health care litigation representation | The Health Law Firm Blog

9th Circuit Says Former Federal Nurse Can Proceed With Medical Malpractice Suit Against VA Hospital

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

On September 29, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that a former federal employee can sue the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The suit alleges medical negligence that occurred during psychiatric treatment for a non-workplace-related injury.

As a result, the three-judge panel of the appeals court said that U.S. Navy veteran and VA nurse S.H.s’ lawsuit against a Seattle VA hospital can proceed. (Please note: we are not providing the nurse’s name out of respect for her privacy.)

In 2019, the district court dismissed S.H.’s federal tort lawsuit because the alleged malpractice occurred when doctors were treating an injury she said she sustained at her workplace. The district court reasoned that all existing or exacerbated injuries stemming from a federal workplace injury must be dealt with through the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA), even malpractice claims.

Click here to view the district court’s order for the motion to dismiss in full.

Background Details.

The plaintiff in the suit is a veteran of the U.S. Navy who suffered a mental breakdown at work in October 2011. She sought follow-up psychiatric care at a VA hospital, where she allegedly received negligent treatment. At the time the treatment was sought, she was an employee of the federal government. She claimed years of workplace bullying and harassment by her supervisor caused her mental breakdown. She sued in 2016.

The FTCA authorizes plaintiffs to sue the U.S. for “personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). Any individual employee of the government acting within the course and scope of her job duties is immune from liability; the United States is substituted for that person in the suit.

The Big Question: Does the FTCA Authorize Suit by a Plaintiff in This Set of Circumstances?

Two factors complicate the answer in this case. First, when the plaintiff sought treatment, she was an employee of the federal government, working as a registered nurse at the VA hospital. Second, she claimed that her mental breakdown, the event that prompted her to seek medical care, was caused by workplace bullying and harassment at the hands of her supervisor. Hence, this would qualify as a work-related injury.

These facts bring into play another federal statute: the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act. FECA establishes a workers’ compensation blueprint that covers most federal employees. It is similar to state workers’ compensation laws.

When an employee sustains an injury covered by FECA, the remedy is to seek compensation under the act; they may not sue for damages under any other provision of law, including the FTCA. Therefore, had the plaintiff sued the U.S. under the FTCA to recover damages for workplace bullying and harassment, the district court would have been required to dismiss the action as barred by FECA.

In this case, however, the plaintiff is not suing for the injuries caused by workplace bullying and harassment. Instead, she is seeking to recover damages for the alleged medical malpractice by the individual doctors treating her.

Based on these facts, the appellate court reversed the district court’s judgment against the plaintiff in her Federal Tort Claims Act action. It held that the district court erred in dismissing the action on the grounds that it was barred by the FECA.

To view the ninth circuit court’s opinion in full, click here.

Consult a Health Law Attorney Who Is Familiar with Army, Navy, and Air Force Health Care Professionals and Their Problems.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm have represented federal physicians, nurses, dentists, and other health professionals in the Army, Navy, and Air Force, active duty and retired, as well as physicians, nurses, and other health professionals working for the Veterans Administration (VA) in the U.S. and around the world. They represent physicians and other health professionals with the Indian Health Service (IHS) and the Public Health Service (PHS). Representation has included disciplinary action, investigations, peer review investigations, clinical privileges actions, fair hearings, National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) actions, and appeals.

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

Sources:

Capriel, Jonathan. “9th Circ. Revives Psychiatric Med Mal Suit Against VA Hospital.” Law360. (September 29, 2021). Web.

Pazanowski, Mary Ann. “Former Federal Nurse Gets New Shot at Injury Suit Against US.” Bloomberg Law. (September 29, 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 the Orlando, Florida area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave. Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620.

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

Ex-Navy Officer Sentenced to 2.5 Years in Prison For $2 Million Insurance Fraud

By 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 October 18, 2023, an ex-Navy officer was sentenced to 30 months in prison after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud for his role in an insurance fraud scheme. The judge tacked on an extra three years of post-release supervision.

The case is U.S. v. Cote et al., case number 3:18-cr-01674, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

The Fraudulent Scheme.

The former Naval officer admitted to conspiring with eight others to defraud the Traumatic Service Members Group Life Insurance Program. This insurance program provides short-term financial support for injured service members.

The former officer allegedly worked closely in the fraud scheme with his then-spouse, who was a Navy nurse, and a Navy doctor.

The scheme consisted of submitting fake or exaggerated injuries to the insurance company to enrich themselves. The ex-Navy officer submitted false claims to the program and encouraged numerous other Navy personnel to submit false claims.

The Navy personnel would submit their medical records to the former officer’s then-wife. As a Naval nurse, she would allegedly falsify the records and the Naval doctor would sign off on the documents. The ex-Navy officer received kickbacks under the guise of a “processing fee.”

The scheme defrauded the insurance program of $2,000,000, and the former Navy officer personally received $400,000, according to the reports on the case. He was sentenced to 30 months for conspiracy to commit wire fraud with three years of supervised release.

What is happening to the others involved in this scheme is not clear at this time. It is doubtful that they will have long, successful Navy careers.

Consult a Health Law Attorney Who Is Familiar with Army, Navy, and Air Force Health Care Professionals and Their Problems.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm have represented federal physicians, nurses, dentists, and other health professionals in the Army, Navy, and Air Force, active duty and retired, as well as physicians, nurses, and other health professionals working for the Veterans Administration (VA) in the U.S. and around the world. They represent physicians and other health professionals with the Indian Health Service (IHS) and the Public Health Service (PHS). Representation has included disciplinary action, investigations, peer review investigations, clinical privileges actions, fair hearings, National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) actions, and appeals.

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

Sources:

Correll, Diana Stancey. “Former Navy chief sentenced in $2 million insurance fraud scam.” Navy Times. (19 October 2023) https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2023/10/19/former-navy-chief-sentenced-in-2-million-insurance-fraud-scam/

Danney, Micah. “Ex-Navy Officer Gets 2.5 Years For $2.5M Insurance Fraud.” Law360. (18 October 2023) https://www.law360.com/health/articles/1734129?nl_pk=0cbd4c0b-c6c8-416a-9e67-b4affa63b102&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=health&utm_content=2023-10-19&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=14&detected=1

Lehrfeld, Jonathan. “Former sailor pleads guilty in $2 million insurance fraud scam.” Navy Times. (1 November 2022) https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2023/10/19/former-navy-chief-sentenced-in-2-million-insurance-fraud-scam/

United States v. Toups No. 3:18-cr-01674 (S.D. Cal October 16, 2023)

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 at The Health Law Firm. Its main office is in the 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 © 2024 George F. Indest III, The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form in any medium for any purpose without the written permission of the copyright holder. The copyright holder/creator reserves the right to have his name associated with every part of this work.

NC Medical Malpractice Suit Against the U.S. Dismissed Due to 4-Year Time Limit

By 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 18, 2023, a federal judge in North Carolina granted a motion to dismiss a suit against Naval Hospital Camp Lejeune based on a state law four-year time bar on malpractice claims.

Background Facts.

We have the facts from the court’s decision in this case.

On December 3, 2016, the plaintiff patient arrived at the Naval Hospital Camp Lejeune Emergency Department with abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting. After examination, she was diagnosed with a kidney stone and discharged. But her symptoms worsened, and she returned to the Naval Hospital the next day with a fever, shortness of breath, and disorientation.

The plaintiff was transferred to medical intensive care with concerns of septic shock. Upon her second discharge from the Naval Hospital, she was diagnosed with severe sepsis, shock, heart, lung, and kidney failure.

During treatment, the patient was prescribed vasopressors, which raise blood pressure by constricting blood vessels. The medications caused her to develop gangrene on her fingers and toes, resulting in the amputation of her hands and feet.

She sued the United States on October 21, 2022, for alleged negligence regarding her treatment at the Naval Hospital. This suit came after a four-year administrative process with the Department of the Navy that began in 2018.

North Carolina Time Bar.

The federal government argued in its motion to dismiss that the North Carolina statute of repose applied to the medical malpractice claim against the U.S., and that it barred the plaintiff from pursuing the matter in court.

A statute of repose establishes a maximum specified time period in which a suit must be brought for a cause of action to be recognized. As the name implies, a statute or repose kills the cause of action completely; it is an unyielding and absolute barrier that prevents a plaintiff’s right of action after the specified time. A statute of repose is different from a statute of limitations because statutes of limitations merely make a claim unenforceable after a specified time period.

The North Carolina statute of repose prohibits bringing an action for medical malpractice more than four years from the defendant’s last act that gives rise to the claim. The defendant’s last act in this case was December 4, 2016, and the plaintiff filed the suit October 21, 2022, exceeding the four-year time bar imposed by North Carolina law.

The Federal Torts Claims Act.

The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) is a law passed by Congress to allow some types of lawsuits against the United States for negligent acts its employees commit when they are acting within the course and scope of their employment as federal employees. Otherwise, the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars such suits (no one is allowed to sue the king!). It can be found in 28 U.S. Code Chapter 171 (28 U.S.C. Sections 2671-2680). The FTCA applies the law of the state in which the tort occurs.

In response to the defendant’s motion to dismiss, the plaintiff argued that the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) preempted the state’s statute of repose and gave her a cause of action. However, the FTCA is limited in that it only imposes tort liability on the United States in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under similar circumstances by the state’s law where the act occurred. In other words, the FTCA incorporates state law.

The plaintiff argued that the FTCA overrides North Carolina’s time bar because it imposes its own time limitations. The FTCA states that all tort claims against the United States are barred forever unless an administrative claim is presented in writing to the appropriate federal agency within two years of the claim’s arising. It also states that claims are barred unless the court action is filed within six months after the administrative claim is denied by the federal agency.

The plaintiff argued that the FTCA preempted the North Carolina statute of repose because the FTCA spells out how it preempts statutes of limitations. However, the two statutes are not the same.

The court agreed that the statute of repose applied to the tort claim, barring it.

In fact, all the federal circuit courts that have considered the issue have ruled consistently that the FTCA incorporates state statutes of repose and does not preempt them.

Judge’s Decision.

The judge conceded that the delay in the administrative process was unfortunate. However, the court ruled, it was still inappropriate to expand the FTCA’s provisions to override the state’s time bar. The court held that the North Carolina statute of repose applied to the medical malpractice suit against the federal government, which meant that the plaintiff could not bring a cause of action against the U.S. or the naval hospital.

The judge also stated that the FTCA only allows lawsuits against the United States if the state’s law permits a similar suit against a private person. Since the North Carolina statute of repose would not have allowed the lawsuit to be filed against a private doctor, it cannot be filed against the United States. Accordingly, the judge dismissed the case.

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 representation includes military (Army, Navy and Air Force) physicians, nurses, dentists, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors, medical students and interns, as well as other federal and civilian health care providers.

The lawyers of The Health Law Firm are experienced in both formal and informal administrative hearings and in civil litigation in state and federal courts. We represent physicians and other health professionals in cases before medical boards, before state licensing agencies, and in National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) disputes. We represent physicians accused of wrongdoing, in 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.

Source:

Baldwin v. United States, No. 7:22-CV-180-FL. (E.D.N.C., July 18, 2023).

Bland, Travis. “NC Time Bar Ends Med Mal Suit Over Amputations.” Law360. (18 July 2023). https://www.law360.com/health/articles/1701132?nl_pk=0cbd4c0b-c6c8-416a-9e67-b4affa63b102&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=health&utm_content=2023-07-19&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=15

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.

Attorney Positions with The Health Law Firm. The Health Law Firm is always looking for qualified attorneys interested in health law practice. 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.

“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.

9th Circuit Court Rules Former Nurse Can Proceed With Med Mal Suit Against VA Hospital

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

On September 29, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that a former federal employee can sue the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The suit alleges medical negligence that occurred during psychiatric treatment for a non-workplace-related injury.

As a result, the three-judge panel of the appeals court said that U.S. Navy veteran and VA nurse S.H.s’ lawsuit against a Seattle VA hospital can proceed. (Please note: we are not providing the nurse’s name out of respect for her privacy.)

In 2019, the district court dismissed S.H.’s federal tort lawsuit because the alleged malpractice occurred when doctors were treating an injury she said she sustained at her workplace. The district court reasoned that all existing or exacerbated injuries stemming from a federal workplace injury must be dealt with through the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA), even malpractice claims.

Click here to view the district court’s order for the motion to dismiss in full.

Background Details.

The plaintiff in the suit is a veteran of the U.S. Navy who suffered a mental breakdown at work in October 2011. She sought follow-up psychiatric care at a VA hospital, where she allegedly received negligent treatment. At the time the treatment was sought, she was an employee of the federal government. She claimed years of workplace bullying and harassment by her supervisor caused her mental breakdown. She sued in 2016.

The FTCA authorizes plaintiffs to sue the U.S. for “personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). Any individual employee of the government acting within the course and scope of her job duties is immune from liability; the United States is substituted for that person in the suit.

The Big Question: Does the FTCA Authorize Suit by a Plaintiff in This Set of Circumstances?

Two factors complicate the answer in this case. First, when the plaintiff sought treatment, she was an employee of the federal government, working as a registered nurse at the VA hospital. Second, she claimed that her mental breakdown, the event that prompted her to seek medical care, was caused by workplace bullying and harassment at the hands of her supervisor. Hence, this would qualify as a work-related injury.

These facts bring into play another federal statute: the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act. FECA establishes a workers’ compensation blueprint that covers most federal employees. It is similar to state workers’ compensation laws.

When an employee sustains an injury covered by FECA, the remedy is to seek compensation under the act; they may not sue for damages under any other provision of law, including the FTCA. Therefore, had the plaintiff sued the U.S. under the FTCA to recover damages for workplace bullying and harassment, the district court would have been required to dismiss the action as barred by FECA.

In this case, however, the plaintiff is not suing for the injuries caused by the workplace bullying and harassment. Instead, she is seeking to recover damages for the alleged medical malpractice by the individual doctors treating her.

Based on these facts, the appellate court reversed the district court’s judgment against the plaintiff in her Federal Tort Claims Act action. It held that the district court erred in dismissing the action on the grounds that it was barred by the FECA.

To view the ninth circuit court’s opinion in full, click here.

Consult a Health Law Attorney Who Is Familiar with Army, Navy, and Air Force Health Care Professionals and Their Problems.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm have represented federal physicians, nurses, dentists, and other health professionals in the Army, Navy, and Air Force, active duty and retired, as well as physicians, nurses, and other health professionals working for the Veterans Administration (VA) in the U.S. and around the world. They represent physicians and other health professionals with the Indian Health Service (IHS) and the Public Health Service (PHS). Representation has included disciplinary action, investigations, peer review investigations, clinical privileges actions, fair hearings, National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) actions, and appeals.

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

Sources:

Capriel, Jonathan. “9th Circ. Revives Psychiatric Med Mal Suit Against VA Hospital.” Law360. (September 29, 2021). Web.

Pazanowski, Mary Ann. “Former Federal Nurse Gets New Shot at Injury Suit Against US.” Bloomberg Law. (September 29, 2021). 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 © 2021 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Major Florida Oncology Group Pays $100 Million to Settle Antitrust Charges

Attorney Geroge F. Indest III

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

On April 30, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that a major Florida oncology group will pay $100 million to resolve a criminal charge that it conspired with competitors to divvy up cancer treatments in the area. This marks the first settlement in an ongoing oncology market allocation probe against Florida Cancer Specialists & Research Institute LLC (FCS).

Details of the Antitrust Complaint.

The oncology group, which is based in Fort Myers, Florida, admitted to a single felony antitrust charge under the agreement, the DOJ said. Additionally, FCS inked a civil antitrust settlement with the Florida attorney general requiring it to pay the state $20 million, plus interest.

According to the DOJ, federal prosecutors filed a one-count felony charge against the company in Florida federal court. Prosecutors allege the company of participating “in a criminal antitrust conspiracy” with unnamed oncology competitors in the southwest Florida counties of Lee, Collier, and Charlotte.

The antitrust complaint states: “FCS and its co-conspirators agreed not to compete to provide chemotherapy and radiation treatments to cancer patients in Southwest Florida. Beginning as early as 1999 and continuing until at least 2016, FCS entered into an illegal agreement that allocated chemotherapy treatments to FCS and radiation treatments to a competing oncology group.” Therefore, according to the DOJ, “This conspiracy allowed FCS to operate with minimal competition in Southwest Florida and limited valuable integrated care options and choices for cancer patients.”

We want to point out that the quotations above are statements that were made by the government in relation to this case and were not necessarily proven or agreed to by FCS.

The Settlement Agreement.

Under the settlement agreement, the Florida oncology company admitted to a conspiracy to divvy up the radiation and chemotherapy treatments. In addition to the $100 million, which is the statutory maximum, FCS will have to “cooperate fully with the Antitrust Division’s ongoing investigation” being run with the FBI’s Fort Myers satellite office and must keep up a compliance program aimed at stopping and ferreting out criminal antitrust violations.

Additionally, the deal also obliges FCS to follow a “non-compete waiver” under which it promises not to enforce any non-compete provisions with current and former oncologists. Other employees who open an oncology practice in southwest Florida or join one are also included in the provision, said the DOJ.

Criminal Antitrust Charges are Rarely Sought.

Criminal antitrust charges are rarely brought by the government, especially under the current administration. Anyone that has ever been involved in bringing or defending an anti-trust case knows that it is difficult enough to even have the government open a civil case or investigation, much less a criminal case.

Click here to read the press release issued by the DOJ.

To view the antitrust complaint about this case on our website, click here.

You can read the state of Florida’s deal with FCS here.

To learn more, click here and read one of my prior blogs on a similar antitrust case.

Contact Health Care Attorneys Experienced in Negotiating and Evaluating Physician’s Complex Business Litigation, and Transactions

At the Health Law Firm, we provide legal services for health professionals and facilities. This includes physicians, medical groups, nurses, pharmacists, pharmacies, dentists, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors, ambulatory surgical centers, pain management clinics, assisted living facilities, home health agencies, nursing homes, and any other health care provider.

The services we provide include representation in complex state and federal litigation, reviewing and negotiating contracts, preparing contracts, business transactions, professional license defense, opinion letters, representation in investigations, fair hearing defense, representation in peer review and clinical privileges hearings, litigation of restrictive covenant (covenants not to compete), Medicare and Medicaid audits, commercial litigation, and administrative hearings.

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

Sources:

Koenig, Bryan. “DOJ Cuts $100M Deal In Oncology Antitrust Probe.” Law360. (April 30, 2020). Web.

Office of Public Affairs. Press Release. “Leading Cancer Treatment Center Admits to Antitrust Crime and Agrees to Pay $100 Million Criminal Penalty.” U.S. Department of Justice. (April 30,2020). Web.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law is an attorney with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

KeyWords: Noncompetition agreement litigation, representation for noncompetition agreements, noncompetition agreement litigation attorney, noncompetition agreement attorney, restrictive covenant attorney, representation for restrictive covenants, covenant-not-to-compete representation, health care litigation representation, representation for employer enforcement of restrictive covenants, representation for complex litigation, restrictive covenant defense attorney, complex healthcare litigation attorney, anti-trust legal counsel, physician employment agreements, health professional employment contracts, legal counsel for defeat of noncompetition agreement, physician employment contract litigation, health professional contracting, negotiating health business transactions, health care business contract attorney, health care professional contract litigation, healthcare complex business litigation, representation for physician agreements, representation for physician business transactions, representation for physician complex litigation, representation for antitrust, representation for healthcare facilities, oncologist defense, licensed oncologist defense lawyer, The Health Law Firm reviews, The Health Law Firm attorney reviews

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

Florida Oncology Group Agrees to Pay $100 Million in Antitrust Probe

Attorney Geroge F. Indest III

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

On April 30, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that a major Florida oncology group will pay $100 million to resolve a criminal charge that it conspired with competitors to divvy up cancer treatments in the area. This marks the first settlement in an ongoing oncology market allocation probe against Florida Cancer Specialists & Research Institute LLC (FCS).

Details of the Antitrust Complaint.

The oncology group, which is based in Fort Myers, Florida, admitted to a single felony antitrust charge under the agreement, the DOJ said. Additionally, FCS inked a civil antitrust settlement with the Florida attorney general requiring it to pay the state $20 million, plus interest.

According to the DOJ, federal prosecutors filed a one-count felony charge against the company in Florida federal court. Prosecutors allege the company of participating “in a criminal antitrust conspiracy” with unnamed oncology competitors in the southwest Florida counties of Lee, Collier, and Charlotte.

The antitrust complaint states: “FCS and its co-conspirators agreed not to compete to provide chemotherapy and radiation treatments to cancer patients in Southwest Florida. Beginning as early as 1999 and continuing until at least 2016, FCS entered into an illegal agreement that allocated chemotherapy treatments to FCS and radiation treatments to a competing oncology group.” Therefore, according to the DOJ, “This conspiracy allowed FCS to operate with minimal competition in Southwest Florida and limited valuable integrated care options and choices for cancer patients.”

We want to point out that the quotations above are statements that were made by the government in relation to this case and were not necessarily proven or agreed to by FCS.

The Settlement Agreement.

Under the settlement agreement, the Florida oncology company admitted to a conspiracy to divvy up the radiation and chemotherapy treatments. In addition to the $100 million, which is the statutory maximum, FCS will have to “cooperate fully with the Antitrust Division’s ongoing investigation” being run with the FBI’s Fort Myers satellite office and must keep up a compliance program aimed at stopping and ferreting out criminal antitrust violations.

Additionally, the deal also obliges FCS to follow a “non-compete waiver” under which it promises not to enforce any non-compete provisions with current and former oncologists. Other employees who open an oncology practice in southwest Florida or join one are also included in the provision, said the DOJ.

Criminal Antitrust Charges are Rarely Sought.

Criminal antitrust charges are rarely brought by the government, especially under the current administration. Anyone that has ever been involved in bringing or defending an anti-trust case knows that it is difficult enough to even have the government open a civil case or investigation, much less a criminal case.

Click here to read the press release issued by the DOJ.

To view the antitrust complaint about this case on our website, click here.

You can read the state of Florida’s deal with FCS here.

To learn more, click here and read one of my prior blogs on a similar antitrust case.

Contact Health Care Attorneys Experienced in Negotiating and Evaluating Physician’s Complex Business Litigation, and Transactions

At the Health Law Firm, we provide legal services for health professionals and facilities. This includes physicians, medical groups, nurses, pharmacists, pharmacies, dentists, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors, ambulatory surgical centers, pain management clinics, assisted living facilities, home health agencies, nursing homes, and any other health care provider.

The services we provide include representation in complex state and federal litigation, reviewing and negotiating contracts, preparing contracts, business transactions, professional license defense, opinion letters, representation in investigations, fair hearing defense, representation in peer review and clinical privileges hearings, litigation of restrictive covenant (covenants not to compete), Medicare and Medicaid audits, commercial litigation, and administrative hearings.

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

Sources:

Koenig, Bryan. “DOJ Cuts $100M Deal In Oncology Antitrust Probe.” Law360. (April 30, 2020). Web.

Office of Public Affairs. Press Release. “Leading Cancer Treatment Center Admits to Antitrust Crime and Agrees to Pay $100 Million Criminal Penalty.” U.S. Department of Justice. (April 30,2020). Web.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law is an attorney with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

KeyWords: Noncompetition agreement litigation, representation for noncompetition agreements, noncompetition agreement litigation attorney, noncompetition agreement attorney, restrictive covenant attorney, representation for restrictive covenants, covenant-not-to-compete representation, health care litigation representation, representation for employer enforcement of restrictive covenants, representation for complex litigation, restrictive covenant defense attorney, complex healthcare litigation attorney, anti-trust legal counsel, physician employment agreements, health professional employment contracts, legal counsel for defeat of noncompetition agreement, physician employment contract litigation, health professional contracting, negotiating health business transactions, health care business contract attorney, health care professional contract litigation, healthcare complex business litigation, representation for physician agreements, representation for physician business transactions, representation for physician complex litigation, representation for antitrust, representation for healthcare facilities, oncologist defense, licensed oncologist defense lawyer, The Health Law Firm reviews, The Health Law Firm attorney reviews

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

By The Health Law Firm|2024-03-14T09:59:56-04:00August 4, 2020|Categories: Health Facilities Law Blog|Tags: anti-trust legal counsel, complex healthcare litigation attorney, covenant-not-to-compete representation, health care business contract attorney, health care litigation representation, health care professional contract litigation, health professional contracting, health professional employment contracts, healthcare complex business litigation, legal counsel for defeat of noncompetition agreement, licensed oncologist defense lawyer, negotiating health business transactions, noncompetition agreement attorney, Noncompetition agreement litigation, noncompetition agreement litigation attorney, oncologist defense, physician employment agreements, physician employment contract litigation, representation for antitrust, representation for complex litigation, representation for employer enforcement of restrictive covenants, representation for healthcare facilities, representation for noncompetition agreements, representation for physician agreements, representation for physician business transactions, representation for physician complex litigation, representation for restrictive covenants, restrictive covenant attorney, restrictive covenant defense attorney, The Health Law Firm attorney reviews, The Health Law Firm reviews|Comments Off

Florida Oncology Center Wants Noncompete, Antitrust Suit Dismissed

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

On April 9, 2019, 21st Century Oncology filed a motion to dismiss a noncompete antitrust suit that a group of oncologists filed against them in a Florida federal court on March 2019. According to their dismissal motion, the physician plaintiffs are overreaching with their claim that 21st Century used unlawful methods to build a monopoly on radiation therapy. The cancer treatment center called their suit a bid to “dress up” simple employment claims as an antitrust case and added that it “strains law and fact.”

Background of the Noncompete Antitrust Suit.

On March 15, 2019, a group of Florida oncologists hit the cancer treatment center with a seven-count complaint in federal court. In the complaint, 21st Century faced allegations that they forced doctors to sign illegal non-compete agreements and held a monopoly over oncology and radiation services in three counties around Fort Myers, Florida. Additionally, The company also allegedly required doctors to sign “onerous” non-compete agreements that have suppressed competition, the suit alleges. To learn more about the antitrust suit, click here.

Visit our website and view the complaint filed by the oncologists.

21st Century Hits Back.

In its motion to dismiss, 21st Century stated, “the oncologists want out of their contracts, but do not want to abide by the reasonable [and] legitimate non-compete provisions.” The company also said the oncologists’ Sherman Act claims are barred by a four-year statute of limitations, which has already run out because the noncompetes were negotiated more than four years ago. According to the motion, the oncologists have failed to show that they’ve suffered an antitrust injury at all, meaning they have no standing to bring those claims

Additionally, 21st Century added that even if the claims had any merit, they should be dismissed because the oncologists “directed and participated in the very purported misconduct at the base of their claims.”

Click here to view 21st Century’s motion to dismiss.

For more information on restrictive covenants, non-compete agreements and employment contracts, click here to read one of my prior blogs and learn how The Health Law Firm can assist you.

Contact Health Care Attorneys Experienced in Negotiating and Evaluating Physician’s Complex Business Litigation, and Transactions.

At the Health Law Firm we provide legal services for all health care providers and professionals. This includes physicians, nurses, dentists, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors, durable medical equipment suppliers (DME), medical students and interns, hospitals, ambulatory surgical centers, pain management clinics, nursing homes, and any other health care provider.

The services we provide include reviewing and negotiating contracts, preparing contracts, helping employers and employees enforce contracts, advice on setting aside or voiding contracts, litigation of contracts (in start or federal court), business transactions, professional license defense, opinion letters, representation in investigations, fair hearing defense, representation in peer review and clinical privileges hearings, litigation of restrictive covenant (covenants not to compete), Medicare and Medicaid audits, commercial litigation, and administrative hearings.

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

Sources:

Boysen, Ryan. “21st Century Oncology Blasts Noncompete Antitrust Suit.” Law360. (April 9, 2019). Web.
Gluck, Frank. “21st Century Oncology facing continued legal troubles as it tries to put troubled past behind it.” Fort Myers News Press. (March 29, 2019). Web.

Leonard, Mike. “Cancer Center Fires Back in Radiation Oncology Non-Compete Case.” Bloomberg Law. (April 9, 2019). Web.

Atkins, Dorothy. “Fla. Oncologists Hit Cancer Centers With Antitrust Suit.” Law360. (March 18, 2019). 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., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

KeyWords: Noncompetition agreement litigation, representation for noncompetition agreements, noncompetition agreement litigation attorney, noncompetition agreement attorney, restrictive covenant attorney, representation for restrictive covenants, covenant-not-to-compete representation, health care litigation representation, representation for employer enforcement of restrictive covenants, representation for complex litigation, restrictive covenant defense attorney, complex healthcare litigation attorney, anti-trust legal counsel, physician employment agreements, health professional employment contracts, legal counsel for defeat of noncompetition agreement, physician employment contract litigation, health professional contracting, negotiating health business transactions, health care business contract attorney, health care professional contract litigation, healthcare complex business litigation, representation for physician agreements, representation for physician business transactions, representation for physician complex litigation, representation for antitrust The Health Law Firm reviews, The Health Law Firm attorney reviews

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2019 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

By The Health Law Firm|2024-03-14T10:00:10-04:00September 4, 2019|Categories: Health Facilities Law Blog|Tags: anti-trust legal counsel, complex healthcare litigation attorney, covenant-not-to-compete representation, health care business contract attorney, health care litigation representation, health care professional contract litigation, health professional contracting, health professional employment contracts, healthcare complex business litigation, legal counsel for defeat of noncompetition agreement, negotiating health business transactions, noncompetition agreement attorney, Noncompetition agreement litigation, noncompetition agreement litigation attorney, physician employment agreements, physician employment contract litigation, representation for antitrust The Health Law Firm reviews, representation for complex litigation, representation for employer enforcement of restrictive covenants, representation for noncompetition agreements, representation for physician agreements, representation for physician business transactions, representation for physician complex litigation, representation for restrictive covenants, restrictive covenant attorney, restrictive covenant defense attorney, The Health Law Firm attorney reviews|2 Comments