legal representation for clients involved in the health care industry

Home/Tag: legal representation for clients involved in the health care industry

The Most Common Cases The Health Law Firm Takes

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

One of the most common questions we get asked by doctors and lawyers alike, is about the types of cases our firm takes. They often mistake the practice of health law as medical malpractice defense. However, this is an incorrect assumption. Likewise, 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.

As a general health law practice, we concentrate on both proactive and defensive legal issues and clients involved in the health care industry. To a certain extent our law firm does practically everything a physician, medical group, health facility or health care professional could need in the legal arena.

The types of cases we most commonly see are the following:

1. Sales, mergers and acquisitions of medical practices, health care clinics, and health facilities. We represent buyers, sellers and lenders at any stage of the process.

2. Contracts for medical and health care transactions. We prepare contracts, review contracts, negotiate contracts, help to terminate or break contracts, and we litigate contracts. We can be on either side of these transactions. Our litigation can take place in state court or federal court. We review and analyze quite a few employment contracts for medical residents and fellows going to new positions.

3. We research and prepare complex legal opinion letters on proposed health care transactions. The health care industry is the most regulated industry in the United States. There are complex layers of both federal and state laws and regulations as well as numerous federal and state agencies regulating it. Often, legal opinion letters are sought by purchasers and lenders for healthcare transactions for these reasons. We have several board certified health lawyers in our firm who have written dozens of these.

4. We represent health professionals and health facilities in Medicare audits, including fraud audits by the Zone Program Integrity Contractors (ZPICs) and by Recovery Audit Contractors (RACs). This includes representation in the appellate process, including requests for reconsideration, request for redetermination, and federal administrative law judge hearings. Preparation of the response to the audit request, completion of the audit questionnaire, response to the preliminary audit report (PAR), and defense of any repayments demanded, through administrative hearings before federal administrative law judges and appeals if necessary.

5. We represent health professionals and health facilities in Medicaid audits, including fraud audits by the zone program integrity contractors (ZPICs). This includes preparation of the initial response to the audit request, completion of the audit questionnaire, response to the preliminary audit report (PAR), and defense of any repayments demanded, through administrative hearings and appeals if necessary.

6. If there has been an action by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to terminate the Medicare provider’s billing privileges, we aggressively represent them to have the decision reversed and have them reinstated. This includes filing requests for reconsideration and corrective action plans (CAPs). We have been very successful in obtaining relief for our clients.

7. We have represented a number of clinical investigators, primarily physicians, and defensive charges of research fraud, misconduct in science, manipulation of data, manipulating outcomes, in research investigations, and other similar proceedings brought by their institutions or and investigation review board. Whether it is at the initiation of such an investigation or in later hearings and appeals, we have navigated a number of principal investigators through these processes.

8. Our firm has represented a number of medical students, residents and fellow, including foreign medical graduates, in cases brought by the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME), the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), and the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG) in cases where there is an allegation of “irregular behavior” and rules violations through the hearing process and in appeals as necessary.

9. We represent physicians and other health professionals in hospital medical staff peer review proceedings and hearings. Whether it’s the initial application for clinical privileges and medical staff membership or action being taken to revoke or limit clinical privileges, we have been involved representing physicians and other health professionals at all levels. We have also done similar work for physicians in actions initiated by HMOs, professional associations, certification bodies, and other organizations. This is an area where a physician truly needs a health lawyer experienced in this type of proceeding.
10. “Disruptive physician” defense is another area where a doctor really needs an attorney who knows what he or she is doing. When your hospital or medical staff is attempting to place the label on you “disruptive physician,” you are really in trouble. This is an area in which careful navigation is required to prevent actions that result in such a label. Other wise, the physician can be pigeon-holed for life, placed into disruptive physician programs requiring years, if not a lifetime, of close monitoring and can even have discipline commenced against his or her medical license. We can assist you in taking actions to avoid having this happen.

11. When you receive a Medicare, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), or Office of the Inspector General (OIG) subpoena or civil investigative demand (CID), you know there is serious trouble for someone in the works. We help you to respond promptly and professionally and attempt to keep you from becoming the target of serious federal investigations.

12. We represent physicians, nurses, dentists, psychologists and other licensed health professionals in responding to Department of Health (DOH) letters of investigation. Many physicians, nurses, dentists and other licensed health professionals do not understand that when they receive a letter from the Department of Health complaints advising them that they are under investigation for a complaint that is been made against them, this is a very serious matter. There is nothing that is “routine” about this. This means that there is an investigation that has been opened against your license that could ultimately result in disciplinary action being taken against you. Any disciplinary action taken against you will be on your license forever. This is the time to obtain an attorney. This is not a time to attempt to represent yourself. You should not ever speak with the investigator or provide a statement to the investigator; this is something only your attorney should do and only if it is determined to be advisable considering the facts of the case. We have represented hundreds of licensed health professionals in such investigations and in subsequent disciplinary hearings.

13. We also represent health professionals and others who have been excluded from the Medicare program and placed on the Office of Inspector General (OIG) List of Excluded Individuals and Entities (LEIE). We have represented a number of healthcare professionals in completing and submitting applications to be removed from the LEIE and reinstated to the Medicare program.

14. We routinely counsel and represent physicians, dentists, psychologists, mental health counselors, and other health professionals in referrals to the Professionals Resource Network (PRN) for evaluation. We have found that often the health professional will not actually have any type of substance abuse problem or mental health issue. However, one referred for an evaluation to the PRN can wind up in a five year contract or even a lifetime contract for monitoring containing many mandatory requirements in order to continue practicing his/her profession and a lot of expenses associated with meeting such requirements.

15. We also routinely counsel and represent nurses and nurse practitioners (ARNPs), including certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) in similar referrals to the Intervention Project for Nurses (IPN). We have found that often the nurse will not actually have any type of substance abuse problem or mental health issue. However, one referred for an evaluation to the IPN can wind up in a five year contract or even a lifetime monitoring contract containing many mandatory requirements in order to continue practicing his/her profession and a lot of expenses associated with meeting such requirements.

16. We have been involved in a number of qui tam or whistle blower cases, either representing the whistle blower or representing an employer or institution that is being accused of wrongdoing. Whether this is pursuant to the Federal False Claims Act (FCA), a state false claims act or a private whistle blower act, we are experienced in investigating, prosecuting, defending, and litigating such cases in state or federal court.

17. Our firm represents physicians, pharmacists, health professionals and health facilities in administrative litigation against the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) and the Department of Health, among other agencies. Whether the government agency is seeking to recover civil monetary penalties (CMP), attempting to recover large Medicare overpayments, seeking to revoke your DEA registration or seeking to discipline your medical license, we have experience in litigating such matters in these administrative tribunals. This can make the difference between a favorable outcome or a devastating outcome.

18. We represent Veterans Administration (VA) physicians, Army physicians, Navy physicians, Air Force physicians, and Indian Health Service physicians, in employment disputes, peer review investigations and hearings, clinical privileging investigations and hearings, and decisions to report to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB).

19. Reporting a conviction for Driving under the influence (DUI) or some other criminal offense is required by most state licensing agencies. We are experienced in making such reports when required and in such a manner that a subsequent investigation and discipline on the professional license is often avoided.

20. Complex litigation involving health professionals is another area in which we routinely practice. Whether the matter involves a dispute between the shareholders of a medical clinic or practice, restraints on trade, allegations of false claims and fraud, the enforcement or avoidance of restrictive covenants (or covenants-not-to-compete), employment, pay and bonus disputes, ownership of practices or facilities, or any other of a number of different situations, we represent either side in state court or federal court.

21. Because of our experience in mental health law, we have come to represent individuals who have been incorrectly confined in mental health facilities in Florida because of allegations of impairment, drug abuse, mental health issues and other issues in which the person is initially though to be a threat to himself or to others. Both law enforcement authorities and medical personnel are being trained to take fewer chances with an individual acting unusual who may tend to hurt herself or someone else. They often tend to err to the side of ordering confinement under the Florida Mental Health Act (also known as the “Baker Act”). When this happens, the individual may be set for a long stay unless he or she has assistance in navigating the way out. We help doing this as quickly and expeditiously as possible.
22. We routinely representing physicians, pharmacists, nurses, dentists and other licensed health professionals in attempting to avoid or in disputing or in appealing adverse National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) Reports. There are only limited grounds for doing this so the professional needs to obtain counsel as early in the process as possible.

23. Any type of subpoena or search warrant from a government agency or law enforcement organization seeking your patient records can herald an investigation into false claims, over-prescribing, or other serious possible charges, criminal, civil or administrative. Our representation seeks to determine the reasons for this as early in the process as feasible and to protect your rights and limit your exposure as much as possible.

24. There are many, many other types of cases which we have experience with. To see some of these others, please visit our website.

As the business of health care grows, our law firm also grows. We are always seeking to expand our areas of practice within the health law field. Be sure to check back regularly for updates.

For more information on various health law topics and how The Health Law Firm can help you, visit our YouTube page to watch our video blogs.

Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys.

The Health Law Firm routinely represents pharmacists, pharmacies, physicians, nurses and other health providers in Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) investigations, Medicare Audit defense, 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.

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

KeyWords: Legal representation for clients involved in the health care industry, legal representation for health care professionals, defense attorney for health care professionals, health law attorney, legal representation for sales, mergers and acquisitions of medical practices and facilities, physician contract lawyer, legal representation for contracts for medical and health care transactions, Medicare and Medicaid fraud defense attorney, representation for Medicare, Medicare defense lawyer, representation for Medicaid, Medicaid attorney, Medicare audit defense lawyer, Medicaid audit defense lawyer, healthcare fraud representation, healthcare fraud defense lawyer, clinical research defense attorney, legal representation for medical students, USMLE defense lawyer, representation for irregular behavior, irregular behavior defense attorney, medical education law representation, legal counsel for peer reviews, mental health law attorney, peer review defense lawyer, representation for DOH investigations, Department of Health (DOH) investigation defense attorney, legal representation for mental health counselors and professionals, Qui Tam/Whistleblower defense attorney, representation for qui tam cases, qui tam lawyer, whistleblower defense lawyer, representation for whistblower cases, baker act lawyer, complex litigation defense attorney, licensure defense attorney, representation for licensure defense, healthcare license defense attorney, False Claims Act (FCA) attorney, FCA defense lawyer, Baker Act defense attorney, representation for OIG exclusion, representation for DOH investigations, DOH defense lawyer, nurse attorney, representation for nurses, pharmacy representation, pharmacist representation, dentist attorney, representation for dentists, representation for healthcare professionals, reviews of The Health Law Firm, The Health Law Firm attorney reviews, The Health Law Firm

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

By |2019-01-28T23:57:45+00:00January 28th, 2019|Categories: Massage Law Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |0 Comments

Texas Appeals Court Affirms$1.37 Million in Sanctions Against Doctor who Sued Hospital Former Employers

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

On November 16, 2016, an appeals court in Texas affirmed a $1.37 million sanction against a doctor. The physician was ordered to pay the fine after the dismissal of a defamation lawsuit he filed against his former employers. The decision affirmed that the actions of his former employers, Baylor College of Medicine (Baylor) and Texas Children’s Hospital, did not cause the litigation fees which the court assessed to the doctor as sanctions.

The case had previously made its way up to the Texas Supreme Court, which makes the November 16, 2016, opinion the second time the Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals has weighed in on the case. Additionally, it is the second time it has held the sanctions were merited for Dr. Rahul K. Nath.

The Back Story of the Case.

According to the opinion, Dr. Nath was employed by Baylor as a plastic surgeon and was affiliated with Texas Children’s Hospital. He was fired in 2004 and in February 2006 filed a lawsuit against his former supervisor at Baylor and Texas Children’s. According to court documents, Dr. Nath had accused his former supervisor of making defamatory statements about him after he stopped working. The alleged defamatory statements included that Dr. Nath had been fired, was unqualified and lacked professional ethics and integrity. (Note: We are just stating what was alleged in the lawsuit.)

To read the opinion in full, click here.

Were the Former Employers Responsible for the Accumulated Attorney and Litigation Fees?

The court was considering whether the behavior of Baylor or Texas Children’s was ultimately responsible for the fees accumulated litigation fees and expenses in the case. Previously, the trial court found that both Texas Children’s and Baylor’s actions had not caused the expenses for which Dr. Nath was sanctioned. The trial court wrote that the amount was appropriate as it was “far less” than the actual fees incurred by either party in defending Dr. Nath’s claims.

On appeal, Dr. Nath argued that the trial court hadn’t held a proper evidentiary inquiry, that it had based its sanctions award on “conclusory and self-serving” affidavits. Dr. Nath claimed that he was wrongly denied discovery in the case. To learn more about Dr. Nath’s challenge, click here.

Despite Dr. Nath’s arguments, the Fourteenth Court disagreed, holding that the trial court followed the exact instructions from the Supreme Court before deciding to impose the sanctions. Additionally, the court found that there was evidence in the record to support the conclusion that neither Texas Children’s nor Baylor’s conduct caused the expenses that were passed on to Dr. Nath as sanctions.

Adequate Supporting Evidence.

The first time the case came before the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, it affirmed the sanctions against Dr. Nath. The high court held that there was evidence to support the trial court’s finding of bad faith and improper purpose on Dr. Nath’s part with regard to certain filings in the case.

Dr. Nath appealed, and the Texas Supreme Court held that the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in finding the doctor had exercised bad faith and improper purpose in certain filings. The high court remanded it back to the trial court to consider to what extent, if any, Texas Children’s and Baylor’s actions may have “caused the expenses for which recovery is sought.”

After a hearing, the trial court determined that neither employer’s behavior caused the expenses, and again imposed the sanctions against Nath. In appealing that ruling to the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Dr. Nath argued that the trial court had made procedural errors in hearings and evidence submission in reaffirming the sanctions.

The trial court granted Texas Children’s and Baylor’s motions in June 2010, and also sanctioned Dr. Nath $726,000 for a portion of Texas Children’s fees in defending the suit and $644,500 for a portion of Baylor’s. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling, and Dr. Nath appealed to the state Supreme Court.
To learn more about defamatory statements and how to handle such claims, click here to read one of my prior blogs.

Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys.

The Health Law Firm routinely represents pharmacists, pharmacies, physicians, nurses and other health providers in Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) investigations, Medicare Audit defense, 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.

Sources:

Knaub, Kelly. “Texas Appeals Court Affirms Doc’s $1.3M Sanction.” Law360. (November 16, 2016). Web.

Knaub, Kelly. “Doc To Challenge $1.3M Sanction Before Texas High Court.” Law360. (January 15, 2014). Web.

“Texas Appeals Court Affirms Doc’s $1.3M Sanction.” LexisNexis. (November 16, 2016). Web.

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

KeyWords: Legal representation for health care professionals, health law defense attorney, legal representation for defamatory statements against health care professionals, legal representation for defamation lawsuit against a healthcare professional, healthcare litigation defense attorney, legal counsel for health care professionals, Legal representation for clients involved in the health care industry, reviews of The Health Law Firm, The Health Law Firm attorney reviews, The Health Law Firm
“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 © 2017 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Appeals Court Affirms $1.37 Million in Sanctions Against Doctor for Dismissed Defamation Suit Against Former Employers

7 Indest-2008-4By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

On November 16, 2016, an appeals court in Texas affirmed a $1.37 million sanction assessed against a doctor. The doctor was ordered to pay the sanction after the dismissal of a defamation lawsuit he filed against his former employers. The doctor’s former employers were Baylor College of Medicine (Baylor) and Texas Children’s Hospital.

The case had previously been appealed to the Texas Supreme Court. This makes the November 16, 2016, opinion the second time the Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals has had to rule on the case. Additionally, it is the second time that it has held that the sanctions against Dr. Rahul K. Nath were justified.

The Back Story of the Case.

According to the opinion, Dr. Nath was employed by Baylor as a plastic surgeon and was affiliated with Texas Children’s Hospital. He was allegedly terminated in 2004. In February 2006 he filed a lawsuit against his former supervisor at Baylor and Texas Children’s. According to court documents, Dr. Nath had accused his former supervisor of making defamatory statements about him after he stopped working there. The alleged defamatory statements included that Dr. Nath had been fired, was unqualified and lacked professional ethics and integrity.

To read the court opinion, click here.

Was the Former Employer Responsible for Accumulated Fees?

The Texas high court was considering whether the behavior of Baylor or Texas Children’s was ultimately responsible for the attorney’s fees that had been accrued in the case. Previously, the trial court found that both Texas Children’s and Baylor’s actions had not caused the litigation expenses which Dr. Nath was assessed. The trial court wrote that the amount was appropriate as it was “far less” than the actual fees incurred by either party in defending Dr. Nath’s claims.

On appeal, Dr. Nath argued that the trial court hadn’t held a proper evidentiary inquiry and that it had based its sanctions award on “conclusory and self-serving” affidavits. Dr. Nath claimed that he was wrongly denied discovery in the case. To learn more about Dr. Nath’s legal challenge, click here.

Despite Dr. Nath’s arguments, the court of appeals disagreed, holding that the trial court followed the Supreme Court’s instructions in deciding to impose the sanctions. Additionally, the court found that there was evidence in the record to support the conclusion that neither Texas Children’s nor Baylor’s conduct caused the legal expenses that were passed on to Dr. Nath as sanctions.

Adequate Supporting Evidence.

The first time the case came before the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, it affirmed the sanctions against Dr. Nath. The high court held that there was evidence to support the trial court’s finding of bad faith and improper purpose on Dr. Nath’s part with regard to certain filings in the case. Dr. Nath appealed, and the Texas Supreme Court held that the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in finding the doctor had exercised bad faith and improper purpose in certain filings.

To learn more about defamatory statements and how to handle such claims, click here to read one of my prior blogs.

Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys.

The Health Law Firm routinely represents physicians, pharmacists, dentists, nurses, medical groups, health facilities, nurses and other health providers in complex litigation, investigations, Medicare Audit defense, 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.

Sources:

Knaub, Kelly. “Texas Appeals Court Affirms Doc’s $1.3M Sanction.” Law360. (November 16, 2016). Web.

Knaub, Kelly. “Doc To Challenge $1.3M Sanction Before Texas High Court.” Law360. (January 15, 2014). Web.

“Texas Appeals Court Affirms Doc’s $1.3M Sanction.” LexisNexis. (November 16, 2016). Web.

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

KeyWords: Legal representation for physicians, complex health care litigation attorney, business litigation lawyer, health care professionals legal representation, physician lawyer, health law defense attorney, legal representation for defamatory statements against health care professionals, legal representation for defamation lawsuit against a healthcare professional, healthcare litigation defense attorney, legal counsel for health care professionals, legal representation for clients involved in the health care industry, reviews of The Health Law Firm, The Health Law Firm attorney reviews, The Health Law Firm, legal fees expert witness, attorney’s fees and sanctions expert witness, health care litigation expert witness, health law expert witness
“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 © 2016 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Appeals Court Affirms $1.37 Million in Sanctions Against Doctor for Dismissed Defamation Suit Against Former Employers

7 Indest-2008-4By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

On November 16, 2016, an appeals court in Texas affirmed a $1.37 million sanction assessed against a doctor. The doctor was ordered to pay the sanction after the dismissal of a defamation lawsuit he filed against his former employers. The doctor’s former employers were Baylor College of Medicine (Baylor) and Texas Children’s Hospital.

The case had previously been appealed to the Texas Supreme Court. This makes the November 16, 2016, opinion the second time the Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals has had to rule on the case. Additionally, it is the second time that it has held that the sanctions against Dr. Rahul K. Nath were justified.

The Back Story of the Case.

According to the opinion, Dr. Nath was employed by Baylor as a plastic surgeon and was affiliated with Texas Children’s Hospital. He was allegedly terminated in 2004. In February 2006 he filed a lawsuit against his former supervisor at Baylor and Texas Children’s. According to court documents, Dr. Nath had accused his former supervisor of making defamatory statements about him after he stopped working there. The alleged defamatory statements included that Dr. Nath had been fired, was unqualified and lacked professional ethics and integrity.

To read the court opinion, click here.

Was the Former Employer Responsible for Accumulated Fees?

The Texas high court was considering whether the behavior of Baylor or Texas Children’s was ultimately responsible for the attorney’s fees that had been accrued in the case. Previously, the trial court found that both Texas Children’s and Baylor’s actions had not caused the litigation expenses which Dr. Nath was assessed. The trial court wrote that the amount was appropriate as it was “far less” than the actual fees incurred by either party in defending Dr. Nath’s claims.

On appeal, Dr. Nath argued that the trial court hadn’t held a proper evidentiary inquiry and that it had based its sanctions award on “conclusory and self-serving” affidavits. Dr. Nath claimed that he was wrongly denied discovery in the case. To learn more about Dr. Nath’s legal challenge, click here.

Despite Dr. Nath’s arguments, the court of appeals disagreed, holding that the trial court followed the Supreme Court’s instructions in deciding to impose the sanctions. Additionally, the court found that there was evidence in the record to support the conclusion that neither Texas Children’s nor Baylor’s conduct caused the legal expenses that were passed on to Dr. Nath as sanctions.

Adequate Supporting Evidence.

The first time the case came before the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, it affirmed the sanctions against Dr. Nath. The high court held that there was evidence to support the trial court’s finding of bad faith and improper purpose on Dr. Nath’s part with regard to certain filings in the case. Dr. Nath appealed, and the Texas Supreme Court held that the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in finding the doctor had exercised bad faith and improper purpose in certain filings.

To learn more about defamatory statements and how to handle such claims, click here to read one of my prior blogs.

Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys.

The Health Law Firm routinely represents physicians, pharmacists, dentists, nurses, medical groups, health facilities, nurses and other health providers in complex litigation, investigations, Medicare Audit defense, 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.

Sources:

Knaub, Kelly. “Texas Appeals Court Affirms Doc’s $1.3M Sanction.” Law360. (November 16, 2016). Web.

Knaub, Kelly. “Doc To Challenge $1.3M Sanction Before Texas High Court.” Law360. (January 15, 2014). Web.

“Texas Appeals Court Affirms Doc’s $1.3M Sanction.” LexisNexis. (November 16, 2016). Web.

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

KeyWords: Legal representation for physicians, complex health care litigation attorney, business litigation lawyer, health care professionals legal representation, physician lawyer, health law defense attorney, legal representation for defamatory statements against health care professionals, legal representation for defamation lawsuit against a healthcare professional, healthcare litigation defense attorney, legal counsel for health care professionals, legal representation for clients involved in the health care industry, reviews of The Health Law Firm, The Health Law Firm attorney reviews, The Health Law Firm, legal fees expert witness, attorney’s fees and sanctions expert witness, health care litigation expert witness, health law expert witness
“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 © 2016 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

City of Fort Myers, Florida, Agrees to Pay $149,000 to Settle Dispute With Mental Health Facility

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

On February 3, 2017, the city of Fort Myers, Florida, agreed to pay $149,000 to settle a discrimination-related real estate zoning and licensing dispute with Sovereign Health of Florida Inc., a rehabilitative mental health and addiction treatment provider.

Sovereign Health, which opened January 2015, filed a federal lawsuit alleging that the city of Fort Myers violated discrimination and disability laws by trying to shut it down after nearby residents started to complain about the center and the crime they believed it would bring to the community. According to the lawsuit, the city allegedly violated the rights of the provider’s disabled patients under Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations.

The Federal Suit.

In April 2015, Sovereign Health filed a complaint that stated that two years earlier, the treatment provider had met with representatives for the landowner to discuss entering into a long-term lease for the property. The representatives for the land owner then contacted the city to get a zoning verification letter, telling the city of Fort Myers the property would be used for onsite residential mental health treatment. Despite this, neighbors living near the facility learned about the facility’s use and began to complain that crime would increase as a result of the individuals living at Riverside. In response Sovereign Health stated in its complaint, “None of the complaints were based on any legitimate land use-based reason such as traffic or density. Instead, the complaints were based on illegitimate, irrational fears associated with the type of individuals (i.e., individuals in recovery from addiction) who were living at the Riverside Property.”

In its own response, the city of Fort Myers refused to accept Sovereign Health’s application for a business tax receipt license and issued a cease and desist order citing it for operating without a license. The city also reversed its zoning position, saying the facility was only allowed in an industrial zoning district, according to the complaint.

Terms of the Settlement.

As part of the settlement agreement, the city will pay a Tampa-based law firm $99,000, as well as cover any of Sovereign Health’s expenses up to $50,000 that enhance security for the facility and the surrounding residents. Security cameras, additional or improved lighting and gate improvements would all be covered. The facility at the center of the discrimination lawsuit will continue to operate as it has since first opening its doors, Sovereign Health said in a statement. The city of Fort Myers continues to dispute the discrimination claims and admits no wrongdoing, as part of the agreement.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced Investigations of Mental Health Counselors, Psychologists, Social Workers and Family Therapists.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm provide legal representation to mental health counselors, psychologists, social workers and family therapists in Department of Health (DOH) investigations, FBI 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.

Sources:

Hansen, Joyce. “Fort Myers, Fla., Settles With Sovereign Health For $149K.” Law360. (February 7, 2017). Web.

Dulaney, Corey. “Fort Myers spends $149K to settle drug rehab dispute.” News Press. (February 7, 2017). Web.

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

KeyWords: Legal representation for mental health professionals, defense lawyer for mental health professionals and facilities, mental health professional defense attorney, health care discrimination defense attorney, legal representation for physicians, complex health care litigation attorney, business litigation lawyer, health care professionals legal representation, health law defense attorney, legal representation for discrimination against health care professionals and facilities, legal representation for discrimination lawsuit against a healthcare professional or facility, healthcare litigation defense attorney, legal counsel for health care professionals, legal representation for clients involved in the health care industry, reviews of The Health Law Firm, The Health Law Firm attorney reviews, The Health Law Firm

“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 © 2017 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.