View Recent Blog Posts in this Area of Practice
- U.S. House of Representatives Approves Two Healthcare Reform Bills By Clay J. Countryman On March 21, 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives on almost a straight party-line vote passed two final healthcare reform bills late Sunday night. Initially, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3950, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, by a vote of 219 to 212. Following the passage of H.R. 3950, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 4872, the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010, by a vote of 220 to 211. This second bill by the House modifies the Senate bill (H.R. 3590), and H.R. 4872 will serve as the foundation for any changes made by Congress to the current healthcare delivery, payment and insurance system. Some of the insurance-related changes that may have immediate impact include: lifetime caps on coverage end; children can stay on parents’ policies until age 26, and insurance companies can’t cancel coverage except in the case of fraud. A significant issue of addressing the Medicare physician ....
- Federal Court of Appeals Holds That Someone Other Than the Patient May Sue Under EMTALA By Linda G. Rodrigue In April, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decided in reviewing a Michigan case that the representative of a deceased woman could sue a hospital under EMTALA for allegedly releasing her husband after admission to the hospital, when he was then hallucinating, disoriented, and behaving in a threatening manner toward her when he was brought to the emergency department. Five days after admission, it was decided that the husband should be transferred to a facility for the acutely mentally ill. However, the transfer did not occur and he was, instead, released seven days after admission. Ten days later, he murdered his wife.In the trial court, the hospital filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that only the individual patient seeking treatment may sue under EMTALA and that the hospital has no further EMTALA obligation once it admits the patient as an inpatient. This second reason is presently the subject of ....
- Louisiana Supreme Court Upholds Special Prescriptive Periods for Medical Malpractice Cases By Jennifer J. Thomas The Louisiana Supreme Court has issued two decisions in the past year, Borel v. Young and Warren v. LAMMICO, which are favorable to Louisiana health care providers. In the Warren case, a potential plaintiff waited almost four years from the date of her father’s death to file a wrongful death and survival claim against the health care providers. The plaintiff had not participated in the Medical Review Panel or filed a lawsuit within either the one and three year prescriptive periods (a.k.a. statute of limitations) required by La. R.S. 9:5628. The plaintiff’s mother and sister had already filed a timely complaint with the Louisiana Patients’ Compensation Fund, proceeded with a Medical Review Panel, and subsequently filed a lawsuit. The issue before the Court was whether the new plaintiff could file her own wrongful death and survival claim that would “relate back” to the original, timely claims of her mother and ....
- Patients and Electronic Communication: Permissible? Acceptable? Recommended? By Vance A. Gibbs In this day and age, everyone communicates by e-mail, on a laptop, desktop, Blackberry or other electronic device. But what about communication between a physician and a patient? Is this permissible? Acceptable under existing law and practice? Recommended?Permissible? Obviously, any form of communication between a physician and a patient is allowed. So, if you wish to discuss with a patient their history, your impressions, diagnosis, prognosis or other issues relating to evaluation and treatment, you may. However, this form of communication carries with it certain special rules and requirements. Which leads us to our second question. Acceptable? Any communication by a physician with a patient should be documented. In the olden days, this may have involved a small spiral notebook with entries made from phone calls received at home and later placed in the patient’s office chart. Now, in the era of electronic communication, the initial consideration is ....
- Louisiana Supreme Court's Rehearing of Borel v. Young By Deborah Juneau The Louisiana Supreme Court issued its new opinion after a rehearing in Borel v. Young, again affirming the Third Circuit’s ruling and dismissing the lawsuit against late-added physician defendants, but on different grounds. The supreme court’s decision on rehearing solved an apparent dilemma for the plaintiffs created by the original opinion: the plaintiffs were precluded from filing suit until after the medical review panel had rendered an opinion but, in any case, were required to file suit within three years of the alleged medical malpractice. Since the three year period could not be suspended during the pendency of the medical review panel, the plaintiffs faced the possibility that their claims would be barred by the three-year peremptive period before the panel convened to consider their claims. In Borel, the plaintiffs timely filed a request for a medical review panel. The panel rendered an expert opinion in favor of the health ....
- Louisiana Supreme Court Rehears Borel v. Young By Deborah Juneau The Louisiana Supreme Court recently held in Borel v. Young that La. R. S. 9:5826(A) provided for both a one year prescriptive period and a three year peremptive period to file a claim for medical malpractice. The decision in Borel made it clear that a plaintiff had to file suit against a health care provider no later than three years from the date of the alleged act, omission, or negligence giving rise to the claim. Otherwise, the plaintiff’s action would be extinguished, and all rights to pursue the action would be lost. This ruling was favorable to health care providers, as it protected them from stale claims being brought years after the date of the alleged malpractice. However, the Louisiana Supreme Court granted a rehearing of the Borel v. Young case on May 21, and it remains to be seen whether the current ruling will stand or whether it will be modified or vacated. La. R. S. 9:5826(A) governs the time limitations in which a party may bring a medical ....
- Louisiana Supreme Court Vacates Third Circuit Decision Declaring Medical Malpractice Cap Unconstitutional by Randy R. Cangelosi On February 2, 2007, the Louisiana Supreme Court vacated [Footnote] two decisions out of the Louisiana Third Circuit (Lake Charles), Taylor v. Clement and Arrington v. Galen-Med., Inc. et al. Taylor/Arrington garnered much attention in September 2006 when the Third Circuit declared Louisiana's medical malpractice cap, La. R.S. 40:1299.42(B) (a statute that has survived countless constitutional challenges since its enactment in the mid-1970s), unconstitutional. The Third Circuit reasoned that the $500,000 cap on damages did not provide the plaintiffs with "an adequate remedy" when considering the purported diminution of the cap over time due to inflation. The adequate remedy challenge to the constitutionality of a statute is derived from Article I, Section 22 of the Louisiana Constitution. Under current law, the $500,000 cap does not include future medical care costs and related expenses; it does, however, include pain and suffering, ....
- Medical Malpractice Caps of Other States by Jason R. Cashio As most are aware, the Third Circuit Court of Appeal in Lake Charles recently ruled the medical malpractice cap unconstitutional. The decision will be reviewed by the Louisiana Supreme Court, a process that could take anywhere from three to twelve months. In the meantime, the cap is still applicable. By comparison, the majority of states have some form of cap on noneconomic damages according to the National Conference of State Legislatures as of 2005. Louisiana is one of those states. Ten states cap nonecomomic damages for medical malpractice claims with caps ranging from $150,000 to $1 million. Twenty-two states have some form of cap on noneconomic damages, although not specifically limited to medical malpractice claims. Out of these 32 states, 11 also have a form of cap on punitive damages. A minority of states either constitutionally prohibit limits on damage ....
- CMS Issues Advisory Opinion Regarding the Physician Recruitment Exception to the Stark Law By: Clay J. Countryman The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) recently issued an advisory opinion on November 6, 2006 regarding the physician recruitment exception in the federal physician self-referral law, commonly know as the Stark Law. CMS specifically addressed whether a physician who would spend up to 20% of their time practicing outside of the recruiting hospital’s geographic service area would meet the relocation requirement of the physician recruitment exception to the Stark Law. Under the proposed recruitment arrangement, the recruiting hospital would provide the following loans to the physician directly: (1) A loan for the payment of the physicians moving and relocation ....
