New Study Faults Coding Structures For Increased Medical Billing Costs in U.S.

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

A study publicized in August 2022 revealed that the complex coding structures used in the United States drive up medical billing costs. This helps to make the U.S. one of the most expensive countries for health providers to get paid. According to the study, researchers used a micro-level accounting of billing and insurance-related (often abbreviated “BIR”) expenses in different national settings at six provider locations in five nations: Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, and Singapore. This most recent study supplements a prior study measuring such costs in the U.S.

The findings, published in Health Affairs Journal, revealed “BIR (billing and insurance-related) costs in the U.S. are generally much higher than the costs in other countries.” This means that all the extra costs of coding and billing, including the related expenses, are a significant factor in driving up health care cases in the U.S. Say what you want about doctors’ hating paperwork, but this study seems to validate that feeling.

The Findings of the Study.

The study confirmed what research has established that billing and insurance-related (BIR) costs in the U.S. are much higher than in other countries. For example, prices range from $6 in Canada to $215 in the U.S. for an inpatient surgical bill. In the U.S., that represented about 3.1 percent of the total professional revenue for the procedure. Providers also spent about 100 minutes processing the claim.

To compare, only Australia had similar billing and insurance-related costs to the U.S. Australia has a mix of publicly and privately funded payers and universal coverage. Billing and insurance-related costs were significantly less in Canada than in the other nations. The study said Germany, Singapore, and the Netherlands had equal billing and insurance-related costs.

A Common Trend: Complex Coding.

The U.S. has a coding process in which each payer has its forms and documentation requirements, creating a significant burden on providers to translate clinical documentation into billable codes for reimbursement.

Because of standardization in other countries, providers spend less time coding or do not need coders to translate documentation into billable codes. Additionally, “little physician time is spent entering billing-related information into the EHR [electronic health record] system, as charge codes are either generated automatically or entered manually by a lower-wage or nonclinical teammate,” the study stated. “As a consequence, these countries’ billing systems either require fewer labor resources or much less costly labor and physician time than the one in the U.S.”

Researchers also found that financial counseling could reduce overall billing and insurance-related costs in the U.S.

You can read the study in full and learn more by visiting Health Affairs, a leading peer-reviewed journal of health policy thought and research.

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

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

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

Sources:

LaPointe, Jacqueline. “Coding Drives Up Medical Billing Costs in the US.” Rev Cycle Intelligence. (August 3, 2022) Web.

Norris, Amanda. “REV CYCLE PROCESSES PUSH U.S. TO TOP OF LIST FOR HIGHEST MEDICAL BILLING COSTS.” Health Leaders Media. (August 10, 2022). Web.

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

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

Supreme Court Rules Against HHS in Hospital Medicare Reimbursement Case

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

On June 15, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court said the federal government improperly cut more than $1 billion a year in Medicare reimbursements to hospitals.  This came in a ruling that limits regulators’ power to control what the program pays for certain drugs.  In this case, the Supreme Court justices sided unanimously with a group of hospitals suing over drug reimbursement rates for facilities that serve low-income communities. In writing for the court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) improperly calculated reimbursement rates using a methodology Congress authorized for use only in limited circumstances.

Were the Reimbursement Cuts Unlawful?

The Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s 2020 decision that HHS had the authority to reduce the yearly Medicare reimbursement rates for a group of hospitals serving low income communities. Click here to view the July 31, 2020 decision.

The high court found the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit erred in 2020 when it allowed the HHS to reduce Medicare payments, by roughly $1.6 billion, for outpatient drugs that had helped subsidize the operations of the hospitals.  The Supreme Court’s decision did not extend so far as to undermine HHS authority, but only stated how the agency acted unlawfully in accordance with its varying rates for hospitals under the 340B Drug Pricing Program.

“In short, the statute allows HHS to set reimbursement rates based on average price and affords the agency discretion to ‘adjust’ the price up or down. But unless HHS conducts a survey of hospitals’ acquisition costs, HHS may not vary the reimbursement rates by hospital group,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote in the ruling.


Regulating Reimbursement Rates Under the 340B Program.

Under Medicare, health care providers get reimbursed by the government for expenses, including medications used in hospital outpatient departments. Previously, hospitals had been getting reimbursed at a rate based on the average price of the drugs. However, in 2018, the HHS, under then-President Donald Trump, cut payments for outpatient drugs by 28.5% to hospitals receiving money under the 340B program.

The department found that reimbursements were too high because these hospitals obtain the drugs from manufacturers at a deep discount, an issue that also resulted in excessive patient co-payments. Additionally, the resulting cut dealt “a crushing blow to providers that were already operating on razor-thin  margins and to the vulnerable populations they serve,” the hospitals told the justices in a court filing.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the court that “absent a survey of hospitals’ acquisition costs,” the HHS “may not vary the reimbursement rates for 340B hospitals. The HHS’s 2018 and 2019 reimbursement rates for 340B hospitals were therefore contrary to the statute and unlawful.”

Click here to read the Supreme Court’s Opinion in the case, American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 20-1114.

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, Medcaid 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 toll-free at (888) 331-6620.


Sources:

Stohr, Greg. “Supreme Court Sides With Hospitals on Medicare Reimbursement.” Bloomberg Law. (June 15, 2022). Web.

Chung, Andrew. “U.S. Supreme Court faults Medicare cuts to hospitals for outpatient drugs.” Reuters. (June 15, 2022). Web.

Gresko, Jessica. “High court rules against government on drug reimbursement.” Associated Press. (June 15, 2022). Web.


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

KeyWords:  Legal representation for Medicare Medicaid audit, Medicare Medicaid audit defense attorney, legal representation for healthcare professionals, complex health care litigation attorney, legal representation for Medicare Medicaid reimbursement demand, Medicare Medicaid defense lawyer, legal representation for Medicare Medicaid defense, complex civil health care litigation attorney, legal representation for complex medical litigation, representation for healthcare business litigation matters, Medicare Medicaid hearing attorney, legal representation for physicians and health care professionals, attorney for physician suits against insurers, complex medical business litigation against health insurers, formal Medicare administrative hearing lawyer, Health law defense lawyer, legal representation of health care professionals, Medicare Medicaid overpayment demand defense lawyer, Legal representation for Medicare Medicaid administrative hearing
Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) formal hearing defense attorney, legal representation for Medicare Medicaid revocation termination hearings, medical license investigation representation defense attorney, representation for Florida Department of Health (DOH) investigations and hearings, reviews of The Health Law Firm, reviews of The Health Law Firm. The Health Law Firm attorney reviews, The Health Law Firm attorney reviews

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

By |2024-03-14T09:59:16-04:00November 18, 2023|Categories: Health Facilities Law Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |Comments Off on Supreme Court Rules Against HHS in Hospital Medicare Reimbursement Case

Medications and Other Substances that Mimic Prohibited Drugs on Urinalysis Drug Tests (Part 1 of a Blog Series)

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law
In representing nurses and other licensed health professionals, we constantly discuss positive drug screenings, usually from employer-ordered drug testing, with our clients.  These clients include nurses, pharmacists, dental professionals, mental health counselors, therapists, etc.  Often these individuals need to remember that if they apply for a job with a new employer or are working for a large corporation or the government, they are subject to employer-ordered drug screenings.  Most problems arise when the professional has applied to a hospital or a placement agency for work in a hospital and they must submit to a pre-employment drug test.
The client often contends that the result is a false positive and that some other substance must be responsible for it.

A positive result for any drug for which you do not have a valid prescription from a physician, including marijuana, will cause you to be eliminated from consideration for a new job or terminated from a current position and a complaint against your professional license, which could cause you to lose it.  We are routinely called on to defend such situations.

Series of Blogs to Discuss Substances that Can Mimic Prohibited Drugs on Drug Tests.

In the years I have been doing this, I have encountered many cases in which other substances have caused a positive result for a prohibited substance on a drug screening test.

In this series of blogs, I intend to discuss some of the substances scientifically shown to cause false positives on employer-ordered drug screening tests.  This is the first in the series.

Over-the-Counter Medications Mimicking Amphetamines on Drug Tests.

Following is a discussion of substances that can cause a false positive for amphetamines on a urinalysis drug test.  This material comes from an article in Case Reports in Psychiatry published in 2013. (Ref. 1)
Many prescription pharmaceuticals and over-the-counter (OTC) medications have been previously reported in the literature to cause a false-positive result for amphetamines on urine drug screens. Many OTC medications have been reported in scientific literature to produce false positives for amphetamines on urine drug screenings, chiefly antihistamines.

The OTC medications that have been documented to and are well known as causing false positives for amphetamines on drug tests include nasal decongestants, Vicks inhaler, MDMA (3,4-Methylenedioxy methamphetamine;  commonly known as ecstacy, molly, mandy or X), and pseudoephedrine.  (Refs. 1-5)  Some of these are prohibited medications that cannot be prescribed and are only available as “street drugs” such as MDMA.

Prescription Medications Documented as Mimicking Amphetamines.

Prescription medications known to have mimicked amphetamines on testing include antipsychotics and antidepressants.  (Refs. 1 & 2)
The prescription medications known to cause false-positive amphetamine urine drug screen include fluoxetine, selegiline, ranitidine, trazodone, nefazodone, brompheniramine, phenylpropanolamine, chlorpromazine, promethazine, ephedrine, methamphetamine, and labetalol.  (Refs. 2-5)  However, the fact that the individual taking the drug test might have a prescription for one of these might cause the employer to disqualify the employee or potential employee from consideration for the job.
Bupropion (an atypical antidepressant that inhibits norepinephrine and dopamine re-uptake), is a drug used to treat depression and smoking cessation, but may also be used off-label to treat ADHD.  It has also been documented as causing false positive results for amphetamines on drug screenings.  (Ref. 6)
The drug atomoxetine has metabolites that are similar to those of amphetamines (phenylpropan-1-amine verses phenyl-propan-2-amine).  This could also result in a false positive on a urine drug screen.  (Ref. 1)

 

Other Discussions in Future Blogs.

In future blogs, I intend to discuss false positive claims associated with use of ibuprofen, amoxicillin, coca leaf tea, poppy seeds and other common substances and medications.  Stay tuned.

Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys in Matters Involving PRN or IPN.

The Health Law Firm’s attorneys routinely represent physicians, dentists, nurses and other health professionals in matters involving PRN or IPN. Our attorneys also represent health providers in Department of Health investigations, before professional boards, in licensing matters, and in administrative hearings.

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

References:

1. Fenderson JL, Stratton AN, Domingo JS, Matthews GO, Tan CD. Amphetamine positive urine toxicology screen secondary to atomoxetine. Case Rep Psychiatry. 2013;2013:381261. doi: 10.1155/2013/381261. Epub 2013 Jan 30. PMID: 23424703; PMCID: PMC3570929.
(Accessed on May 20, 2023.)
2. Brahm NC, Yeager LL, Fox MD, Farmer KC, Palmer TA. Commonly prescribed medications and potential false-positive urine drug screens. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2010 Aug 15;67(16):1344-50. doi: 10.2146/ajhp090477. PMID: 20689123.
3. Vincent EC, Zebelman A, Goodwin C, Stephens MM. Clinical inquiries. What common substances can cause false positives on urine screens for drugs of abuse? J Fam Pract. 2006 Oct;55(10):893-4, 897. PMID: 17014756.
4. Rapuri SB, Ramaswamy S, Madaan V, Rasimas JJ, Krahn LE. ‘Weed’ out false-positive urine drug screens. Current Psychiatry. 2006;5(8):107–110. [Google Scholar]
5. Moeller KE, Lee KC, Kissack JC. Urine drug screening: practical guide for clinicians. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008 Jan;83(1):66-76. doi: 10.4065/83.1.66. Erratum in: Mayo Clin Proc. 2008 Jul;83(7):851. PMID: 18174009.
6. Reidy L, Walls HC, Steele BW. Crossreactivity of bupropion metabolite with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays designed to detect amphetamine in urine. Ther Drug Monit. 2011 Jun;33(3):366-8. doi: 10.1097/FTD.0b013e3182126d08. PMID: 21436763.

 

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

Current Open Positions with The Health Law Firm.  The Health Law Firm always seeks qualified individuals interested in health law.  Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area.  If you are a current member of The Florida Bar or a qualified professional who is interested, please forward a cover letter and resume to: [email protected] or fax them to (407) 331-3030.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2023 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.
By |2024-03-14T09:59:17-04:00October 23, 2023|Categories: Medical Education Law Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |Comments Off on Medications and Other Substances that Mimic Prohibited Drugs on Urinalysis Drug Tests (Part 1 of a Blog Series)

U.S. Government Renews COVID-19 Public Health Emergency, Extending Health Benefits for Millions of Americans

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

On July 15, 2022, the United States again renewed the COVID-19 public health emergency, allowing millions of Americans special access to free tests, vaccines, and treatments. The public health emergency was initially declared in January 2020, when the coronavirus pandemic began. Since then, the Department of Health and Human Services has renewed it each quarter. HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra officially renewed the declaration extending it through October 13, 2022. View it in full here.

Ensuring Continued Access to Special Services During the Public-Health Emergency.

The declaration allows the U.S. to grant emergency authorizations of drugs, vaccines, and other medical countermeasures. As a result, it can administer those products to millions of people at no out-of-pocket cost. It’s also enabled millions of Americans to get health coverage through Medicaid, among other benefits.

It may also have additional benefits, such as allowing certain health care professionals to practice across state lines without getting a license in the state where the patient is and encouraging the continuation of video visits (telemedicine). But check your state and national regulations to be sure.

When the public health emergency expires, insured patients will be subject to co-pays or other costs, while the uninsured will lose easy access to free testing. In addition, millions could risk losing Medicaid coverage as states reinstate stricter enrollment rules that they had loosened to qualify for enhanced federal funding.

The Biden administration has ensured states it will give 60 days’ notice before ending the emergency to allow sufficient time to prepare for changes to specific programs and regulatory authorities. To learn more about Public Health Emergency Declarations, visit the Office for the Assistant Secretary of Preparedness and Response.

To read one of my prior blogs on the status of the COVID-19 pandemic in the healthcare industry, click here.

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

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

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

Sources:

Aboulenein, Ahmed. “U.S. Renews COVID-19 Public Health Emergency.” Reuters. (April 13, 2022). Web.

Griffin, Riley. “Biden Administration to Again Extend the Covid Public-Health Emergency.” Bloomberg Law. (July 11, 2022). Web.

AHLA. “US Government To Extend COVID-19 Public Health Emergency Again.” Health Law Daily. (July 13, 2022). Web.

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

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

 

 

 

Additional Negative Consequences for Discipline on Your Professional License, Part 1 of 2

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

Do you have a medical, pharmacist, counselor, or nursing license in more than one state?  Do you have a license in more than one profession?  Have you been notified that an investigation has been opened against your professional license?  Are you thinking about resigning your professional license or voluntarily relinquishing (giving up) your license?  Then you should be aware of some important facts you may not have known.

First, you should never voluntarily relinquish or resign your professional license after you know that an investigation has been opened or that disciplinary action has been taken against you.  A resignation is considered to be a “disciplinary relinquishment” and is treated the same as if your license had been revoked on disciplinary grounds.

Second, this will be reported to other states, professional agencies, the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB), and to any certifying bodies for certifications you have. It will also be reported to other national professional bodies (such as the National Council of State Boards of Nursing, the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, or the American Board of Internal Medicine).  Other states and other professional boards will most likely initiate disciplinary action based on the report of the first one.

Protect Your License from These Types of Adverse Actions.

Following is a list of some of the adverse actions you can expect to be taken after discipline on your license (or if you give up your license after receiving notice of investigation):

1. A mandatory report to the National Practitioner Data Base (NPDB) which remains there for 50 years. Note: The Healthcare Integrity and Protection Data Bank HIPDB have now merged into the NPDB.

2. The action must be reported to and included in the Department of Health (DOH) profile that is available to the public online (for those having one) and remains for at least ten years.

3. Any other states or jurisdictions in which the professional has a license will also initiate an investigation and possible disciplinary action against him or her in that jurisdiction.  (Note:  I have had two clients who had licenses in seven or more other states; even states where the license was no longer active initiated action).

4. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will take action to exclude the provider from the Medicare Program.  If this occurs (and many of these offenses require mandatory exclusion) the provider will be placed on the List of Excluded Individuals and Entities (LEIE) maintained by the HHS OIG.

a.  Note that if this happens, you are prohibited by law from working in any position in any capacity for any individual or business, including hospitals, nursing homes, home health agencies, physicians, medical groups, insurance companies, etc., that contract with or bill Medicare or Medicaid.  This means, for example, you are prohibited from working as a janitor in a nursing home that accepts Medicare or Medicaid, even as an independent contractor.

b.  Also, if this happens, you are also automatically “debarred” or prohibited from participating in any capacity in any federal contracting, and you are placed on the U.S. General Services Administration’s (GSA) debarment list.  This means you are prohibited by law from working in any capacity for any government contractor or anyone who takes government funding.  This applies, for example, to prevent you from being a real estate agent involved in selling property financed by a government-backed loan, prohibited from working for an electrical company that bids on contracts for government housing projects, working as a school teacher in a public school, etc.

c.  Additionally, if this happens, your state is required to terminate you “for cause” from the state Medicaid Program.  In many states, this will also be an additional ground for revocation of your license.

5. Any profile or reporting system maintained by a national organization or federation (e.g., NURSYS profile maintained by the National Council of State Boards of Nursing, American Medical Association physician profile, or the Federation of State Board of Physical Therapy profile) will include the adverse action in it, generally available to the public.

6. If you are a nurse practitioner or other professional with clinical privileges at a hospital, nursing home, HMO, or clinic, action will be taken to revoke or suspend the clinical privileges and staff members if you have such. This may be in a hospital, ambulatory surgical center, skilled nursing facility, staff model HMO, or clinic.  This will usually be for physicians, physician assistants (PAs), advanced registered nurse practitioners (ARNPs), certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs), nurse midwives, or certified nurse anesthetists (CNAs), podiatrists, clinical psychologists or clinical pharmacists.

7. Third-party payors (health insurance companies, HMOs, etc.) will terminate the professional’s contract or panel membership with that organization.

8. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) will act to revoke the professional’s DEA registration if he or she has one.

9. Many employers will not hire you or will terminate your employment if they discover your license has been disciplined in another state.

What Should and Shouldn’t You Do?

If you find yourself notified that you are under investigation, don’t take the easy way out by immediately relinquishing your license. Don’t hide your head in the sand by thinking the case will just go away on its own. Do not request an informal hearing or a settlement agreement in which you admit the facts alleged against you are all true.  If you do this, you are “pleading guilty.” If you are innocent of the charges, request a formal hearing and contest the charges; defend yourself.

Do immediately seek the advice of an attorney who has experience in such professional licensing matters and administrative hearings.  They are out there, but you may have to search for one.  Do this as soon as you get notice of any investigation and especially before you have talked to or made any statement (including a written one) to any investigator.

Do purchase professional liability insurance that includes legal defense coverage for any professional license investigation against you, whether it is related to a malpractice claim or not.  This insurance is cheap and will provide needed legal assistance at the time when you may be out of a job and not have money to hire an attorney.  Beware of the insurance policy that only covers professional license defense if it is related to a malpractice claim.

Professional Liability Insurance.

We strongly encourage all licensed health professionals and facilities to purchase their own, independent insurance coverage.  Make sure it covers professional license defense under all circumstances.  Make sure you have enough coverage to actually get you through a hearing. $25,000 coverage for just professional licensure defense is the absolute minimum you should purchase;  $50,000 may be adequate but $75,000 or $100,000 may be what you really need in such a situation.  For a few dollars more (and I do mean only a few) you can usually purchase the higher limits.

Also, I will repeat, make sure it covers your legal defense in an administrative disciplinary proceeding against your license, even if there is no malpractice claim filed against you or likely to be filed against you.

We also recommend that you purchase coverage through an insurance company that allows you to select your own attorney and does not make you use one that the insurance company picks for you.

Companies we have encountered in the past that provide an inexpensive top quality insurance product for professional license defense costs include CPH & Associates Insurance, Nurses Service Organization (NSO) insurance, Healthcare Providers Organization (HPSO) Insurance, and Lloyd’s of London Insurance.

To learn more, visit our Video Q&A section on our website and watch our video titled, “Should I voluntarily relinquish my professional license because I am being investigated?” Additionally, click here to read one of our prior blogs for even more information on how to fight back against adverse NPBD reports.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced with Investigations of Healthcare Professionals.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm provide legal representation to medical professionals in Department of Health (DOH) investigations, licensing matters, and other types of investigations of health professionals and providers. To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free at (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

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 Avenue, Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620.

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

By |2024-03-14T09:59:18-04:00October 5, 2023|Categories: Dental Law Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |Comments Off on Additional Negative Consequences for Discipline on Your Professional License, Part 1 of 2

United States Court of Appeals Denies U.S. Nursing Corporations Indemnification Challenge Against Nurse Staffing Agency

Author HeadshotBy George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law, and Hartley Brooks, Law Clerk, The Health Law Firm
On May 18, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a U.S. district court’s decision to deny U.S. Nursing Corporation a new trial. The appellate court stated that the opposing counsel’s closing argument and the erroneous preclusion of evidence had no substantial effect on the trial’s outcome; thus, there was no reversible error.
The First Lawsuit.
The original lawsuit filed in state court concerned a patient suing Appalachian Regional Healthcare, Inc., for exacerbating his spinal injury. He claimed that a nurse transported him from a car into the emergency room without first stabilizing and immobilizing him, which caused further damage. When the incident occurred, the nurses on staff were two employees of Appalachian Regional and one supplied by U.S. Nursing Corporation to the hospital.
 The court granted a motion that dismissed the Appalachian Regional nurses as defendants because no evidence in the record alleged that they moved the patient. As the trial neared, the court granted another motion prohibiting the parties from introducing evidence that the Appalachian Regional nurses moved the patient from the truck into the emergency room.
This earlier state court lawsuit concluded with Appalachian Regional Healthcare paying $2 million in settlement and incurring $823,522.71 in legal fees.
It is important to note that when U.S. Nursing supplied its nurse to Appalachian Regional, they entered into an agreement that stated U.S. Nursing would indemnify and defend Appalachian Regional for the negligence of any of its employees assigned to Appalachian Regional. The settlement was reached, Appalachian Regional Healthcare demanded that U.S. Nursing indemnify it, but the staffing company refused to do so. In response, Appalachian Regional Healthcare, Inc., sued U.S. Nursing for the $2,823,522.71 state court settlement it paid.
The First Appeal.
In its first appeal, U.S. Nursing argued that the opposing counsel made an inappropriate closing statement when they stated no evidence showed the Appalachian Regional Healthcare nurses moving the patient and that U.S. Nursing had not argued that such evidence existed. U.S. Nursing claimed this statement was inappropriate because it was prohibited from admitting evidence that showed Appalachian Regional Healthcare nurses having moved the patient. The appellate court decided that U.S. Nursing did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue, so the appellate court remanded to the district court to determine if the error required a new trial.
The nurse staffing company argued that it was incorrectly prohibited from introducing evidence regarding the other nurses on duty and the possibility that they could have been the ones to move the patient. U.S. Nursing also argued that the opposing counsel exploited the court’s error in their closing statements, though the district court never addressed this claim. However, the appellate court asserted that the evidence excluded would not have caused a different outcome at trial, so no new trial was granted.
The Second Appeal.
In its second appeal, U.S. Nursing argued that the district court abused its discretion when it determined the evidentiary error did not affect the trial. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the excluded evidence did very little to support U.S. Nursing’s argument, and excluding this evidence did not affect U.S. Nursing’s substantial rights. However, the court stated that the opposing counsel misled the jury with their statements. The remarks did not constitute an error significant enough to warrant a new trial since Appalachian Regional Healthcare, Inc., was highly likely to prevail, despite counsel’s comments.
Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Representing Nurses and Other Healthcare Professionals.
The Health Law Firm’s attorneys routinely represent nurses, pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, dentists, dental assistants, physicians, physician assistants, mental health counselors, and other health providers. We also provide legal representation for employers in EEOC complaints, workplace discrimination complaints, and suits involving harassment or discrimination complaints. We also provide legal representation in Department of Health, Board of Medicine, Board of Nursing investigations and complaints, DORA investigations and complaints. We provide litigation services in state and federal courts and state and federal administrative hearings.
To contact The Health Law Firm please call (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free at (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.
Source:
About the Authors: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620; Toll-Free (888) 331-6620
Hartley Brooks is a law clerk at The Health Law Firm. She is preparing to attend law school.
Current Open Positions with The Health Law Firm. The Health Law Firm always seeks qualified individuals interested in health law. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. If you are a current member of The Florida Bar or a qualified professional who is interested, please forward a cover letter and resume to: [email protected] or fax them to (407) 331-3030.
“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2023 George F. Indest III. All rights reserved.
By |2024-03-14T09:59:19-04:00October 4, 2023|Categories: Medical Education Law Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |Comments Off on United States Court of Appeals Denies U.S. Nursing Corporations Indemnification Challenge Against Nurse Staffing Agency

Medications and Other Substances that Mimic Prohibited Drugs on Urinalysis Drug Tests (Part 1 of a Blog Series)

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law
In representing nurses and other licensed health professionals, we constantly discuss positive drug screenings, usually from employer-ordered drug testing, with our clients.  These clients include nurses, pharmacists, dental professionals, mental health counselors, therapists, etc.  Often these individuals need to remember that if they apply for a job with a new employer or are working for a large corporation or the government, they are subject to employer-ordered drug screenings.  Most problems arise when the professional has applied to a hospital or a placement agency for work in a hospital and they must submit to a pre-employment drug test.
The client often contends that the result is a false positive and that some other substance must be responsible for it.

A positive result for any drug for which you do not have a valid prescription from a physician, including marijuana, will cause you to be eliminated from consideration for a new job or terminated from a current position and a complaint against your professional license, which could cause you to lose it.  We are routinely called on to defend such situations.

Series of Blogs to Discuss Substances that Can Mimic Prohibited Drugs on Drug Tests.

In the years I have been doing this, I have encountered many cases in which other substances have caused a positive result for a prohibited substance on a drug screening test.

In this series of blogs, I intend to discuss some of the substances scientifically shown to cause false positives on employer-ordered drug screening tests.  This is the first in the series.

Over-the-Counter Medications Mimicking Amphetamines on Drug Tests.

Following is a discussion of substances that can cause a false positive for amphetamines on a urinalysis drug test.  This material comes from an article in Case Reports in Psychiatry published in 2013. (Ref. 1)
Many prescription pharmaceuticals and over-the-counter (OTC) medications have been previously reported in the literature to cause a false-positive result for amphetamines on urine drug screens. Many OTC medications have been reported in scientific literature to produce false positives for amphetamines on urine drug screenings, chiefly antihistamines.

The OTC medications that have been documented to and are well known as causing false positives for amphetamines on drug tests include nasal decongestants, Vicks inhaler, MDMA (3,4-Methylenedioxy methamphetamine;  commonly known as ecstacy, molly, mandy or X), and pseudoephedrine.  (Refs. 1-5)  Some of these are prohibited medications that cannot be prescribed and are only available as “street drugs” such as MDMA.

Prescription Medications Documented as Mimicking Amphetamines.

Prescription medications known to have mimicked amphetamines on testing include antipsychotics and antidepressants.  (Refs. 1 & 2)
The prescription medications known to cause false-positive amphetamine urine drug screen include fluoxetine, selegiline, ranitidine, trazodone, nefazodone, brompheniramine, phenylpropanolamine, chlorpromazine, promethazine, ephedrine, methamphetamine, and labetalol.  (Refs. 2-5)  However, the fact that the individual taking the drug test might have a prescription for one of these might cause the employer to disqualify the employee or potential employee from consideration for the job.
Bupropion (an atypical antidepressant that inhibits norepinephrine and dopamine re-uptake), is a drug used to treat depression and smoking cessation, but may also be used off-label to treat ADHD.  It has also been documented as causing false positive results for amphetamines on drug screenings.  (Ref. 6)
The drug atomoxetine has metabolites that are similar to those of amphetamines (phenylpropan-1-amine verses phenyl-propan-2-amine).  This could also result in a false positive on a urine drug screen.  (Ref. 1)

 

Other Discussions in Future Blogs.

In future blogs, I intend to discuss false positive claims associated with use of ibuprofen, amoxicillin, coca leaf tea, poppy seeds and other common substances and medications.  Stay tuned.

Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys in Matters Involving PRN or IPN.

The Health Law Firm’s attorneys routinely represent physicians, dentists, nurses and other health professionals in matters involving PRN or IPN. Our attorneys also represent health providers in Department of Health investigations, before professional boards, in licensing matters, and in administrative hearings.

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

References:

1. Fenderson JL, Stratton AN, Domingo JS, Matthews GO, Tan CD. Amphetamine positive urine toxicology screen secondary to atomoxetine. Case Rep Psychiatry. 2013;2013:381261. doi: 10.1155/2013/381261. Epub 2013 Jan 30. PMID: 23424703; PMCID: PMC3570929.
(Accessed on May 20, 2023.)
2. Brahm NC, Yeager LL, Fox MD, Farmer KC, Palmer TA. Commonly prescribed medications and potential false-positive urine drug screens. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2010 Aug 15;67(16):1344-50. doi: 10.2146/ajhp090477. PMID: 20689123.
3. Vincent EC, Zebelman A, Goodwin C, Stephens MM. Clinical inquiries. What common substances can cause false positives on urine screens for drugs of abuse? J Fam Pract. 2006 Oct;55(10):893-4, 897. PMID: 17014756.
4. Rapuri SB, Ramaswamy S, Madaan V, Rasimas JJ, Krahn LE. ‘Weed’ out false-positive urine drug screens. Current Psychiatry. 2006;5(8):107–110. [Google Scholar]
5. Moeller KE, Lee KC, Kissack JC. Urine drug screening: practical guide for clinicians. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008 Jan;83(1):66-76. doi: 10.4065/83.1.66. Erratum in: Mayo Clin Proc. 2008 Jul;83(7):851. PMID: 18174009.
6. Reidy L, Walls HC, Steele BW. Crossreactivity of bupropion metabolite with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays designed to detect amphetamine in urine. Ther Drug Monit. 2011 Jun;33(3):366-8. doi: 10.1097/FTD.0b013e3182126d08. PMID: 21436763.

 

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

Current Open Positions with The Health Law Firm.  The Health Law Firm always seeks qualified individuals interested in health law.  Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area.  If you are a current member of The Florida Bar or a qualified professional who is interested, please forward a cover letter and resume to: [email protected] or fax them to (407) 331-3030.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2023 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.
By |2024-03-14T09:59:19-04:00September 21, 2023|Categories: Health Facilities Law Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |Comments Off on Medications and Other Substances that Mimic Prohibited Drugs on Urinalysis Drug Tests (Part 1 of a Blog Series)

United States Court of Appeals Denies U.S. Nursing Corporations Indemnification Challenge Against Nurse Staffing Agency

Author HeadshotBy George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law, and Hartley Brooks, Law Clerk, The Health Law Firm
On May 18, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a U.S. district court’s decision to deny U.S. Nursing Corporation a new trial. The appellate court stated that the opposing counsel’s closing argument and the erroneous preclusion of evidence had no substantial effect on the trial’s outcome; thus, there was no reversible error.
The First Lawsuit.
The original lawsuit filed in state court concerned a patient suing Appalachian Regional Healthcare, Inc., for exacerbating his spinal injury. He claimed that a nurse transported him from a car into the emergency room without first stabilizing and immobilizing him, which caused further damage. When the incident occurred, the nurses on staff were two employees of Appalachian Regional and one supplied by U.S. Nursing Corporation to the hospital.
 The court granted a motion that dismissed the Appalachian Regional nurses as defendants because no evidence in the record alleged that they moved the patient. As the trial neared, the court granted another motion prohibiting the parties from introducing evidence that the Appalachian Regional nurses moved the patient from the truck into the emergency room.
This earlier state court lawsuit concluded with Appalachian Regional Healthcare paying $2 million in settlement and incurring $823,522.71 in legal fees.
It is important to note that when U.S. Nursing supplied its nurse to Appalachian Regional, they entered into an agreement that stated U.S. Nursing would indemnify and defend Appalachian Regional for the negligence of any of its employees assigned to Appalachian Regional. The settlement was reached, Appalachian Regional Healthcare demanded that U.S. Nursing indemnify it, but the staffing company refused to do so. In response, Appalachian Regional Healthcare, Inc., sued U.S. Nursing for the $2,823,522.71 state court settlement it paid.
The First Appeal.
In its first appeal, U.S. Nursing argued that the opposing counsel made an inappropriate closing statement when they stated no evidence showed the Appalachian Regional Healthcare nurses moving the patient and that U.S. Nursing had not argued that such evidence existed. U.S. Nursing claimed this statement was inappropriate because it was prohibited from admitting evidence that showed Appalachian Regional Healthcare nurses having moved the patient. The appellate court decided that U.S. Nursing did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue, so the appellate court remanded to the district court to determine if the error required a new trial.
The nurse staffing company argued that it was incorrectly prohibited from introducing evidence regarding the other nurses on duty and the possibility that they could have been the ones to move the patient. U.S. Nursing also argued that the opposing counsel exploited the court’s error in their closing statements, though the district court never addressed this claim. However, the appellate court asserted that the evidence excluded would not have caused a different outcome at trial, so no new trial was granted.
The Second Appeal.
In its second appeal, U.S. Nursing argued that the district court abused its discretion when it determined the evidentiary error did not affect the trial. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the excluded evidence did very little to support U.S. Nursing’s argument, and excluding this evidence did not affect U.S. Nursing’s substantial rights. However, the court stated that the opposing counsel misled the jury with their statements. The remarks did not constitute an error significant enough to warrant a new trial since Appalachian Regional Healthcare, Inc., was highly likely to prevail, despite counsel’s comments.
Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Representing Nurses and Other Healthcare Professionals.
The Health Law Firm’s attorneys routinely represent nurses, pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, dentists, dental assistants, physicians, physician assistants, mental health counselors, and other health providers. We also provide legal representation for employers in EEOC complaints, workplace discrimination complaints, and suits involving harassment or discrimination complaints. We also provide legal representation in Department of Health, Board of Medicine, Board of Nursing investigations and complaints, DORA investigations and complaints. We provide litigation services in state and federal courts and state and federal administrative hearings.
To contact The Health Law Firm please call (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free at (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.
Source:
About the Authors: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620; Toll-Free (888) 331-6620
Hartley Brooks is a law clerk at The Health Law Firm. She is preparing to attend law school.
Current Open Positions with The Health Law Firm. The Health Law Firm always seeks qualified individuals interested in health law. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. If you are a current member of The Florida Bar or a qualified professional who is interested, please forward a cover letter and resume to: [email protected] or fax them to (407) 331-3030.
“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2023 George F. Indest III. All rights reserved.
By |2024-03-14T09:59:20-04:00September 21, 2023|Categories: Health Facilities Law Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |Comments Off on United States Court of Appeals Denies U.S. Nursing Corporations Indemnification Challenge Against Nurse Staffing Agency

Nurses: You Must Insure Your Legal Protection

author headshot against a tan backgroundBy George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

I have news for you:  You need professional liability insurance!  But you only need the kind that includes professional liability insurance coverage, and in the amount of $25,000 or more.

Are you a traveling nurse?  Are you a nurse who works for a hospital or nursing home?  Are you a nurse who works in a doctor’s office?  Are you the nurse who is going to tell me:  “I think I have insurance coverage through my employer?”–WRONG!  Not professional license complaint defense insurance. You need to personally purchase your nursing professional liability insurance containing professional license defense coverage.   If you have yet to purchase this, you don’t have this.

The Insurance Coverage You Really Need.

Though many nurses pursue a career in nursing hoping that they will never face a complaint or disciplinary charges, any event not within a nurse’s control can lead to an investigation or administrative action. Nurses need to ensure they are covered with appropriate insurance if this ever occurs. In our opinion, based on decades of representing nurses, the primary reason that a nurse should purchase a professional liability insurance policy is to obtain coverage for the legal defense against complaints of licensing and disciplinary action commenced against a nurse.

License defense coverage pays the legal fees and costs associated with defending a nurse when an investigation is initiated that may result in action against her nursing license or disciplinary action against the nurse. Coverage is usually available when the nurse receives written notice that an investigation by a state agency has been initiated. It will also cover formal complaints against the nurse, informal hearings before the Board of Nursing, and formal administrative hearings before an administrative law judge. Such investigations, complaints, and administrative action may be opened based on events, including patient complaints, hotline calls, Code 15 reports, nursing home, and home health agency surveys, abuse investigations by the Department of Children and Families (DCF), newspaper articles, copies of lawsuits, and many other sources. It is far more likely that a nurse will be involved in one of these types of actions than being sued for nursing negligence.

You Want Insurance that Meets These Criteria.

Good professional liability policies, which provide coverage for licensure defense, will usually also compensate the nurse for her out-of-pocket expenses (travel, postage, etc.) that she incurs, as well as lost wages because of working time missed for hearings, depositions, etc. However, the maximum coverage available under such policies for licensure defense is usually limited to approximately $25,000. This amount will usually be sufficient to provide for most of the legal fees and costs involved in the defense of such a case.

Crucial to Check and Make Sure That Claims For Insurance Coverage Do Not Have to Be Linked to Malpractice Complaints.

Many professional liability insurance companies try to get off the hook on covering nurses on complaints against the nurse’s license, relying on provisions of the insurance policy that state that any coverage must be based on a claim of nursing malpractice.  AVOID THESE INSURERS AT ALL COSTS.  Most complaints against nurses’ licenses do not involve a claim made for nursing malpractice. To be sure, ask your insurer in writing ahead of time and get the answer in writing.  By the way, you never have this problem with Nurses Service Organization (NSO) Insurance or CPH & Associates Insurance.

Who Files the Most Complaints Against Nurse’s Licenses? Employers.

It has been our experience that most complaints against nurses’ licenses are made by their former employer and/or former recruiting company.  Think about it, is your employer going to pay for insurance that covers you and provides you a defense in the event that the employer files a complaint against your license. The answer is “NO” regardless of what you think.

You are on your own.  Buy your own insurance.  It is very cheap and it will be there when you need it.

Even if the nurse is still employed (unlikely in the vast majority of cases) many employers will not provide legal representation if the matter involves licensing or disciplinary action against the nurse.  This could force the nurse to fund all the fees and costs associated with her defense. However, some larger corporations with sound risk management programs will provide the nurses with legal representation, but this is a rare exception.

For Traveling Nurses and Agency Nurses, Your Own Personal Insurance is a Must.

Suppose you are an agency nurse, a home health agency nurse, a nursing home nurse, an independent duty nurse, or a large hospital chain does not employ you. In that case, you should consider nursing liability insurance mandatory. Complaints of negligence against nurses working in these positions are far more likely. This may be because of the high turnover of nurses in some healthcare facilities (such as nursing homes), or because the nurse is no longer employed at the facility when the investigation begins (for example, in the case of an agency nurse). Additionally, agency nurses may only work in a facility for a short period, making them less familiar with the facility’s policies and procedures and not a part of the permanent team of nurses who may have established relationships and are more likely to cover for each other.

As previously mentioned, several different proceedings may be covered by the licensure defense coverage provided in professional liability insurance.  Defense of accusations of HIPAA privacy breaches is the most used one, followed closely by deposition representation.

The Cost of Professional Liability Coverage is Minimal.

Nurses can purchase liability coverage rather inexpensively. For example, an excellent insurance policy providing coverage for nurses is available through the Nurses Service Organization (NSO) Insurance for less than $100 per year. CPH & Associates Insurance is also inexpensive and competitive.  Professional liability coverage provided by this type of insurance represents a bargain at these rates.

Focusing on Protecting the Nurse’s Individual Interests.

Perhaps most importantly, the nurse should have an attorney focusing only on her interests in defending her against any negligence or licensing complaint. A nurse with her own professional liability insurance coverage will be able to hire a separate, independent attorney, and often, the insurer will allow her to pick her attorney.


Important Considerations When Purchasing Liability Insurance Protection.

First and foremost is to be sure that a claim for defense of your professional license is covered by your insurance even when there is no separate claim or complaint for damages for malpractice or negligence.  Ask your broker or insurer to give you written acknowledgment of this, if your policy is unclear.

A close second is the amount of coverage for license defense that the insurer provides.  $25,000 is the absolute minimum and may not be enough.  Look for $35,000 or $50,000 coverage or buy two different policies from two different companies.

Third is how broad the coverage is and whether it also covers other types of administrative complaints and proceedings that might be brought against you such as discrimination complaints, HIPAA breach of privacy complaints, certification board complaints, and other similar proceedings.

Some professional liability insurers have a “broad form” of coverage which may provide legal defense for the nurse in almost any type of administrative action. This might include, for example, the defense of a discrimination complaint filed against the nurse with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) or the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and for Medicare and Medicaid complaints.

Other companies limit coverage to only actions that may result in disciplinary action against the nurse’s license. The nurse should always attempt to get the broadest coverage available for disciplinary defense and licensure defense coverage.

Additionally, the nurse should inquire whether she will be allowed to select her own attorney. Many insurance companies contract certain law firms to provide legal services on their cases for a reduced fee. The insurance company may require you to use one of its own hired attorneys or even one of its in-house attorneys, which it employs directly.

Given the limited number of attorneys with experience handling nursing law issues and malpractice cases, the nurse should attempt to obtain coverage through a company that allows her to choose her attorney.


In Our Opinion, License Defense Coverage Is the Most Important Reason to Purchase Insurance.

The most important reason to purchase professional liability insurance is the licensure defense coverage. A nurse does not want to risk losing her nursing license because she was unsuccessful at defending an investigation complaint against her license or did not have the resources to do so. Since there are far more complaints filed each year against nurses’ licenses than there are nursing malpractice lawsuits filed, it is far more likely that a working nurse will need legal defense of a licensure complaint investigation.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Representing Nurses.

The Health Law Firm’s attorneys routinely represent nurses and nurse practitioners in Department of Health (DOH) investigations, in appearances before the Board of Nursing (BON) in licensing matters, in formal and informal administrative hearings, and in many other legal matters. We represent nurses across the U.S., and throughout Florida.

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


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 Avenue, Suite 1000 Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620.

Current Open Positions with The Health Law Firm. The Health Law Firm always seeks qualified individuals interested in health law. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. If you are a current member of The Florida Bar or a qualified professional who is interested, please forward a cover letter and resume to: [email protected] or fax them to (407) 331-3030.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2023 George F. Indest III.  All rights reserved.

By |2024-03-14T09:59:21-04:00September 6, 2023|Categories: Nursing Law Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |Comments Off on Nurses: You Must Insure Your Legal Protection

United States Court of Appeals Denies U.S. Nursing Corporations Indemnification Challenge Against Nurse Staffing Agency

Author HeadshotBy George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law, and Hartley Brooks, Law Clerk, The Health Law Firm
On May 18, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a U.S. district court’s decision to deny U.S. Nursing Corporation a new trial. The appellate court stated that the opposing counsel’s closing argument and the erroneous preclusion of evidence had no substantial effect on the trial’s outcome; thus, there was no reversible error.
The First Lawsuit.
The original lawsuit filed in state court concerned a patient suing Appalachian Regional Healthcare, Inc., for exacerbating his spinal injury. He claimed that a nurse transported him from a car into the emergency room without first stabilizing and immobilizing him, which caused further damage. When the incident occurred, the nurses on staff were two employees of Appalachian Regional and one supplied by U.S. Nursing Corporation to the hospital.
 The court granted a motion that dismissed the Appalachian Regional nurses as defendants because no evidence in the record alleged that they moved the patient. As the trial neared, the court granted another motion prohibiting the parties from introducing evidence that the Appalachian Regional nurses moved the patient from the truck into the emergency room.
This earlier state court lawsuit concluded with Appalachian Regional Healthcare paying $2 million in settlement and incurring $823,522.71 in legal fees.
It is important to note that when U.S. Nursing supplied its nurse to Appalachian Regional, they entered into an agreement that stated U.S. Nursing would indemnify and defend Appalachian Regional for the negligence of any of its employees assigned to Appalachian Regional. The settlement was reached, Appalachian Regional Healthcare demanded that U.S. Nursing indemnify it, but the staffing company refused to do so. In response, Appalachian Regional Healthcare, Inc., sued U.S. Nursing for the $2,823,522.71 state court settlement it paid.
The First Appeal.
In its first appeal, U.S. Nursing argued that the opposing counsel made an inappropriate closing statement when they stated no evidence showed the Appalachian Regional Healthcare nurses moving the patient and that U.S. Nursing had not argued that such evidence existed. U.S. Nursing claimed this statement was inappropriate because it was prohibited from admitting evidence that showed Appalachian Regional Healthcare nurses having moved the patient. The appellate court decided that U.S. Nursing did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue, so the appellate court remanded to the district court to determine if the error required a new trial.
The nurse staffing company argued that it was incorrectly prohibited from introducing evidence regarding the other nurses on duty and the possibility that they could have been the ones to move the patient. U.S. Nursing also argued that the opposing counsel exploited the court’s error in their closing statements, though the district court never addressed this claim. However, the appellate court asserted that the evidence excluded would not have caused a different outcome at trial, so no new trial was granted.
The Second Appeal.
In its second appeal, U.S. Nursing argued that the district court abused its discretion when it determined the evidentiary error did not affect the trial. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the excluded evidence did very little to support U.S. Nursing’s argument, and excluding this evidence did not affect U.S. Nursing’s substantial rights. However, the court stated that the opposing counsel misled the jury with their statements. The remarks did not constitute an error significant enough to warrant a new trial since Appalachian Regional Healthcare, Inc., was highly likely to prevail, despite counsel’s comments.
Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Representing Nurses and Other Healthcare Professionals.
The Health Law Firm’s attorneys routinely represent nurses, pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, dentists, dental assistants, physicians, physician assistants, mental health counselors, and other health providers. We also provide legal representation for employers in EEOC complaints, workplace discrimination complaints, and suits involving harassment or discrimination complaints. We also provide legal representation in Department of Health, Board of Medicine, Board of Nursing investigations and complaints, DORA investigations and complaints. We provide litigation services in state and federal courts and state and federal administrative hearings.
To contact The Health Law Firm please call (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free at (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.
Source:
About the Authors: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620; Toll-Free (888) 331-6620
Hartley Brooks is a law clerk at The Health Law Firm. She is preparing to attend law school.
Current Open Positions with The Health Law Firm. The Health Law Firm always seeks qualified individuals interested in health law. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. If you are a current member of The Florida Bar or a qualified professional who is interested, please forward a cover letter and resume to: [email protected] or fax them to (407) 331-3030.
“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2023 George F. Indest III. All rights reserved.
By |2024-03-14T09:59:22-04:00September 1, 2023|Categories: Dental Law Blog, The Health Law Firm Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |Comments Off on United States Court of Appeals Denies U.S. Nursing Corporations Indemnification Challenge Against Nurse Staffing Agency
Go to Top