Major Florida Oncology Group Pays $100 Million to Settle Antitrust Charges
Attorney Geroge F. Indest III
By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law
On April 30, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that a major Florida oncology group will pay $100 million to resolve a criminal charge that it conspired with competitors to divvy up cancer treatments in the area. This marks the first settlement in an ongoing oncology market allocation probe against Florida Cancer Specialists & Research Institute LLC (FCS).
Details of the Antitrust Complaint.
The oncology group, which is based in Fort Myers, Florida, admitted to a single felony antitrust charge under the agreement, the DOJ said. Additionally, FCS inked a civil antitrust settlement with the Florida attorney general requiring it to pay the state $20 million, plus interest.
According to the DOJ, federal prosecutors filed a one-count felony charge against the company in Florida federal court. Prosecutors allege the company of participating “in a criminal antitrust conspiracy” with unnamed oncology competitors in the southwest Florida counties of Lee, Collier, and Charlotte.
The antitrust complaint states: “FCS and its co-conspirators agreed not to compete to provide chemotherapy and radiation treatments to cancer patients in Southwest Florida. Beginning as early as 1999 and continuing until at least 2016, FCS entered into an illegal agreement that allocated chemotherapy treatments to FCS and radiation treatments to a competing oncology group.” Therefore, according to the DOJ, “This conspiracy allowed FCS to operate with minimal competition in Southwest Florida and limited valuable integrated care options and choices for cancer patients.”
We want to point out that the quotations above are statements that were made by the government in relation to this case and were not necessarily proven or agreed to by FCS.
The Settlement Agreement.
Under the settlement agreement, the Florida oncology company admitted to a conspiracy to divvy up the radiation and chemotherapy treatments. In addition to the $100 million, which is the statutory maximum, FCS will have to “cooperate fully with the Antitrust Division’s ongoing investigation” being run with the FBI’s Fort Myers satellite office and must keep up a compliance program aimed at stopping and ferreting out criminal antitrust violations.
Additionally, the deal also obliges FCS to follow a “non-compete waiver” under which it promises not to enforce any non-compete provisions with current and former oncologists. Other employees who open an oncology practice in southwest Florida or join one are also included in the provision, said the DOJ.
Criminal Antitrust Charges are Rarely Sought.
Criminal antitrust charges are rarely brought by the government, especially under the current administration. Anyone that has ever been involved in bringing or defending an anti-trust case knows that it is difficult enough to even have the government open a civil case or investigation, much less a criminal case.
Click here to read the press release issued by the DOJ.
To view the antitrust complaint about this case on our website, click here.
You can read the state of Florida’s deal with FCS here.
To learn more, click here and read one of my prior blogs on a similar antitrust case.
Contact Health Care Attorneys Experienced in Negotiating and Evaluating Physician’s Complex Business Litigation, and Transactions
At the Health Law Firm, we provide legal services for health professionals and facilities. This includes physicians, medical groups, nurses, pharmacists, pharmacies, dentists, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors, ambulatory surgical centers, pain management clinics, assisted living facilities, home health agencies, nursing homes, and any other health care provider.
The services we provide include representation in complex state and federal litigation, reviewing and negotiating contracts, preparing contracts, business transactions, professional license defense, opinion letters, representation in investigations, fair hearing defense, representation in peer review and clinical privileges hearings, litigation of restrictive covenant (covenants not to compete), Medicare and Medicaid audits, commercial litigation, and administrative hearings.
To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com
Sources:
Koenig, Bryan. “DOJ Cuts $100M Deal In Oncology Antitrust Probe.” Law360. (April 30, 2020). Web.
Office of Public Affairs. Press Release. “Leading Cancer Treatment Center Admits to Antitrust Crime and Agrees to Pay $100 Million Criminal Penalty.” U.S. Department of Justice. (April 30,2020). Web.
About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law is an attorney with 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.
KeyWords: Noncompetition agreement litigation, representation for noncompetition agreements, noncompetition agreement litigation attorney, noncompetition agreement attorney, restrictive covenant attorney, representation for restrictive covenants, covenant-not-to-compete representation, health care litigation representation, representation for employer enforcement of restrictive covenants, representation for complex litigation, restrictive covenant defense attorney, complex healthcare litigation attorney, anti-trust legal counsel, physician employment agreements, health professional employment contracts, legal counsel for defeat of noncompetition agreement, physician employment contract litigation, health professional contracting, negotiating health business transactions, health care business contract attorney, health care professional contract litigation, healthcare complex business litigation, representation for physician agreements, representation for physician business transactions, representation for physician complex litigation, representation for antitrust, representation for healthcare facilities, oncologist defense, licensed oncologist defense lawyer, The Health Law Firm reviews, The Health Law Firm attorney reviews
“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2020 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.
Have You Found an NSO Insurance Attorney to Defend You in a Complaint Against Your Nursing License or Nurse Practitioners License?
By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law
Many nurses, nurse practitioners, and certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) carry professional malpractice insurance through the Nurses Service Organization (NSO) or one of the other similar insurance companies. This insurance is inexpensive and provides excellent coverage. What you may not realize, however, is that such insurance provides many added benefits, other than just coverage on nursing liability lawsuits. It will pay for legal defense expenses if there is a complaint filed against your nursing license. It will pay legal expenses for a lawyer to get involved and represent you if you receive a subpoena to testify or provide records. It will cover you if you have a HIPAA complaint or breach of medical privacy complaint filed against you.
Under such policies, the insurance company will pay the legal fees and other costs related to your defense. However, most of the time, you will still be required to locate and retain the appropriate attorney to represent you in the matter.
What to Look for When Retaining an Attorney to Defend You.
1. Your primary concern should be to find and retain an attorney who accepts the insurance that you have, whether it is NSO Insurance, CPH & Associates Insurance, Philadelphia Insurance, Trust Management Services, Firemans Fund, or another national company. This will ensure that you have an attorney who will give you the lower rates the insurance company had negotiated and will have a good working relationship established with your insurance company. If an attorney with our firm cannot represent you, we will certainly try to find an attorney who will.
2. Another primary qualification for any attorney you hire to represent you should be his or her experience in working with health professionals in the same field and on similar matters. If the attorney is not familiar with your area of health practice, it may be difficult for that attorney to get up to speed to represent you properly.
3. If you come across an attorney who states that she or he will help you make a statement to the investigator or assist you in the investigation, but does not appear with you in hearings, then this is the wrong attorney. You need an attorney who can represent you from start to finish.
4. Often you will come across an attorney who only wants you to accept a consent order, stipulation, or settlement agreement. Remember that these are all merely “plea bargains” and by signing this type of agreement, you will be pleading guilty to whatever offenses are charged. In most cases, you will probably be innocent of the charges and should request a formal administrative hearing in order to prove this.
5. You also want to retain the services of an attorney who has appeared before your professional board or professional licensing authority in investigations and hearings, especially formal and informal administrative hearings. The lack of familiarity with such investigations and boards can be costly to you.
6. You don’t necessarily need an attorney who is located in your city, county, or state. Almost all the work on the case will be done by telephone and e-mail. You usually have only one meeting or hearing with the investigator or its board and, depending on what type of hearing it is, it could be located in many different locations. Our attorneys will travel to those locations for meetings and hearings.
7. Beware of attorneys who hold themselves out in Internet advertising as health attorneys or professional license defense attorneys but are really some other type of attorney. We see this a lot from medical malpractice attorneys, criminal defense attorneys, and attorneys who sue insurance companies. Be sure you get an attorney who concentrates his or her practice in defending nurses with nursing complaints, investigations, and hearings.
8. If you can’t find an attorney to meet your immediate needs through an Internet search, you may contact your insurance company or professional association and ask if they have a list of attorneys that can do the legal work you require. For example, you may reach Nurses Service Organization (NSO) at (800) 247-1500; you can reach CPH & Associates at (800) 875-1911 or (312) 987-9823; you can access a list of professional license defense attorneys who represent nurses online at https://taana.org/referral/.
Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Representing Nurses.
The Health Law Firm’s attorneys routinely represent nurses in Board of Nursing investigations and complaints, DORA investigations and complaints, and Department of Health (DOH) investigations and complaints. We appear before the Board of Nursing in licensing matters and in many other legal matters. We represent nurses across the U.S., not just in Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.
To contact The Health Law Firm please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 or (970) 416-7456 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 Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.
Keywords: Nurses Service Organization (NSO) insurance defense attorney, NSO lawyer, Florida NSO defense attorney lawyer, Colorado NSO defense attorney lawyer, legal representation for NSO matters in Colorado, legal representation for NSO matters in Florida, representation for professional liability insurance cases, Louisiana NSO defense attorney lawyer, legal representation for NSO matters in Louisiana, NSO deposition defense coverage, Virginia NSO defense attorney lawyer, legal representation for NSO matters in Virginia, legal representation for NSO matters in Virginia, representation for professional liability insurance cases, Virginia NSO deposition defense coverage, nurse legal representation, Board of Nursing informal hearing attorney, Board of Nursing formal hearing attorney, Department of Health (DOH) investigation of nurses, representation for deposition of nurses, nurse administrative complaint defense, appeal of board of nursing final order, nurse license application, nurse emergency suspension order appeals representation, legal representation of Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioners (ARNPs), Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist (CRNA) attorney representation, Certified Nurse Midwife (CNM) legal representation, nurse attorney Florida Colorado Louisiana Virginia, representation for Louisiana and Florida Department of Health (DOH) complaint investigations, Louisiana and Florida Department of Health (DOH) defense lawyer, Colorado Division of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) defense attorney, representation for Florida Colorado Division of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) complaint investigations, Colorado Division of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) defense lawyer, Health Law Firm reviews, reviews of The Health Law Firm attorneys, administrative complaint defense attorney, administrative hearing defense lawyer
“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2020 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.
UF Rescinds Prospect For Racist Online Post
By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law
On June 8, 2020, the University of Florida (UF) reportedly announced via Twitter that it had rescinded its offer of acceptance to a prospective student. The offer was rescinded by the university because of an allegedly racist message posted by the student on social media. According to reports, UF spokesman Steve Orlando stated that the university received multiple e-mails complaining about the post. As a result of the investigation, the student is no longer a UF prospect, according to the announcement.
Social networks provide students, resident physicians, fellows, and clinical professors with opportunities for greater communication, information/experience sharing, collaborative learning, professional interactions, and outreach. However, they can also be dangerous if someone has unprofessional comments or content. Many applicants may not be aware that their social media presence may have an impact on their chances of acceptance, especially for medical students.
Although it is true that we all have a First Amendment right to freedom of speech, by getting up and making a speech that violates a school, institution, or program’s policies, you are asking for trouble. we have had cases of students and of residents getting into trouble for not only allegedly racist FaceBook and Twitter posts and re-posts, but also for “unprofessional” posts and re-posts. These include the use of profanity, racist comments, and “unprofessional” photographs. Those who are students or resident physicians typically are in an environment where there is heightened awareness of and heightened scrutiny regarding such matters. Although they must be provided with “due process of law” before they are terminated, this could be very expensive and result in unnecessary blemishes on a person’s record. If the individual making the comments, posts, or re-posts, hasn’t started yet, then they have far fewer rights and do not have any “interest” that is protectable under due process of law principles. So why take the risk?
How Social Media Can Impact Medical Students and Admissions.
On social media sites, healthcare professionals, including medical students, should always represent themselves in a manner that reflects values of professionalism, integrity, acceptance of diversity, and commitment to ethical behavior. Physicians must be aware that content posted may negatively affect their reputations among patients and colleagues. Basically, your actions online may also affect your medical career, especially for medical students.
In one recent situation, a medical student says the University of New Mexico gave him two options: change his Facebook post or get out. Click here to read more about it.
With the increase in popularity and usage of social media platforms, the American Medical Student Association (AMSA) published Guidelines for Medical Students and Physicians. Click here to read the guidelines in full.
To read about how our firm can assist medical students, residents, and graduates in a variety of legal matters, click here.
Contact a Health Care Attorney Experienced in the Representation of Medical Students, Interns, Residents and Applicants, Fellows, and Those Involved in Graduate Medical Education.
The Health Law Firm and its attorneys represent interns, residents, fellows, and medical school students in disputes with their medical schools, supervisors, residency programs, and in dismissal hearings. We have experience representing such individuals and those in graduate medical education programs in various disputes regarding their academic and clinical performance, allegations of substance abuse, failure to complete integral parts training, alleged false or incomplete statements on applications, allegations of impairment (because of abuse or addiction to drugs or alcohol or because of mental or physical issues), because of discrimination due to race, sex, national origin, sexual orientation and any other matters.
To contact The Health Law Firm please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.
Sources:
Keating, Jennifer. “Social Media Guidelines for Medical Students and Physicians.” American Medical Student Association (AMSA). (September 15, 2016). Web.
Nelson, Sarah. “Florida student who wrote racist social media post won’t join UF.” Palm Beach Post. (June 10, 2020). Web.
“How Medical School Applicants Should Manage Social Media.” U.S. News. (June 11, 2018). 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
KeyWords: Graduate medical education (GME) defense attorney, international medical graduate attorney, graduate medical education defense lawyer, lawyer for medical students, medical resident physician attorney, residency program legal dispute, residency program litigation, medical school litigation, legal representation for medical residents, legal dispute with medical school, medical students legal counsel, disruptive physician attorney, impaired medical student legal counsel, impaired resident legal defense attorney, United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) defense lawyer, USMLE defense attorney, National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) defense counsel, Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG) defense lawyer, ECFMG defense attorney, legal representation for USMLE investigations, legal representation for NBME investigations, legal representation for irregular behavior, irregular behavior defense attorney, irregular behavior defense counsel, The Health Law Firm reviews, reviews of The Health Law Firm attorneys, Philadelphia attorney for ECFMG hearing, Philadelphia lawyer for NBME hearing, Philadelphia legal counsel for USMLE hearing
“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2020 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.
Colorado Board of Pharmacy Must Give DEA Patient Identifying Data Says Federal Judge
By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law
On April 22, 2020, a federal judge ordered the Colorado Board of Pharmacy to give the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) prescription drug monitoring program data on two pharmacies that the DEA is investigating. The data includes patient identifying information of more than 14,000 patients. The state must turn over the data by May 15, 2020, according to the order.
Pharmacy Investigations.
Citing concerns about the two pharmacies’ handling of controlled-substance prescriptions, the DEA issued subpoenas under the Controlled Substances Act in 2019. The DEA requested the information as part of an investigation into whether the two unnamed pharmacies broke the law in dispensing opioids and other drugs.
Clashing Over Patient Privacy.
The DEA’s requested information is kept under the state’s Prescription Drug Monitoring Program or PDMP. For controlled-substance prescriptions, Colorado pharmacies and pharmacists are required by state law to report information that includes the names of patients, their doctors, and pharmacies.
Colorado state officials refused to release the data citing patient privacy concerns. The DEA’s “overly broad, undifferentiated demand for access would violate the Fourth Amendment right to privacy guaranteed to more than 14,000 patients whose medical data is at issue,” the state said.
According to the order, the Colorado statute allows the prescription-monitoring data to be disclosed but only to specific recipients including in response to law enforcement subpoenas. However, the state argued that the Colorado statute only applies to a “bona fide investigation of a specific individual.”
To read about a similar case involving a DEA investigation into pharmacy prescription practices, click here to read my prior blog.
The Decision.
U.S. District Judge Raymond P. Moore denied Colorado’s objections to the DEA’s subpoenas for the prescription data including patients’ information such as names, birth dates, and addresses. The judge said the DEA has shown that the requested information is relevant and needed for the ongoing investigation of the two pharmacies, and no warrant is needed to obtain it. The order directs the Colorado Board of Pharmacy and Patty Salazar, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) to provide the data to the DEA no later than May 15, 2020.
To read the court’s order in full, click here.
For more information, click here to read the press release issued from the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Colorado.
States Must Act to Protect the Integrity of Such Programs.
State prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) were sold to pharmacists and physicians based on a promise that they were solely for the purpose of protecting patients from overdoses and preventing “doctor shopping” by dishonest, drug-seeking patients. Inherent in these programs was the promise that they would not be used for the purpose of prosecuting or charging physicians or pharmacists, in criminal proceedings or administrative proceedings, based on their contents. Most of the state laws that authorized the creation of PDMPs specifically forbid their use in such cases. This was required in order to get physicians and state medical societies to buy off on them.
Yet here we are. We see this over and over. the Federal government and federal agencies obtaining copies of these reports from the state and using them as direct evidence against physicians, pharmacists, nurse practitioners, and pharmacies, despite the prohibition of the state statutes.
Moreover, not only does this subvert the purpose behind creating such databases, but then it runs afoul of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and similar provisions of most state constitutions. The doctor or pharmacist is required by law to report the prescriptions to the PDMP, but then the federal agency turns right around and uses it as evidence against the individual who reported it.
The feds take the position: “We do not care why you, the state, authorized it or what its purpose was supposed to be. If we want to take that information and use it for something else, something that was specifically prohibited by the state, then we will do it.”
Until state pharmacy associations and medical associations do something to tighten up the state legislation that created the PDMPs, this situation is not likely to change. The feds will continue to use the state PDMPs to prosecute and to take administrative actions to revoke the DEA registrations of physicians, pharmacists, pharmacies, and other health professionals.
Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Representing Pharmacists and Other Healthcare Professionals.
The Health Law Firm’s attorneys routinely provide legal representation to mental healthcare professionals, nurses, pharmacists, pharmacies, physicians, and other health providers. We provide legal representation for nurses in Board of Nursing investigations and complaints, DORA investigations and complaints, and Department of Health (DOH) investigations and complaints. We defend in state and federal administrative hearings, investigations, and litigation. We also represent health professionals in formal and informal administrative hearings. We have a great deal of experience in defending against DEA actions. We provide legal representation across the U.S., not just in Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.
To contact The Health Law Firm please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 or (970) 416-7456 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.
Sources:
Zegers, Kelly. “Colo. Must Give DEA Pharmacy Data With Patient Info.” Law360. (April 20, 2020). Web.
Ingold, John. “Why the DEA is suing Colorado’s pharmacy board as part of an opioid investigation.” The Colorado Sun. (November 11, 2019). Web.
Pazanowski, Mary Ann. “Colorado Pharmacy Board Must Give DEA Patient-Identifying Info.” Bloomberg Law. (April 22, 2020). Web.
About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.
KeyWords: DEA order to show cause (OSC) defense lawyer, legal representation for administrative hearings, DEA hearing defense attorney, reviews of The Health Law Firm, The Health Law Firm attorney reviews, DEA order to show cause (OSC) defense attorney, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) defense attorney, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) investigation defense attorney, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) subpoena defense lawyer, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) inspection defense attorney, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) hearing defense attorney, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) order to show cause (OTSC) defense lawyer, DORA defense attorney, Department of Health defense attorney, Florida Board of Pharmacy defense legal representation, legal defense for pharmacists, pharmacist defense lawyer, board of pharmacy defense lawyer, board of pharmacy hearing legal representation, pharmacy license disciplinary charges defense attorney, legal representation for pharmacist, legal representation for pharmacy, pharmacy defense lawyer, pharmacy audit defense representation, pharmacy audit defense attorney, board representation for pharmacists, board representation for pharmacies, board representation for physicians, board of pharmacy investigation representation, legal representation for board investigations, The Health Law Firm, administrative hearing defense attorney
“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2020 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.
Florida Oncology Group Agrees to Pay $100 Million in Antitrust Probe
Attorney Geroge F. Indest III
By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law
On April 30, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that a major Florida oncology group will pay $100 million to resolve a criminal charge that it conspired with competitors to divvy up cancer treatments in the area. This marks the first settlement in an ongoing oncology market allocation probe against Florida Cancer Specialists & Research Institute LLC (FCS).
Details of the Antitrust Complaint.
The oncology group, which is based in Fort Myers, Florida, admitted to a single felony antitrust charge under the agreement, the DOJ said. Additionally, FCS inked a civil antitrust settlement with the Florida attorney general requiring it to pay the state $20 million, plus interest.
According to the DOJ, federal prosecutors filed a one-count felony charge against the company in Florida federal court. Prosecutors allege the company of participating “in a criminal antitrust conspiracy” with unnamed oncology competitors in the southwest Florida counties of Lee, Collier, and Charlotte.
The antitrust complaint states: “FCS and its co-conspirators agreed not to compete to provide chemotherapy and radiation treatments to cancer patients in Southwest Florida. Beginning as early as 1999 and continuing until at least 2016, FCS entered into an illegal agreement that allocated chemotherapy treatments to FCS and radiation treatments to a competing oncology group.” Therefore, according to the DOJ, “This conspiracy allowed FCS to operate with minimal competition in Southwest Florida and limited valuable integrated care options and choices for cancer patients.”
We want to point out that the quotations above are statements that were made by the government in relation to this case and were not necessarily proven or agreed to by FCS.
The Settlement Agreement.
Under the settlement agreement, the Florida oncology company admitted to a conspiracy to divvy up the radiation and chemotherapy treatments. In addition to the $100 million, which is the statutory maximum, FCS will have to “cooperate fully with the Antitrust Division’s ongoing investigation” being run with the FBI’s Fort Myers satellite office and must keep up a compliance program aimed at stopping and ferreting out criminal antitrust violations.
Additionally, the deal also obliges FCS to follow a “non-compete waiver” under which it promises not to enforce any non-compete provisions with current and former oncologists. Other employees who open an oncology practice in southwest Florida or join one are also included in the provision, said the DOJ.
Criminal Antitrust Charges are Rarely Sought.
Criminal antitrust charges are rarely brought by the government, especially under the current administration. Anyone that has ever been involved in bringing or defending an anti-trust case knows that it is difficult enough to even have the government open a civil case or investigation, much less a criminal case.
Click here to read the press release issued by the DOJ.
To view the antitrust complaint about this case on our website, click here.
You can read the state of Florida’s deal with FCS here.
To learn more, click here and read one of my prior blogs on a similar antitrust case.
Contact Health Care Attorneys Experienced in Negotiating and Evaluating Physician’s Complex Business Litigation, and Transactions
At the Health Law Firm, we provide legal services for health professionals and facilities. This includes physicians, medical groups, nurses, pharmacists, pharmacies, dentists, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors, ambulatory surgical centers, pain management clinics, assisted living facilities, home health agencies, nursing homes, and any other health care provider.
The services we provide include representation in complex state and federal litigation, reviewing and negotiating contracts, preparing contracts, business transactions, professional license defense, opinion letters, representation in investigations, fair hearing defense, representation in peer review and clinical privileges hearings, litigation of restrictive covenant (covenants not to compete), Medicare and Medicaid audits, commercial litigation, and administrative hearings.
To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com
Sources:
Koenig, Bryan. “DOJ Cuts $100M Deal In Oncology Antitrust Probe.” Law360. (April 30, 2020). Web.
Office of Public Affairs. Press Release. “Leading Cancer Treatment Center Admits to Antitrust Crime and Agrees to Pay $100 Million Criminal Penalty.” U.S. Department of Justice. (April 30,2020). Web.
About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law is an attorney with 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.
KeyWords: Noncompetition agreement litigation, representation for noncompetition agreements, noncompetition agreement litigation attorney, noncompetition agreement attorney, restrictive covenant attorney, representation for restrictive covenants, covenant-not-to-compete representation, health care litigation representation, representation for employer enforcement of restrictive covenants, representation for complex litigation, restrictive covenant defense attorney, complex healthcare litigation attorney, anti-trust legal counsel, physician employment agreements, health professional employment contracts, legal counsel for defeat of noncompetition agreement, physician employment contract litigation, health professional contracting, negotiating health business transactions, health care business contract attorney, health care professional contract litigation, healthcare complex business litigation, representation for physician agreements, representation for physician business transactions, representation for physician complex litigation, representation for antitrust, representation for healthcare facilities, oncologist defense, licensed oncologist defense lawyer, The Health Law Firm reviews, The Health Law Firm attorney reviews
“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2020 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.
Oncology Practice in Florida Reaches $100 Million Deal With DOJ in Antitrust Probe
Attorney Carole C. Schriefer
By Carole C. Schriefer, J.D.
On April 30, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that a major Florida oncology group will pay $100 million to resolve a criminal charge that it conspired with competitors to divvy up cancer treatments in the area. This marks the first settlement in an ongoing oncology market allocation probe against Florida Cancer Specialists & Research Institute LLC (FCS).
Details of the Antitrust Complaint.
The oncology group, which is based in Fort Myers, Florida, admitted to a single felony antitrust charge under the agreement, the DOJ said. Additionally, FCS inked a civil antitrust settlement with the Florida attorney general requiring it to pay the state $20 million, plus interest.
According to the DOJ, federal prosecutors filed a one-count felony charge against the company in Florida federal court. Prosecutors allege the company of participating “in a criminal antitrust conspiracy” with unnamed oncology competitors in the southwest Florida counties of Lee, Collier, and Charlotte.
The antitrust complaint states: “FCS and its co-conspirators agreed not to compete to provide chemotherapy and radiation treatments to cancer patients in Southwest Florida. Beginning as early as 1999 and continuing until at least 2016, FCS entered into an illegal agreement that allocated chemotherapy treatments to FCS and radiation treatments to a competing oncology group.” Therefore, according to the DOJ, “This conspiracy allowed FCS to operate with minimal competition in Southwest Florida and limited valuable integrated care options and choices for cancer patients.”
We want to point out that the quotations above are statements that were made by the government in relation to this case and were not necessarily proven or agreed to by FCS.
The Settlement Agreement.
Under the settlement agreement, the Florida oncology company admitted to a conspiracy to divvy up the radiation and chemotherapy treatments. In addition to the $100 million, which is the statutory maximum, FCS will have to “cooperate fully with the Antitrust Division’s ongoing investigation” being run with the FBI’s Fort Myers satellite office and must keep up a compliance program aimed at stopping and ferreting out criminal antitrust violations.
Additionally, the deal also obliges FCS to follow a “non-compete waiver” under which it promises not to enforce any non-compete provisions with current and former oncologists. Other employees who open an oncology practice in southwest Florida or join one are also included in the provision, said the DOJ.
Criminal Antitrust Charges are Rarely Sought.
Criminal antitrust charges are rarely brought by the government, especially under the current administration. Anyone that has ever been involved in bringing or defending an anti-trust case knows that it is difficult enough to even have the government open a civil case or investigation, much less a criminal case.
Click here to read the press release issued by the DOJ.
To view the antitrust complaint about this case on our website, click here.
You can read the state of Florida’s deal with FCS here.
To learn more, click here and read one of my prior blogs on a similar antitrust case.
Contact Health Care Attorneys Experienced in Negotiating and Evaluating Physician’s Complex Business Litigation, and Transactions
At the Health Law Firm, we provide legal services for health professionals and facilities. This includes physicians, medical groups, nurses, pharmacists, pharmacies, dentists, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors, ambulatory surgical centers, pain management clinics, assisted living facilities, home health agencies, nursing homes, and any other health care provider.
The services we provide include representation in complex state and federal litigation, reviewing and negotiating contracts, preparing contracts, business transactions, professional license defense, opinion letters, representation in investigations, fair hearing defense, representation in peer review and clinical privileges hearings, litigation of restrictive covenant (covenants not to compete), Medicare and Medicaid audits, commercial litigation, and administrative hearings.
To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com
Sources:
Koenig, Bryan. “DOJ Cuts $100M Deal In Oncology Antitrust Probe.” Law360. (April 30, 2020). Web.
Office of Public Affairs. Press Release. “Leading Cancer Treatment Center Admits to Antitrust Crime and Agrees to Pay $100 Million Criminal Penalty.” U.S. Department of Justice. (April 30,2020). Web.
About the Author: Carole C. Schriefer is an attorney and former registered nurse. She practices with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its regional office is in the Northern Colorado, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 155 East Boardwalk Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525. Phone: (970) 416-7456. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida area.
KeyWords: Noncompetition agreement litigation, representation for noncompetition agreements, noncompetition agreement litigation attorney, noncompetition agreement attorney, restrictive covenant attorney, representation for restrictive covenants, covenant-not-to-compete representation, health care litigation representation, representation for employer enforcement of restrictive covenants, representation for complex litigation, restrictive covenant defense attorney, complex healthcare litigation attorney, anti-trust legal counsel, physician employment agreements, health professional employment contracts, legal counsel for defeat of noncompetition agreement, physician employment contract litigation, health professional contracting, negotiating health business transactions, health care business contract attorney, health care professional contract litigation, healthcare complex business litigation, representation for physician agreements, representation for physician business transactions, representation for physician complex litigation, representation for antitrust, representation for healthcare facilities, oncologist defense, licensed oncologist defense lawyer, The Health Law Firm reviews, The Health Law Firm attorney reviews
“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2020 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.
Florida Defends Medical Marijuana Law in High-Stakes State Supreme Court Battle
By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law
On May 6, 2020, in a highly-important case for the medical marijuana industry in Florida, the state defended its regulatory framework before the Florida supreme court. The case focuses on whether Florida has properly carried out a 2016 constitutional amendment that broadly legalized medical marijuana for patients. The Florida Department of Health (DOH) argues that there is no conflict between the voter-approved medical marijuana amendment and the state’s caps on providers.
Ongoing Battle in the Courts.
The case primarily centers on a requirement that the Legislature put in the 2017 law about marijuana firms allowed to operate in the state. That requirement says the companies must be able to handle all aspects of the business, including growing, processing, and distributing products. The Florida DOH appealed to the Supreme Court after lower courts sided with Florigrown, a Tampa-based company. For several years, Florigrown has unsuccessfully sought approval to become a licensed medical-marijuana operator in Florida. Click here to read my prior blog and learn more.
Arguing Over Semantics.
The key part of the case focuses on the text of the amendment in determining whether the vertical integration model is proper. The language in question is the difference in the words “or” and “and” in the amendment’s definition of a medical marijuana treatment center (MMTC).
The constitutional amendment defined MMTCs as “an entity that acquires, cultivates, possesses, processes … transfers, transports, sells, distributes, dispenses, or administers marijuana, products containing marijuana, related supplies, or educational materials.”
Meanwhile, the implementing 2017 law defines MMTCs as an entity that “cultivates, processes, transports and dispenses marijuana for medical use.”
Florigrown argues that the switch from “or” to “and” creates wording that establishes the vertically integrated system, as it establishes a need to perform all aspects of the business.
In its defense, the Florida DOH argued that the 2017 law does not directly conflict with a “proper, textual interpretation” of the constitutional amendment and directly calls for regulations on the availability and safe use of the substance.
To read more on this ongoing case and Florigrown’s lawsuit, click here to read my prior blog.
Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys for Medical and Recreational Marijuana Concerns.
The Health Law Firm attorneys can assist health care providers and facilities, such as doctors, pharmacists, and pharmacies, wanting to participate in the medical marijuana industry. We can properly draft and complete the applications for registration, permitting and/or licensing, while complying with Florida law. We can also represent doctors, pharmacies and pharmacists facing proceedings brought by state regulators or agencies.
To contact The Health Law Firm please call (407) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.
Sources:
Saunders, Jim. “Case challenging Florida law on medical marijuana licenses may hinge on ‘and’ vs. ‘or’.” Miami Herald. (May 6, 2020).
Bolado, Carolina. “Fla. Defends Medical Pot Regulations Before State High Court.” Law360. (May 6, 2020). Web.
About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law is an attorney with 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.
KeyWords: medical marijuana regulation attorney, legal representation for medical marijuana issues, health care business application attorney, Florida marijuana law attorney, representation for marijuana growers, representation for marijuana distributors, defense attorney for marijuana growers, defense attorney for marijuana distributors, defense lawyer for medical marijuana, health law defense attorney, Florida medical cannabis legal representation, medical cannabis lawyer, cannabis defense lawyer, health lawyers for medical marijuana distributors, legal counsel for medical marijuana growers and distributors, The Health Law Firm reviews, reviews of The Health Law Firm Attorneys, legal counsel for complex medical business dispute, complex healthcare law dispute attorney, complex healthcare business transaction attorney
“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2020 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.
