Don’t Voluntarily Relinquish Your Medical License or DEA Registration Number, Here’s Why

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

I am often contacted by clients who are health professionals or own businesses in the health care industry who have been approached by government agents or investigators regarding possible complaints or charges. In many cases, the individuals involved do not think to consult with an attorney until many months later. This may be too late to save the business or professional practice involved. This holds for physicians, dentists, nurses, pharmacists, pharmacies, pain management clinics, physician assistants, group homes, assisted living facilities (ALFs), and home health agencies.

“Voluntary” Relinquishment Treated the Same as a Revoked License.

We have seen a trend recently, especially here in Florida, of investigators immediately offering the person being investigated the option to voluntarily relinquish his or her professional license. This is offered as an option to being investigated, even in the event of very minor or frivolous complaints. The problem is that once an investigation has been opened, voluntary relinquishment of a license is treated as if it were revoked for disciplinary reasons. It will be very difficult, if not impossible, to ever get a new license under the circumstances.

Furthermore, if the professional has other licenses or similar licenses in other states, this will be reported to the other states, and disciplinary action will probably be initiated against those other licenses.

We have heard horror stories of investigators, accompanied by police or sheriff’s deputies, or Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents, making all sorts of threats against health professionals to intimidate them into giving up a DEA registration number or professional license, including medical licenses, nursing licenses, and pharmacy licenses.

In the case of such an incident occurring in Florida, the “voluntary” relinquishment must still be presented to the applicable professional Board and voted on at a scheduled meeting since it is considered disciplinary. It may be possible to withdraw the “voluntary” relinquishment before it is voted on, so all may not be lost.

Think Long and Hard About Relinquishing DEA Registration Number.

However, in the case of the DEA, a DEA registration number is considered gone as soon as the “voluntary” relinquishment paper is signed. This is one of the reasons it is crucial to talk with a knowledgeable health law attorney before making such a decision. The ones putting pressure on you to do this will do everything they can to persuade you not to talk to an attorney. But it is your right to do so. Don’t be rushed or intimidated into making a foolish decision you regret.

We have represented clients attempting to obtain a new DEA registration number or a new professional license years after their voluntary relinquishment. In most cases, it is a highly uphill battle and is often not successful.

Additional Consequences of Voluntary Relinquishment of a Professional License or DEA Registration Number.

The following are some of the additional consequences of voluntary relinquishment of a professional license or DEA number after notice of an investigation:

1. Disciplinary action will be commenced against any other professional licenses in the state.

2. Disciplinary action will be commenced against similar licenses in other states.

3. The matter will be reported to any national certification boards of which you are a member. They will most likely commence an action against you to revoke your national certification.

4. You will be placed on the Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) List of Excluded Entities and Individuals (LEIE) and excluded from the federal Medicare Program.

5. You will be terminated from the state’s Medicaid Program if you are a Medicaid provider.

6. You will be terminated from the panels of any health insurers or managed care plans of which you are a provider member.

There are many other possible repercussions to such actions, so it is extremely important to be prepared for such an event. To prepare, you can:

1. Purchase professional licensing defense insurance coverage through Lloyd’s of London, Healthcare Provider’s Service Organization (HPSO), Nurses Service Organization (NSO), or one of the other reputable insurance companies that provide such coverage.

2. Have the names, telephone numbers, and other information on good, reputable criminal defense and health law attorneys. Make sure your practice manager has this information as well.

3. Call as soon as an investigator walks in. Don’t wait.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced with Investigations of Health Professionals and Providers.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm provide legal representation to physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, CRNAs, dentists, pharmacists, psychologists and other health providers in Department of Health (DOH) investigations, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) investigations, FBI investigations, Medicare investigations, Medicaid investigations and other types of investigations of health professionals and providers.


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

 

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.


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

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

Students Graduating Medical School in Three Years

IMG_5281 fixedBy Danielle M. Murray, J.D.

To combat the nationwide shortage of primary care physicians and the increase in student debt, several medical schools around the country are offering the chance for students to finish school in three years, instead of four. According to a number of news articles, these programs are geared specifically toward medical students looking to practice primary care. The hope is that these programs will be cost less for students and add more primary care physicians to under-served areas.

Schools Across the U.S. Offer Three-Year Degrees.

According to an article in The New York Times, a small number of students are currently participating in the three-year degree program. There are about 16 incoming students in the program at New York University (N.Y.U.), nine students at Texas Tech Health Science Center School of Medicine and an even smaller number are at the Mercer University School of Medicine campus in Georgia. In an interview in The New York Times, the dean at Texas Tech said if this approach works, the schools will open up the program to a larger number of students.

To read the entire New York Times article, click here.

Condensed Medical School Not for Everyone.

According to an article in American Medical News, the condensed medical school eliminates breaks and electives and allows students to begin clerkship training in their second year. This is a full year earlier than the traditional four-year curriculums. In the same article, medical experts warn these accelerated programs are not for everyone, saying it takes a mature person to go through rotations earlier and at a quicker pace.

Students are given a chance to opt out if they decide to pursue a different career path. The American Medical News article explains that at Mercer, students who decide that family medicine is not for them are integrated into the traditional four-year program.

Click here to read the article from American Medical News.

Program Developed to Help with Student Debt and Doctor Shortage.

This three-year program is expected to save a quarter of the cost of medical school, which is more than $49,000 a year in tuition and fees at N.Y.U., according to The New York Times. The money saved helps primary care physicians lessen their debt as they go to work in a lower paying field. This program is expected to attract more students to practice in fields such as pediatrics and internal medicine.

According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, the physician shortage is expected to reach 91,500 physicians by 2020. This program, as it grows, can help alleviate the shortage and bring more doctors to areas in need.

Contact a Health Care Attorney that is Experienced in the Representation of Medical Students, Interns, Residents and Applicants.

The Health Law Firm and its attorneys represent medical school students in disputes with their medical schools, internship supervisors, and in dismissal hearings. We have represented residents, interns and fellows in various disputes regarding their academic and clinical performance, allegations of substance abuse, failure to complete integral parts training, alleged false or incomplete statements on applications, allegations of impairment (because of abuse or addiction to drugs or alcohol or because of mental or physical issues), because of discrimination due to race, sex, national origin, sexual orientation and on other matters.

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

Comments?

What do you think of a three-year medical school degree for doctors? Do you think the fourth year of medical school is necessary for primary care physicians? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Sources:

Hartcocollis, Anemona. “N.Y.U. and Other Medical Schools Offer Shorter Course in Training, for Less Tuition.” The New York Times. (December 23, 2012). From: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/24/education/nyu-and-others-offer-shorter-courses-through-medical-school.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Krupa, Carolyne. “Med School on the Fast Track: A 3-Year Degree.” American Medical Association. (May 7, 2012). From: http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2012/05/07/prl20507.htm

About the Author: Danielle M. Murray is an attorney with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area.  www.TheHealthLawFirm.com  The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., 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.

Orlando Physician To Pay $10,000 Fine for Prescribing Painkillers to Undercover Agents

4 Indest-2009-3By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

On January 24, 2013, an Orlando physician pleaded no contest to racketeering charges for allegedly prescribing pain pills to undercover agents who did not need them. The physician was fined $10,000 and placed on 20 years of probation.

Physician Was One of the First Arrested in Florida’s Prescription-Abuse Crackdown.

According to the DOH complaint, between 2008 and 2009, the physician allegedly saw two undercover agents six times. Each agent complained about minor pain. Both agents were allegedly prescribed pain medication by the physician.

The complaint states that each office visit between the physician and undercover agents was filmed and the audio was taped using hidden surveillance equipment. This is a common tactic used by undercover agents investigating pain management physicians.

Click here to read the entire complaint filed against the physician.

The physician was arrested in 2010. He was charged with racketeering because the six prescriptions were characterized as an “ongoing criminal enterprise.” For this criminal case he just pay a $10,000 fine and was placed on 20 years of probation.

This physician was one of the first doctors to get arrested in Florida’s prescription-abuse crackdown. In July 2012, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and Florida law enforcement announced a statewide pill mill bust that spanned several cities in Florida. Seven doctors and seven pain clinic owners were arrested. The raid was dubbed “Operation Pill Street Blues” by the DEA. To read a blog on “Operation Pill Street Blues,” click here.

Physician’s Hopes to Settle DOH Complaint.

According to an article in the Orlando Sentinel, the physician hopes to settled the Florida DOH complaint by agreeing to medical probation, which will require him to be monitored by an outside doctor, undergo continuing education and possibly pay a fine.

The physician is expected to continue practicing at his Orlando office.

Click here to read the Orlando Sentinel article.

Legal Tips for Physicians to Manage Pain Patients.

I have represented a number of physicians who have been accused of overprescribing. Some of these were criminal investigations by local law enforcement authorities, such as a county sheriff’s office. Some were investigations by the DEA. Some were investigations by the state licensing agency such as the Florida DOH.

As in this case, it’s common for undercover agents to posing as patients to make appointments with the physician, agents will usually wear a wire device, and give the physician false information.

Click here for some ideas on how physicians might protect themselves from drug-seeking patients. These are tips I give to physicians I advise on this issue.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Representing Health Care Providers in DOH Cases.
The Health Law Firm represents pharmacists, pharmacies, physicians, nurses, and other health providers in investigations, regulatory matters, licensing issues, litigation, inspections and audits involving the DEA, Department of Health (DOH), and other law enforcement agencies.

If you are aware of an investigation of you or your practice, or if you have been contacted by the DEA or DOH, contact an experienced health law attorney immediately.

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

Comments?

Do you think the physician received a harsh punishment? Is it becoming too hard for Florida doctors to prescribe pain medication? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Sources:

Stutzman, Rene. “Orlando Doctor Fined $10,000, Placed on 20 Years Probation in Pill Case.” Orlando Sentinel. (January 24, 2013). From: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-01-24/news/os-roman-mosai-pill-doctor-plea-20130124_1_pain-pills-orlando-doctor-pill-mill

Department of Health v. Roman Mosai, M.D. Case Number 2009-06572. Administrative Complaint. (June 5, 2012). From: http://www.thehealthlawfirm.com/uploads/DOH%20v%20Mosai.pdf

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.

Lehigh University Student Sues Grad School for $1.3 Million for Bad Grade

Patricia's Photos 013By George F. Indest, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

While in school, we all received grades that we believed to be unfair or unwarranted. One graduate of Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, has taken her bad grade to court. She is suing the university over a “C+” grade. In the lawsuit, the student claims that if not for a zero she was given in participation for a fieldwork class in 2009, she would have gotten a “B.” That grade would have allegedly allowed the student to move on toward finishing her master’s in counseling and human services. The student claims the one bad grade prevented her from attaining her dream to become a licensed professional counselor. Now she is suing the university for $1.3 million, according to an article in The Morning Call.

Click here to read the entire article from The Morning Call.

Was the Grade Given for Unprofessional Behavior or in Retaliation of Student’s Activism?

According to an article in The Morning Call, the student claims she received the low grade because the teacher and the then-director of the degree program conspired to hold her back. The student allegedly claims they were unhappy she had complained after being forced to find a supplemental internship partway through the semester. The student also claims the teacher was biased against her (the student’s) activism for gay and lesbian rights.

Attorneys for the university argue the grade was given to the student in an effort to help her address the skills she needed to be a licensed professional counselor. It’s stated in the complaint that the student expressed unprofessional behavior during class, including outbursts of cursing and crying.

The student ended up graduating from Lehigh University with a master’s degree in human development. She now works as a drug and alcohol counselor, according to The Morning Call. The $1.3 million she is seeking represents the alleged difference in her earnings over her career if she was instead a state-certified counselor.

Can a Judge Change a Grade?

The judge in this case questions whether he has the legal authority to actually change a grade received by a student. He has looked at cases nationally and has been unable to find one in which a judge had done so. The student’s attorney believes the judge has a wide enough latitude to impose “equitable remedies,” according to The Morning Call.

From our experience with such matters, the courts are extremely reluctant to become involved in such academic matters. Absent convincing evidence of discrimination, it is doubtful the courts will decide in the student’s favor.

Legal Ramifications of this Case.

According to an article on Huffington Post, there have been a number of students who have sued their alma maters in grading conflicts. For example, two former Texas Southern University law students filed a lawsuit in 2012 against the university’s Thurgood Marshall School of Law because they received “Ds.” The bad grades led to their dismissal for not maintaining 2.0 GPAs and put a stop to their pursuit of becoming attorneys.

Click here to read more stories of students suing their schools.

Contact a Health Care Attorney that is Experienced in the Representation of Medical Students, Interns, Residents and Applicants.

The Health Law Firm and its attorneys represent medical school students in disputes with their medical schools, internship supervisors, and in dismissal hearings. We have represented residents, interns and fellows in various disputes regarding their academic and clinical performance, allegations of substance abuse, failure to complete integral parts training, alleged false or incomplete statements on applications, allegations of impairment (because of abuse or addiction to drugs or alcohol or because of mental or physical issues), because of discrimination due to race, sex, national origin, sexual orientation and on other matters.

To learn more about our experience in the representation of medical students, click here.

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

Comments?

What do you think about this case? Do you think the judiciary should be injecting itself into the academic process? How do you think this lawsuit will end? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Sources:

Yates, Riley. “Judge decides quickly after request to dismiss Lehigh lawsuit over C+ grade.” The Morning Call. (February 13, 2013). From: http://articles.mcall.com/2013-02-13/news/mc-lehigh-university-student-sues-over-grade-0213-20130213_1_carr-and-nicholas-ladany-zero-in-classroom-participation-daughter-of-lehigh-finance

Kingkade, Tyler. “Megan Thode, Lehigh University Grad, Files $1.3 Million Lawsuit Over C+ Grade.” HuffingtonPost. (February 13, 2013). From: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/13/megan-thode-lehigh-university-lawsuit_n_2671739.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

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.

You Must Challenge Overpayment Demands from Medicare and Medicaid Audits

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

We have recently received numerous communications from health care professionals, including physicians, physical therapists, occupational therapists, mental health counselors, durable medical equipment (DME) providers, assisted living facilities (ALFs), group homes, and psychologists, who have been placed on prepayment review after failing to challenge Medicare or Medicaid audit results. The problem is that these providers, once placed on prepayment review, have their payments held up for many months and are often forced out of business. Sometimes it appears that this may actually be the goal of the auditing contractor or agency.

What Happens on Prepayment Review.

Failing to challenge, follow-up on, and appeal any adverse audit determinations can be very detrimental. An error rate in excess of fifteen percent (15%) will usually result in the provider being placed on prepayment review. While on prepayment review, the provider will be required to submit the documentation for medical records by mail to support each claim submitted and have that claim and its supporting medical records’ documentation audited, prior to any claims being paid. Often the auditing agency will come back to the provider again and again to demand additional information and documentation on claims instead of immediately processing them. This can hold up processing of the claim for months. Often the resulting termination of income flow will force the provider out of business. This saves the government lots of money, because the provider has then provided services to Medicare or Medicaid recipients for many months without ever getting paid for it.

These are some of the reasons why we recommend that physicians, physical therapists, occupational therapists, podiatrists, optometrists, psychologists, mental health counselors, respiratory therapists, and others always hire the Board Certified Health Law Attorney experienced in audits from the very beginning.

A Real-Life Example of the Trouble Caused by a Medicare Audit.

In one case we know of, a therapist was audited by Medicare. The audit by the Medicare administrative contractor (MAC) requested only 30 records. The therapist provided copies of the records he thought the auditors wanted. He did not number the pages or keep an exact copy of what he provided. The MAC came back and denied one percent (1%) of the claims audited. However, since the amount demanded back by the MAC was only a few thousand dollars, the therapist never hired an attorney and never challenged the results. Instead of retaining legal counsel and appealing the results, the therapist paid the entire amount, thinking that was the easy way out.

Unfortunately, because of the high error rate, the MAC immediately placed the therapist on prepayment review of all claims, assuming the prior audit had disclosed fraud or intentional false coding. Every claim the provider submitted from that point on had to be submitted on paper with supporting medical records sent in by mail. The MAC refused to make a decision on any of the claims, instead, holding them and requesting additional documentation and information from time to time. The therapist currently has most of his claims tied up in prepayment review, some for as long as five months with no decision. No decision means no review or appeal rights.

The therapist conveyed to me that he recently contacted the auditor to attempt to obtain decisions on some of his claims so that he could at least begin the appeal process if the claims are denied. He advised me that the auditor at the MAC expressed surprise that he was still in business.

Challenge Improperly Denied or Reduced Claims.

These situations are very unfair and unjust, especially to smaller health care providers. The reduced cash flow even for a month or two may be enough to drive some small providers out of business. Larger health care providers have vast resources sufficient to handle such audit situations on a routine basis. They may have similar problems but are better equipped and have more resources to promptly handle it. Rather than immediately pay whatever amount is demanded on an audit and waive any appeal/review rights, the provider should review each claim denied or reduced and challenge the ones that have been improperly denied or reduced. Otherwise you may wind up with a high error rate which will cause you to be placed into prepayment review. Once placed in prepayment review, it is difficult to get out of it. Often it takes six months or longer.

Don’t Get Caught Up in the Audit Cycle.

Another reason to challenge overpayment demands as a result of an audit is because the audit contractors will keep you on an audit cycle for a number of future audits if they are successful in obtaining any sort of significant recovery from you on the initial audit. This is similar to what happens if your tax return is audited by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recovers a significant payment from you because you did not have the documentation to support your deductions, you can expect to be audited for at least the next two years.

The value of competent legal representation at the beginning of an audit cannot be overestimated. It is usually long after the audit is over, and the time to appeal the audit agency’s findings has passed, that the health care provider realizes he should have retained an audit consultation.

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?

Have you ever been audited? What was the process like? Did you retain legal counsel to help with the process? Was having legal assistance worth it? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

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.

Stryker Orthopaedics Facing Dozens of Hip Implant Lawsuits

4 Indest-2009-3By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

As of February 2013, more than 80 lawsuits have been consolidated into multicounty litigation (MCL) in the Superior Court in New Jersey against Stryker Orthopaedics. Patients are claiming the company’s Rejuvenate and ABG II modular-neck femoral hip systems are defective, according to a number of news sources. The case is on track to becoming one of the largest mass-tort litigations in the country.

In July 2012, Stryker issued a voluntary recall of the Rejuvenate and ABG II modular-neck femoral hip systems. (Click here to see the press release from Stryker.) The company is currently in the process of sending out letters to surgeons urging them to perform clinical exams, such as blood work and cross sectional imaging, on patients who had implants installed. The letters state that Stryker will compensate patients for any tests or work that has to be done.

Click here to read a letter from Stryker to a surgeon.

Unfortunately, for some, this notice is too late. Hundreds of patients are already experiencing pain from the Stryker hip implants, which has forced them to have the implants removed. Even after surgery some patients alleged they have permanent damage and are demanding compensation.

Early Lawsuit Filed from Florida Patient.

According to the Palm Beach Post, one of the first lawsuits against Stryker came from a Boca Raton retiree. Her replacement came with a promise to last for decades. The device allegedly failed within months. Click here to read the patient’s entire story.

According to Drug Watch, most patients who received Stryker’s devices allegedly suffered from muscle, nerve and bone damage as the metallic components of the device rub against each other, causing metallic elements to be released into the body and be absorbed into the blood stream and body tissue. To read the entire article from Drug Watch, click here.

More Lawsuits to Come – Contact an Experienced Health Lawyer.

Since the implants were recently recalled, it’s expected that there are many more cases out there.

Many of the people who have already filed lawsuits claim Stryker marketed and sold a defective device and failed to warn the public, among other issues.

If you or a family member received a Stryker Rejuvenate or ABG II hip implant and suffered complications, you don’t have to face the medical issues alone. Contact an experienced attorney that is board certified in health law. Before you talk about settling, call an attorney.

Stryker Lawsuits Similar to DePuy.

According to an article in The Records, similar mass-tort cases in New Jersey include hundreds of lawsuits filed against DePuy Orthopaedics. More than 2,500 plaintiffs in that case alleged similar complaints due to a metallic hip part. DePuy’s product, ASR, was recalled by the company in August 2010. The cases being heard involve potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements or verdicts. Click here to read the entire article from The Records.

Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys.
If you or a family member received a Stryker Rejuvenate or ABG hip implant and suffered complications you don’t have to face the medical issues alone. Our attorneys are available seven days a week to answer your questions. We can help you decide whether filing a lawsuit is the right option for you. Our attorneys include those who are board certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law, as well as licensed health professionals who are also attorneys.

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

Comments?

Did you or someone you know have a Stryker Rejuvenate or ABG II modular-neck femoral hip implant? What has been your experience? Did you know about the recall? Are you in need of legal assistance? Please leave comments below.

Sources:

Markos, Kibret. “Mahwah-based Stryker Orthopaedics Faces Hip Implant Lawsuits.” The Records. (February 28, 2013). From: http://www.northjersey.com/mahwah/Over_80_lawsuits_on_hip_implants_filed_against_Mahwah-based_Stryker_Orthopaedics_.html?c=y&page=3

Singer, Stacey. “Artificial Hips Corrode, Poisoning Some Patients, Local Lawsuits Say.” The Palm Beach Post. (January 27, 2013) From: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/lifestyles/health/artificial-hips-corrode-poisoning-some-patients-lo/nT7jf/

Hooks, Beau. “Stryker Hip Replacement Lawsuits.” Drug Watch. (February 2013). From: http://www.drugwatch.com/stryker/lawsuit-hip-replacement/

Guilfoyle, Jeanine. “Stryker Initiates Voluntary Product Recall of Modular-Neck Stems.” Stryker. (July 6, 2012). From: http://www.stryker.com/stellent/groups/corporate/documents/web_prod/147504.pdf

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.

First Trial Over DePuy Hip Implants Finished – Plaintiff Receives $8.3 Million

GFI Blog LabelBy George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law and Carole C. Schriefer, R.N., J.D., The Health Law Firm

On March 8, 2013, a California jury ruled that Johnson and Johnson’s DePuy unit designed a defective metal-on-metal ASR XL hip implant and was negligent, according to Bloomberg News. The plaintiff in this case was awarded $8.3 million in compensation damages, after the jury found that the design of the hip implant was the reason behind the plaintiff’s injuries. This is the first trial, out of 10,750 lawsuits filed against DePuy’s ASR XL hip implant. Click here to read more on the first trial against DePuy from Bloomberg News.

In August 2010, DePuy recalled 93,000 ASR XL hip implants after 12 percent (12%) failed within five years. Last year, 44 percent (44%) allegedly failed in Australia within seven years. (Click here to see the press release on the recall from DePuy.) We recently blogged on similar problems with Stryker brand hip implants and similar litigation. Click here to read that blog.

Hip Implants Allegedly Sold with Design Flaws.

During the trial, attorneys for the plaintiff argued DePuy knew that the design flaws in the defective device could cause it to shed particles into patients.

Almost all the patients who filed lawsuits complain that DePuy’s ASR XL hip implants have caused them constant pain and follow-up surgeries, according to Bloomberg News.

DePuy Believes Product is Solid.

During the trial a DePuy spokeswoman said the company believes the ASR XL was properly designed and that the actions they took concerning the product were appropriate.

According to Bloomberg News, an attorney for DePuy said three things have to work well for a successful surgery: a doctor who does his/her job; a device that works properly; and a patient whose body responds to the implant. The attorney went on to say that the bodies of some patients with existing medical conditions did not react well to the implants, and they do not know why.

Second Lawsuit in Court in Illinois.

On March 12, 2013, a second trial began in Illinois. This time a nurse claims her DePuy hip failed after three years and she needed a replacement surgery. Click here to read more on the second trial.

DePuy has a long road ahead. The company faces about 500 lawsuits in state court in Illinois, about three-quarters of the total lawsuits were consolidated in the federal court in Ohio and more than 2,000 are in the state court in California. The next trial is scheduled for May in Ohio federal court.

DePuy Cases Very Similar to Those Against Stryker Orthopaedics.

As of February 2013, more than 80 lawsuits have been consolidated into multicounty litigation (MCL) in the Superior Court in New Jersey against Stryker Orthopaedics. Patients claim the company’s Rejuvenate and ABG II modular-neck femoral hip systems are defective, according to a number of news sources. The case is on track to becoming one of the largest mass-tort litigations in the country.

In July 2012, Stryker issued a voluntary recall of the Rejuvenate and ABG II modular-neck femoral hip systems. (Click here to see the press release from Stryker.) The company is currently in the process of sending out letters to surgeons urging them to perform clinical exams, such as blood work and cross sectional imaging, on patients who had implants installed. Click here to read a letter from Stryker to a surgeon.

Contact a Health Law Attorney Experienced in Products Liability Cases.

Since the implants were recently recalled, it’s expected that there are many more cases out there.  Many of the people who have already filed lawsuits claim Stryker marketed and sold a defective device and failed to warn the public, among other issues.

If you or a family member received a Stryker Rejuvenate or ABG II hip implant and suffered complications, you don’t have to face the medical issues alone. Contact an experienced attorney that is board certified in health law. Before you talk about settling, please call an attorney. Our attorneys include those who are board certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law, as well as licensed health professionals who are also attorneys.

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

What Do You Think?

What do you think of the DePuy and Stryker lawsuits? Have you experienced complications for a hip implant? Please leave thoughtful comments below.

Sources:

Possley, Maurice, Voreacos, David and Pettersson, Edvard. “J&J Must Pay $8.3 Million Over Defective Hip, Jury Says.” Bloomberg. (March 8, 2013). From: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-08/j-j-must-pay-8-3-million-in-suit-over-defective-hip-jury-says.html

Harris, Andrew and Voreacos, David. “J&J Faces Second Trial Over Recalled Hip After Loss.” Bloomberg. (March 12, 2013). From: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-11/j-j-faces-second-trial-over-recalled-hip-after-losing-first-case.html

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.  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.

Carole C. Schriefer is an attorney with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com  The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Altamonte Springs, Florida 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.

Two National Recalls Prompt Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to Update Metal-on-Metal Hip Implant Safety Concerns

GFI Blog LabelBy George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law and Carole C. Schriefer, R.N., J.D., The Health Law Firm

On January 17, 2013, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an updated public health communication about hip replacement components that have both a metal ball and a metal socket, or metal-on-metal hip devices. This comes after two recent hip replacement recalls that are sparking thousands of lawsuits. Click here to read the FDA communication.

In August 2010, Johnson and Johnson’s DePuy Orthopaedics implemented a DePuy ASR hip recall, withdrawing more than 93,000 hip implants from the market. (Click here to read the press release on the recall from DePuy.) In July 2012, Stryker Orthopaedics implemented a similar recall on the Rejuvenate and ABG II modular neck components. (Click here to read the Stryker recall press release.)

Updated Information on Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants From the FDA. 

According to the FDA, in metal-on-metal hip implants, metal can be released into the body when two connecting components slide against each other. This can happen during daily activities. Metal release will cause some tiny metal particles to wear off of the device and into the space around the implant. Wear and corrosion at the connections may also occur. Some of the metal ions from the implant can enter the bloodstream. If this happens, patients can suffer from muscle, nerve and bone damage.

Click here to read more on metal-on-metal hip implants from the FDA.

Second Trial Over DePuy Hip Implant in Progress.

The president of DePuy testified during the second DePuy ASR hip trial. According to an article in Bloomberg News, the DePuy president said that the metal-on-metal hip implants were recalled because of a high rate of corrective surgeries required in patients, not because the device’s design was defective. Click here to read the Bloomberg article.

You may remember on March 8, 2013, in the first ASR hip recall trial, a California jury awarded the plaintiff $8.3 million in compensation damages after finding the ARS’s design defective. This result will have significant impact in the 10,750 other lawsuits against DePuy. Click here to read a previous blog on the first trial over the DePuy hip implants.

Stryker Orthopaedics Facing Similar Lawsuits.

As of February 2013, more than 80 lawsuits against Stryker have been consolidated into multicounty litigation (MCL) in the Superior Court in New Jersey. Stryker is currently in the process of sending out letters to surgeons urging them to perform clinical exams, such as blood work and cross sectional imaging, on any patient who had implants installed. Click here to read a previous blog on the Stryker lawsuits.

We’ve also learned some Stryker patients are being contacted by Broadspire. This company is trying to discuss settling with these patients. We want to encourage any metal-on-metal hip implant recipients to contact and experience attorney first, because there is still time to file a claim for injuries.

Contact an Attorney Experienced in Products Liability Litigation.

Although The Health Law Firm represents predominantly physicians and other health care providers, we are involved in products liability litigation. The Health Law Firm has recently undertaken plaintiffs’ products liability cases against the manufacturers of defective hip implants. We are now representing plaintiffs in a number of products liability cases involving both the DePuy hip and the Stryker hip implants. We are able to combine our knowledge of the health law industry with our litigation experience for the benefit of patients.

If you received a DePuy or Stryker hip replacement and have experienced pain, swelling, high levels of metal in your blood, a corrective revision surgery, or other complications, we may be able to help you.

To learn more about your legal rights, contact The Health Law Firm for a consultation by calling (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 or visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Comments?

What are your thoughts on these recalls? Are you a Stryker or DePuy hip implant recipient? Please leave thoughtful comments below.

Sources:

Harris, Andrew and Voreacos, David. “J&J’s Ekdahl Says Hip Recalled for Clinical Reaons.” Bloomberg. (March 13, 2013). From: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2013-03-13/depuy-chief-questioned-over-records-calling-asr-defective.html

Hooks, Beau. “Stryker Hip Replacement Lawsuits.” Drug Watch. (February 2013). From: http://www.drugwatch.com/stryker/lawsuit-hip-replacement/

Guilfoyle, Jeanine. “Stryker Initiates Voluntary Product Recall of Modular-Neck Stems.” Stryker. (July 6, 2012). From: http://www.stryker.com/stellent/groups/corporate/documents/web_prod/147504.pdf

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.  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.

Carole C. Schriefer is an attorney with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com  The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Altamonte Springs, Florida 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.

Poll Shows Majority Supports the Legalization of Marijuana

4 Indest-2009-3By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

For the first time in four decades, a majority of Americans support the legalization of marijuana, according to a national survey conducted by Pew Research. The results from the survey, released on April 4, 2013, show fifty-two percent (52%) of adult Americans back making marijuana legal.

To read all of the poll results from Pew Research, click here.

The Pew Research polled 1,501 American adults from March 13 to 17, 2013, for this survey.

Demographics on Adults Who Support Legal Marijuana.

According to the survey results, forty-eight percent (48%) of poll respondents said they have used marijuana at some point in their life. Younger Americans are more likely to support legalization than their elders. However, the poll does show legalization gaining support among all generations. According to the survey, fifty percent (50%) of baby boomers support legalized marijuana.

Two Big Shifts in Opinion to Support Legalizing Marijuana.

According to an article in the Los Angeles Times, there are two big opinion shifts Americans have gone through that have swayed their way of thinking. The first thought is most Americans no longer see marijuana as a gateway drug, and the second is most adults no longer see the use of marijuana as immoral.

In fact, according to the survey results, most respondents feel the federal government’s efforts to criminalize marijuana “cost more than they are worth.”

Government’s Stance on Marijuana.

Currently, 24 states and the District of Columbia either have decriminalized personal use of medical marijuana, legalized it or allowed it to be used for medical purposes. These state laws clash with federal law that treats marijuana as a dangerous drug with no legitimate medical uses, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Click here to read the article from the Los Angeles Times.

Florida’s Fight for Medical Marijuana.

According to an article in the Orlando Sentinel, Florida attorney John Morgan of Morgan & Morgan recently jumped behind an effort to legalized medical marijuana in Florida. Morgan’s reputation throughout the community and his personal story on why he is lobbying for medical marijuana has people listening.

Morgan’s father suffered from emphysema and cancer, according to the Orlando Sentinel. His appetite was suppressed apparently due to the medicine he was on near the end of his life, and medical marijuana gave him some relief. Morgan said he was motivated to join this cause when he saw a poll that stated seven out of ten Floridians would support a constitutional amendment to support legalized medical marijuana. According to the Orlando Sentinel, Morgan has seen the benefits of medical marijuana firsthand.

Click here to read the entire Orlando Sentinel article.

Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys.

The Health Law Firm routinely represents pharmacists, pharmacies, physicians, nurses and other health providers in investigations, regulatory matters, licensing issues, litigation, 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.

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

Comments?

Do you think marijuana should be legalized? Do you think Florida will legalize medical marijuana? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

|Sources:

“Majority Now Supports Legalizing Marijuana.” Pew Research. (April 4, 2013). From: http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/04/majority-now-supports-legalizing-marijuana/#comfort-level

Kassab, Beth. “John Morgan Could Take Medical Marijuana Mainstream.” Orlando Sentinel. (March 18, 2013). From: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/os-beth-kassab-medical-marijuana-20130318,0,2558234.column

Lauter, David. “Marijuana Legalization Wins Majority Support in Poll.” Los Angeles Times. (April 4, 2013). From: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-marijuana-legalization-majority-support-20130404,0,2533952.story

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.

The American Academy of Family Physicians Releases Third List for Choosing Wisely Campaign

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

On September 24, 2013, the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) released its third list of commonly prescribed tests and procedures that may not be necessary. This list is part of the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Foundation’s Choosing Wisely campaign.

The Choosing Wisely Campaign was initiated to give patients a catalog of procedures, tests and treatments that have been overused, misused or have been identified as ineffective. Since its launch in April 2012, more than fifty (50) medical specialty societies have created lists of procedures, tests and drug treatments that deserve to be questioned before a physician orders them or patients accept them.

The purpose is to help patients become more discriminating about what care they receive. Physicians and health care providers also need to use this information to review the latest research and use that information to help avoid any litigation.

I’ve previously written about the Choosing Wisely campaign. Click here for part one and here for part two.

AAFP’s Updated List of Commonly Prescribed Tests and Procedures That May Not be Necessary.

1. Do not prescribe antibiotics for otitis media in children aged 2-12 years with non-severe symptoms where the observation option is reasonable.

2. Do not perform voiding cystourethrogram routinely in first febrile urinary tract infection in children aged 2-24 months.

3. Do not routinely screen for prostate cancer using a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test or digital rectal exam. Evidence suggests that PSA-based screening leads to an overdiagnosis of prostate tumors.

4. Do not screen adolescents for scoliosis. Potential harms include unnecessary follow-up visits resulting from false-positive test results.

5. Do not require a pelvic exam or other physical exam to prescribe oral contraceptive medications. Hormonal contraceptives are safe, effective, and well tolerated by most women.

Click here to read the AAFP’s previous recommendations.

Health Care Providers and Professionals’ Responsibility to Patients.

A doctor should have the knowledge, skill, training, and confidence to know when such tests and procedures are not warranted. Also, a health care professional or provider should not be swayed by increasing his/her personal bottom line. Specifically, physicians that work in a fee-for-service setting that rewards doctors for performing more procedures are at risk for ordering unnecessary tests or procedures. If a physician persists in ordering these tests solely for the means of increasing profits, he or she should be penalized. If not, the physician should be able to justify them.

Laws Protect Patients from Unnecessary Testing.

This situation may have the side effect of promoting additional litigation against doctors, healthcare clinics and hospitals that provide the unnecessary tests and procedures. Many states have laws that prohibit unnecessary tests and procedures and sanction those who provide them. For instance, Section 766.111, Florida Statutes, provides a private cause of action by a patient against a health provider who orders or furnishes such “unnecessary” diagnostic tests, but unlike other tort and medical malpractice statutes, it allows the prevailing party in such a case to recover attorney’s fees and costs. This law may by itself promote litigation in the face of the lists of tests produced by the specialty groups in the Choosing Wisely campaign.

Look for More Whistleblower/Qui Tam Cases.

As this list continues to grow, I believe that we will see more qui tam/whistleblower and false claims cases.

Qui tam cases have been brought under the federal False Claims Act for the recovery of Medicare payments from hospitals, physicians, nursing homes, diagnostic testing facilities, clinical laboratories, radiology facilities and many other types of healthcare providers. These cases allege that a false claim was submitted to the government. If the test or procedure was unnecessary, then it seems almost axiomatic that a claim for it is false. The plaintiff bringing such cases receives a percentage of the recovery, which often amounts to millions of dollars in successful cases.

Most states now have similar false claims act or qui tam laws providing similar causes of action and recoveries to individual plaintiffs in the case of state Medicaid payments as well.

Because medical necessity is a requirement for practically every Medicare and Medicaid service, as well as most services paid by private health insurers, the lists provided by the specialty may very well be exhibit one in future lawsuits.

We’ve recently written about a couple of whistleblower/qui tam cases stemming from unnecessary procedures. To read a blog on a group of Florida radiation oncology service providers accused of performing unnecessary and improperly supervised procedures, click here. To read a blog on Winter Park Urology’s settlement over allegations stemming from radiation therapy used to treat cancer patients, click here.

Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys.

The Health Law Firm routinely represents pharmacists, pharmacies, physicians, nurses and other health providers in investigations, regulatory matters, licensing issues, litigation, inspections and audits involving the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 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.
To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Comments?

As a health care professional or provider what do you think of the Choosing Wisely campaign? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Sources:

Hand, Larry. “AAFP Releases Third Choosing Wisely List.” Medscape. (September 25, 2013). From: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/811638

Carman, Diane. “Useless, Costly Medical Procedures Targeted by Choosing Wisely Campaign.” Health Policy Solutions. (October 15, 2013). From: http://www.healthpolicysolutions.org/2013/10/15/useless-costly-medical-procedures-targeted-by-choosing-wisely-campaign/

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.

Go to Top