedures at SHH. The investigation found that staffing shortages led to the decision to consolidate the two dementia units, totaling 42 residents. It resulted in confirmed COVID-19-positive residents being placed within feet of other veterans at the facility. The AG’s Office alleges that this decision was reckless from an infection control perspective and put the asymptomatic veterans at an increased risk of contracting COVID-19 from the positive ones.

Since March 1, 2020, 76 veterans who contracted the coronavirus at SHH have died, officials said. Click here to read the Attorney General’s press release on the case.

To read about a similar case against a Florida nursing home, click here.

Contact a Health Law Attorney Experienced in the Representation of Veterans Administration (VA) Physician Representation and Military Physician Representation.

The Health Law Firm attorneys have represented nursing home administrators, health care executives, nurses, nurse practitioners, assisted living facilities, skilled nursing facilities, and health professionals working for the Veterans Administration (VA) throughout the United States. Representation has included personnel and employment issues, disciplinary action, investigations, peer review investigations, clinical privileges actions, fair hearings, National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) actions, and appeals.

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

Sources:

Durkin, Alanna. “2 Charged Over Handling of Virus Outbreak at Veterans Home.” Associated Press. (September 25, 2020). Web.

Dowling, Bryan. “Mass. Vet Home Leaders Charged Over Deadly Virus Outbreak.” Law360. (September 25, 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.  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. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com

“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