Florida Court Sides With University of Miami, Says It’s Immune To Medical Malpractice Suit

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

On October 28, 2020, a Florida appeals court tossed out a medical malpractice suit accusing a University of Miami doctor of providing negligent treatment at a public teaching hospital. A panel of the Florida Third District Court of Appeal upheld a circuit judge’s ruling that the university is protected by sovereign immunity when faculty members provide care at Jackson Memorial Hospital, a teaching hospital.


Background of the Suit.

The ruling arose out of a case in which a University of Miami physician provided treatment in 2013 to a patient at Jackson Memorial. A medical malpractice lawsuit was filed against parties including Jackson Memorial, the university, and the physician. The suit alleged that a failure to provide anticoagulants resulted in disabilities.

Jackson Memorial Hospital is owned and operated by Miami-Dade County through the Public Health Trust. It is supported by Miami-Dade County residents through a portion of the county’s sales tax. Because of this, it is considered to be the same as a state agency, and its employees have the same sovereign immunity as state employees do.

The judge dismissed the suit against the doctor, saying that because the doctor provided services at the public teaching hospital, pursuant to the University’s agreement with Jackson Memorial, he should be considered an agent of the hospital. Therefore, he is entitled to sovereign immunity.

Pointing to state law and an agreement with Jackson Memorial, the university also argued that it was shielded by immunity from liability. The university claimed it was entitled to immunity under Sections 768.28(9)(a) and (10)(f), Florida Statutes. Since any liability the university had would be vicarious liability based on the alleged negligence of the physician, if the physician was determined to be immune, the university would have the same defense.

Additionally, Section 768.28, Florida Statutes, was amended by the Florida Legislature in 2011 to cover nonprofit independent universities that provide patient care at government-owned teaching hospitals. The same year, Jackson Memorial and Miami University amended the terms of their agreement to incorporate the amended sovereign immunity statute, according to the judge’s opinion in the case.

The Trial Court’s Ruling.

The appellate court panel agreed with the circuit judge, saying it was undisputed that the doctor was a University of Miami faculty member and employee at the time of the treatment. Additionally, the agreement between Jackson Memorial and the University of Miami was properly redrafted in 2011 to reflect the amendment to the statute. “Under the terms of the 2011 agreement and section 768.28, Florida Statutes, the university is immune from suit here because the physician treated the patient while acting as Jackson’s statutory agent,” the appellate panel said in the opinion.

Click here to read the court’s opinion in full.

Contact Health Attorneys Experienced in Health Law and Employment Law.

The Health Law Firm represents both employers and employees in the health care industry in prosecuting and in defending complex civil litigation in state and federal courts. Our attorneys represent individuals and institutions in litigation, civil or administrative, state or federal.

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

Sources:

“State Appeals Court: University Of Miami Shielded From Medical Malpractice Lawsuit.” Miami CBS Local. (October 28, 2020). Web.

Kang, Peter. “Fla. Court Says Univ. Of Miami Immune To Med Mal Suit.” Law360. (October 28, 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 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 Firm. All rights reserved.

New Florida Law Aimed at Healthcare Professional Background Screening

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

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

More Details on the New Legislation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

About the Author: Michael L. Smith, R.R.T., J.D., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is an attorney with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave. Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2021 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Florida Court Sides With University of Miami, Says University Is Immune To Medical Malpractice Suit

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

On October 28, 2020, a Florida appeals court tossed out a medical malpractice suit accusing a University of Miami doctor of providing negligent treatment at a public teaching hospital. A panel of the Florida Third District Court of Appeal upheld a circuit judge’s ruling that the university is protected by sovereign immunity when faculty members provide care at Jackson Memorial Hospital, a teaching hospital.


Background of the Suit.

The ruling arose out of a case in which a University of Miami physician provided treatment in 2013 to a patient at Jackson Memorial. A medical malpractice lawsuit was filed against parties including Jackson Memorial, the university, and the physician. The suit alleged that a failure to provide anticoagulants resulted in disabilities.

Jackson Memorial Hospital is owned and operated by Miami-Dade County through the Public Health Trust. It is supported by Miami-Dade County residents through a portion of the county’s sales tax. Because of this, it is considered to be the same as a state agency, and its employees have the same sovereign immunity as state employees do.

The judge dismissed the suit against the doctor, saying that because the doctor provided services at the public teaching hospital, pursuant to the University’s agreement with Jackson Memorial, he should be considered an agent of the hospital. Therefore, he is entitled to sovereign immunity.

Pointing to state law and an agreement with Jackson Memorial, the university also argued that it was shielded by immunity from liability. The university claimed it was entitled to immunity under Sections 768.28(9)(a) and (10)(f), Florida Statutes. Since any liability the university had would be vicarious liability based on the alleged negligence of the physician, if the physician was determined to be immune, the university would have the same defense.

Additionally, Section 768.28, Florida Statutes, was amended by the Florida Legislature in 2011 to cover nonprofit independent universities that provide patient care at government-owned teaching hospitals. The same year, Jackson Memorial and Miami University amended the terms of their agreement to incorporate the amended sovereign immunity statute, according to the judge’s opinion in the case.

The Trial Court’s Ruling.

The appellate court panel agreed with the circuit judge, saying it was undisputed that the doctor was a University of Miami faculty member and employee at the time of the treatment. Additionally, the agreement between Jackson Memorial and the University of Miami was properly redrafted in 2011 to reflect the amendment to the statute. “Under the terms of the 2011 agreement and section 768.28, Florida Statutes, the university is immune from suit here because the physician treated the patient while acting as Jackson’s statutory agent,” the appellate panel said in the opinion.

Click here to read the court’s opinion in full.

Contact Health Attorneys Experienced in Health Law and Employment Law.

The Health Law Firm represents both employers and employees in the health care industry in prosecuting and in defending complex civil litigation in state and federal courts. Our attorneys represent individuals and institutions in litigation, civil or administrative, state or federal.

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

Sources:

“State Appeals Court: University Of Miami Shielded From Medical Malpractice Lawsuit.” Miami CBS Local. (October 28, 2020). Web.

Kang, Peter. “Fla. Court Says Univ. Of Miami Immune To Med Mal Suit.” Law360. (October 28, 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 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 Firm. All rights reserved.

Law Passed in Florida Aimed at Healthcare Professional Background Screening

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

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

More Details on the New Legislation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

About the Author: Michael L. Smith, R.R.T., J.D., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is an attorney with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave. Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2021 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Yale University to Pay $87,500 Settlement For Alleged Pay Discrimination

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

Yale University agreed to pay $87,500 to resolve discrimination allegations with the U.S. Department of Labor. The discrimination alleged that the Ivy League school paid four women cardiologists significantly less than their male colleagues from October 2016 to September 2017. While not admitting the allegations, the university agreed to the settlement which will reportedly cover the difference in pay for the women affected, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) said.

Alleged Pay Discrimination.

The OFCCP first detected the pay disparities during a routine compliance audit of the university’s medical school, the agreement said. The agency found that in 2016, Yale University paid four female cardiologists less than similarly situated male physicians at the School of Medicine’s Cardiovascular Medicine Section.

According to the settlement, Yale hired the doctors as part of the university’s “acquisition of community practices and hospitals associated with the Yale-New Haven Hospital System.” In 2018, Yale allegedly cut the women doctors’ employment category and moved them to a new faculty category. OFCCP claims that the medical school category is supposed to have a uniform compensation structure in place. Click here to read the settlement agreement in full.

In response to the allegations, a Yale was quoted as saying: “The conciliation agreement involves only four employees out of a workforce of over 16,000. OFCCP admitted that it found no pay disparities as to any but these four employees, who held roles in an employment category that has not existed for over two years.”

To read the press release issued by the Department of Labor, click here.

Additionally, read my recent blog on a previous discrimination lawsuit against Yale.

What does this show us? That at least in federal programs and in educational institutions and medical programs receiving federal funds, discrimination is prohibited and action will be taken to remedy it.

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

At the Health Law Firm, we provide legal services for physicians, including residents, and fellows, as well as medical students. We also represent other health professionals, clinical professors, dentists, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors, and other healthcare providers. We represent health facilities, medical 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, physicians, including those involved in clinical research, complaints, and investigations.

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

Sources:

Ottaway, Amanda. “Yale Settles OFCCP Claims That It Underpaid Female Doctors.” Law360. (October 5, 2020). Web.

Smith, Paige. “Yale University Settles DOL Claims of Pay Bias Against Women (1).” Bloomberg Law. (October 2, 2020). Web.

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

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

By |2020-12-21T15:29:05-05:00February 8th, 2021|Categories: In the News, Nursing Law Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |0 Comments

Yale University Agrees to Pay $87,500 to Settle Allegations It Underpaid Female Doctors

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

Yale University agreed to pay $87,500 to resolve discrimination allegations with the U.S. Department of Labor. The discrimination alleged that the Ivy League school paid four women cardiologists significantly less than their male colleagues from October 2016 to September 2017. While not admitting the allegations, the university agreed to the settlement which will reportedly cover the difference in pay for the women affected, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) said.

Alleged Pay Discrimination.

The OFCCP first detected the pay disparities during a routine compliance audit of the university’s medical school, the agreement said. The agency found that in 2016, Yale University paid four female cardiologists less than similarly situated male physicians at the School of Medicine’s Cardiovascular Medicine Section.

According to the settlement, Yale hired the doctors as part of the university’s “acquisition of community practices and hospitals associated with the Yale-New Haven Hospital System.” In 2018, Yale allegedly cut the women doctors’ employment category and moved them to a new faculty category. OFCCP claims that the medical school category is supposed to have a uniform compensation structure in place. Click here to read the settlement agreement in full.

In response to the allegations, a Yale was quoted as saying: “The conciliation agreement involves only four employees out of a workforce of over 16,000. OFCCP admitted that it found no pay disparities as to any but these four employees, who held roles in an employment category that has not existed for over two years.”

To read the press release issued by the Department of Labor, click here.

Additionally, read my recent blog on a previous discrimination lawsuit against Yale.

What does this show us? That at least in federal programs and in educational institutions and medical programs receiving federal funds, discrimination is prohibited and action will be taken to remedy it.

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

At the Health Law Firm, we provide legal services for physicians, including residents, and fellows, as well as medical students. We also represent other health professionals, clinical professors, dentists, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors, and other healthcare providers. We represent health facilities, medical 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, physicians, including those involved in clinical research, complaints, and investigations.

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

Sources:

Ottaway, Amanda. “Yale Settles OFCCP Claims That It Underpaid Female Doctors.” Law360. (October 5, 2020). Web.

Smith, Paige. “Yale University Settles DOL Claims of Pay Bias Against Women (1).” Bloomberg Law. (October 2, 2020). Web.

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

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

By |2020-12-21T15:16:58-05:00January 25th, 2021|Categories: Health Facilities Law Blog, In the Know, In the News|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |0 Comments

Yale University to Pay $87,500 Settlement For Allegations It Underpaid Female Doctors

By Carole C. Schriefer, J.D.

Yale University agreed to pay $87,500 to resolve discrimination allegations with the U.S. Department of Labor. The discrimination alleged that the Ivy League school paid four women cardiologists significantly less than their male colleagues from October 2016 to September 2017. While not admitting the allegations, the university agreed to the settlement which will reportedly cover the difference in pay for the women affected, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) said.

Alleged Pay Discrimination.

The OFCCP first detected the pay disparities during a routine compliance audit of the university’s medical school, the agreement said. The agency found that in 2016, Yale University paid four female cardiologists less than similarly situated male physicians at the School of Medicine’s Cardiovascular Medicine Section.

According to the settlement, Yale hired the doctors as part of the university’s “acquisition of community practices and hospitals associated with the Yale-New Haven Hospital System.” In 2018, Yale allegedly cut the women doctors’ employment category and moved them to a new faculty category. OFCCP claims that the medical school category is supposed to have a uniform compensation structure in place. Click here to read the settlement agreement in full.

In response to the allegations, a Yale was quoted as saying: “The conciliation agreement involves only four employees out of a workforce of over 16,000. OFCCP admitted that it found no pay disparities as to any but these four employees, who held roles in an employment category that has not existed for over two years.”

To read the press release issued by the Department of Labor, click here.

Additionally, read my recent blog on a previous discrimination lawsuit against Yale.

What does this show us? That at least in federal programs and in educational institutions and medical programs receiving federal funds, discrimination is prohibited and action will be taken to remedy it.

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

At the Health Law Firm, we provide legal services for physicians, including residents, and fellows, as well as medical students. We also represent other health professionals, clinical professors, dentists, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors, and other healthcare providers. We represent health facilities, medical 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, physicians, including those involved in clinical research, complaints, and investigations.

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

Sources:

Ottaway, Amanda. “Yale Settles OFCCP Claims That It Underpaid Female Doctors.” Law360. (October 5, 2020). Web.

Smith, Paige. “Yale University Settles DOL Claims of Pay Bias Against Women (1).” Bloomberg Law. (October 2, 2020). Web.

About the Author: Carole C. Schriefer is an attorney and former registered nurse. She practices with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its regional office is in the Northern Colorado, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 155 East Boardwalk Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525. Phone: (970) 416-7456 or Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida area.

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

By |2020-12-21T15:24:46-05:00January 21st, 2021|Categories: Colorado Health Law Blog, In the News|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |0 Comments

New Law Passed in Florida Aimed at Healthcare Professional Background Screening

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

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

More Details on the New Legislation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

About the Author: Michael L. Smith, R.R.T., J.D., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is an attorney with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave. Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

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

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2021 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

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

George Indest Headshot

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

On September 3, 2020, a Florida federal judge dismissed a suit for business interruption insurance payments by a Florida dentist. The dentist claimed he sustained damages caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and related civil authority shutdowns of dental services. The dismissal freed Allied Insurance Company of America from having to pay the dentist’s for COVID-19 related losses, holding that the policy’s “virus exclusion” barred coverage of the insurance claim made.

Insurance Coverage for COVID-19 Related Losses.

The dentist sued his insurance carrier for damages that he argued were “caused by or result[ing] from a Covered Cause of Loss.” The causes of the alleged loss, he maintained, included the COVID-19 virus’s impact on his dental practice and the Florida governor’s emergency declaration that limited dental services during a period of time. Specifically, he claimed that he incurred costs to decontaminate his dental office and lost valuable income because of the governor’s dental services limitation. The dentist alleged that Allied breached the insurance contract by denying coverage in April.

Allied’s insurance policy provides coverage “for direct physical loss or damage to covered property at the [plaintiff’s] premises” that is “caused by or result[s] from any Covered Cause of Loss.” Allied argued that there was no direct physical loss or damage to covered property at the clinic due to appointment cancellations or the closure of the dental practice.

Dismissal of the Law Suit.

U.S. District Court Judge John Badalamenti, for the Middle District of Florida, dismissed the case. He found that the dental practice’s loss or damage asserted was “not due to a covered cause of loss.” More importantly, he found that the policy contained an exclusion for loss or damage caused “directly or indirectly,” by “[a]ny virus, bacterium or other microorganisms that induces or is capable of inducing physical distress, illness or disease.”

According to the judge’s order, in order for the insurer to provide coverage, losses from business suspension must be caused by direct physical loss or damage. He ruled that the dentist failed to demonstrate what the policy required in order to be a covered loss. To read the order in full, click here.

With such a specific exclusion as this policy contained, it was difficult for the judge in the case to rule any other way.

Litigation on Whether Insurance Policies Should Cover Losses Due to Coronavirus Closures.

This recent Florida dismissal is another in a string of cases where insurers have prevailed in Coronavirus business loss cases, because of similar exclusions in their policies. In a similar case, a Michigan federal judge sided with the insurance company saying it didn’t have to cover a chiropractic office’s COVID-19 claimed losses. Like the case above, the judge said the business failed to allege physical loss and, therefore, the policy’s virus exclusion barred coverage. Click here to read the judge’s order in this case.

According to insurance experts and regulators, most businesses and professionals will probably find it difficult to obtain an insurance payout because of policy changes made after the 2002-2003 SARS outbreak. SARS, which infected 8,000 people, led to millions of dollars in business-interruption insurance claims. As a result, many insurers added exclusions to standard commercial policies for virus losses. The added policy language potentially allows insurance companies to avoid hundreds of billions of dollars in business-interruption claims because of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Since a wide-scale virus outbreak is such a rare event, most policy purchasers overlooked this exception. There certainly wasn’t any concerted effort to make insureds aware of the exclusion nor to offer them the opportunity to purchase specific virus outbreak insurance coverage.

A global pandemic presents unique problems for insurance companies. After the SARS outbreak at the beginning of this millennium, many insurance companies realized they would not be able to cover such a broad-scale event causing massive losses. Such an event could have damages greater than those sustained in the largest hurricane to strike the U.S. The insurance industry argued to state regulators that such policy exclusions were necessary, considering the overwhelming number of claims that might arise from a single disease outbreak.

This foresight on the part of the insurance companies saved their shareholders billions, if not trillions, of dollars. Unfortunately business and professionals have had to shoulder the losses.

So, it begs the question: Did insurers actually know the potential damage a viral pandemic could wreak on businesses and, therefore, purposefully exclude coverage? Disputes over the precise wording of business insurance policies will most likely continue to generate court battles like those discussed above.

Read my prior blog on this subject to learn more.

Recommendation for the Future.

There are several options that businesses and state insurance regulators should consider to try to prevent such massive losses from going uncompensated in the future.

First would be to create and provide virus damage insurance similar to that provided for flood insurance by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The biggest problem would be that losses could easily exceed the largest hurricane that one could imagine. However, the NFIP has shown this type of plan works.

Second would be similar programs provided at the state level. At the present time, many states, have captive insurance companies to fund losses from wind damage caused by storms. In Florida, the Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (CPIC) provides such coverage.

The biggest problem I see with both of the above is that short-sighted and selfish people don’t want to purchase such insurance and, thereby, make it less expensive for all involved. They figure that the government will bail them out anyway in such an event, so why should they pay. Therefore, either making it paid for completely with taxpayer money or a requirement of obtaining a business license or professional license or some combination, may be a way to finance it.

Creating a trust fund with assessments to employers and employees, similar to what is currently done for social security, would be another option. Creating a large trust fund that could cover such tragic events might work best. However, this would have to be made “raider safe” so that Congress does not come back and raid these funds and use them for other purposes like it has done to the United States Postal Service (USPS).

At the very least, some type of universal virus pandemic business loss insurance should be mandated by law or, at least, partially funded by the government. Making it mandatory means making it cheaper and making it work.

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

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

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

Sources:

Zhang, Daphne. “Fla. Dentist’s Bid For COVID-19 Loss Coverage Axed.” Law360. (September 3, 2020). Web.

Zhang, Daphne. “State Farm Needn’t Cover Chiropractor’s COVID-19 Losses.” Law360. (September 3, 2020). Web.

Frankel, Todd. “Insurers knew the damage a viral pandemic could wreak on businesses. So they excluded coverage.” The Washington Post. (April 2, 2020). Web.

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

KeyWords: healthcare employment law representation, legal representation for physicians, doctor defense legal representation, legal representation for healthcare professionals, complex health care litigation attorney, complex civil litigation attorney, complex healthcare litigation lawyer, complex medical litigation lawyer, representation for complex medical litigation, representation for healthcare business litigation matters, business insurance representation, business interruption insurance claims defense, COVID-19 business insurance claim representation, The Health Law Firm, reviews of The Health Law Firm Attorneys, The Health Law Firm attorney reviews, legal representation for physicians and health care professionals, attorney for physician suits against insurers, complex medical business litigation against health insurers

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

 

Yale University Agrees to Pay $87,500 to Settle Allegations It Underpaid Female Doctors

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

Yale University agreed to pay $87,500 to resolve discrimination allegations with the U.S. Department of Labor. The discrimination alleged that the Ivy League school paid four women cardiologists significantly less than their male colleagues from October 2016 to September 2017. While not admitting the allegations, the university agreed to the settlement which will reportedly cover the difference in pay for the women affected, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) said.

Alleged Pay Discrimination.

The OFCCP first detected the pay disparities during a routine compliance audit of the university’s medical school, the agreement said. The agency found that in 2016, Yale University paid four female cardiologists less than similarly situated male physicians at the School of Medicine’s Cardiovascular Medicine Section.

According to the settlement, Yale hired the doctors as part of the university’s “acquisition of community practices and hospitals associated with the Yale-New Haven Hospital System.” In 2018, Yale allegedly cut the women doctors’ employment category and moved them to a new faculty category. OFCCP claims that the medical school category is supposed to have a uniform compensation structure in place. Click here to read the settlement agreement in full.

In response to the allegations, a Yale was quoted as saying: “The conciliation agreement involves only four employees out of a workforce of over 16,000. OFCCP admitted that it found no pay disparities as to any but these four employees, who held roles in an employment category that has not existed for over two years.”

To read the press release issued by the Department of Labor, click here.

Additionally, read my recent blog on a previous discrimination lawsuit against Yale.

What does this show us? That at least in federal programs and in educational institutions and medical programs receiving federal funds, discrimination is prohibited and action will be taken to remedy it.

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

At the Health Law Firm, we provide legal services for physicians, including residents, and fellows, as well as medical students. We also represent other health professionals, clinical professors, dentists, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors, and other healthcare providers. We represent health facilities, medical 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, physicians, including those involved in clinical research, complaints, and investigations.

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

Sources:

Ottaway, Amanda. “Yale Settles OFCCP Claims That It Underpaid Female Doctors.” Law360. (October 5, 2020). Web.

Smith, Paige. “Yale University Settles DOL Claims of Pay Bias Against Women (1).” Bloomberg Law. (October 2, 2020). Web.

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

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

By |2020-12-16T18:56:04-05:00December 16th, 2020|Categories: In the Know, In the News, Medical Education Law Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |0 Comments
Go to Top