Humana Agrees To Pay $11.2 Million to End Nurses’ Overtime Suit

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

On September 27, 2021, Humana agreed to pay $11.2 million to end claims that the health insurance company denied a group of nurses overtime pay by misclassifying them as exempt employees. A Wisconsin federal judge approved the deal with Humana, and a group of more than 200 nurses reached, securing a $36,000 average payment for each nurse involved in the suit.

A Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

This dispute stems from a class-action lawsuit filed in 2017 alleging that Humana misclassified its clinical nurse advisers as exempt employees and denied them overtime compensation, violating the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Many professionals and supervisors or managerial employees are considered to be exempt from overtime laws.

In the suit, the company faced allegations from nurses who claimed they were never paid for overtime even though they were required to work more than 40 hours per week to meet Humana’s production goals and expectations.

The Settlement.

The settlement agreement will allocate almost $3 million to cover attorney fees and costs. Additionally, the 221 nurses that are part of the settling class will get nearly $8 million based on the number of full-time weeks the nurses worked. According to the motion, the average payment per nurse for unpaid overtime and liquidated damages will be over $36,000.

The case is O’Leary v. Humana Insurance Co., et al., case number 17-cv-1774, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Click here to view the court’s brief in full.

To read about another case dealing with alleged pay discrimination in the healthcare field, click here to read one of my prior blogs.

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, pharmacy technicians, dentists, dental assistants, physicians, physician assistants, mental health counselors, and other health providers. We also provide legal representation for employers in EEOC complaints, workplace discrimination complaints, and suits involving harassment or discrimination complaints. We also provide legal representation in Department of Health, Board of Medicine, Board of Nursing investigations and complaints, DORA investigations and complaints. We provide litigation services in state and federal courts and state and federal administrative hearings. 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 Toll-Free at (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Sources:

Spezzemonte, Irene. “Humana To Pay $11.2M To End Nurses’ Misclassification Suit.” Law360. (September 27, 2021). Web.

Webster, Katherine. “Court OKs $11.2M Overtime Settlement Between Humana, Nurses.” Top Class Actions. (September 30, 2021). Web.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave. Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 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 © 2021 The Health Law

 

 

 

 

 

Ex-Surgery Technician Slaps Georgia Urology Practice With Federal Discrimination Lawsuit

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

On November 7, 2022, a former surgical technician hit a Georgia urology practice with a federal discrimination lawsuit, claiming it denied him a raise after complaining that a co-worker threatened him because of his sexuality. The plaintiff sued Georgia Urology, P.A., alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and various state laws. He said that in addition to harassment from co-workers, management denied him a predetermined raise after he complained about an unnecessary, unlawful disclosure of his medical history and denied him overtime pay. He is seeking back pay and future pay (front pay), lost benefits, and other damages.

Alleged Ongoing Harassment.

Georgia Urology hired the former surgical tech in July 2020, and shortly after this, he alleges that his co-workers started referring to him using slurs concerning his sexual orientation. After he reported the statements to the operations director, the interim director of the practice, and the CEO, they told him if he was that unhappy at work, he should find a new job, according to the complaint.

Additionally, as part of his onboarding procedure with the medical practice, the plaintiff was required to take a blood test. According to the complaint, the director of ambulatory surgery centers asked a nurse manager to administer the test and send the results to a lab. In early November 2020, the nurse manager contacted the lab using her company credentials and asked for the plaintiffs’ lab information. But she said she was calling concerning a patient, rather than an employee, of Georgia Urology, he alleged. As a result, the lab disclosed his diagnosis to her, which he said was not a necessary term of employment. The complaint did not indicate any diagnosis.

He reported the breach of privacy to the urology practice’s director of people operations, but she was never disciplined for her actions. Instead, according to the complaint, the nurse manager denied his automatic pay raise several days after, even though he had completed the 90-day probationary period. Furthermore, she later asked him how he was even hired given his diagnosis, he claims later in his complaint.

Alleged Retaliatory Behavior From Co-Workers.

Later in November 2020, he said the nurse manager issued a write-up for an alleged incident that had occurred several weeks before his reporting her for obtaining his medical files. The former surgical tech said the retaliatory write-up was removed from his file, but the defendant never disciplined her for issuing the write-up.

In early December 2020, he again complained to management about the ongoing harassment. In response, the practice agreed to give him his raise on the condition that he “stop whining so much,” but he claims he never received the raise, according to the complaint.

The defendant eventually fired the plaintiff on December 17, 2020, for allegedly creating a staff shortage when he was out sick, even though the practice was not short-staffed. You can read the complaint in this case in full here.

To read about a similar case involving a pharmacist, click here to read one of our prior blogs.

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

At the Health Law Firm we provide legal services for all health care providers and professionals.
This includes physicians, nurses, dentists, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors,
Durable Medical Equipment suppliers, medical students and interns, hospitals, ambulatory surgical
centers, pain management clinics, nursing homes, and any other healthcare provider. We represent
facilities, individuals, groups and institutions in contracts, sales, mergers and acquisitions.

The lawyers of The Health Law Firm are experienced in both formal and informal administrative
hearings and in representing physicians in investigations and at Board of Medicine and Board of
Osteopathic Medicine hearings. We represent physicians accused of wrongdoing, in patient complaints and in Department of Health investigations. Several of our attorneys act as expert witnesses in attorney’s fee litigation and in health law litigation.

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

Sources:

Wargo, Abbey. “Ex-Surgery Tech Accuses Urology Practice Of Anti-Gay Bias.” Law360. (November 7, 2020). Web.

Ferrier, Valerie. “Bias Ruling Spotlights Confusion Over Protected Categories.” Law360. (August 25, 2020). Web.

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

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

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2022 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Rapper 50 Cent Sues Florida Plastic Surgeon Over “Penile Enhancement” Ads & Social Media Photos

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

On September 16, 2022, 50 Cent, the rapper and entrepreneur, sued a plastic surgeon and her Sunny Isle Beach, Florida, medical practice in federal court. The suit alleges that the doctor used photographs she took with 50 Cent to promote her business on social media. without his consent. The suit also alleges that the ads and social media falsely implied that 50 Cent had received penile enhancement treatment from the doctor’s practice when he had not.

A 32-page complaint (lawsuit) was filed in federal court in the Southern District of Florida by 50 Cent, whose real name is Curtis J. Jackson III. It was filed against Angela Kogan, M.D., and Perfection Plastic Surgery and Medspa.

And whoever said the practice of health law wasn’t fun and interesting?

Allegations Made in the Complaint.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff is a “world-famous celebrity and entrepreneur.” In February 2020, according to the complaint, 50 Cent agreed to take a photograph with Dr. Kogan. He thought she was a fan. Once she had taken the picture, the complaint states, she allegedly used it as promotional content for Perfection Plastic Surgery, touting 50 Cent as a client and insinuating his endorsement.

50 Cent claims that since the defendant took the photo, it’s also been featured in a news article opposite an image of a faceless male allegedly undergoing a penile enhancement procedure. He argues that this made the implication of the article clear, stating that “not only were [plaintiff’s] image and name linked to a sexual enhancement treatment he never had, but Kogan also falsely implied that [plaintiff] was her client for plastic surgery.”

Between February 2020, when the photos were taken, and August of 2022, the complaint alleges, Dr. Kogan and her business posted the images on her business accounts seven times, along with multiple hashtags for users to find them. However, the posts did not include disclaimers that 50 Cent was not a client/patient, the suit says.

Causes of Action Include Invasion of Privacy, Lanham Act Violations and More.

The complaint states that 50 Cent never received plastic surgery from the defendants. The complaint concludes by asserting that the defendants “opportunistically misappropriated Jackson’s (50 Cent’s) name and image for their own promotional and commercial advantage,” in violation of the Lanham Act and the plaintiff’s right to publicity.

The six-count complaint cites right of publicity, common law invasion of privacy, two violations of the Lanham Act, conversion, and unjust enrichment. 50 Cent is seeking punitive, treble, and exemplary damages, a permanent injunction preventing the defendants from further misconduct, litigation fees, interest, disgorgement of profits, and any other relief deemed proper by the court.
Read the complaint in full here.

Stay tuned for more on this interesting Florida law suit, as it unfolds.

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

At the Health Law Firm, we provide legal services, including defense in complex medical litigation, for physicians, medical groups, and other healthcare providers. This includes plastic surgeons, cosmetic dermatologists, nurse practitioners, oral and maxillofacial surgeons, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors, and many others. This includes medical students, resident physicians, and fellows, as well as medical school professors and clinical staff. We also represent health facilities, individuals, groups, and institutions in contracts, sales, and mergers, and acquisitions. The lawyers of The Health Law Firm are also experienced in litigation at formal and informal administrative hearings. We also represent physicians accused of wrongdoing, patient complaints, and in Department of Health investigations.

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

Sources:

Atkins, Dorothy. “50 Cent Sues Fla. Surgeon Over ‘Penile Enhancement’ Ads.” Law360. (September 20, 2022). Web.

Heebink, Kendall. “Rapper 50 Cent Sues Florida Plastic Surgeon Over False Claims.” Law Street Media. (September 19, 2022). Web.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law; he is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in 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.

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

KeyWords: healthcare legal representation, legal representation for physicians, doctor defense legal representation, insurance audit defense attorney, complex health care litigation attorney, complex civil litigation attorney, complex healthcare litigation lawyer, complex medical litigation lawyer, Florida Louisiana District of Columbia (D.C.) professional license defense attorney, representation for complex medical litigation, representation for healthcare business litigation matters, legal representation for telemedicine issues, The Health Law Firm, reviews of The Health Law Firm Attorneys, The Health Law Firm attorney reviews, legal representation for health care professionals, nurse defense lawyer, representation for healthcare business litigation matters, legal representation for administrative hearing, legal representation for Department of Health investigation defense lawyer, doctor defense lawyer, legal representation for healthcare facility, legal representation in defense of complex medical and healthcare litigation, legal representation of plastic surgeons, legal representation of cosmetic dermatologists,
legal representation for oral and maxillofacial surgeons, legal representation for nurse practitioners, nurse practitioner defense lawyer, nurse practitioner defense, legal representation for business and contracting matters, legal representation for preparation and review of medical practice forms, legal representation for business litigation matters, legal representation for healthcare contracting litigation, legal representation for medical practice administrative litigation

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2022 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

By |2024-03-14T09:59:13-04:00January 28, 2024|Categories: Medical Education Law Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |Comments Off on Rapper 50 Cent Sues Florida Plastic Surgeon Over “Penile Enhancement” Ads & Social Media Photos

New Study Reveals Complex Coding Structures in U.S. For Rise in Medical Billing Costs

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

A study publicized in August 2022 revealed that the complex coding structures used in the United States drive up medical billing costs. This helps to make the U.S. one of the most expensive countries for health providers to get paid. According to the study, researchers used a micro-level accounting of billing and insurance-related (often abbreviated “BIR”) expenses in different national settings at six provider locations in five nations: Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, and Singapore. This most recent study supplements a prior study measuring such costs in the U.S.

The findings, published in Health Affairs Journal, revealed “BIR (billing and insurance-related) costs in the U.S. are generally much higher than the costs in other countries.” This means that all the extra costs of coding and billing, including the related expenses, are a significant factor in driving up health care cases in the U.S. Say what you want about doctors’ hating paperwork, but this study seems to validate that feeling.

The Findings of the Study.

The study confirmed what research has established that billing and insurance-related (BIR) costs in the U.S. are much higher than in other countries. For example, prices range from $6 in Canada to $215 in the U.S. for an inpatient surgical bill. In the U.S., that represented about 3.1 percent of the total professional revenue for the procedure. Providers also spent about 100 minutes processing the claim.

To compare, only Australia had similar billing and insurance-related costs to the U.S. Australia has a mix of publicly and privately funded payers and universal coverage. Billing and insurance-related costs were significantly less in Canada than in the other nations. The study said Germany, Singapore, and the Netherlands had equal billing and insurance-related costs.

A Common Trend: Complex Coding.

The U.S. has a coding process in which each payer has its forms and documentation requirements, creating a significant burden on providers to translate clinical documentation into billable codes for reimbursement.

Because of standardization in other countries, providers spend less time coding or do not need coders to translate documentation into billable codes. Additionally, “little physician time is spent entering billing-related information into the EHR [electronic health record] system, as charge codes are either generated automatically or entered manually by a lower-wage or nonclinical teammate,” the study stated. “As a consequence, these countries’ billing systems either require fewer labor resources or much less costly labor and physician time than the one in the U.S.”

Researchers also found that financial counseling could reduce overall billing and insurance-related costs in the U.S.

You can read the study in full and learn more by visiting Health Affairs, a leading peer-reviewed journal of health policy thought and research.

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

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

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

Sources:

LaPointe, Jacqueline. “Coding Drives Up Medical Billing Costs in the US.” Rev Cycle Intelligence. (August 3, 2022) Web.

Norris, Amanda. “REV CYCLE PROCESSES PUSH U.S. TO TOP OF LIST FOR HIGHEST MEDICAL BILLING COSTS.” Health Leaders Media. (August 10, 2022). Web.

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

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2022 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

By |2024-03-14T09:59:15-04:00December 21, 2023|Categories: Mental Health Law Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |Comments Off on New Study Reveals Complex Coding Structures in U.S. For Rise in Medical Billing Costs

New Study Faults Coding Structures For Increased Medical Billing Costs in U.S.

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

A study publicized in August 2022 revealed that the complex coding structures used in the United States drive up medical billing costs. This helps to make the U.S. one of the most expensive countries for health providers to get paid. According to the study, researchers used a micro-level accounting of billing and insurance-related (often abbreviated “BIR”) expenses in different national settings at six provider locations in five nations: Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, and Singapore. This most recent study supplements a prior study measuring such costs in the U.S.

The findings, published in Health Affairs Journal, revealed “BIR (billing and insurance-related) costs in the U.S. are generally much higher than the costs in other countries.” This means that all the extra costs of coding and billing, including the related expenses, are a significant factor in driving up health care cases in the U.S. Say what you want about doctors’ hating paperwork, but this study seems to validate that feeling.

The Findings of the Study.

The study confirmed what research has established that billing and insurance-related (BIR) costs in the U.S. are much higher than in other countries. For example, prices range from $6 in Canada to $215 in the U.S. for an inpatient surgical bill. In the U.S., that represented about 3.1 percent of the total professional revenue for the procedure. Providers also spent about 100 minutes processing the claim.

To compare, only Australia had similar billing and insurance-related costs to the U.S. Australia has a mix of publicly and privately funded payers and universal coverage. Billing and insurance-related costs were significantly less in Canada than in the other nations. The study said Germany, Singapore, and the Netherlands had equal billing and insurance-related costs.

A Common Trend: Complex Coding.

The U.S. has a coding process in which each payer has its forms and documentation requirements, creating a significant burden on providers to translate clinical documentation into billable codes for reimbursement.

Because of standardization in other countries, providers spend less time coding or do not need coders to translate documentation into billable codes. Additionally, “little physician time is spent entering billing-related information into the EHR [electronic health record] system, as charge codes are either generated automatically or entered manually by a lower-wage or nonclinical teammate,” the study stated. “As a consequence, these countries’ billing systems either require fewer labor resources or much less costly labor and physician time than the one in the U.S.”

Researchers also found that financial counseling could reduce overall billing and insurance-related costs in the U.S.

You can read the study in full and learn more by visiting Health Affairs, a leading peer-reviewed journal of health policy thought and research.

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

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

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

Sources:

LaPointe, Jacqueline. “Coding Drives Up Medical Billing Costs in the US.” Rev Cycle Intelligence. (August 3, 2022) Web.

Norris, Amanda. “REV CYCLE PROCESSES PUSH U.S. TO TOP OF LIST FOR HIGHEST MEDICAL BILLING COSTS.” Health Leaders Media. (August 10, 2022). Web.

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

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2022 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Supreme Court Rules Against HHS in Hospital Medicare Reimbursement Case

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

On June 15, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court said the federal government improperly cut more than $1 billion a year in Medicare reimbursements to hospitals.  This came in a ruling that limits regulators’ power to control what the program pays for certain drugs.  In this case, the Supreme Court justices sided unanimously with a group of hospitals suing over drug reimbursement rates for facilities that serve low-income communities. In writing for the court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) improperly calculated reimbursement rates using a methodology Congress authorized for use only in limited circumstances.

Were the Reimbursement Cuts Unlawful?

The Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s 2020 decision that HHS had the authority to reduce the yearly Medicare reimbursement rates for a group of hospitals serving low income communities. Click here to view the July 31, 2020 decision.

The high court found the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit erred in 2020 when it allowed the HHS to reduce Medicare payments, by roughly $1.6 billion, for outpatient drugs that had helped subsidize the operations of the hospitals.  The Supreme Court’s decision did not extend so far as to undermine HHS authority, but only stated how the agency acted unlawfully in accordance with its varying rates for hospitals under the 340B Drug Pricing Program.

“In short, the statute allows HHS to set reimbursement rates based on average price and affords the agency discretion to ‘adjust’ the price up or down. But unless HHS conducts a survey of hospitals’ acquisition costs, HHS may not vary the reimbursement rates by hospital group,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote in the ruling.


Regulating Reimbursement Rates Under the 340B Program.

Under Medicare, health care providers get reimbursed by the government for expenses, including medications used in hospital outpatient departments. Previously, hospitals had been getting reimbursed at a rate based on the average price of the drugs. However, in 2018, the HHS, under then-President Donald Trump, cut payments for outpatient drugs by 28.5% to hospitals receiving money under the 340B program.

The department found that reimbursements were too high because these hospitals obtain the drugs from manufacturers at a deep discount, an issue that also resulted in excessive patient co-payments. Additionally, the resulting cut dealt “a crushing blow to providers that were already operating on razor-thin  margins and to the vulnerable populations they serve,” the hospitals told the justices in a court filing.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the court that “absent a survey of hospitals’ acquisition costs,” the HHS “may not vary the reimbursement rates for 340B hospitals. The HHS’s 2018 and 2019 reimbursement rates for 340B hospitals were therefore contrary to the statute and unlawful.”

Click here to read the Supreme Court’s Opinion in the case, American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 20-1114.

Don’t Wait Until It’s Too Late; Consult with a Health Law Attorney Experienced in Medicare and Medicaid Issues Now.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm represent healthcare providers in Medicare audits, Medcaid audits and RAC audits throughout Florida and across the U.S. They also represent physicians, medical groups, nursing homes, home health agencies, pharmacies, hospitals and other healthcare providers and institutions in Medicare and Medicaid investigations, audits, recovery actions and termination from the Medicare or Medicaid Program.

For more information please visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com or call (407) 331-6620 or toll-free at (888) 331-6620.


Sources:

Stohr, Greg. “Supreme Court Sides With Hospitals on Medicare Reimbursement.” Bloomberg Law. (June 15, 2022). Web.

Chung, Andrew. “U.S. Supreme Court faults Medicare cuts to hospitals for outpatient drugs.” Reuters. (June 15, 2022). Web.

Gresko, Jessica. “High court rules against government on drug reimbursement.” Associated Press. (June 15, 2022). 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 or Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620.

KeyWords:  Legal representation for Medicare Medicaid audit, Medicare Medicaid audit defense attorney, legal representation for healthcare professionals, complex health care litigation attorney, legal representation for Medicare Medicaid reimbursement demand, Medicare Medicaid defense lawyer, legal representation for Medicare Medicaid defense, complex civil health care litigation attorney, legal representation for complex medical litigation, representation for healthcare business litigation matters, Medicare Medicaid hearing attorney, legal representation for physicians and health care professionals, attorney for physician suits against insurers, complex medical business litigation against health insurers, formal Medicare administrative hearing lawyer, Health law defense lawyer, legal representation of health care professionals, Medicare Medicaid overpayment demand defense lawyer, Legal representation for Medicare Medicaid administrative hearing
Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) formal hearing defense attorney, legal representation for Medicare Medicaid revocation termination hearings, medical license investigation representation defense attorney, representation for Florida Department of Health (DOH) investigations and hearings, reviews of The Health Law Firm, reviews of The Health Law Firm. The Health Law Firm attorney 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 © 2022 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

By |2024-03-14T09:59:16-04:00November 18, 2023|Categories: Health Facilities Law Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |Comments Off on Supreme Court Rules Against HHS in Hospital Medicare Reimbursement Case

Doctor’s Defamation Suit Against University over Use of Resident Physicians Moves Forward

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

On July 11, 2023, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky allowed a doctor to move forward with one of his defamation claims against the university’s provost for allegations made to support his termination.

A medical doctor and oral surgeon at the University of Kentucky (UK) sued the university and university officials on multiple grounds, including making a defamation claim against the university’s provost. The defamation claim stems from the Statement of Charges made by the provost in the physician’s termination proceedings.

The Statement of Charges claims that the doctor stole from the UK, took credit for patient care services that a resident performed, caused the College of Dentistry to submit false claims to the federal government, and encouraged a colleague to falsify medical records.

The court granted summary judgment on three counts but denied summary judgment on the claim that the doctor stole from the university.

University of Kentucky Policy.

The UK employed the doctor from 2001 to 2019. Before 2017, UK policy approved by its Dental Care Board required its staff to designate the faculty member as the treatment provider on billing documents when a resident helped the faculty member with treatment and documented the care. During 2017, billing practices changed, and employees began designating residents as the treatment providers whenever the residents documented a patient’s care.

When the faculty member was designated as the treatment provider, the faculty member would be entitled to 40 percent of the fees paid.

University of Kentucky’s Investigation.

From April 2017 to July 2018, UK documents designated a resident as the treatment provider for 89 patients the plaintiffs doctor alleges he treated. The doctor, believing he was entitled to income for this care, reviewed the files and removed any reference to a resident from the patient notes, or so it is alleged in the pleadings.

The altered documents triggered an internal investigation. The university interviewed seven residents whose notes had been changed by the doctor. The residents confirmed that patient clinical care occurred in two ways: 1) they would treat the patient and present their findings to the doctor, and he would then reevaluate the patient, or 2) the resident and doctor would treat the patient simultaneously.

Since none of the 89 patients left without seeing the doctor, he alleges that he was entitled to the income for their care.

The investigation confirmed that there were no patient care issues. The issues were purely with the documentation of the patient care. The medical records do not reflect the services performed because the documents do not mention a resident providing care. The report alleges that the doctor removed all references to residents in the documentation solely to obtain compensation for these visits.

The university’s provost decided that the university needed to discipline the doctor for altering the medical records, most probably a prudent decision.

Disciplinary Actions.

The provost informed the doctor in January 2019 that university termination proceedings would begin. However, it is alleged that he did not follow the correct termination procedures. The provost decided to investigate further while suspending the doctor from clinical care pending the investigation’s outcome.

After this, the provost filed a Statement of Charges against the doctor, which began the administrative process to terminate tenured faculty. In the Statement of Charges, the provost claimed the doctor stole from the University of Kentucky, falsified medical records by claiming he provided services that a resident provided, caused the university to submit false claims to Medicare and Medicaid, and encouraged a colleague to behave similarly.

The doctor resigned and sued the university and university officials on multiple grounds, including the defamation claim against the provost for his four statements in the Statement of Charges.

Legal Proceedings.

The provost filed a motion for summary judgment for qualified privilege. Qualified privilege protects a speaker where the communication is one in which the party has an interest and it is made to another interested party.

In employment, qualified privilege applies to internal discussions and communications necessary to a company’s proper function and law enforcement. This protection will apply despite a statement’s falsity if the public interest in detecting wrongdoing outweighs the private interest for defamation if the suspicions are made in good faith.

Privilege can be overcome by showing actual malice and falsity in a statement. It is the burden of the plaintiff to defeat the assertion of qualified privilege. So, in this case, the doctor has to show that the provost’s four statements are false and were made maliciously.

In the present proceeding, the judge is not deciding if the statements are defamatory. The judge is only deciding if a jury could find the statements defamatory and whether to grant summary judgment in favor of UK.

The judge granted summary judgment in favor of the UK provost on three of the allegedly defamatory statements: 1) That the doctor falsified medical records, 2) That the doctor caused the university to submit false claims to the federal government, and 3) that the doctor influenced another faculty member to do the same.

Federal courts grant summary judgment if the moving party does not dispute a material fact. The moving party is entitled to judgment if there is no dispute between the parties. The judge found no disagreement with the statement that the doctor falsified medical records.

For the statement that the doctor caused the college to submit false claims to the government, the doctor could not overcome the qualified privilege that the provost had as a matter of law. The doctor failed to show that the provost knew or should have known that the allegation was false or that the provost spoke maliciously. Therefore, the qualified privilege stood, and that claim was dismissed.

The doctor also failed to show that the provost’s statement that the doctor influenced a colleague was false. Therefore, the doctor was also unable to defeat the qualified privilege for that statement.

The judge decided that the plaintiffs introduced sufficient evidence for a jury to decide whether he could defeat qualified privilege for the claim that he stole from the University of Kentucky. This evidence included the testimony of four other UK dentists stating that the doctor should have been designated as the treatment provider, not the residents. This means that it could be argued that the funds were earned by the plaintiff doctor and not stolen by him.

Evidence was also introduced to show that the provost recklessly disregarded the possibility that the statement was false. There was no evidence that the doctor failed to participate in caring for the patients at issue. All evidence showed that he did treat the patients with a resident. Because of this, the jury could conclude that he was entitled to the compensation and, therefore, did not steal it.

The judge denied summary judgment for the UK provost regarding the statement that the doctor stole from the University of Kentucky. However, summary judgment was granted in favor of the UK provost on the other three defamation claims dismissing them.

Click here to read the Memorandum Opinion and Order on our website.

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

At the Health Law Firm we represent dentists and oral surgeons, resident physicians and fellows, and other health professionals. We represent them in legal disputes and disciplinary cases against their universities and residency programs, in investigations and complaints against their licenses, in clinical privileges matters and peer review hearings, in administrative hearings and in complex litigation. We litigate cases in state and federal courts and in administrative forums. We have a great deal of experience in representing physicians against universities, medical schools, and graduate medical education programs. The lawyers of The Health Law Firm are experienced in both formal and informal administrative hearings and in representing physicians in investigations complaints before the board of dentistry and board of medicine.

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

Sources:

Cunningham v. Blackwell, CIVIL 3:20-cv-00008-GFVT-EBA (E.D. Ky. Jul. 11, 2023)
“U.S. Court in Kentucky Allows Physicians Defamation Claim to go Forward in Termination Dispute.” American Health Law Association Health Law Weekly. (21 July 2023). https://www.americanhealthlaw.org/content-library/health-law-weekly/article/7db3086c-db3c-4f85-bad7-88802f937f14/U-S-Court-in-Kentucky-Allows-Physician-s-Defamation

About the Authors: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law; he is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice.

Hartley Brooks is a law clerk with the health law firm. Its main office is in Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620.

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

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2023 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

 

U.S. Government Renews COVID-19 Public Health Emergency, Extending Health Benefits for Millions of Americans

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

On July 15, 2022, the United States again renewed the COVID-19 public health emergency, allowing millions of Americans special access to free tests, vaccines, and treatments. The public health emergency was initially declared in January 2020, when the coronavirus pandemic began. Since then, the Department of Health and Human Services has renewed it each quarter. HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra officially renewed the declaration extending it through October 13, 2022. View it in full here.

Ensuring Continued Access to Special Services During the Public-Health Emergency.

The declaration allows the U.S. to grant emergency authorizations of drugs, vaccines, and other medical countermeasures. As a result, it can administer those products to millions of people at no out-of-pocket cost. It’s also enabled millions of Americans to get health coverage through Medicaid, among other benefits.

It may also have additional benefits, such as allowing certain health care professionals to practice across state lines without getting a license in the state where the patient is and encouraging the continuation of video visits (telemedicine). But check your state and national regulations to be sure.

When the public health emergency expires, insured patients will be subject to co-pays or other costs, while the uninsured will lose easy access to free testing. In addition, millions could risk losing Medicaid coverage as states reinstate stricter enrollment rules that they had loosened to qualify for enhanced federal funding.

The Biden administration has ensured states it will give 60 days’ notice before ending the emergency to allow sufficient time to prepare for changes to specific programs and regulatory authorities. To learn more about Public Health Emergency Declarations, visit the Office for the Assistant Secretary of Preparedness and Response.

To read one of my prior blogs on the status of the COVID-19 pandemic in the healthcare industry, click here.

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

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

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

Sources:

Aboulenein, Ahmed. “U.S. Renews COVID-19 Public Health Emergency.” Reuters. (April 13, 2022). Web.

Griffin, Riley. “Biden Administration to Again Extend the Covid Public-Health Emergency.” Bloomberg Law. (July 11, 2022). Web.

AHLA. “US Government To Extend COVID-19 Public Health Emergency Again.” Health Law Daily. (July 13, 2022). Web.

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

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2022 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

 

 

 

Doctor’s Defamation Suit Okayed for Termination by University over Use of Resident Physicians

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

On July 11, 2023, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky allowed a doctor to move forward with one of his defamation claims against the university’s provost for allegations made to support his termination.

A medical doctor and oral surgeon at the University of Kentucky (UK) sued the university and university officials on multiple grounds, including making a defamation claim against the university’s provost. The defamation claim stems from the Statement of Charges made by the provost in the physician’s termination proceedings.

The Statement of Charges claims that the doctor stole from the UK, took credit for patient care services that a resident performed, caused the College of Dentistry to submit false claims to the federal government, and encouraged a colleague to falsify medical records.

The court granted summary judgment on three counts but denied summary judgment on the claim that the doctor stole from the university.

University of Kentucky Policy.

The UK employed the doctor from 2001 to 2019. Before 2017, UK policy approved by its Dental Care Board required its staff to designate the faculty member as the treatment provider on billing documents when a resident helped the faculty member with treatment and documented the care. During 2017, billing practices changed, and employees began designating residents as the treatment providers whenever the residents documented a patient’s care.

When the faculty member was designated as the treatment provider, the faculty member would be entitled to 40 percent of the fees paid.

University of Kentucky’s Investigation.

From April 2017 to July 2018, UK documents designated a resident as the treatment provider for 89 patients the plaintiffs doctor alleges he treated. The doctor, believing he was entitled to income for this care, reviewed the files and removed any reference to a resident from the patient notes, or so it is alleged in the pleadings.

The altered documents triggered an internal investigation. The university interviewed seven residents whose notes had been changed by the doctor. The residents confirmed that patient clinical care occurred in two ways: 1) they would treat the patient and present their findings to the doctor, and he would then reevaluate the patient, or 2) the resident and doctor would treat the patient simultaneously.

Since none of the 89 patients left without seeing the doctor, he alleges that he was entitled to the income for their care.

The investigation confirmed that there were no patient care issues. The issues were purely with the documentation of the patient care. The medical records do not reflect the services performed because the documents do not mention a resident providing care. The report alleges that the doctor removed all references to residents in the documentation solely to obtain compensation for these visits.

The university’s provost decided that the university needed to discipline the doctor for altering the medical records, most probably a prudent decision.

Disciplinary Actions.

The provost informed the doctor in January 2019 that university termination proceedings would begin. However, it is alleged that he did not follow the correct termination procedures. The provost decided to investigate further while suspending the doctor from clinical care pending the investigation’s outcome.

After this, the provost filed a Statement of Charges against the doctor, which began the administrative process to terminate tenured faculty. In the Statement of Charges, the provost claimed the doctor stole from the University of Kentucky, falsified medical records by claiming he provided services that a resident provided, caused the university to submit false claims to Medicare and Medicaid, and encouraged a colleague to behave similarly.

The doctor resigned and sued the university and university officials on multiple grounds, including the defamation claim against the provost for his four statements in the Statement of Charges.

Legal Proceedings.

The provost filed a motion for summary judgment for qualified privilege. Qualified privilege protects a speaker where the communication is one in which the party has an interest and it is made to another interested party.

In employment, qualified privilege applies to internal discussions and communications necessary to a company’s proper function and law enforcement. This protection will apply despite a statement’s falsity if the public interest in detecting wrongdoing outweighs the private interest for defamation if the suspicions are made in good faith.

Privilege can be overcome by showing actual malice and falsity in a statement. It is the burden of the plaintiff to defeat the assertion of qualified privilege. So, in this case, the doctor has to show that the provost’s four statements are false and were made maliciously.

In the present proceeding, the judge is not deciding if the statements are defamatory. The judge is only deciding if a jury could find the statements defamatory and whether to grant summary judgment in favor of UK.

The judge granted summary judgment in favor of the UK provost on three of the allegedly defamatory statements: 1) That the doctor falsified medical records, 2) That the doctor caused the university to submit false claims to the federal government, and 3) that the doctor influenced another faculty member to do the same.

Federal courts grant summary judgment if the moving party does not dispute a material fact. The moving party is entitled to judgment if there is no dispute between the parties. The judge found no disagreement with the statement that the doctor falsified medical records.

For the statement that the doctor caused the college to submit false claims to the government, the doctor could not overcome the qualified privilege that the provost had as a matter of law. The doctor failed to show that the provost knew or should have known that the allegation was false or that the provost spoke maliciously. Therefore, the qualified privilege stood, and that claim was dismissed.

The doctor also failed to show that the provost’s statement that the doctor influenced a colleague was false. Therefore, the doctor was also unable to defeat the qualified privilege for that statement.

The judge decided that the plaintiffs introduced sufficient evidence for a jury to decide whether he could defeat qualified privilege for the claim that he stole from the University of Kentucky. This evidence included the testimony of four other UK dentists stating that the doctor should have been designated as the treatment provider, not the residents. This means that it could be argued that the funds were earned by the plaintiff doctor and not stolen by him.

Evidence was also introduced to show that the provost recklessly disregarded the possibility that the statement was false. There was no evidence that the doctor failed to participate in caring for the patients at issue. All evidence showed that he did treat the patients with a resident. Because of this, the jury could conclude that he was entitled to the compensation and, therefore, did not steal it.

The judge denied summary judgment for the UK provost regarding the statement that the doctor stole from the University of Kentucky. However, summary judgment was granted in favor of the UK provost on the other three defamation claims dismissing them.

Click here to read the Memorandum Opinion and Order on our website.

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

At the Health Law Firm we represent dentists and oral surgeons, resident physicians and fellows, and other health professionals. We represent them in legal disputes and disciplinary cases against their universities and residency programs, in investigations and complaints against their licenses, in clinical privileges matters and peer review hearings, in administrative hearings and in complex litigation. We litigate cases in state and federal courts and in administrative forums. We have a great deal of experience in representing physicians against universities, medical schools, and graduate medical education programs. The lawyers of The Health Law Firm are experienced in both formal and informal administrative hearings and in representing physicians in investigations complaints before the board of dentistry and board of medicine.

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

Sources:

Cunningham v. Blackwell, CIVIL 3:20-cv-00008-GFVT-EBA (E.D. Ky. Jul. 11, 2023)
“U.S. Court in Kentucky Allows Physicians Defamation Claim to go Forward in Termination Dispute.” American Health Law Association Health Law Weekly. (21 July 2023). https://www.americanhealthlaw.org/content-library/health-law-weekly/article/7db3086c-db3c-4f85-bad7-88802f937f14/U-S-Court-in-Kentucky-Allows-Physician-s-Defamation

About the Authors: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law; he is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice.

Hartley Brooks is a law clerk with the health law firm. Its main office is in Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620.

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

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2023 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

 

HCA Healthcare Data Breach May Affect 11 Million Patients

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

On July 11, 2023, HCA Healthcare, which operates 180 hospitals in the U.S. and Britain, said a hacker may have stolen the personal data of about 11 million patients in a data breach. A press release warned patients that critical personal information had been compromised, including their full name, city, and when and where they last saw a healthcare provider.

What Happened to the Patient Data?

Data samples, including addresses, phone numbers, e-mails, and birth dates, were posted to DataBreaches.net (an online forum popular with cyber crooks) by a hacker trying to sell them. However, after publication, an HCA spokesperson told CNBC that the sample data set published was only a “marketing campaign” (or fake data) and was not an individual patient’s real medical assessment.

Who is Affected?

The hack affects patients in nearly two dozen states, including those from dozens of Florida and Texas facilities. The data also included information on scheduled appointments and the medical departments involved. The hacker also dumped a file online in what appeared to be a failed attempt to extort HCA. It included nearly one million records from the company’s San Antonio division.

Patient data breaches are not uncommon, but they can vary in scope and effect. HCA’s breach did not include critical medical records. The company said that the breached data originated at an external storage location exclusively used to automate the formatting of e-mail messages.

HCA Healthcare will offer credit monitoring and identity protection services for patients who have been impacted. But in the meantime, the company is encouraging everyone to look out for spam calls, texts, or e-mails, targeting them for fraud and scams.

For more information on this topic, read one of my prior blogs.

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

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

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

Sources:

Bajak, Frank. “HCA Healthcare says data breach may affect 11 million patients in 20 states.” Associated Press (AP). (July 11, 2023). https://apnews.com/article/data-breach-hca-healthcare-hack-identity-theft-507d8b8915dd934a5be4bd6fb853dfb1

Galarza, Monica. “HCA Healthcare data breach impacts millions of patients, dozens of Florida facilities. Here’s what to know.” CNBC. (July 11, 2023). https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/business/money-report/hca-healthcare-data-breach-impacts-millions-of-patients-dozens-of-florida-facilities-heres-what-to-know/3069139/#:~:text=HCA%20Healthcare%20released%20a%20statement,locations%20of%20the%20patients’%20appointments

Goswami, Rohan. “HCA Healthcare patient data stolen and for sale by hackers.” CNBC.
(July 10, 2023). https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/10/hca-healthcare-patient-data-stolen-and-for-sale-by-hackers.html

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

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

The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2023 The Health Law

By |2024-03-14T09:59:18-04:00October 10, 2023|Categories: Nursing Law Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |Comments Off on HCA Healthcare Data Breach May Affect 11 Million Patients
Go to Top