administrative hearing defense attorney

Home/Tag: administrative hearing defense attorney

Laws Governing ESAs and Service Animals, Part 3 of 3

By Amanda I. Forbes, J.D.

This is part 3 of 3 in a blog series regarding the differences between Service Animals and Emotional Support Animals. Read part 1 and part 2.

The Fair Housing Act (FHA) is a federal law that “prohibits discrimination in housing because of: race or color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and disability.” (Emphasis added). It applies to both emotional support animals and service animals. (“emotional illness.”)
Click here to learn more.

In addition, the FHA states it is unlawful to:

[D]iscriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap.

42 U.S.C. Section3604(f)(1).

It also prohibits discrimination:

[A]gainst any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling, because of a handicap . . .

42 U.S.C. Section 3604(f)(2).

For purposes of the FHA, discrimination includes a refusal to make:

[R]easonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodation may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

42 U.S.C. Section 3604(f)(3)(B).

The FHA is applicable to virtually all forms of housing. However, there are some exemptions:

1) Owner-occupied buildings with no more than four units, single-family housing sold or rented without the use of a broker, and housing operated by organizations and private clubs.
2) Single-family housing sold or rented without the use of a broker.
3) Housing operated by organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) have the power to enforce the Fair Housing Act. Generally, an individual with a disability may have a “reasonable accommodation” to a landlords “no pets policy”

According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development a “reasonable accommodation” is:

A reasonable accommodation is a change, exception, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice, or service that may be necessary for a person with a disability to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, including public and common use spaces . . . . The Act makes it unlawful to refuse to make reasonable accommodation to rules, policies, practices, or services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford persons with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.
To show that a requested accommodation may be necessary, there must be an identifiable relationship, or nexus, between the requested accommodation and the individual’s disability.

To learn more about reasonable accommodation, click here.

The American With Disabilities Act (ADA).

Under the ADA, in situations where it may not be readily apparent that an animal is a service animal the individual may be asked two questions by an establishment’s employees:

1) Is the service animal a requirement due to a disability?
2) What work has the animal been trained to perform?

Employees are not allowed to ask for documentation for the service animal or require the animal to demonstrate its function or inquire about the nature of the owner’s disability.

Under the ADA, 29 CFR Part 1630.2(k)(3), a “reasonable accommodation” is:

An individual with a record of a substantially limiting impairment may be entitled, absent undue hardship, to a reasonable accommodation if needed and related to the past disability. For example, an employee with an impairment that previously limited, but no longer substantially limits, a major life activity may need leave or a schedule change to permit him or her to attend follow-up or “monitoring” appointments with a health care provider.

29 CFR Part 1630.2(k)(3)

Emotional support animals are not considered service animals under the ADA.

The Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA).

The ACAA requires that airlines allow both service animals as well as emotional support animals to accompany their owners in the cabin of the aircraft.

Similar to the ADA, if an air carrier’s employee is not sure if an animal is a service animal they may “ask to see identification cards, written documentation, presence of harnesses or tags, or ask for verbal assurances” from the owner. Click here for more information on service animals.

In addition, you may be asked one of the following:

1) What tasks or functions does your animal perform for you?
2) What has your animals been trained to do for you?
3) Would you describe how the animal performs this task for you?

Regarding individuals who have emotional support animals and want their ESA to accompany them in the aircraft cabin the ACAA states the following:

e) If a passenger seeks to travel with an animal that is used as emotional support or psychiatric service animal, you are not required to accept the animal for transportation in the cabin unless the passenger provides you current documentation (i.e., no older than one year from the date of the passenger’s scheduled initial flight) on the letterhead of a licensed mental health professional (e.g., psychiatrist, psychologist, licensed clinical social worker, including a medical doctor specifically treating the passenger’s mental or emotional disability) stating the following:

(1) The passenger has a mental or emotional disability recognized in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – Fourth Edition (DSM IV);

(2) The passenger needs the emotional support or psychiatric service animal as an accommodation for air travel and/or for activity at the passenger’s destination;

(3) The individual providing the assessment is a licensed mental health professional, and the passenger is under his or her professional care; and

(4) The date and type of the mental health professional’s license and the state or other jurisdiction in which it was issued.

14 CFR Section 382.117(e) and (f). (Emphasis added).

Therefore, it would be wise to advise your clients that they should contact that airline well in advance of their flight in order to find out what documentation is required for their ESA to travel with them. Particularly, if the ESA is of the exotic variety.

On the topic of exotic ESAs or service animals, the ACAA states:

(f) You are never required to accommodate certain unusual service animals (e.g., snakes, other reptiles, ferrets, rodents, and spiders) as service animals in the cabin. With respect to all other animals, including unusual or exotic animals that are presented as service animals (e.g., miniature horses, pigs, monkeys), as a carrier you must determine whether any factors preclude their traveling in the cabin as service animals (e.g., whether the animal is too large or heavy to be accommodated in the cabin, whether the animal would pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others, whether it would cause a significant disruption of cabin service, whether it would be prohibited from entering a foreign country that is the flight’s destination). If no such factors preclude the animal from traveling in the cabin, you must permit it to do so. However, as a foreign carrier, you are not required to carry service animals other than dogs.

It is also important to note that:

(g) Whenever you decide not to accept an animal as a service animal, you must explain the reason for your decision to the passenger and document it in writing. A copy of the explanation must be provided to the passenger either at the airport or within 10 calendar days of the incident.

14 CFR Section 382.117(g). (Emphasis added).

Additionally, the airline cannot charge you for your reasonable accommodation of an ESA or a service animal.

According to 14 CFR Section 382.31(a):

Except as otherwise provided in this part you must not, as a carrier, impose charges for providing facilities, equipment, or services that this rule requires to be provided to passengers with a disability. You may charge for services that this part does not require.

14 CFR Section 382.31(a)

Florida Specific Law.

In Florida, a new law SB 1084 was enacted on June 23, 2020, and became effective on July 1, 2020. SC 1084 establishes what can be considered reliable information for an ESA it also creates a civil penalty for falsification of documentation used to support the need for an ESA.

In addition, it defines an “Emotional Support Animal” as:

An animal that does not require training to do work, perform tasks, provide assistance, or provide therapeutic emotional support by virtue of its presence which alleviates one or more identified symptoms or effects of a person’s disability.

SB 1084. Emphasis added.

Of particular note, SB 1084 states:

A person with a disability or a disability-related need is liable for any damage done to the premises or to another person on the premises by his or her emotional support animal.

Check with your state and local laws in order to ensure you are in compliance with your state’s laws regarding emotional support animals and service animals. Don’t forget to read part 1 and part 2 in this blog series.

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

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm provide legal representation to mental health counselors, psychologists, social workers, and family therapists in Department of Health (DOH) investigations, FBI investigations and other types of investigations of health professionals and providers. To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or toll-free at (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

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

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

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

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

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

By |2020-12-22T11:57:57-05:00December 22nd, 2020|Categories: Mental Health Law Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |0 Comments

Non-physician Pill Mill Owners in Tampa Sentenced To Prison Time For Illegal Distribution Of Opioids

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

On October 7, 2020, two owners of a medical practice in Tampa, Florida, were sentenced to federal prison time for their roles in the illegal distribution of opioids. U.S. District Judge Mary S. Scriven sentenced Ernest Gonzalez to 46 months and Rosa Colon to 24 months in federal prison for conspiracy to distribute and dispense controlled substances for no legitimate medical purpose.

Plot to Illegally Distribute Controlled Substances.

According to court documents, Gonzalez served as the president and owner of Health and Pain Center (HPC), a Tampa pain management clinic. In June 2011, he transferred his executive title and ownership of HPC to Colon. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) obtained a warrant in October 2016, while both were active participants of the administration and management of HPC.

The two owners allegedly hired physicians at HPC, who routinely prescribed controlled substances to patients eeking pain mediciations. Federal authorities always allege that such prescriptions are “outside the scope of professional (medical) practice.” Additionally, the owners are alleged to have participated and facilitated the physicians’ illegal prescribing practices by instructing employees to overlook failed urinalysis screens that help to detect drug abusers.

According to court papers, the owners also obtained MRI studies and other documents that the physicians used to justify the high volume of opioid prescriptions. According to court documents, the owners operated HPC as a cash-only business with little to no medical equipment on-site and staff with no medical training.

The owners pled guilty on September 11, 2018. It is unclear as to why they were not sentenced until October 7, 2020. As part of their sentences, the court entered money judgments of $47,780.96 against Gonzalez and $765,356.76 against Colon. This was in addition to the prison time stated above.

The facts above are typical of those in other state and federal prosecutions against physicians, pharmacists, and clinic owners. If you are a physician who is working for a clinic owned by non-physicians, you need to be very careful that you are working for a legitimate organization. If you are being pressured to write prescriptions for narcotics for patients, you need to be very careful about what you do and why you do it. Often physicians who work for pill mills just bury their heads in the sand and rationalize why they are writing and refilling the same prescriptions for opioids month after month.

For the past ten years, in Florida, the DEA, the Department of Health, the state Attorney General, and multi-jurisdictional task forces have been targeting physicians who write prescriptions for narcotics and pharmacies that fill such prescriptions. There are very few left. The cross-hairs of the regulators and law enforcement are now targeting those who are involved in only very small quantities. Watch out, it could be you next!

View the press release issued by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida.

Read my prior blog and learn more about pill mills, here.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced with DEA Cases.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm are experienced in handling Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) cases, board of medicine cases, and board of pharmacy case, Department of Health (DOH) investigations, and Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) investigations, regarding allegations of over-prescribing and illegal prescribing. If you are currently being investigated or facing other adverse actions by the DEA or a state licensing board, contact one of our attorneys by calling (407) 331-6620 or toll-free at (888) 331-6620. You can also visit our website for more information at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.


Sources:

“Tampa Pill Mill Owners Sentenced To Prison For Illegal Distribution Of Opioids.” Tampa Free Press. (October 11, 2020). Web.

Otero, Sebastian. “Tampa pill mill owners sentenced to prison for illegal distribution of opioids.” ABC 7 WWSB. (October 8, 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 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.

 

Emotional Support Animals and Protecting Your License, Pitfalls and Tips, Part 2 of 2

Amanda I. Forbes, J.D.By Amanda I. Forbes, J.D.; and George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified in Health Law

This is part 2 of 2 in a blog series regarding Emotional Support Animals (ESA) support letters being prepared by counselors and therapists. There are serious pitfalls that exist for the unwary mental health professional and, in part 1, we provided a number of tips on how to avoid these. Click here to read part 1.

The ACA has identified specific potential risks to animals, clients, the public, and counselors which everyone involved in this area of practice should be familiar with.

Potential Risks to Animals:

1. Neglect or other abuse; poor mental health on the part of the client may prevent adequate animal care or may promote neglect or abuse.

2. Undue stress may occur to the animal from constant work during accompaniment, including being placed in stressful environments.

3. The animal may suffer undue stress from being handled by a person who does not have specialized training.

4. The animal may suffer an illness, undue stress, or injury from public interactions.

Possible Risks to Clients:

1. Inadequate treatment of a mental health disorder.

2. Injury or property damage from an inadequately trained or socialized animal.

3. Zoonotic infection or disease.

4. Animal allergies in the client, the client’s family, and the client’s associates.

5. Potential fraud or legal concerns if an ESA is misrepresented as a service animal.

6. Financial and emotional burdens due to potential behavior problems associated with inadequately trained and socialized companion animals.

7. Misconception that a relationship with an ESA replaces or substitutes for professional mental health care or human relationships (especially the latter).

Potential Risk to the Public:

1. Injury or emotional damage from inadequately trained animals.

2. Untrained or improperly socialized animals may be more likely to be stressed out or aggressive in public.

3. Unsocialized animals may be disruptive and interfere with normal activities such as group functions, public travel, public dining.

4. Maladaptive interactions with other animals (especially toward service animals)

5. Zoonotic infection or disease from animals.

6. Animal allergies and phobias (yes, some regular people have phobias against dogs, cats, snakes, weasels, alligators, and monkeys).

7. They may contribute to public skepticism, which hurts those with valid helper animals (e.g., someone who has a full-size alligator that she claims is her emotional support animal and takes it everywhere she goes).

8. The more unsuitable the animal, the greater the risk (i.e., exotic pet, undomesticated or wild animal).

9. When more fraudulent animals have greater public access, the more public risk is incurred.

Risks to the Counselor Who Certifies or Approves an Emotional Support Animal:

1. Liability for adverse client outcomes due to inadequate or substandard treatment.
2. Potential provider role conflicts: Forensic v. Counseling.
3. Potential liability for injury/illness caused by the animal to the client or others.
4. Potential charges of fraud if an inadequate evaluation is done to demonstrate the need for the animal, or if performed in the absence of actual supporting facts, or if performed for a fake client who is just making up everything.
5. Disciplinary action taken against your professional license by your licensing board for any of the above.
6. Ethical considerations for inadequate education about ESAs and their role in comprehensive treatment. Potential to be called to testify if the ESA is challenged or if an incident occurs.

Click here for more information.

An additional potential risk that the ACA did not address was the possibility of disciplinary action against your license by your professional board. The reasons for such an action could possibly be from a failure to establish a proper client relationship prior to writing an ESA recommendation letter. It is important to keep these potential risks in mind when determining whether to write an ESA recommendation letter.

Don’t forget to read part 1 of this blog series for more information.

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

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

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

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

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

About the Authors: Amanda I. Forbes, practices health law with The Health Law Firm in its Altamonte Springs, Florida, office. George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified in Health Law by The Florida Bar and is licensed in Louisiana, Florida, and the District of Columbia. He is President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm. Its main office is in Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com. The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave. Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 or Toll Free: (888) 331-6620.

KeyWords: Representation for healthcare professionals, representation for healthcare compliance, representation for healthcare facilities, healthcare facility defense lawyer, healthcare compliance defense attorney, healthcare license defense attorney, Complex Healthcare Litigation, complex healthcare litigation defense lawyer, Complex Business Litigation, Complex Commercial Litigation, Class Action Litigation, medical regulatory defense lawyer, representation for licensed mental health counselors (LMHCs), mental health counselor defense lawyer, licensed professional counselor (LPC) defense attorney lawyer, mental health counselor legal representation, licensed professional counselor (LPC) legal representation, social worker defense lawyer, representation for social workers, social worker defense attorney, social worker complaint cases, Florida Colorado Louisiana mental health counselor complaint cases, defense lawyer for psychologists, Florida health law defense attorney, medical license defense, Florida Department of Health (DOH) attorney, representation for Louisiana and Florida Department of Health (DOH) complaint investigations, Louisiana and Florida Department of Health (DOH) defense lawyer, Colorado Division of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) defense attorney, representation for Florida Colorado Division of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) complaint investigations, Colorado Division of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) defense lawyer, Lousiana LPC Board defense attorney lawyer, Health Law Firm reviews, reviews of The Health Law Firm attorneys, administrative complaint defense lawyer, administrative complaint defense attorney, administrative hearing defense lawyer, administrative hearing defense attorney, administrative hearing defense legal counsel, representation for health care professionals

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

By |2020-10-01T17:18:25-04:00October 5th, 2020|Categories: In the News, Mental Health Law Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |0 Comments

Certifying Emotional Support Animals and Protecting Your License, Part 1 of 2

Attorney Amanda I. ForbesBy Amanda I. Forbes, J.D., and George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified in Health Law

In today’s stress-filed world if you are a mental health counselor or other professional counselor, it is likely that you will encounter a client seeking to obtain an Emotional Support Animal (ESA)
designation letter from you. Providing such a letter may cause you to face complaints, licensing, and disciplinary actions driven by hostile landlords, homeowners associations, and business establishments that do not want any sort of animals on their premises. Often cases wind up in civil litigation. The client may also try to retaliate against you, should the client be the victim of legal problems because of attempting to keep an ESA and not understanding the legal ramifications.

However, you, as an experienced, licensed mental health professional must know what to do and not to do to protect your license and your career.

This is part 1 of 2 in a blog series regarding Emotional Support Animals. Stay tuned for part two. We also intend to do a follow-up blog series on working animals and how they are legally distinguished from ESAs.

Here are some tips to keep in mind should you decide to provide an ESA recommendation letter:

1. You must develop and document a properly established therapist-client relationship with the client prior to writing a recommendation–do whatever you would normally do for any other client seeking your help who walks in the door.

2. Confirm the actual, true identity of the client to be sure you know with whom you are dealing. Request and obtain at least two different forms of photo ID, one including a driver’s license for the equivalent. Check and verify the name and address on the Internet or with directory assistance. (I have a personal rule of thumb: “If you can’t find a person on the Internet, then he is a fake and does not exist”).

3. Obtain the client’s complete mental health history and medical history, requesting and obtaining other treater’s records just as you would do for any other client/patient.

4. If the client has been referred to you by another provider, especially one in a different medical or health specialty, request a written referral documenting the need for the referral to you.

5. Adequately and thoroughly make and document any decision that an ESA will benefit the client and help in treating any mental health symptoms. Be thorough and document it.

6. Assign a code from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, ed. 5 (DSM-5 ), to the patient, or obtain one from the patient’s regular treating psychiatrist, psychologist, or mental health therapist.

7. The most important element involved is to show that there is an actual medical necessity for the client to have an ESA or that there will be a therapeutic benefit for the client to have the ESA. If you cannot justify and document this, then do not approve the request.

8. Evaluate the ESA, preferably by an in-person meeting or tele-health conference, and determine that it will benefit the client, be sure to document this evaluation and comment on the weight, height, aggressiveness, and character of the ESA. It is most helpful to have a form the ESA’s veterinarian will complete, sign, and return to you for confirmation of this information and, perhaps, an indication that the animal is suitable in character. Keep this in your record.

9. Thoroughly document the above in your chart on the client.

10. Have a thorough knowledge of your state’s laws and professional licensing board’s regulations concerning ESAs. You might review past disciplinary cases in which counselors have received discipline relating to ESAs in your state.

Warning About Organizations that Target Mental Health Counselors, Psychoanalysts, and Professional Counselors Who Approve Emotional Support Animals.

Those mental health counselors, social workers, professional counselors, and therapists who are involved in the certification or approval of emotional support animals and working animals should be advised that there are a number of organizations and individuals out there who seek out and target those who certify or approve such animals. These organizations and individuals see many cases of abuse and improper certifications being used. They see individuals who appear to have no real medical need for such an animal “purchasing” such certifications. They view them as a merely “privileged” individual who merely buys such certification for their pet just so that can take the pet everywhere and garner attention for themselves.

Sometimes these organizations and individuals even pretend to be a patient seeking certification of an emotional support animal or a working animal. They do often contact counselors using fake names and pretending to be fake patients to see how far the therapist will go without even having a real patient. Then they file a complaint with the therapist’s professional board in an attempt to have disciplinary action taken against their license.

Therefore, it is imperative that you follow the tips mentioned in this article.

Guidance from the American Counseling Association:

The American Counseling Association (ACA) published a position paper titled: Emotional Support Animals-Human Animal Interactions in Counseling Interest Network Position Statement.

In that position paper the ACA stated:

As Licensed Professional Counselors, the assessment of DSM-5 diagnoses for human clients is within the scope of practice; however, the added practices of animal behavior, behavior assessment or Human-Animal Interventions are (most often) not. Emotional Support Animal may, in some specific circumstances, provide benefits to humans to minimize identified symptoms often associated with a DSM 5 diagnoses; however, because of the potential risks and unanticipated outcomes, the HAIC strongly suggests that counselors abstain from writing letters for persons seeking counseling or assessments for the sole purpose of obtaining an ESA recommendation letter.

Click here to read the ACA letter in full.

However, if the counselor already has an existing treating relationship with a client and the counselor is considering writing an ESA recommendation letter, then the ASA recommends:

[T]he counselor must have a thorough knowledge of the local, state, and federal laws and policies surrounding ESAs and appropriate knowledge, skills, and attitudes with the subject of therapeutic human-animal interactions before writing such a letter.

Click here to learn more.

The ACA also cautions:

The ACA’s Code of Ethics C.2.e Consultations on Ethical Obligations includes “taking reasonable steps with other counselors, the ACA Ethics and Professional Standards Department, or related professionals when they have questions regarding their ethical obligations or professional practice.” This may include working with animal trainers, behaviorists, or veterinary behaviorists to ensure that the clinician remains within their scope of practice. Since there is no overarching licensing or accrediting body for this matter, nor are there federal or state mandates at this time, the onus is on the clinician to ensure ethical practice.

https://www.unh.edu/sites/default/files/departments/student_accessibility_services_/aca.final_version_esa14556_002.pdf. (Emphasis added).

Don’t forget to read part 2 in this blog series to learn more.

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

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

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

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

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 or Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620, and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

GEORGE F. INDEST III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M.About the Authors: Amanda I. Forbes, practices health law with The Health Law Firm in its Altamonte Springs, Florida, office. George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified in Health Law by The Florida Bar and is licensed in Louisiana, Florida, and the District of Columbia. He is President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm. Its main office is in Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com. The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave. Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 or Toll Free: (888) 331-6620.

KeyWords: Representation for healthcare professionals, representation for healthcare compliance, representation for healthcare facilities, healthcare facility defense lawyer, healthcare compliance defense attorney, healthcare license defense attorney, Complex Healthcare Litigation, complex healthcare litigation defense lawyer, Complex Business Litigation, Complex Commercial Litigation, Class Action Litigation, medical regulatory defense lawyer, representation for licensed mental health counselors (LMHCs), mental health counselor defense lawyer, licensed professional counselor (LPC) defense attorney lawyer, mental health counselor legal representation, licensed professional counselor (LPC) legal representation, social worker defense lawyer, representation for social workers, social worker defense attorney, social worker complaint cases, Florida Colorado Louisiana mental health counselor complaint cases, defense lawyer for psychologists, Florida health law defense attorney, medical license defense, Florida Department of Health (DOH) attorney, representation for Louisiana and Florida Department of Health (DOH) complaint investigations, Louisiana and Florida Department of Health (DOH) defense lawyer, Colorado Division of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) defense attorney, representation for Florida Colorado Division of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) complaint investigations, Colorado Division of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) defense lawyer, Lousiana LPC Board defense attorney lawyer, Health Law Firm reviews, reviews of The Health Law Firm attorneys, administrative complaint defense lawyer, administrative complaint defense attorney, administrative hearing defense lawyer, administrative hearing defense attorney, administrative hearing defense legal counsel, representation for health care professionals

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

By |2020-09-28T19:17:21-04:00September 28th, 2020|Categories: In the News, Mental Health Law Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |0 Comments

CVS Fined for Prescription Errors and Poor Staffing at Oklahoma Pharmacies

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

On July 16, 2020, the Oklahoma State Board of Pharmacy fined CVS, the nationwide pharmacy chain, $125,000, after auditors found safety issues and “chaotic” scenes at four of its pharmacies. State regulators in Oklahoma cited and fined the nation’s largest retail pharmacy chain for conditions including inadequate staffing and errors made in filling prescriptions. Hopefully, this was isolated to the few stores involved.

Pharmacy Complaints.

In four separate administrative orders, the Oklahoma State Board of Pharmacy said that auditors responded to complaints at each of the pharmacies for issues including long waiting times, wrong information on prescription refills, and dosage mistakes. The state board inspected the four pharmacies from mid-2019 to early 2020. In one case, the complaint said the pharmacy had put someone on hold on multiple occasions, sometimes as long as an hour. In another case, a woman said that when she got her medication refilled, the name and other information on the bottle she received was for someone else.

The pharmacy chains have pushed back on customer and employees’ complaints, saying staffing is sufficient and errors are rare.

Pharmacy Audits.

On multiple occasions, state auditors visiting the pharmacies said they found understaffed facilities, with the phone continuously ringing, employees working around unopened (and, we assume, un-inventoried) delivery boxes, and long lines at the drive-through windows. According to the orders, one pharmacy stated that it was normal for them to be as much as two weeks behind in filling prescriptions as a result of understaffing. It should be noted that the audits took place predominantly before the COVID-19 crisis.

Additionally, in letters to state pharmacy boards and in interviews, pharmacists working for CVS allegedly admitted that they struggled to keep up with an increasing number of tasks including filling prescriptions, giving flu shots, tending the drive-through window, answering phones, and calling patients. According to the orders, many said they also struggled to meet corporate performance metrics that they characterized as excessive and unsafe.

As a routine customer of CVS Pharmacy (not in Oklahoma, of course), I can sympathize with the pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, and clerks. In many places, pharmacists are now being required to administer a laundry list of vaccinations (literally, ten different vaccinations), practice medicine to a limited scope, contact prescribing physicians, constantly order out-of-stock drugs, order diagnostic tests, and answer all sorts of customer questions. Now, with the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a steady flow of coronavirus tests to administer to customers at the drive-through window. I see first-hand how difficult it is for these front-line healthcare professionals to keep up on a daily basis.

The Oklahoma Board said it “strongly recommended” that CVS follow through on nearly a dozen recommendations for all of its Oklahoma pharmacies, including increased training for technicians and changes to how staffing needs were determined. Additionally, the Oklahoma Board advised eliminating tasks that might overburden pharmacists and removing some metrics they are required to meet. For example, phone calls pharmacists often must make could be outsourced to a corporate call center.

In a statement, CVS Pharmacy said it agreed with the Board to settle the matter to avoid the lengthy and costly hearing process. The orders specify that CVS neither admits to nor denies the violations. The company agreed to pay the fines and to make other efforts to address the problems without contesting the allegations.

While the fine of $125,000 is relatively small for CVS, as it’s the country’s fifth-largest company, the move did validate the concerns raised at multiple drugstore chains by pharmacists who say workplaces are putting the public at risk.

You can read all four orders in this case here: CVS Order – Bartlesville, CVS Order – Choctaw, CVS Order – Moore, and CVS Order – Owasso.

Visit our Areas of Practice page on our website to learn more about Board of Pharmacy Representation and how we can assist Pharmacists and Pharmacies in these types of cases.

 

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

We routinely provide defense for pharmacists, pharmacies, and pharmacy technicians; defense to complaints filed against their licenses; defense to complaints filed by patients; defense in litigation against pharmacists, pharmacies, and technicians; legal representation and defense to DEA and Board of Pharmacy audits, investigations, and subpoenas; legal representation in depositions in criminal cases, negligence cases, civil cases, or disciplinary cases involving other health professionals. We have experience in dealing with HIPAA privacy complaints, audits, and investigations. We have experience in defending in Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, and health insurance audits. We accept most professional liability insurance that pharmacists carry.

The lawyers of The Health Law Firm are experienced in both formal and informal administrative hearings and in representing physicians, physician assistants, and other health professionals in investigations and at Board of Pharmacy hearings. Call our office now at (407) 331-6620 or toll-free at (888) 331-6620 and visit our website www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

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 or Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620.

KeyWords: Florida Board of Pharmacy defense 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, 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

“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

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

Pharmacy Investigations.

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

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.

By |2020-06-03T16:55:58-04:00August 12th, 2020|Categories: Mental Health Law Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |0 Comments

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

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

Pharmacy Investigations and Audits.

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 and Data.

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

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

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

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

The Court’s 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 Nurses and Other Healthcare Professionals.

The Health Law Firm’s attorneys routinely provide legal representation to 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.

By |2020-06-03T16:48:48-04:00July 22nd, 2020|Categories: Health Facilities Law Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |0 Comments

New Florida Law Allows Limited Pharmacist Medical Practice with Practice Agreements

Attorney Michael L. SmithBy Michael L. Smith, R.R.T., J.D., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law
A new Florida law allows pharmacists to practice medicine to a certain extent underwritten collaborative practice agreements with physicians who are licensed to practice medicine or osteopathic medicine in Florida. The new law, signed by Governor DeSantis, took effect on July 1, 2020. However, the initial 20-hour course required by the law has not been approved as of July 22, 2020. Also, the Florida Board of Pharmacy has not adopted the formulary of approved medicinal drugs that are required by the law, as of this writing on July 22, 2020.

What Pharmacists Need to Know About the New Law.

Pharmacists practicing under a collaborative practice agreement with a physician will be permitted to test, screen for, and treat some nonchronic health conditions. The nonchronic health conditions a pharmacist is permitted to treat under a collaborative practice agreement are influenza, streptococcus, lice, skin conditions, and minor infections.

Pharmacists will also be able to initiate, modify, or discontinue drug therapy for chronic health conditions under a written collaboration agreement with a physician. The chronic conditions a pharmacist will be able to treat are arthritis, asthma, COPD, type-2 diabetes, HIV or AIDS, and obesity. The collaborative practice agreement for chronic health conditions must be specific to a patient, or patients, of the supervising physician.

A pharmacist must be certified by the Florida Board of Pharmacy before practicing under a collaborative practice agreement. In order to be eligible for certification, the pharmacist must hold an unencumbered license to practice as a pharmacist in Florida. The pharmacist must also have a doctor of pharmacy degree or 5-years of experience as a licensed pharmacist.

Every pharmacist seeking certification to practice under a collaborative practice agreement will be required to complete an initial 20-hour course approved by the Board of Pharmacy, and complete additional continuing education hours for each license renewal. Pharmacists practicing under collaborative practice agreements will also be required to maintain professional liability coverage of at least $250,000.

Pharmacists will not be permitted to prescribe controlled substances. The new law requires the Florida Board of Pharmacy to adopt a formulary of medicinal drugs that pharmacists may prescribe under collaborative practice agreements with physicians.

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

We routinely provide deposition coverage to pharmacists, pharmacies, and other health professionals being deposed in criminal cases, negligence cases, civil cases, or disciplinary cases involving other health professionals.

The lawyers of The Health Law Firm are experienced in both formal and informal administrative hearings and in representing physicians, physician assistants, and other health professionals in investigations and at Board of Pharmacy hearings. Call our office now at (407) 331-6620 or toll-free at (888) 331-6620 and visit our website 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: Florida Board of Pharmacy defense 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, 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

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

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

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

Pharmacy Investigations.

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

Clash Over Patient Privacy.

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

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

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

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

The Decision.

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

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

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

States Must Act to Protect the Integrity of Such Programs.

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

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

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

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

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

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Representing Nurses and Other Healthcare Professionals.

The Health Law Firm’s attorneys routinely provide legal representation to 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.

By |2020-06-03T16:42:11-04:00July 1st, 2020|Categories: Nursing Law Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |0 Comments

Emergency Order Allows Florida Pharmacists to Temporarily Order, Administer COVID-19 Tests

Headshot of The Health Law Firm's attorney George F. Indest IIIBy George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law
On April 24, 2020, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announced he would expand the opportunities for people to obtain COVID-19 tests by allowing licensed pharmacists to order and administer them. For purposes of preparing for, responding to, and mitigating any effect of COVID-19, Emergency Order 20-006 was filed, suspending section 483.813, Florida Statutes. You can click on the link to read the entire Order.

According to the Order, it was necessary to waive certain statutes and rules of the Florida DOH in order to effectively respond to the emergency caused by COVID-19. Section 483.813, Florida Statutes, requires a pharmacist to be separately licensed to perform a clinical laboratory test. Additionally, section 465.003(13), Florida Statutes, has provisions that prohibit a pharmacist from ordering, administering, or reporting the results of COVID-19 tests, including serology tests, authorized by the United States Food & Drug Administration (FDA). The Emergency Order temporarily sidesteps the law to allow pharmacists to perform these functions.

This suspension of the applicable law applies until the expiration of Executive Order 20-52.

The full version of the Emergency Order may be found on the Florida Board of Pharmacy’s website here as well as on our website here.

It’s important to remember that as with all new guidance and policy changes, it is essential to understand how these changes fit into the existing regulatory frameworks that govern the health care industry.

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

We routinely provide deposition coverage to pharmacists, pharmacies, and other health professionals being deposed in criminal cases, negligence cases, civil cases, or disciplinary cases involving other health professionals.

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

Sources:

Gross, J. Samantha. “Florida pharmacists to be allowed to issue COVID-19 tests, DeSantis says.” Miami Herald. (April 24, 2020). Web.

“Pharmacists Authorized to Order and Administer COVID-19 Testing.” The National Law Review. (April 20,2020). 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: Florida Board of Pharmacy defense 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, 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

“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