reviews of The Health Law Firm attorneys | The Health Law Firm Blog

Walgreens Accused of Providing Insufficient COBRA Notices, Class Action Lawsuit Says

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

On November 30, 2022, a group of former Walgreens workers filed a proposed class action in Florida federal court that accuses the pharmacy chain of sending confusing, incomplete COBRA notices. The former employees sued, saying the company purposely sent former employees “haphazard and piecemeal” information about their rights to continued insurance coverage under the federal COBRA law to save itself money.

As a result, the lawsuit claims, they lost access to their medical coverage when they were terminated and, therefore, had to pay out-of-pocket to cover medical expenses.

Details of the Class Action.

The plaintiffs filed the class action complaint against Walgreens Co. in the United States District Court Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). This federal law provides details on what employer-sponsored health plans must do.

The plaintiffs claim they were all terminated from Walgreens between 2018 and 2020 for reasons not related to gross misconduct, they said in their complaint. After their termination, they received COBRA notices that are required to be written in a manner that an average plan participant could understand. However, rather than receiving one document clearly outlining that information on their post-employment COBRA benefits, they received multiple separately mailed documents that lacked critical information, according to the complaint.

The lawsuit claims the first notice failed to include an address indicating where COBRA payments should be mailed. “It also fails to explain how to enroll in COBRA, nor does it bother including a physical election form,” the lawsuit alleges.

The lawsuit states that a second notice contained some but not all of the required information.

The insufficient COBRA notices confused and misled the plaintiffs and caused them economic injuries in the form of lost health insurance and informational injuries, they claim.

Similar Suits Against Walgreens.

Because similar lawsuits alleging deficient COBRA notices have been filed against Walgreens before, the pharmacy chain was aware that its notices were inconsistent with the Department of Labor’s model, alleged the workers. Therefore, they claim its choice to use a non-compliant notice was in “deliberate or reckless disregard” of the workers’ rights.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all Walgreens health care plan participants and beneficiaries who were sent similar COBRA notices during the applicable statute of limitations period and did not elect to continue coverage.

The plaintiffs seek reinstatement of their right to coverage, damages, fees, and costs. Click here to read the complaint.

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

At the Health Law Firm, we provide legal services for pharmacists and pharmacies, as well as 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 (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.ThehealthLawFirm.com

Sources:

Edwards, Jesse. “Walgreens class action claims company fails to provide legal COBRA notices.” Top Class Actions. (December 5, 2022). Web.

Freedman, Emily. “Walgreens Provides Deficient COBRA Notices, Suit Says.” Law360. (December 1, 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 the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620.

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.

New Jersey Appeals Court Says Plaintiffs Don’t Need Presuit Affidavits to Sue LPNs in Medical Malpractice Cases

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

In a possibly precedent-setting case, on November 9, 2022, for the first time, an appeals court in New Jersey ruled that plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases do not need an affidavit of merit to file claims against a licensed practical nurse (LPNs). The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, said that an LPN is not included in the “licensed person” definition under the state’s affidavit of merit statute.

Additionally, the court’s ruling stated that an LPN could not use the absence of such an affidavit to avoid a medical malpractice suit. In this case, the malpractice suit was brought by a widower who says his wife died as a result of bad medical advice given by her LPN.

Allegations Made in the Lawsuit.

The plaintiff claimed that the defendant (an LPN) responded to his complaints about his wife being in pain and unable to eat following her colon surgery by blaming the issue on “post-operative gas.” After allegedly ignoring numerous messages he left regarding her condition, the LPN allegedly told the husband to give his wife, Pepto Bismol. The following day, his wife died, according to the lawsuit.

In July 2020, the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice claim on behalf of himself as the administrator of his wife’s estate. The lawsuit originally named the doctor, Virtua Surgical Group, and an unknown nurse. Following discovery, the plaintiff dismissed the claims against the doctor and Virtua Surgical Group, and proceeded against only the LPN. According to the opinion, the plaintiff alleged that the LPN was negligent in providing medical advice and in failing to consult with her doctor.

You can view the court’s opinion in full here on our website.

Is a Licensed Practical Nurse a “Licensed Person” Covered by the AOM Statute?

In New Jersey professional negligence cases, plaintiffs must file an “affidavit of merit,” or AOM, signed by a licensed medical professional, before they are allowed to sue those [professionals for malpractice. This results from a tort reform package passed by the state government in 1995.

Why there hasn’t been a case similar to this one, or lobbying by LPNs to sew up the legal “loophole” before now, is unclear.

Like many similar state statutes passed around the same time, the New Jersey statute was designed to balance between reducing frivolous lawsuits and permitting injured plaintiffs recovery for meritorious claims. According to the court’s decision, a plaintiff claiming “malpractice or negligence by a licensed person” must file an “affidavit of an appropriate licensed person” who can attest that there is a “reasonable probability” that defendant’s conduct “fell outside acceptable professional or occupational standards or treatment practices.”

The defendant in this case argued that since the nursing portion of the statute defines “the practice of nursing” for “a registered professional nurse,” the Legislature intended for licensed practical nurses to be included. However, the New Jersey appeals court held that the tort reform package would not protect the LPN from the lawsuit because she was a different kind of nurse from a registered nurse.

In his written opinion for the court, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Robert J. Gilson considered whether a licensed practical nurse is a “licensed person” covered under the AOM statute. “The AOM statute expressly uses the term ‘a registered professional nurse.’ Yet, nowhere in that definition of a registered professional nurse is there a reference to a licensed practical nurse,” he added.

Gilson stated in the court’s opinion that the Legislature was aware that it had separately defined the two types of nurses. In other words, if it had wanted to protect LPNs at the same time as it was protecting RNs, it could have done so. Therefore, the plaintiff was allowed to pursue claims without an AOM. However, the plaintiff would still be required to prove the defendant’s negligence to succeed.

Click here to view the opinion in full.

Click here to read one of our related blogs about legal issues LPNs often face.

Who Is a “Professional” and What Is “Malpractice”?

“Malpractice” is usually defined as the negligence of or the breach of a professional duty by a professional. In other words, professional negligence.

How do we determine who is a “professional” then? The simple rule of thumb is that anyone who is required to have a license in order to perform his or her occupation is a professional. Thus, under this definition, we have attorneys, dentists, accountants, architects, engineers, funeral directors, teachers, all are required to have licenses, depending upon what state they are in. Thus there can be accounting malpractice, engineering malpractice, architectural malpractice and, yes, even legal malpractice. Under this definition, a licensed practical nurse would be considered a professional who could commit nursing malpractice.

However, if the wording of law limits coverage to only certain listed professions, and other professions are left out, then only the ones specifically listed will be covered by its application.

Is the Decision Limited or Possibly Widespread?

The decision appears to be a correct one based on the wording of the New Jersey statute. If “licensed practical nurses” was not a category of licensed professionals included by the Legislature in the New Jersey statute, then the courts should not “read them into” coverage by the statute. Unfortunately, this was probably merely an oversight on the part of whatever bill drafter and committee proposed the legislation in the first place. Licensed practical nurses and their professional associations should immediately lobby the Legislature of New Jersey to have the “loophole” filled.

Whether similar results are possible in other states will depend on the wording of the similar laws in those states. For example, Florida has a somewhat similar statute, but it does not actually name the specific category of medical provider covered by the act (e.g., “medical doctor,” “chiropractor”). Instead, the Florida Law, Section 766.202, Florida Statutes, refers to those covered by the medical malpractice statute as “any person licensed under part I of chapter 464, Florida Statutes. . . .[etc.]” Registered nurses, licensed practical nurses and advanced nurse practitioners are all licensed under that part and chapter of the Florida law. So a problem similar to the one in New Jersey never arises.

Contact Health Law Attorneys With Experience Representing Nurses and Handling Licensing Issues.

If you are applying for a nursing or healthcare license, have had a license suspended or revoked, or are facing imminent action against your license, you must contact an experienced healthcare attorney to assist you in defending your career. Remember, your license is your livelihood; it is not recommended that you pursue these matters without the assistance of an attorney. The Health Law Firm routinely represents nurses, physicians, dentists, medical groups, clinics, and other healthcare providers in personal and facility licensing issues.

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

Sources:

Karpan, Andrew. “No Affidavit Needed To Sue ‘Practical’ Nurses, NJ Court Says.” Law360. (November 9, 2022). Web.

Murphy, Colleen. “NJ Appeals Court: No Affidavit of Merit Needed for Negligence Claim Against Licensed Practical Nurse.” Law.com. (November 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 the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620.

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.

Male Surgeon Wins $15 Million Verdict in Suit Based on “Reverse Discrimination” and Anti-Male Bias; Hospital Requests New Trial

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

In a massive jury verdict awarding a male attending physician more than he requested, a jury found that a hospital demonstrated reverse discrimination and an anti-mail bias in how it handled a female resident physician’s complaint against him.

On January 8, 2024, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital urged a Pennsylvania Federal court to reverse a $15 million judgment against it over its handling of a sexual assault investigation in a gender bias case. In December 2023, a federal jury in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found that there was proof that the hospital exhibited anti-male bias and violated a male orthopedic surgeon’s civil rights when it investigated allegations that he sexually assaulted a medical resident. Thomas Jefferson University Hospital claimed the court unfairly excluded key evidence that would have countered the surgeon’s claims that the female medical resident was actually the aggressor.

The Initial Incident.

In 2018, Plaintiff John Abraham, a male orthopedic surgeon at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, alleged that a female resident physician attended a pool party at his residence and engaged in sexually aggressive behavior towards him without his consent. According to the law suit, he reported the female resident’s conduct to the hospital.

Dr. Abraham later learned that the female resident had already filed a complaint against him, resulting in an investigation into his behavior. No charges against him aver resulted from the hospital’s investigation or a related criminal investigation.

The Alleged Gender Discrimination.

Dr. Abraham sued Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, accusing it of practicing discrimination against men during its investigation of the sexual assault allegations. According to him, the hospital demonstrated gender bias by disregarding his allegation that he was assaulted by the female and pressuring him to take a leave of absence. This was compounded by its failure to take any action against the alleged female aggressor about whom he complained. The investigation was eventually terminated with no findings after Dr. Abraham relinquished his privileges at the hospital.

In the suit Dr. Abraham sought $5 million in compensatory damages. However, after the four-day civil trial, the federal jury awarded him $11 million in compensatory damages and $4 million in punitive damages.

The Hospital’s Request for a New Trial.

Thomas Jefferson University Hospital requested a new trial after the jury handed down the verdict. The hospital claimed that the court excluded critical evidence that it would have used on cross-examination of Dr. Abraham to help it win its case. The excluded evidence included texts stating Dr. Abraham was not drunk at the party and that he intended to have sex with the female resident even though he knew it was unethical because she was his student.

The hospital also argued that the court gave incorrect jury instructions about the difference between anti-male discrimination and anti-respondent discrimination in a sexual assault investigation. According to the hospital’s motion, taking “risk minimization measures” against someone accused of sexual assault, like placing them on a leave of absence, is not cause for a Title IX gender discrimination lawsuit. Additionally, the hospital claims, not specifying this difference to the jury incorrectly led the jury to believe that anti-respondent bias was, in fact, anti-male bias.

The judge has not yet ruled on the hospital’s request.

To read two recent blogs I wrote about Title IX and its applications to resident physicians and fellows, click here and here.

Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys Representing Health Care Professionals, Medical Students, Residents, and Fellows.

The Health Law Firm routinely represents students, including medical students, dental students, nursing students, pharmacy students, resident physicians, and fellows, who have legal problems with their schools or programs. We also represent students, residents, and fellows in investigations, academic probation and suspensions, disciplinary hearings, clinical competence committee (CCC) hearings, and appeals of adverse actions taken against them. The Health Law Firm’s attorneys include those who are board-certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law as well as licensed health professionals who are also attorneys.

Our firm also specializes in providing legal representation to a wide range of healthcare professionals, including pharmacists, massage therapists, mental health counselors, registered nurses, and more.

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

Sources:

Abraham v. Thomas Jefferson University No. 2:20-cv-02967-MMB (E.D. PA. January 8, 2024)

Abraham v. Thomas Jefferson University No. 2:20-cv-02967-MMB (E.D. PA. June 19, 2020)

D’Annunzio, P.J.. “Info Kept From Jury In $15M Gender Bias Case, Pa. Court Told.” Law360. (9 January 2024) https://www.law360.com/articles/1783770

D’Annunzio, P.J.. “Pennsylvania Jury Awards Surgeon $15M In Sex Bias Suit.” Law360. (11 December 2023) https://www.law360.com/health/articles/1776077?nl_pk=0cbd4c0b-c6c8-416a-9e67-b4affa63b102&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=health&utm_content=1776077&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=0

Rock, Amy. “Thomas Jefferson University to Pay $15 Million to Male Surgeon for Gender-Biased Rape Investigation.” Campus Safety Magazine. (15 December 2023) https://www.campussafetymagazine.com/university/thomas-jefferson-university-to-pay-15-million-to-male-surgeon-for-gender-biased-rape-investigation/

Ruderman, Wendy. “Former Rothman orthopedic surgeon takes on Jefferson in federal court over sexual assault allegations.” The Philadelphia Inquirer. (5 December 2023) https://www.inquirer.com/health/john-abraham-rothman-jefferson-sex-discrimination-case-jury-federal-20231205.html

About the Authors: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice.

Hartley Brooks is a law clerk with The Health Law Firm. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida area.

The Health Law Firm can be visited at: www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620.

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

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

Copyright © 2024 George F. Indest III, The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any way in any medium without the written permission of the copyright owner. The author of this work reserves the right to have his name associated with any use or publication of this work or any part of it.

By The Health Law Firm|2024-03-14T09:59:08-04:00April 16, 2024|Categories: Dental Law Blog, Nursing Law Blog|Tags: attorney for legal dispute with residency graduate medical education program, attorney for residency program physician, clinical privileges defense lawyer, complex healthcare litigation attorney, complex medical litigation lawyer, discrimination defense attorney, education law attorney for health professionals attorney, gender discrimination lawsuit, Graduate medical education (GME) defense lawyer near me, health law attorney near me, legal defense representation attorney for medical resident dispute, legal dispute with university medical school litigation attorney, legal representation against residency program, legal representation for medical resident and fellows discrimination, legal representation for medical residents near me, legal representation for residency program medical resident discrimination, legal representation for Title IX hearing, medical law attorney near me, medical residency program dispute attorney near me, medical resident physician defense attorney, medical staff clinical privileges defense attorney, orthopaedic surgery defense counsel, orthopedic surgeon defense attorney, residency program appeal hearing attorney, residency program appeal hearing legal counsel, residency program disciplinary appeal hearing lawyer, residency program discipline termination defense attorney, residency program grievance lawyer, residency program grievance legal advice, residency program grievance legal counsel, resident physician defense lawyer, reviews of The Health Law Firm attorneys, The Health Law Firm reviews|Comments Off

Florida Telehealth Laws for Mental Health Counselors, Social Workers and Marriage and Family Therapists

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

The Florida Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage & Family Therapy, and Mental Health Counseling has published the following guidance regarding the provision of telehealth services.

As of October 11, 2021, it is still effective and is provided verbatim as follows:
(See more at: https://floridasmentalhealthprofessions.gov/latest-news/telehealth/)

During the 2019 legislative session, Florida passed section 456.47 Florida Statutes, which establishes standards of practice for telehealth services, including patient evaluations, and record-keeping. The law also authorizes out-of-state health care practitioners to perform telehealth services for patients in Florida. Signed by the Governor on June 25, 2019, this law became effective on July 1, 2019.

Out-of-State Health Care Practitioners.

Out-of-state health care practitioners must be registered with the Florida Department of Health to perform telehealth services for patients in Florida. The out-of-state telehealth provider registration is for health care practitioners licensed outside of Florida ONLY. Florida licensees can already provide telehealth services to patients in Florida that they can treat in person.

Pursuant to section 491.014(4)(d), Florida Statutes, you may practice under a limited basis without a license as specified below:

4) No person shall be required to be licensed, provisionally licensed, registered, or certified under this chapter who:

(d) Is not a resident of this state but offers services in this state, provided:

1. Such services are performed for no more than 15 days in any calendar year; and

2. Such nonresident is licensed or certified to practice the services provided by a state or territory of the United States or by a foreign country or province.

The Department has created a website that allows interested parties to review information about Florida telehealth, sign up for updates, and register to become an out-of-state telehealth provider. For more information, please visit www.flhealthsource.gov/telehealth. Information Regarding a Designated Registered Agent can be found here: https://floridasmentalhealthprofessions.gov/help-center/out-of-state-telehealth-provider-registration/.

For questions, contact the Telehealth Office at [email protected].

Florida Practitioners.

If you would like to provide services to a client outside of the state of Florida, you must contact the board in the jurisdiction where the patient is located. Not all states permit telehealth service even under emergency circumstances.

Florida Registered Interns.

Pursuant to Rule 64B4-2.002, Florida Administrative Code, registered interns may provide face-to-face psychotherapy by electronic methods if the registered intern has a written telehealth protocol and safety plan in place with their current qualified supervisor which includes the provision that the qualified supervisor must be readily available during the electronic therapy session. Additionally, the registered intern and their qualified supervisor must have determined, through their professional judgment, that providing face-to-face psychotherapy by electronic methods is not detrimental to the patient, is necessary to protect the health, safety, or welfare of the patient, the registered intern, or both, and does not violate any existing statutes or regulations.

Qualified supervisors may utilize face-to-face electronic methods, including telephone only communication, to conduct all supervisory sessions for internship hours if the qualified supervisor determines, through their professional judgment, that such methods are not detrimental to the registered intern’s patients and are necessary to protect the health, safety, or welfare of the qualified supervisor, the registered intern, or both.

Any clinical hours obtained via face-to-face psychotherapy by electronic means shall be considered clinical hours for the purpose of meeting internship requirements.

For further information regarding the Florida telehealth guidelines, please click here.

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, psychiatrists, social workers, and family therapists in Department of Health (DOH) investigations, Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) investigations, board hearings, FBI investigations, and other types of investigations of health professionals and providers.

We also defend health professionals and health facilities in general litigation matters and business litigation matters.

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.

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

By The Health Law Firm|2024-03-30T20:00:05-04:00April 1, 2024|Categories: Mental Health Law Blog|Tags: doctor attorney, Florida health law attorney, Florida telemedicine defense lawyer, health care compliance defense lawyer, health care defense attorney, health law defense attorney, Marriage & Family Therapy and Mental Health Counseling defense lawyer, Marriage & Family Therapy and Mental Health Counseling investigations, Marriage & Family Therapy and Mental Health Counseling representation, Marriage & Family Therapy and Mental Health Counseling Therapy complaints, medical board attorney, medical license defense counsel, medical licensure attorney, mental health counselor and social worker defense attorney, nurse attorney, professional licensure defense attorney, protecting your professional license, representation for applying for a medical license, representation for Board of Clinical Social Work, representation for telehealth investigations, representation for telemedicine investigations, representation of health care professionals, reviews of The Health Law Firm attorneys, telehealth provider investigation defense lawyer attorney, telemedicine representation, the health law firm, The Health Law Firm reviews|Comments Off

Humana Agrees To Pay $11.2 Million to End Nurses’ Overtime Suit

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

On September 27, 2021, Humana agreed to pay $11.2 million to end claims that the health insurance company denied a group of nurses overtime pay by misclassifying them as exempt employees. A Wisconsin federal judge approved the deal with Humana, and a group of more than 200 nurses reached, securing a $36,000 average payment for each nurse involved in the suit.

A Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

This dispute stems from a class-action lawsuit filed in 2017 alleging that Humana misclassified its clinical nurse advisers as exempt employees and denied them overtime compensation, violating the Fair Labor Standards Act. Many professionals and supervisors or managerial employees are considered to be exempt from overtime laws.

In the suit, the company faced allegations from nurses who claimed they were never paid for overtime even though they were required to work more than 40 hours per week to meet Humana’s production goals and expectations.

The Settlement.

The settlement agreement will allocate almost $3 million to cover attorney fees and costs. Additionally, the 221 nurses that are part of the settling class will get nearly $8 million based on the number of full-time weeks the nurses worked. According to the motion, the average payment per nurse for unpaid overtime and liquidated damages will be over $36,000.

The case is O’Leary v. Humana Insurance Co., et al., case number 17-cv-1774, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Click here to view the court’s brief in full.

To read about another case dealing with alleged pay discrimination in the healthcare field, click here to read one of my prior blogs.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Representing Nurses and Other Healthcare Professionals.

The Health Law Firm’s attorneys routinely provide legal representation to 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. We provide legal representation across the U.S., not just in Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.

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.

Sources:

Spezzemonte, Irene. “Humana To Pay $11.2M To End Nurses’ Misclassification Suit.” Law360. (September 27, 2021). Web.

Webster, Katherine. “Court OKs $11.2M Overtime Settlement Between Humana, Nurses.” Top Class Actions. (September 30, 2021). Web.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in 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.

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

Male Surgeon Wins $15 Million Verdict in Suit Based on “Reverse Discrimination” and Anti-Male Bias; Hospital Requests New Trial

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

In a massive jury verdict awarding a male attending physician more than he requested, a jury found that a hospital demonstrated reverse discrimination and an anti-mail bias in how it handled a female resident physician’s complaint against him.

On January 8, 2024, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital urged a Pennsylvania Federal court to reverse a $15 million judgment against it over its handling of a sexual assault investigation in a gender bias case. In December 2023, a federal jury in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found that there was proof that the hospital exhibited anti-male bias and violated a male orthopedic surgeon’s civil rights when it investigated allegations that he sexually assaulted a medical resident. Thomas Jefferson University Hospital claimed the court unfairly excluded key evidence that would have countered the surgeon’s claims that the female medical resident was actually the aggressor.

The Initial Incident.

In 2018, Plaintiff John Abraham, a male orthopedic surgeon at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, alleged that a female resident physician attended a pool party at his residence and engaged in sexually aggressive behavior towards him without his consent. According to the law suit, he reported the female resident’s conduct to the hospital.

Dr. Abraham later learned that the female resident had already filed a complaint against him, resulting in an investigation into his behavior. No charges against him aver resulted from the hospital’s investigation or a related criminal investigation.

The Alleged Gender Discrimination.

Dr. Abraham sued Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, accusing it of practicing discrimination against men during its investigation of the sexual assault allegations. According to him, the hospital demonstrated gender bias by disregarding his allegation that he was assaulted by the female and pressuring him to take a leave of absence. This was compounded by its failure to take any action against the alleged female aggressor about whom he complained. The investigation was eventually terminated with no findings after Dr. Abraham relinquished his privileges at the hospital.

In the suit Dr. Abraham sought $5 million in compensatory damages. However, after the four-day civil trial, the federal jury awarded him $11 million in compensatory damages and $4 million in punitive damages.

The Hospital’s Request for a New Trial.

Thomas Jefferson University Hospital requested a new trial after the jury handed down the verdict. The hospital claimed that the court excluded critical evidence that it would have used on cross-examination of Dr. Abraham to help it win its case. The excluded evidence included texts stating Dr. Abraham was not drunk at the party and that he intended to have sex with the female resident even though he knew it was unethical because she was his student.

The hospital also argued that the court gave incorrect jury instructions about the difference between anti-male discrimination and anti-respondent discrimination in a sexual assault investigation. According to the hospital’s motion, taking “risk minimization measures” against someone accused of sexual assault, like placing them on a leave of absence, is not cause for a Title IX gender discrimination lawsuit. Additionally, the hospital claims, not specifying this difference to the jury incorrectly led the jury to believe that anti-respondent bias was, in fact, anti-male bias.

The judge has not yet ruled on the hospital’s request.

To read two recent blogs I wrote about Title IX and its applications to resident physicians and fellows, click here and here.

Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys Representing Health Care Professionals, Medical Students, Residents, and Fellows.

The Health Law Firm routinely represents students, including medical students, dental students, nursing students, pharmacy students, resident physicians, and fellows, who have legal problems with their schools or programs. We also represent students, residents, and fellows in investigations, academic probation and suspensions, disciplinary hearings, clinical competence committee (CCC) hearings, and appeals of adverse actions taken against them. The Health Law Firm’s attorneys include those who are board-certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law as well as licensed health professionals who are also attorneys.

Our firm also specializes in providing legal representation to a wide range of healthcare professionals, including pharmacists, massage therapists, mental health counselors, registered nurses, and more.

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

Sources:

Abraham v. Thomas Jefferson University No. 2:20-cv-02967-MMB (E.D. PA. January 8, 2024)

Abraham v. Thomas Jefferson University No. 2:20-cv-02967-MMB (E.D. PA. June 19, 2020)

D’Annunzio, P.J.. “Info Kept From Jury In $15M Gender Bias Case, Pa. Court Told.” Law360. (9 January 2024) https://www.law360.com/articles/1783770

D’Annunzio, P.J.. “Pennsylvania Jury Awards Surgeon $15M In Sex Bias Suit.” Law360. (11 December 2023) https://www.law360.com/health/articles/1776077?nl_pk=0cbd4c0b-c6c8-416a-9e67-b4affa63b102&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=health&utm_content=1776077&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=0

Rock, Amy. “Thomas Jefferson University to Pay $15 Million to Male Surgeon for Gender-Biased Rape Investigation.” Campus Safety Magazine. (15 December 2023) https://www.campussafetymagazine.com/university/thomas-jefferson-university-to-pay-15-million-to-male-surgeon-for-gender-biased-rape-investigation/

Ruderman, Wendy. “Former Rothman orthopedic surgeon takes on Jefferson in federal court over sexual assault allegations.” The Philadelphia Inquirer. (5 December 2023) https://www.inquirer.com/health/john-abraham-rothman-jefferson-sex-discrimination-case-jury-federal-20231205.html

About the Authors: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice.

Hartley Brooks is a law clerk with The Health Law Firm. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida area.

The Health Law Firm can be visited at: www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620.

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

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

Copyright © 2024 George F. Indest III, The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any way in any medium without the written permission of the copyright owner. The author of this work reserves the right to have his name associated with any use or publication of this work or any part of it.

By The Health Law Firm|2024-03-14T09:59:09-04:00March 26, 2024|Categories: Health Facilities Law Blog, Mental Health Law Blog|Tags: attorney for legal dispute with residency graduate medical education program, attorney for residency program physician, clinical privileges defense lawyer, complex healthcare litigation attorney, complex medical litigation lawyer, discrimination defense attorney, education law attorney for health professionals attorney, gender discrimination lawsuit, Graduate medical education (GME) defense lawyer near me, health law attorney near me, legal defense representation attorney for medical resident dispute, legal dispute with university medical school litigation attorney, legal representation against residency program, legal representation for medical resident and fellows discrimination, legal representation for medical residents near me, legal representation for residency program medical resident discrimination, legal representation for Title IX hearing, medical law attorney near me, medical residency program dispute attorney near me, medical resident physician defense attorney, medical staff clinical privileges defense attorney, orthopaedic surgery defense counsel, orthopedic surgeon defense attorney, residency program appeal hearing attorney, residency program appeal hearing legal counsel, residency program disciplinary appeal hearing lawyer, residency program discipline termination defense attorney, residency program grievance lawyer, residency program grievance legal advice, residency program grievance legal counsel, resident physician defense lawyer, reviews of The Health Law Firm attorneys, The Health Law Firm reviews|Comments Off

NAPB Sends False Examination Results to Hundreds of Pharmacy Graduates. Again.

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

On November 19, 2022, the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) was hit with a proposed class action lawsuit after falsely reporting that individuals had failed the North American Pharmacist Licensure Examination (NAPLEX). This is reportedly the second year in a row the NABP had mistakenly informed hundreds of pharmacy graduates that they failed their pharmacy board examination when, in fact, they passed.

The Importance of the NAPLEX.

For many pharmacists, a passing score on the NAPLEX examination is critical to their license to practice. NABP’s website states, “The NAPLEX is an important part of the licensure process.” Failure to pass the examination may damage a reputation and cause loss of residency and employment opportunities. This case stresses that NAPLEX is the culmination of the academic careers of those who have received a doctor of pharmacy degree and are about to advance into their professional lives.

“A passing score often confirms a job contract, residency, or other opportunities,” the complaint reads. “A failing score, however, leads not only to trauma and distress but also to demotions or even a rescinded job offers [sic] or residencies. The trauma and distress that came with [candidates] being told they had failed cannot be understated.”

The Significance of This Case.

The scoring error impacted the test results of over 200 people who took the NAPLEX between July 30, 2022, through October 26, 2022. NABP initially informed these people that they had failed the examination. However, the filing said it took the NABP roughly two months to inform test takers of the test-scoring mistakes. The NABP issued a statement on their website; read it here.

The Second Year Running.

This is not the NABP’s first failure to properly score the NAPLEX. In 2021, after implementing its new pass-fail scoring method, it reportedly published incorrect test results for more than 400 students. As a result, some were told they failed when they passed, while others who failed were wrongly told that they passed. Therefore, the NABP knew about the problems with the NAPLEX scoring system since the same thing happened to more than 400 students last year, the lawsuit relays.

Click here to view the complaint in full.

Contact Us for an Initial Consultation on an Irregular Behavior Case or Any Other Misconduct Associated with Health Professional Examinations.

Contact our firm, and we will be happy to discuss your irregular behavior case before you decide on hiring an attorney. Contact us if you are accused of improper conduct, cheating, improperly sharing examination content or any other type of misconduct associated with medical examinations. For additional information, click here to read our E-book on “Tips for Answering Allegations of Irregular Behavior For USMLE Step Exams.”

Contact a Health Care Attorney Experienced in the Representation of Medical Students, Interns, Residents and Applicants, Fellows and Those Involved in Graduate Medical Education, and those being challenged by the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME), the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Secretariat, and the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG)

The Health Law Firm and its attorneys represent interns, residents, fellows, and medical school students in disputes with their medical schools, supervisors, residency programs, and dismissal hearings. We have experience representing such individuals and those in graduate medical education programs in various disputes regarding their academic and clinical performance, allegations of substance abuse, failure to complete necessary parts training, alleged false or incomplete statements on applications, allegations of impairment (because of abuse or addiction to drugs or alcohol or because of mental or physical issues), and many other matters. In addition, we routinely help those who have disputes with the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME), the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Secretariat, the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG), and many other medical, nursing, pharmacy, dental examinations, and certification processes, including on hearings and appeals concerning “Irregular Behavior,” “unprofessionalism,” and “Irregular Conduct.” We also represent physicians with legal problems with the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) or other certification organizations.

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

Sources:

Rizzi, Corrado. “‘Pharmageddon’: National Association of Boards of Pharmacy Sued Over Second Time Issuing False Failing NAPLEX Scores.” ClassAction.org. (November 19, 2022). Web.

Stokes, Patrick. “Hundreds Who Failed Pharmacy Boards Actually Passed.” (November 19, 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 the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave. Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620.

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 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 The Health Law Firm|2024-03-21T20:00:52-04:00March 23, 2024|Categories: Medical Education Law Blog|Tags: Board of Pharmacy representation, Chicago National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) legal counsel, disruptive physician attorney, Educational, Graduate medical education (GME) defense attorney, graduate medical education defense lawyer, health law attorney, impaired medical or pharmacy student legal counsel, impaired resident legal defense attorney, international medical graduate attorney, irregular behavior defense attorney, irregular behavior defense counsel, Irregular behavior defense lawyer, irregular conduct legal representation, lawyer for medical students, legal dispute with pharmacy or medical school, legal representation for irregular behavior, legal representation for medical or pharmacy residents, legal representation for NBME investigations, Legal representation of pharmacists and pharmacies, medical or pharmacy school litigation, medical or pharmacy student legal counsel, medical resident physician attorney, National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) legal representation, National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) defense counsel, North American Pharmacist Licensure Examination (NAPLEX) legal representation, pharmacist defense attorney, Philadelphia attorney for ECFMG hearing, Philadelphia lawyer for NBME hearing, Philadelphia legal counsel for USMLE hearing, representation fo Board of Pharmacy matters, residency program legal dispute, residency program litigation, reviews of The Health Law Firm attorneys, The Health Law Firm reviews, United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) defense lawyer, USMLE defense attorney|Comments Off

Walgreens Accused of Providing Insufficient COBRA Notices, Class Action Says

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

On November 30, 2022, a group of former Walgreens workers filed a proposed class action in Florida federal court that accuses the pharmacy chain of sending confusing, incomplete COBRA notices. The former employees sued, saying the company purposely sent former employees “haphazard and piece-meal” information about their rights to continued insurance coverage under the federal COBRA law to save itself money.

As a result, they lost access to their medical coverage when terminated and therefore had to pay out of pocket to cover medical expenses.

Details of the Class Action.

The plaintiffs filed the class action complaint against Walgreen Co. in the United States District Court Middle District of Florida Tampa Division, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA).

They were all terminated from Walgreens between 2018 and 2020 for reasons not related to gross misconduct, they said in their complaint. After their termination, they received COBRA notices that needed to be written in a manner that an average plan participant could understand. However, rather than receiving one document outlining that information on COBRA, they received multiple separately mailed documents that lacked critical information, according to the complaint.

The first notice fails to include an address indicating where COBRA payments should be mailed. “It also fails to explain how to actually enroll in COBRA, nor does it bother including a physical election form,” the lawsuit alleges.

A second notice sent contains some but not all of the required information, the lawsuit states.

The insufficient COBRA notices confused and misled the plaintiffs and caused them economic injuries in the form of lost health insurance and informational injuries, they claim.

Similar Suits Against Walgreens.

Because similar lawsuits alleging deficient COBRA notices have been filed against Walgreens before, the pharmacy chain was aware that its notices were inconsistent with the Department of Labor’s model, alleged the workers. Therefore, they claim that its choice to use a non-compliant notice was in “deliberate or reckless disregard” to the workers’ rights.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all Walgreens health care plan participants and beneficiaries who were sent similar COBRA notices during the applicable statute of limitations period and did not elect to continue coverage.

The plaintiffs seek reinstatement of their right to coverage, damages, fees, and costs. Click here to read the complaint.

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 pharmacists, pharmacies, physicians, nurses, dentists, psychologists and any other healthcare provider. We represent health facilities, individuals, groups, and institutions in contracts, sales, mergers and acquisitions, and in complex litigation. The lawyers of The Health Law Firm are experienced in complex litigation and both formal and informal administrative hearings. We also represent pharmacists accused of wrongdoing, patient complaints, and in Department of Health investigations.

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

Sources:

Edwards, Jesse. “Walgreens class action claims company fails to provide legal COBRA notices.” Top Class Actions. (December 5, 2022). Web.

Freedman, Emily. “Walgreens Provides Deficient COBRA Notices, Suit Says.” Law360. (December 1, 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 the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave. Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620.

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 © 2022 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

By The Health Law Firm|2024-03-20T20:01:55-04:00March 22, 2024|Categories: Pharmacy Law Blog|Tags: complex health transaction lawyer, complex healthcare transaction business attorney, complex medical business transaction attorney, complex medical litigation legal representation, DEA defense lawyer, DEA OTSC defense lawyer, DEA subpoena lawyer, Department of Health complaint investigation attorney, health care corporate attorney, legal defense in Medicare Medicaid Tricare Health Insurance audit, legal defense of complex health litigation, Legal representation for pharmacists and pharmacies, legal representation in buying and selling pharmacies, legal representation in complex medical contracts, legal representation in complex pharmacy litigation, Medicare Medicaid Tricare Health Insurance audit defense lawyer, pharmacists defense representation, pharmacy law defense lawyer, reviews of The Health Law Firm attorneys, the health law firm, The Health Law Firm attorney reviews|Comments Off

Male Surgeon Wins $15 Million Verdict in Suit Based on “Reverse Discrimination” and Anti-Male Bias; Hospital Requests New Trial

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

In a massive jury verdict awarding a male attending physician more than he requested, a jury found that a hospital demonstrated reverse discrimination and an anti-mail bias in how it handled a female resident physician’s complaint against him.

On January 8, 2024, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital urged a Pennsylvania Federal court to reverse a $15 million judgment against it over its handling of a sexual assault investigation in a gender bias case. In December 2023, a federal jury in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found that there was proof that the hospital exhibited anti-male bias and violated a male orthopedic surgeon’s civil rights when it investigated allegations that he sexually assaulted a medical resident. Thomas Jefferson University Hospital claimed the court unfairly excluded key evidence that would have countered the surgeon’s claims that the female medical resident was actually the aggressor.

The Initial Incident.

In 2018, Plaintiff John Abraham, a male orthopedic surgeon at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, alleged that a female resident physician attended a pool party at his residence and engaged in sexually aggressive behavior towards him without his consent. According to the law suit, he reported the female resident’s conduct to the hospital.

Dr. Abraham later learned that the female resident had already filed a complaint against him, resulting in an investigation into his behavior. No charges against him aver resulted from the hospital’s investigation or a related criminal investigation.

The Alleged Gender Discrimination.

Dr. Abraham sued Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, accusing it of practicing discrimination against men during its investigation of the sexual assault allegations. According to him, the hospital demonstrated gender bias by disregarding his allegation that he was assaulted by the female and pressuring him to take a leave of absence. This was compounded by its failure to take any action against the alleged female aggressor about whom he complained. The investigation was eventually terminated with no findings after Dr. Abraham relinquished his privileges at the hospital.

In the suit Dr. Abraham sought $5 million in compensatory damages. However, after the four-day civil trial, the federal jury awarded him $11 million in compensatory damages and $4 million in punitive damages.

The Hospital’s Request for a New Trial.

Thomas Jefferson University Hospital requested a new trial after the jury handed down the verdict. The hospital claimed that the court excluded critical evidence that it would have used on cross-examination of Dr. Abraham to help it win its case. The excluded evidence included texts stating Dr. Abraham was not drunk at the party and that he intended to have sex with the female resident even though he knew it was unethical because she was his student.

The hospital also argued that the court gave incorrect jury instructions about the difference between anti-male discrimination and anti-respondent discrimination in a sexual assault investigation. According to the hospital’s motion, taking “risk minimization measures” against someone accused of sexual assault, like placing them on a leave of absence, is not cause for a Title IX gender discrimination lawsuit. Additionally, the hospital claims, not specifying this difference to the jury incorrectly led the jury to believe that anti-respondent bias was, in fact, anti-male bias.

The judge has not yet ruled on the hospital’s request.

To read two recent blogs I wrote about Title IX and its applications to resident physicians and fellows, click here and here

Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys Representing Health Care Professionals, Medical Students, Residents, and Fellows.

The Health Law Firm routinely represents students, including medical students, dental students, nursing students, pharmacy students, resident physicians, and fellows, who have legal problems with their schools or programs. We also represent students, residents, and fellows in investigations, academic probation and suspensions, disciplinary hearings, clinical competence committee (CCC) hearings, and appeals of adverse actions taken against them. The Health Law Firm’s attorneys include those who are board-certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law as well as licensed health professionals who are also attorneys.

Our firm also specializes in providing legal representation to a wide range of healthcare professionals, including pharmacists, massage therapists, mental health counselors, registered nurses, and more.

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

Sources:

Abraham v. Thomas Jefferson University No. 2:20-cv-02967-MMB (E.D. PA. January 8, 2024)

Abraham v. Thomas Jefferson University No. 2:20-cv-02967-MMB (E.D. PA. June 19, 2020)

D’Annunzio, P.J.. “Info Kept From Jury In $15M Gender Bias Case, Pa. Court Told.” Law360. (9 January 2024) https://www.law360.com/articles/1783770

D’Annunzio, P.J.. “Pennsylvania Jury Awards Surgeon $15M In Sex Bias Suit.” Law360. (11 December 2023) https://www.law360.com/health/articles/1776077?nl_pk=0cbd4c0b-c6c8-416a-9e67-b4affa63b102&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=health&utm_content=1776077&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=0

Rock, Amy. “Thomas Jefferson University to Pay $15 Million to Male Surgeon for Gender-Biased Rape Investigation.” Campus Safety Magazine. (15 December 2023) https://www.campussafetymagazine.com/university/thomas-jefferson-university-to-pay-15-million-to-male-surgeon-for-gender-biased-rape-investigation/

Ruderman, Wendy. “Former Rothman orthopedic surgeon takes on Jefferson in federal court over sexual assault allegations.” The Philadelphia Inquirer. (5 December 2023) https://www.inquirer.com/health/john-abraham-rothman-jefferson-sex-discrimination-case-jury-federal-20231205.html

About the Authors: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice.

Hartley Brooks is a law clerk with The Health Law Firm. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida area.

The Health Law Firm can be visited at: www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620.

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

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

Copyright © 2024 George F. Indest III, The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any way in any medium without the written permission of the copyright owner. The author of this work reserves the right to have his name associated with any use or publication of this work or any part of it.

By The Health Law Firm|2024-03-14T09:59:10-04:00March 6, 2024|Categories: Medical Education Law Blog, The Health Law Firm Blog|Tags: attorney for legal dispute with residency graduate medical education program, attorney for residency program physician, clinical privileges defense lawyer, complex healthcare litigation attorney, complex medical litigation lawyer, discrimination defense attorney, education law attorney for health professionals attorney, gender discrimination lawsuit, Graduate medical education (GME) defense lawyer near me, health law attorney near me, legal defense representation attorney for medical resident dispute, legal dispute with university medical school litigation attorney, legal representation against residency program, legal representation for medical resident and fellows discrimination, legal representation for medical residents near me, legal representation for residency program medical resident discrimination, legal representation for Title IX hearing, medical law attorney near me, medical residency program dispute attorney near me, medical resident physician defense attorney, medical staff clinical privileges defense attorney, orthopaedic surgery defense counsel, orthopedic surgeon defense attorney, residency program appeal hearing attorney, residency program appeal hearing legal counsel, residency program disciplinary appeal hearing lawyer, residency program discipline termination defense attorney, residency program grievance lawyer, residency program grievance legal advice, residency program grievance legal counsel, resident physician defense lawyer, reviews of The Health Law Firm attorneys, The Health Law Firm reviews|Comments Off

Ex-Surgery Technician Slaps Georgia Urology Practice With Federal Discrimination Lawsuit

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

On November 7, 2022, a former surgical technician hit a Georgia urology practice with a federal discrimination lawsuit, claiming it denied him a raise after complaining that a co-worker threatened him because of his sexuality. The plaintiff sued Georgia Urology, P.A., alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and various state laws. He said that in addition to harassment from co-workers, management denied him a predetermined raise after he complained about an unnecessary, unlawful disclosure of his medical history and denied him overtime pay. He is seeking back pay and future pay (front pay), lost benefits, and other damages.

Alleged Ongoing Harassment.

Georgia Urology hired the former surgical tech in July 2020, and shortly after this, he alleges that his co-workers started referring to him using slurs concerning his sexual orientation. After he reported the statements to the operations director, the interim director of the practice, and the CEO, they told him if he was that unhappy at work, he should find a new job, according to the complaint.

Additionally, as part of his onboarding procedure with the medical practice, the plaintiff was required to take a blood test. According to the complaint, the director of ambulatory surgery centers asked a nurse manager to administer the test and send the results to a lab. In early November 2020, the nurse manager contacted the lab using her company credentials and asked for the plaintiffs’ lab information. But she said she was calling concerning a patient, rather than an employee, of Georgia Urology, he alleged. As a result, the lab disclosed his diagnosis to her, which he said was not a necessary term of employment. The complaint did not indicate any diagnosis.

He reported the breach of privacy to the urology practice’s director of people operations, but she was never disciplined for her actions. Instead, according to the complaint, the nurse manager denied his automatic pay raise several days after, even though he had completed the 90-day probationary period. Furthermore, she later asked him how he was even hired given his diagnosis, he claims later in his complaint.

Alleged Retaliatory Behavior From Co-Workers.

Later in November 2020, he said the nurse manager issued a write-up for an alleged incident that had occurred several weeks before his reporting her for obtaining his medical files. The former surgical tech said the retaliatory write-up was removed from his file, but the defendant never disciplined her for issuing the write-up.

In early December 2020, he again complained to management about the ongoing harassment. In response, the practice agreed to give him his raise on the condition that he “stop whining so much,” but he claims he never received the raise, according to the complaint.

The defendant eventually fired the plaintiff on December 17, 2020, for allegedly creating a staff shortage when he was out sick, even though the practice was not short-staffed. You can read the complaint in this case in full here.

To read about a similar case involving a pharmacist, click here to read one of our prior blogs.

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,
Durable Medical Equipment suppliers, medical students and interns, hospitals, ambulatory surgical
centers, pain management clinics, nursing homes, and any other healthcare provider. We represent
facilities, individuals, groups and institutions in contracts, sales, mergers and acquisitions.

The lawyers of The Health Law Firm are experienced in both formal and informal administrative
hearings and in representing physicians in investigations and at Board of Medicine and Board of
Osteopathic Medicine hearings. We represent physicians accused of wrongdoing, in patient complaints and in Department of Health investigations. Several of our attorneys act as expert witnesses in attorney’s fee litigation and in health law litigation.

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

Sources:

Wargo, Abbey. “Ex-Surgery Tech Accuses Urology Practice Of Anti-Gay Bias.” Law360. (November 7, 2020). Web.

Ferrier, Valerie. “Bias Ruling Spotlights Confusion Over Protected Categories.” Law360. (August 25, 2020). Web.

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

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 © 2022 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

By The Health Law Firm|2024-03-14T09:59:10-04:00March 2, 2024|Categories: Medical Education Law Blog|Tags: administrative complaint defense attorney, administrative hearing defense lawyer, attorney for resident physicians, attorney's fee expert witness, complex civil litigation attorney, complex health care litigation attorney, complex healthcare litigation lawyer, complex litigation representation, complex medical litigation lawyer, discrimination attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) investigation defense, graduate medical education hearing lawyer, health law expert witness, hospital medical staff peer review defense legal counsel, legal fees expert witness, legal representation for investigations against health care professionals, legal representation for physicians, medical staff clinical privileges defense attorney lawyer, medical staff clinical privileges defense legal representation, medical staff peer review defense attorney lawyer, nurse legal representation, residency program dispute legal representation, resident physician defense legal representation, reviews of The Health Law Firm attorneys, the health law firm, The Health Law Firm attorney|Comments Off