We Told You So….

Jeff Segal, MD, JD, FACS

We have written recently about social networking group discount programs – like Groupon. We cautioned that such programs might be deemed fee-splitting; a practice prohibited by federal law, state law, and licensing bodies. We now have some additional data points to share.

Not everyone knows what Groupon is. Here’s how it works. A local merchant, like a restaurant or hair salon, offers a discount – often 50% off or more. This gets a lot of attention. But, the discount isn’t activated until a critical mass of Groupon subscribers ‘tip” the deal. Enough people must commit to “paying” for the discount. That’s how Groupon gets paid.

I’ll illustrate a Groupon offered by a restaurant. The deal is 50% off a meal valued at $100. The deal is sent to thousands of people in the restaurant’s draw area. The deal requires 20 takers to “tip the deal.” Once 20 people commit, those patrons are charged $50 on their credit cards. Groupon will then give the patron a $100 “gift certificate.” Groupon then pays the restaurant a sum – which might be $25; maybe more; maybe less.

So, Groupon gets paid a handsome sum. The patron gets a great discount. And the merchant delivers products or services at a discount. The restaurant “pays” twice: a discount to the patron; and a fee, deducted by Groupon, for the marketing. The marketing fee correlates with the volume of business the restaurant receives.

In healthcare, this can be perceived as fee-splitting.

The federal government prohibits fee splitting for specific transactions unless there is a safe harbor. There is no safe harbor for social networking group discount programs.

State governments often have anti-kickback statutes, and to date, we know of no state that has carved out safe harbors for social networking group discount programs.

Finally, licensing boards have long standing policies against fee-splitting. And two such boards have recently spoken.

Read more

Affidavits of Merit, Are They Worthless?

Jeff Segal, MD, JD, FACS

Affidavits of merit, are they worthless?

Probably.

Ohio provides but one example of how well intended legislation can be diluted by judges.

Ohio introduced tort reforms in 2005. Among the reforms, plaintiffs were now required to prove they had done some homework before filing. The plaintiffs had to assert that a qualified expert had reviewed the case and determined the claims had merit. That Rule was known as 10(D)(2). What’s not to like? It’s like Mom and Apple Pie. Hardly controversial.

The steps are basic. The plaintiffs must give the relevant records to one or more qualified physicians to review. The physician must determine negligence may have occurred. Then, that physician must memorialize that conclusion in writing – the Affidavit of Merit. That’s it.

One would think that if nine different specialists were named in a single lawsuit, records would reasonably be reviewed by different specialists – penning multiple Affidavits of Merit. Such a process, if honored, would surely have the effect of deterring frivolous litigation against potential peripheral defendants. It would also neutralize shotgun lawsuits – where anyone whose name is on the chart is sued.

Ohio doctors report that more than one Affidavit of Merit is rarely filed. But lots of different specialists are corralled into single lawsuits.

In a recent Ohio case, a plaintiff sued six defendants; four practiced different specialties. A single affidavit was presented, signed by an out-of-state physician who didn’t practice in even one of relevant specialties. Read that statement again.

The doctors asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that the Affidavit of Merit requirement – the bare minimum needed to initiate a case – was not met.

Here’s what the court replied:

Read more

It Seems Everything is Bigger in Texas

Michael J. Sacopulos, Esq.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of Texas ruled that the medical malpractice statutes of the state cover a patient’s death from a spider bite. Classie Reed was a patient at the Omaha Health Care Center when she was bitten by a brown recluse spider. The spider bite ultimately resulted in Ms. Reed’s death. At issue is whether the claim was one that resided in medical malpractice or in ordinary negligence.

Read more

No Day In Court for a Minnesota Physician Who Was Slammed On Line

Michael J. Sacopulos, Esq.

Westlaw Journal recently reported that a judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a Duluth neurologist who claimed he was defamed by a patient’s son that criticized his bedside manner.

Dr. David McKee alleged in his lawsuit that Dennis Laurion of Duluth made false statements about McKee’s treatment of Laurion’s father to the American Academy of Neurology, St. Luke’s Hospital, colleagues and several internet websites that “solicit physician reviews and ratings.” Laurion alleged McKee failed to treat his father with dignity following a stroke. Further, Laurion posted that McKee treated his father as a “task and charting assignment.”

Read more

Caps on Pain and Suffering: On the Defensive Across the US.

Jeff Segal, MD, JD, FACS

Some phenomena oscillate in cycles – the economy, hem lengths, the political party in office. And attacks on hard-fought tort reforms.

Last year, Georgia and Illinois saw their caps on pain and suffering ruled unconstitutional. Caps help keep professional liability premiums within “more” reasonable ranges. Once premiums start rising, doctors head for the borders.

The field is busy this year with pending attacks on constitutionality (and other legal foundations) in a number of other states. As reported in AmedNews, the lineup is a follows.

Read more

It’s Me, Not You: Further Adventures with Social Media

Michael J. Sacopulos, Esq.

A survey by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers published through Loyola Medical School found that “Facebook holds the distinction of being the unrivaled leader for online divorce evidence with 66% citing it as the primary source.” Also, more than 80 percent of divorce lawyers reported they “have seen an increase in the number of cases using social networking evidence” during the past few years. This is mounting evidence which proves the power social media has on litigation.

Read more

E-Guilt: Social Media and the Murder Trial of Casey Anthony

Michael J. Sacopulos, Esq.

Social media appears to have had an impact on jury selection in the murder trial of Casey Anthony, 25, charged with killing her two-year-old daughter Caylee, in 2008.

According to the Associated Press, as prospective jurors answered questions about their background and qualifications to serve, lawyers instantly checked their responses against postings on online media sites such as Facebook and Twitter.

Read more

Latest Posts from Our Blog