Iowa Appellate Court Reverses $6 Million Nursing Home Negligence Decision Because of Hearsay Testimony

Author HeadshotBy George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A, LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law and Hartley Brooks, Law Clerk, The Health Law Firm
On June 21, 2023, the Iowa Court of Appeals overturned the verdict in a nursing home negligence case that awarded $6 million in compensation and damages to the plaintiff. The case was reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court judge admitted inadmissible hearsay testimony into evidence. The testimony being appealed was that of staff members who claimed to have heard “reports” and “rumors” of alleged abuse by a nurse on staff toward not only the resident in question but other residents.
Hearsay in Iowa law is defined as “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Click here to read the Iowa Rules of Evidence concerning hearsay. This is the same definition used by the federal and most other courts.
Essentially, hearsay is when someone repeats something they heard from another person and presents it as if they know it to be true. Hearsay is often equated to rumor. Hearsay is not admissible due to the nature of speculation required in making such a statement, the fact that such statements are inherently unreliable and that the actual witness is not in court to answer questions about it. Thus there is no way for a party or the judge to test the credibility of the actual witness or determine facts that may have influenced the observation and statement.
Hearsay is considered unreliable because the person who knows what happened (who saw what happened or heard what happened) is not to be questioned about it. Therefore, there is no way to know what really happened for sure.
Details of the Case. 
In this case, the estate of the former nursing home resident, who succumbed to her injuries after a fall in the nursing home, claimed adult abuse and that negligence caused a wrongful death. In its defense, the nursing home focused on the alleged abuse by a nurse on the staff. The statements challenged in the appeal included testimony made by six nursing home staff members that residents, other unnamed employees, and an Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals surveyor told them that the nurse in question had been physically rough with and swore at residents.
The employees testifying did not actually witness any such incidents. They were only testifying about someone else’s words (“hearsay”). 
The trial court admitted these statements, allegedly not for their truth, but in an attempt to show that abuse had been reported and there had not been any follow-up investigation. The appellate court stated that this was not a valid reason to admit inadmissible hearsay into evidence because the estate must prove that the conduct existed to prevent the jury from engaging in rampant speculation based on unreliable hearsay evidence.
People in today’s society, yes, even judges, often forget this basic principle of law. With all of the fabricated lies being put out as “news” on some news channels, Internet rumors running rampant, and politicians making egregiously false statements, it’s often hard to remember how to distinguish a fact from an unreliable rumor or hearsay.
This is one of the problems with hearsay. It is often just gossip and rumor, which change from person to person. Especially egregious conduct, criminal activity, and salacious acts become increasingly exaggerated with each retelling. The founding fathers in English and American law realized the inherently unreliable nature of such “evidence.”
Under the hearsay rule, the Court of Appeals agreed with the nursing home that the statements being challenged were inadmissible hearsay evidence that influenced the jury’s verdict. Due to this, the court reversed the verdict and remanded the case for a new trial. To read the court’s opinion in full, click here.
Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys.
The Health Law Firm routinely represents health professionals and health facilities in civil and administrative litigation. We also represent physicians, nurses, and other health providers in investigations, regulatory matters, licensing issues, board hearings, inspections, and audits involving the DEA, Department of Health (DOH), and other law enforcement agencies. Its attorneys include those who are board-certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law as well as licensed health professionals who are also attorneys.  We represent medical students, interns, resident physicians, and fellows in disputes with their graduate medical education (GME) programs.  We represent clinical professors and instructors in contract disputes, employment disputes, clinical privileges matters, and other disputes with their employers.  We often act as the physician’s personal counsel in medical malpractice litigation.
To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free at (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.
Source: 
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 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.
Attorney Positions with The Health Law Firm. The Health Law Firm always seeks 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.
By |2024-03-14T09:59:17-04:00October 27, 2023|Categories: Pharmacy Law Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |Comments Off on Iowa Appellate Court Reverses $6 Million Nursing Home Negligence Decision Because of Hearsay Testimony
Read More

Iowa Appellate Court Reverses $6 Million Nursing Home Negligence Decision Because of Hearsay Testimony

Author HeadshotBy George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A, LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law and Hartley Brooks, Law Clerk, The Health Law Firm
On June 21, 2023, the Iowa Court of Appeals overturned the verdict in a nursing home negligence case that awarded $6 million in compensation and damages to the plaintiff. The case was reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court judge admitted inadmissible hearsay testimony into evidence. The testimony being appealed was that of staff members who claimed to have heard “reports” and “rumors” of alleged abuse by a nurse on staff toward not only the resident in question but other residents.
Hearsay in Iowa law is defined as “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Click here to read the Iowa Rules of Evidence concerning hearsay. This is the same definition used by the federal and most other courts.
Essentially, hearsay is when someone repeats something they heard from another person and presents it as if they know it to be true. Hearsay is often equated to rumor. Hearsay is not admissible due to the nature of speculation required in making such a statement, the fact that such statements are inherently unreliable and that the actual witness is not in court to answer questions about it. Thus there is no way for a party or the judge to test the credibility of the actual witness or determine facts that may have influenced the observation and statement.
Hearsay is considered unreliable because the person who knows what happened (who saw what happened or heard what happened) is not to be questioned about it. Therefore, there is no way to know what really happened for sure.
Details of the Case. 
In this case, the estate of the former nursing home resident, who succumbed to her injuries after a fall in the nursing home, claimed adult abuse and that negligence caused a wrongful death. In its defense, the nursing home focused on the alleged abuse by a nurse on the staff. The statements challenged in the appeal included testimony made by six nursing home staff members that residents, other unnamed employees, and an Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals surveyor told them that the nurse in question had been physically rough with and swore at residents.
The employees testifying did not actually witness any such incidents. They were only testifying about someone else’s words (“hearsay”). 
The trial court admitted these statements, allegedly not for their truth, but in an attempt to show that abuse had been reported and there had not been any follow-up investigation. The appellate court stated that this was not a valid reason to admit inadmissible hearsay into evidence because the estate must prove that the conduct existed to prevent the jury from engaging in rampant speculation based on unreliable hearsay evidence.
People in today’s society, yes, even judges, often forget this basic principle of law. With all of the fabricated lies being put out as “news” on some news channels, Internet rumors running rampant, and politicians making egregiously false statements, it’s often hard to remember how to distinguish a fact from an unreliable rumor or hearsay.
This is one of the problems with hearsay. It is often just gossip and rumor, which change from person to person. Especially egregious conduct, criminal activity, and salacious acts become increasingly exaggerated with each retelling. The founding fathers in English and American law realized the inherently unreliable nature of such “evidence.”
Under the hearsay rule, the Court of Appeals agreed with the nursing home that the statements being challenged were inadmissible hearsay evidence that influenced the jury’s verdict. Due to this, the court reversed the verdict and remanded the case for a new trial. To read the court’s opinion in full, click here.
Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys.
The Health Law Firm routinely represents health professionals and health facilities in civil and administrative litigation. We also represent physicians, nurses, and other health providers in investigations, regulatory matters, licensing issues, board hearings, inspections, and audits involving the DEA, Department of Health (DOH), and other law enforcement agencies. Its attorneys include those who are board-certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law as well as licensed health professionals who are also attorneys.  We represent medical students, interns, resident physicians, and fellows in disputes with their graduate medical education (GME) programs.  We represent clinical professors and instructors in contract disputes, employment disputes, clinical privileges matters, and other disputes with their employers.  We often act as the physician’s personal counsel in medical malpractice litigation.
To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free at (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.
Source: 
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 always seeks 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.
By |2024-03-14T09:59:19-04:00September 28, 2023|Categories: Dental Law Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |Comments Off on Iowa Appellate Court Reverses $6 Million Nursing Home Negligence Decision Because of Hearsay Testimony
Read More

Iowa Appellate Court Reverses $6 Million Nursing Home Negligence Decision Because of Hearsay Testimony

Author HeadshotBy George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A, LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law and Hartley Brooks, Law Clerk, The Health Law Firm
On June 21, 2023, the Iowa Court of Appeals overturned the verdict in a nursing home negligence case that awarded $6 million in compensation and damages to the plaintiff. The case was reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court judge admitted inadmissible hearsay testimony into evidence. The testimony being appealed was that of staff members who claimed to have heard “reports” and “rumors” of alleged abuse by a nurse on staff toward not only the resident in question but other residents.
Hearsay in Iowa law is defined as “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Click here to read the Iowa Rules of Evidence concerning hearsay. This is the same definition used by the federal and most other courts.
Essentially, hearsay is when someone repeats something they heard from another person and presents it as if they know it to be true. Hearsay is often equated to rumor. Hearsay is not admissible due to the nature of speculation required in making such a statement, the fact that such statements are inherently unreliable and that the actual witness is not in court to answer questions about it. Thus there is no way for a party or the judge to test the credibility of the actual witness or determine facts that may have influenced the observation and statement.
Hearsay is considered unreliable because the person who knows what happened (who saw what happened or heard what happened) is not to be questioned about it. Therefore, there is no way to know what really happened for sure.
Details of the Case. 
In this case, the estate of the former nursing home resident, who succumbed to her injuries after a fall in the nursing home, claimed adult abuse and that negligence caused a wrongful death. In its defense, the nursing home focused on the alleged abuse by a nurse on the staff. The statements challenged in the appeal included testimony made by six nursing home staff members that residents, other unnamed employees, and an Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals surveyor told them that the nurse in question had been physically rough with and swore at residents.
The employees testifying did not actually witness any such incidents. They were only testifying about someone else’s words (“hearsay”). 
The trial court admitted these statements, allegedly not for their truth, but in an attempt to show that abuse had been reported and there had not been any follow-up investigation. The appellate court stated that this was not a valid reason to admit inadmissible hearsay into evidence because the estate must prove that the conduct existed to prevent the jury from engaging in rampant speculation based on unreliable hearsay evidence.
People in today’s society, yes, even judges, often forget this basic principle of law. With all of the fabricated lies being put out as “news” on some news channels, Internet rumors running rampant, and politicians making egregiously false statements, it’s often hard to remember how to distinguish a fact from an unreliable rumor or hearsay.
This is one of the problems with hearsay. It is often just gossip and rumor, which change from person to person. Especially egregious conduct, criminal activity, and salacious acts become increasingly exaggerated with each retelling. The founding fathers in English and American law realized the inherently unreliable nature of such “evidence.”
Under the hearsay rule, the Court of Appeals agreed with the nursing home that the statements being challenged were inadmissible hearsay evidence that influenced the jury’s verdict. Due to this, the court reversed the verdict and remanded the case for a new trial. To read the court’s opinion in full, click here.
Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys.
The Health Law Firm routinely represents health professionals and health facilities in civil and administrative litigation. We also represent physicians, nurses, and other health providers in investigations, regulatory matters, licensing issues, board hearings, inspections, and audits involving the DEA, Department of Health (DOH), and other law enforcement agencies. Its attorneys include those who are board-certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law as well as licensed health professionals who are also attorneys.  We represent medical students, interns, resident physicians, and fellows in disputes with their graduate medical education (GME) programs.  We represent clinical professors and instructors in contract disputes, employment disputes, clinical privileges matters, and other disputes with their employers.  We often act as the physician’s personal counsel in medical malpractice litigation.
To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free at (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.
Source: 
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 always seeks 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.
By |2024-03-14T09:59:22-04:00August 29, 2023|Categories: Medical Education Law Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |Comments Off on Iowa Appellate Court Reverses $6 Million Nursing Home Negligence Decision Because of Hearsay Testimony
Read More

Iowa Appellate Court Reverses $6 Million Nursing Home Negligence Decision Because of Hearsay Testimony

Author HeadshotBy George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A, LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law and Hartley Brooks, Law Clerk, The Health Law Firm
On June 21, 2023, the Court of Appeals of Iowa overturned the verdict in a nursing home negligence case that awarded $6 million in compensation and damages to the plaintiff. The case was reversed and remanded for a new trial because inadmissible hearsay testimony was admitted into evidence by the trial court judge. The testimony being appealed was that of staff members who claimed to have heard “reports” and “rumors” of alleged abuse by a nurse on staff toward, not only the resident in question but other residents as well.

Hearsay in Iowa law is defined as “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Click here to read the Iowa Rules of Evidence concerning hearsay.  This is the same definition used by the federal courts and most other courts.

Essentially, hearsay is when someone repeats something they heard from another person and presents it as if they know it to be true. Hearsay is often equated to rumor. Hearsay is not admissible due to the nature of speculation required in making such a statement, the fact that such statements are inherently unreliable, and the fact that the actual witness is not in court to answer questions about it. Thus there is no way for a party or the judge to test the credibility of the actual witness or determine facts that may have influenced the observation and statement.

Hearsay is considered unreliable because the person who actually knows what happened (who saw what happened or heard what happened) is not present to be questioned about it. Therefore, there is no way to know what really happened for sure.

Details of the Case. 

In this case, the estate of the former nursing home resident, who succumbed to her injuries after a fall in the nursing home claimed adult abuse and that negligence caused a wrongful death. In its defense, the nursing home focused on the alleged abuse by a nurse on the staff. The statements that were challenged in the appeal included testimony made by six members of the nursing home staff that residents, other unnamed employees, and an Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals surveyor told them that the nurse in question had been physically rough with and swore at residents.

The employees testifying did not actually witness any such incidents. They were only testifying as to what they had heard someone else say (“hearsay”).

The trial court admitted these statements, allegedly not for their truth, but in an attempt to show that abuse had been reported and there had not been any follow-up investigation. The appellate court stated that this was not a valid reason to admit inadmissible hearsay into evidence because the estate must show clear proof that the conduct existed in order to prevent the jury from engaging in rampant speculation based on unreliable hearsay evidence.

People in today’s society, yes, even judges, often forget this basic principle of law. With all of the completely fabricated lies being put out as “news” on some news channels, with Internet rumors running rampant, and with politicians making egregiously false statements, it’s often hard to remember how to distinguish a fact from unreliable rumor or hearsay.

This is one of the problems with hearsay. It is often just gossip and rumor which change from person to person. Especially egregious conduct, criminal activity, and salacious acts become more and more exaggerated with each retelling. The founding fathers in English and American law realized the inherently unreliable nature of such “evidence.”

Under the hearsay rule, the Court of Appeals agreed with the nursing home that the statements being challenged were inadmissible hearsay evidence that influenced the jury’s verdict. Due to this, the court reversed the verdict and remanded the case for a new trial. To read the court’s opinion in full, click here.

Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys.

The Health Law Firm routinely represents health professionals and health facilities in civil and administrative litigation. We also represent physicians, nurses, and other health providers in investigations, regulatory matters, licensing issues, board hearings, inspections, and audits involving the DEA, Department of Health (DOH), and other law enforcement agencies. Its attorneys include those who are board certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law as well as licensed health professionals who are also attorneys.  We represent medical students, interns, resident physicians, and fellows in disputes with their graduate medical education (GME) programs.  We represent clinical professors and instructors in contract disputes, employment disputes, clinical privileges matters, and other disputes with their employers.  We often act as the physician’s personal counsel in medical malpractice litigation.
To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free at (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Source: 

Kang, Y. Peter. “Iowa Court Overturns $6M Nursing Home Negligence Verdict.” Law360. (June 22, 2023). https://www.law360.com/health/articles/1691891?nl_pk=0cbd4c0b-c6c8-416a-9e67-b4affa63b102&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=health&utm_content=2023-06-23&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=9

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.
By |2024-03-14T09:59:22-04:00August 22, 2023|Categories: Nursing Law Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |Comments Off on Iowa Appellate Court Reverses $6 Million Nursing Home Negligence Decision Because of Hearsay Testimony
Read More

Iowa Appellate Court Reverses $6 Million Nursing Home Negligence Decision Because of Hearsay Testimony

Author HeadshotBy George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A, LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law and Hartley Brooks, Law Clerk, The Health Law Firm
On June 21, 2023, the Iowa Court of Appeals overturned the verdict in a nursing home negligence case that awarded $6 million in compensation and damages to the plaintiff. The case was reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court judge admitted inadmissible hearsay testimony into evidence. The testimony being appealed was that of staff members who claimed to have heard “reports” and “rumors” of alleged abuse by a nurse on staff toward not only the resident in question but other residents.
Hearsay in Iowa law is defined as “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Click here to read the Iowa Rules of Evidence concerning hearsay. This is the same definition used by the federal and most other courts.
Essentially, hearsay is when someone repeats something they heard from another person and presents it as if they know it to be true. Hearsay is often equated to rumor. Hearsay is not admissible due to the nature of speculation required in making such a statement, the fact that such statements are inherently unreliable and that the actual witness is not in court to answer questions about it. Thus there is no way for a party or the judge to test the credibility of the actual witness or determine facts that may have influenced the observation and statement.
Hearsay is considered unreliable because the person who knows what happened (who saw what happened or heard what happened) is not to be questioned about it. Therefore, there is no way to know what really happened for sure.
Details of the Case. 
In this case, the estate of the former nursing home resident, who succumbed to her injuries after a fall in the nursing home, claimed adult abuse and that negligence caused a wrongful death. In its defense, the nursing home focused on the alleged abuse by a nurse on the staff. The statements that were challenged in the appeal included testimony made by six nursing home staff members that residents, other unnamed employees, and an Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals surveyor told them that the nurse in question had been physically rough with and swore at residents.
The employees testifying did not actually witness any such incidents. They were only testifying about what someone else said (“hearsay”). 
The trial court admitted these statements, allegedly not for their truth, but in an attempt to show that abuse had been reported and there had not been any follow-up investigation. The appellate court stated that this was not a valid reason to admit inadmissible hearsay into evidence because the estate must prove that the conduct existed to prevent the jury from engaging in rampant speculation based on unreliable hearsay evidence.
People in today’s society, yes, even judges, often forget this basic principle of law. With all of the completely fabricated lies being put out as “news” on some news channels, Internet rumors running rampant, and politicians making egregiously false statements, it’s often hard to remember how to distinguish a fact from an unreliable rumor or hearsay.
This is one of the problems with hearsay. It is often just gossip and rumor, which change from person to person. Especially egregious conduct, criminal activity, and salacious acts become increasingly exaggerated with each retelling. The founding fathers in English and American law realized the inherently unreliable nature of such “evidence.”
Under the hearsay rule, the Court of Appeals agreed with the nursing home that the statements being challenged were inadmissible hearsay evidence that influenced the jury’s verdict. Due to this, the court reversed the verdict and remanded the case for a new trial. To read the court’s opinion in full, click here.
Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys.
The Health Law Firm routinely represents health professionals and health facilities in civil and administrative litigation. We also represent physicians, nurses, and other health providers in investigations, regulatory matters, licensing issues, board hearings, inspections, and audits involving the DEA, Department of Health (DOH), and other law enforcement agencies. Its attorneys include those who are board-certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law as well as licensed health professionals who are also attorneys.  We represent medical students, interns, resident physicians, and fellows in disputes with their graduate medical education (GME) programs.  We represent clinical professors and instructors in contract disputes, employment disputes, clinical privileges matters, and other disputes with their employers.  We often act as the physician’s personal counsel in medical malpractice litigation.
To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free at (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.
Source: 
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 always seeks 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.
By |2024-03-14T09:59:24-04:00July 31, 2023|Categories: Nursing Law Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |Comments Off on Iowa Appellate Court Reverses $6 Million Nursing Home Negligence Decision Because of Hearsay Testimony
Read More

Hey, Health Care Professionals…Why Can’t We Be Friends?!

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

Every year, our firm sponsors and attends various medical industry events. Needless to say, our law firm table is not the most popular hangout spot. If we had a penny for every time we have heard “Yikes, an attorney! I hope I never need you.” we could close our doors and all retire.

The feeling is akin to being the last kid picked for teams in gym class. So we ask ourselves: why are we attorneys shunned by health care professionals? Why won’t anyone make eye contact with us at meetings and events? Why is there a negative stigma attached to the phrase “law firm?”

We found the answer.

It’s Not Us. It’s You.

Before you take great offense to such a bold statement, hear me out. Society as a whole seems to have a misconceived notion that a law firm’s services are solely for reactive purposes. Meaning, you need defensive legal assistance. In these reactive situations, lawyers defend their clients to make the most out of an unfortunate situation. I frequently hear, “well nothing has gone wrong yet, so why do I need an attorney?” Here’s the secret: We can do much more than help you when something has gone wrong.

To reap the maximum potential from your profession, you should be utilizing “legal checkups” instead of burying your head in the sand. First, it’s more cost effective to hire a lawyer proactively BEFORE something goes wrong. When you are proactive about your legal needs, you have time to be selective in choosing the right lawyer for your needs. You can build a foundation before you invest in your legal needs. Typically, if you are in need of a lawyer to reactively defend you, you’re already knee-deep and you won’t be afforded the opportunity to find the best attorney.

Taking The Initiative Legal Business Advice.

The benefits of proactively obtaining an attorney are often overlooked. Having an attorney available at any time for legal protection and business advice may not always cross a health care professional’s mind. I find this to be ironic. Health care professionals recommend patients to eat healthy, exercise often, take daily vitamins, and schedule regular checkups. All these suggestions are proactive measures to ensure a stable life, full of longevity. Doesn’t it grind your gears when patients overlook your expert advice until something goes terribly wrong? We can both agree that preemptive measures are necessary in health and health care business.

I am not a medical expert, therefore, I would not attempt to perform a surgical procedure or offer a diagnosis. Legal services are the same. Most health care professionals cannot draft a contract themselves or set up a partnership office flawlessly without experienced legal expertise.

Proactive Legal Help We Often See Overlooked.

Whether it be our firm or not, health care professionals and businesses need a trusted health law attorney readily available to ask for help when additional legal knowledge, experience, or judgment is needed. The following list outlines health care business legal services that are proactive in nature.

– Obtain a contract review, of any agreement, before you sign the dotted line. It is crucial to
have a lawyer experienced in health law review convoluted documents that may bind you to
terms and conditions that you should not be liable for.

– Hire an attorney to negotiate your employment contracts to ensure that you are fairly
compensated for your work.

– A health law attorney adept in assisting with a business restructuring is invaluable. Whether
you are opening or closing a medical office, taking part in a merger, or launching or dissolving
a partnership, these transactions are complex. It is not in your best interest to attempt any
business maneuver without the input of a trusted health law attorney who is familiar with your
professional business goals.

– A compliance assessment is an important proactive measure for health providers and
businesses. With the increase of federal and state oversight, it is wise to have a thorough
review and analysis of your business protocols and procedures on a regular basis. An
experienced health law attorney can help you avoid critical administrative pitfalls. These
assessments verify compliance in areas such as: Medicare/Medicaid billing claims, patient
record keeping, HIPAA and HITECH procedures, etc.

You know what they say, it’s better to be safe than sorry. Hiring an attorney is NOT solely for the purpose of negative occurrences or damaging mistakes. As a health care professional, it is crucial to work with a trusted health lawyer to advise you in your business decisions. Don’t rely on the notion that you don’t need a lawyer until you are in trouble. Heeding our warning, you could save yourself a lot of time and money.

Contact a Health Care Attorney Experienced in Negotiating and Evaluating Physician and Health Professional’s Business 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 or facility.

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 state 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, 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.

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: Proactive legal services, health law legal advice, health care professional legal help, corporate law, corporate health law, contract review, employment contract reviews, office reconstruction, medical office reconstruction, compliance assessment, partnership dissolutions, mergers, legal business advice, corporate law attorney, corporate lawyer, employment law, employment law attorney, contract negotiation, contract negotiation attorney, contract negotiation lawyer, health law, business law, legal business advice, legal advice, health care professional, attorney for health care professionals, representation for health care professionals, representation for health care facilities, health law defense lawyer, employment law representation, The Health Law Firm, reviews of The Health Law Firm, The Health Law Firm attorney reviews

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2018 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

By |2024-03-14T10:00:22-04:00September 11, 2018|Categories: The Health Law Firm Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |Comments Off on Hey, Health Care Professionals…Why Can’t We Be Friends?!
Read More

Two Nursing Home Co-Conspirators Sentenced in $19 Million Fraud Kickback Scheme

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

On July 9, 2018, two co-conspirators in a $19.4 million healthcare fraud scheme involving a nursing home chain, American Senior Communities, were sentenced in Indiana federal court. Both pled guilty to various conspiracy and money laundering charges.

The Multi-Million Dollar Scheme.

Prosecutors allege that the men reached side deals with vendors who handled things like nurse call systems, food and medical supplies for the nursing home chain. According to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the kickback scheme generated nearly $19.4 million that the men spent on vacation homes, private planes, golf trips, Rolex watches, gold bullion and casino chips. Both were charged in 2016, along with two others for their roles in the same scheme. Read more about their involvement here.

The Sentencing.

The DOJ said Steven Ganote received a five-year sentence with two years of supervised release and was ordered to pay $7 million in restitution. Additionally, Joshua Burkhart was handed a four-month sentence with two years of supervised release and ordered to pay $420,000 in restitution. Each of the men is charged with one count of conspiracy to commit mail, wire and health care fraud, money laundering and conspiracy to violate the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS).

To learn more about these types of illegal kickback schemes, click here to read one of my prior blogs on health care fraud.

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

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

For more information please visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com or call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001.

 

Sources:

Fowler, Haylay. “Nursing Home Schemer Sentenced In $19M Kickback Scheme.” Law360. (July 9, 2018). Web.

Kass, Dani. “Ex-Nursing Home Execs Indicted In $16M Kickback Scheme.” Law360. (October 12, 2016). 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: Medical billing fraud, fraudulent billing representation, fraudulent billing attorney, representation for overbilling, representation for submitting false claims, False Claims Act (FCA) violations, representation for submitting false claims, false claims lawyer, FCA defense attorney, Anti-Kickback Statute(AKS) violations, AKS representation, AKS attorney, representation for fraudulent reimbursement, representation for illegal kickback scheme illegal kickback scheme attorney, legal representation for health care professionals, health fraud defense lawyer, health law defense attorney, health law, The Health Law Firm

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2018 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

By |2024-03-14T10:00:24-04:00July 12, 2018|Categories: Health Facilities Law Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |Comments Off on Two Nursing Home Co-Conspirators Sentenced in $19 Million Fraud Kickback Scheme
Read More

Patient Privacy Breach at Nemours Follows Florida Hospital Information Leak

After a patient privacy breach at Florida Hospital a few weeks ago, another patient records scare has hit Florida – this time at Nemours.

According to the Orlando Sentinel, information belonging to Central Florida patients of Nemours Children’s Health System has gone missing.

Computer back-up tapes containing old patient billing information have disappeared from the Wilmington, Del., office of Nemours. These tapes were not password protected and stored in a locked cabinet. Company officials believe the cabinet may have been removed when the office was  remodeled in August.

Stored in the missing tapes are patient names, addresses, dates of birth, social security numbers, insurance information, medical diagnoses and treatment codes, as well as bank account information. If stolen, this information could result in identity theft.

The information of more than 1 million patients treated from 1994 to 2004 by a Nemours physician or at a Nemours facility in Florida, Delaware or Pennsylvania was contained on the missing tapes. Approximately 50% of the affected patients are from Florida.

Nemours has sent letters to patients whose information may have been compromised and is offering these patients a year of free credit monitoring and identity-theft protection.

Although Nemours is taking appropriate steps in response to this situation, a major  patient privacy breach should not be happening so frequently. This is the second major privacy breach in the last few weeks in Florida, which instills little confidence in patients in the Florida health care system. Health care providers need to be proactive in maintaining patient confidentiality. Patients trust health care providers with the most personal and sensitive details and should have reassurance that unauthorized personnel will never see this information. There should never be any reason that this information gets leaked.

A privacy breach not only impacts patients, but also health care professionals (physicians, nurses, pharmacists, administrators, etc.) who come under attack. When blame is shifted around a health care facility, the work environment may become tense and stressful, especially for those who have access to patient records.

For more information about patient privacy breaches, see this article on confidential medical records.

By |2024-03-14T10:00:25-04:00June 1, 2018|Categories: In the News, The Health Law Firm Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , |Comments Off on Patient Privacy Breach at Nemours Follows Florida Hospital Information Leak
Read More

Miami Medical Clinic Owner Pleads Guilty to $20 Million in Medicare Fraud

6 Indest-2008-3By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

The owner of a Miami-based medical clinic pleaded guilty on January 8, 2014, for her involvement in several health care fraud schemes that allegedly cost the Medicare program around $20 million. The schemes allegedly involved fraudulent billing for home health care services and therapy prescriptions to patients that may not have required them, according to the Associated Press. The owner operated Merfi Corp., a medical clinic that employed physicians, physician assistants and other medical professionals authorized to dispense prescriptions for home health care services.

Click here to read the Associated Press article.

The medical clinic owner faces up to 10 years in prison and is scheduled to be sentenced in March 2014.

Medicare Fraud Scheme Involved Kickbacks and Brides.

According to an article on Home Health Care News, through Merfi, the owner and her co-conspirators were allegedly given kickbacks and brides for providing fraudulent home health and therapy prescriptions and other medical documentation to owners and operators of other home health agencies and patient recruiters. The fraudulent documents were then used to bill Medicare.

To read the entire article from Home Health Care News, click here.

Case Investigated by Medicare Fraud Strike Task Force.

This case was investigated by the Medicare Fraud Strike Task Force. This task force has charged more than 1,700 defendants who have collectively billed the Medicare program for more than $5.5 billion since the agency’s inception in March 2007. To learn more about the Medicare Fraud Strike Force’s anti-fraud efforts, click here to read a previous blog.

What You Need to Know about Medicare and Medicaid Audits.

I previously wrote a two-part blog on the increased number of Medicare and Medicaid audits being initiated against health professionals who treat home health care, assisted living facility (ALF) and skilled nursing facility (SNF) residents. This area of medical practice has been identified as one fraught with fraud and abuse. To learn more on the areas being targeted and how to respond to different types of audits click here for the first blog, and click here for the second.

Physicians, Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants Must Check Out Their Employers.

I have previously written blogs warning licensed health practitioners about illegal health care clinics. Often the individuals involved in fraudulent acts will use an unlicensed health clinic as a vehicle to process false claims. Licensed health professionals should jealously protect their Medicare and Medicaid provider numbers and make sure that they do not allow their name or numbers to be used in false billing activities. Check out any company or corporation that employs you to be sure it is properly licensed, as necessary. To read a previous blog I wrote on unlicensed health clinics, click here.

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

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

For more information please visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com or call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001.

Comments?

Do you think similar schemes are fairly common? Do you think we will see more news stories like this with the increased anti-fraud efforts of the Medicare Fraud Strike Task Force? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Sources:

Associated Press. “South Florida Woman Guilty in $20M Medicare Fraud Scheme.” Miami Herald. (January 8, 2014.) From: http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/01/08/3858269/fla-woman-guilty-in-20m-medicare.html

Oliva, Jason. “Miami Clinic Owner Pleads Guilty to $20 Million Home Health Fraud.” Home Health Care News. (January 8, 2013). From: http://bit.ly/1h87Xv4

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.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 1996-2012 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

By |2024-03-14T10:00:54-04:00June 1, 2018|Categories: Medicare, Medicare Audit, The Health Law Firm Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |Comments Off on Miami Medical Clinic Owner Pleads Guilty to $20 Million in Medicare Fraud
Read More

The 25 Biggest Mistakes Physicians Make After Being Notified of a Department of Health Complaint

The investigation of a complaint which could lead to the revocation of a physician’s license to practice medicine and the assessment of tens of thousands of dollars in fines, usually starts with a simple letter from the Department of Health (DOH).  This is a very serious legal matter and it should be treated as such by the physician who receives it.  Yet, in many cases, attorneys are consulted by physicians after the entire investigation is over, and they have attempted to represent themselves throughout the case.  Often, the mistakes that have been made severely compromise an attorney’s ability to achieve a favorable result for the physician.

These are the 25 biggest mistakes we see in the physician cases we are called upon to defend after a DOH investigation has been initiated:

  1. Failing to keep a current, valid address on file with the DOH (as required by law), which may seriously delay the receipt of the Uniform Complaint (notice of investigation), letters, and other important correspondence related to the investigation.
  2. Contacting the DOH investigator and providing him/her an oral statement or oral interview.  (Note:  There is no legal requirement to do this.)
  3. Making a written statement in response to the “invitation” extended by the DOH investigator to do so.  (Note:  There is no legal requirement to do this.)
  4. Failing to carefully review the complaint to make sure it has been sent to the correct physician (Note:  Check name and license number).
  5. Failing to ascertain whether or not the investigation is on the “Fast Track” which may then result in an emergency suspension order (ESO) suspending the physician’s license until all proceedings are concluded.  (Note:  This will usually be the case if there are allegations regarding drug abuse, alcohol abuse, sexual contact with a patient, mental health issues, or failure to comply with PRN instructions.)
  6. Providing a copy of the physician’s curriculum vitae (CV) or resume to the investigator because the investigator requested them to do so.  (Note:  There is no legal requirement to do this.
  7. Believing that if they “just explain it,” the investigation will be closed and the case dropped.
  8. Failing to submit a timely objection to a DOH subpoena when there are valid grounds to do so.
  9. Failing to forward a complete copy of the patient medical record when subpoenaed by the DOH investigator as part of the investigation, when no objection is going to be filed.
  10. Delegating the task of providing a complete copy of the patient medical record to office staff, resulting in an incomplete or partial copy being provided.
  11. Failing to keep an exact copy of any medical records, documents, letters or statements provided to the investigator.
  12. Believing that the investigator has knowledge or experience in hospital procedures, medical procedures or the health care matters or procedures being investigated.
  13. Believing that the investigator is merely attempting to ascertain the truth of the matter and this will result in the matter being dismissed.
  14. Failing to check to see if their medical malpractice insurance carrier will pay the legal fees to defend them in this investigation.
  15. Talking to DOH investigators, staff or attorneys, in the mistaken belief that they are capable of doing so without providing information that can and will be used against them.
  16. Believing that because they haven’t heard anything for six months or more the matter has “gone away.”  The matter does not ever just go away.
  17. Failing to submit a written request to the investigator at the beginning of the investigation for a copy of the complete investigation report and file and then following up with additional requests until it is received.
  18. Failing to wisely use the time while the investigation is proceeding to interview witnesses, obtain witness statements, conduct research, obtain experts, and perform other tasks that may assist defending the case.
  19. Failing to exercise the right of submitting documents, statements, and expert opinions to rebut the findings made in the investigation report before the case is submitted to the Probable Cause Panel of your licensing board for a decision.
  20. Taking legal advice from their colleagues regarding what they should do (or not do) in defending themselves in the investigation.
  21. Retaining “consultants” or other non-lawyer personnel to represent them.
  22. Believing that the case is indefensible so there is no reason to even try to have it dismissed by the Probable Cause Panel.
  23. Attempting to defend themselves.
  24. Believing that because they know someone on the Board of Medicine, with the Department of Health or a state legislator, that influence can be exerted to have the case dismissed.
  25. Failing to immediately retain the services of a health care attorney who is experienced in such matters to represent them, to communicate with the DOH investigator for them, and to prepare and submit materials to the Probable Cause Panel.

 Bonus Point:

 26. Communicating with the Department of Health about the pending case.

Not every case will require submission of materials to the Probable Cause Panel after the investigation is received and reviewed.  There will be a few where the allegations made are not “legally sufficient” and do not constitute an offense for which the physician may be disciplined.  In other cases, an experienced health care attorney may be successful in obtaining a commitment from the DOH attorney to recommend a dismissal to the Probable Cause Panel.  In other cases (usually the most serious ones), for tactical reasons, the experienced health care attorney may recommend that you waive your right to have the case submitted to the Probable Cause Panel and that you proceed directly to an administrative hearing.  The key to a successful outcome in all of these cases is to obtain the assistance of a health care lawyer who is experienced in appearing before the Board of Medicine in such cases and does so on a regular basis.

For more information, on how to respond to a DOH investigation, or other legal matters, visit our website.

By |2024-03-14T10:00:25-04:00June 1, 2018|Categories: Department of Health, Health Care Industry, The Health Law Firm Blog|Tags: , , , , , |Comments Off on The 25 Biggest Mistakes Physicians Make After Being Notified of a Department of Health Complaint
Read More
“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A.
The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2022 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.
FacebookInstagramLinkedInTwitterYouTube
Toggle Sliding Bar Area
Go to Top