Before we begin – attention medical students (and those who know them): Our colleagues at the Financial Residency podcast have partnered with an anonymous donor to supply ten medical students with $5,000 scholarships this Thanksgiving holiday. For details, visit their application page, linked here. Happy Thanksgiving!
And remember – Medical Justice provides consultations to doctors facing medico-legal obstacles. We have solutions for doctor-patient conflicts, unwarranted demands for refunds, online defamation (patient review mischief), meritless litigation, and a gazillion other issues. We also provide counsel specific to COVID-19. If you are navigating a medico-legal obstacle, visit our booking page to schedule a consultation – or use the tool shared below.
“Can Medical Justice solve my problem?” Click here to review recent consultations…
all. Here’s a sample of typical recent consultation discussions…
- Former employee stole patient list. Now a competitor…
- Patient suing doctor in small claims court…
- Just received board complaint…
- Allegations of sexual harassment by employee…
- Patient filed police complaint doctor inappropriately touched her…
- DEA showed up to my office…
- Patient “extorting” me. “Pay me or I’ll slam you online.”
- My carrier wants me to settle. My case is fully defensible…
- My patient is demanding an unwarranted refund…
- How do I safely terminate doctor-patient relationship?
- How to avoid reporting to Data Bank…
- I want my day in court. But don’t want to risk my nest egg…
- Hospital wants to fire me…
- Sham peer review inappropriately limiting privileges…
- Can I safely use stem cells in my practice?
- Patient’s results are not what was expected…
- Just received request for medical records from an attorney…
- Just received notice of intent to sue…
- Just received summons for meritless case…
- Safely responding to negative online reviews…
We challenge you to supply us with a medico-legal obstacle we haven’t seen before. Know you are in good hands. Schedule your consultation below – or click here to visit our booking page.
Dr. Tom Weiner served as an oncologist in Helena, Montana since 1996. He worked at St. Peter’s Health. St. Peters has three other employed oncologists on staff.
Montana is a big state. If a patient cannot get timely cancer care in Helena, they have to drive. And drive. And drive.
A lawsuit states that Dr. Weiner was escorted from the facility. Shown the door. More on that shortly. St. Peters would neither confirm nor deny that Weiner was terminated or escorted from the building.
St. Peters did release a statement that Dr. Weiner was on leave for private and confidential reasons.
A local organizer hosted a community meeting to discuss questions about the good doctor’s absence and how St. Peters plans to move forward. Hospital administrators were invited to attend. They didn’t show up. They stated, “St. Peters is not legally allowed to provide more information.”
This may have no bearing on the current kerfuffle:
While St. Peter’s has provided no explanation for Weiner’s absence, the Independent Record reported in February 2016 that some nurses and patients feared that administrators were actively seeking to replace him because of his opposition to decisions made by the hospital board. At the time, then-President and CEO Nate Olson vehemently denied any push to remove or replace Weiner and said he and the board were happy with the Cancer Treatment Center.
Not only is St. Peters mute on specifics. So is Dr. Weiner. And apparently, he had not seen patients for several weeks.
“The circumstances that led to Dr. Weiner’s absence are ongoing and remain a confidential matter,” Johnson said in Tuesday’s statement. “However, in the weeks following his departure, information has come to light that requires us to make some difficult decisions in the Cancer Treatment Center. Effective today, Dr. Tom Weiner is no longer employed by St. Peter’s Health and will not care for patients in our Cancer Treatment Center.”
Now for the lawsuit.
John Doubek of Doubek, Pyfer & Storrar in Helena filed a lawsuit against St. Peter’s Health over Weiner’s unexplained absence.
The suit filed in Lewis and Clark County District Court alleges that in late October, Weiner was abruptly terminated/removed from his position as the treating oncologist and escorted from the building. The suit goes on to allege that this has presented undue stress to Weiner’s patients and that the hospital has failed to fulfill its duty to patients.
This lawsuit is a class-action. At least 96 patients have expressed interest in becoming plaintiffs. The suit states that the plaintiffs and class reserve the right to seek punitive damages from a jury.
“Three board-certified oncologists are closely evaluating each patient’s care to ensure they are receiving the most effective treatments,” St. Peter’s wrote in a Nov. 16 statement addressing the matter. “While patients with the most urgent needs are being given priority, all patients will soon receive appointments for these evaluations.”
The hospital appears caught is the middle of a patient safety/abandonment problem and an employment law matter. And Montana is one of the few states in the country where employment is not at-will.
Montana is one of the only states whose law allows for employees to have an extra-layer of protection. In other states employers can fire an un-contracted at-will employee at any time and for any legal reason. In Montana work at-will laws only apply during a probation period that is a standard six months unless otherwise established at the time of employment. Upon conclusion of the probationary period Montana employers must have valid cause in order to terminate one’s employment.
At-will also allows for employers to adjust the terms of employment with employees at any time for any reason without legal consequences. The employer may alter benefits, reduce time-off or change wage arrangements without consent of the employee.
As previously stated, however, Montana is not an at-will state.
The class action suggests that patients with cancer are being left high and dry. Whether that is true will depend upon whether the remaining 3 oncologists are able to fill the gap. The hospital is actively recruiting for another oncologist.
If you are a W2 employee of a hospital, the hospital has primary responsibility for maintaining continuity of care. It cannot abandon the patients. The employee physician may have contractual obligations to the hospital that cannot be shrugged off. But here, the hospital is the primary entity on the hook, as reflected in the evolving litigation.
A hospital has an obligation to keep its patients safe. There may very well be good reasons why Dr. Weiner and St. Peters parted ways. The absence of a good explanation irritated many patients. Once the class action train leaves the station, there is no caboose.
What do you think? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.
Medical Justice provides consultations to doctors facing medico-legal obstacles. We have solutions for doctor-patient conflicts, unwarranted demands for refunds, online defamation (patient review mischief), meritless litigation, and a gazillion other issues. We also provide counsel specific to COVID-19. If you are navigating a medico-legal obstacle, visit our booking page to schedule a consultation – or use the tool shared below.
“Can Medical Justice solve my problem?” Click here to review recent consultations…
all. Here’s a sample of typical recent consultation discussions…
- Former employee stole patient list. Now a competitor…
- Patient suing doctor in small claims court…
- Just received board complaint…
- Allegations of sexual harassment by employee…
- Patient filed police complaint doctor inappropriately touched her…
- DEA showed up to my office…
- Patient “extorting” me. “Pay me or I’ll slam you online.”
- My carrier wants me to settle. My case is fully defensible…
- My patient is demanding an unwarranted refund…
- How do I safely terminate doctor-patient relationship?
- How to avoid reporting to Data Bank…
- I want my day in court. But don’t want to risk my nest egg…
- Hospital wants to fire me…
- Sham peer review inappropriately limiting privileges…
- Can I safely use stem cells in my practice?
- Patient’s results are not what was expected…
- Just received request for medical records from an attorney…
- Just received notice of intent to sue…
- Just received summons for meritless case…
- Safely responding to negative online reviews…
We challenge you to supply us with a medico-legal obstacle we haven’t seen before. Know you are in good hands. Schedule your consultation below – or click here to visit our booking page.
Learn how Medical Justice can protect you from medico-legal mayhem…
Take Advantage of Our Review Monitoring Service
With eMerit, we help you automate review collection and posting to improve your online reputation.
Consult with a Medico-Legal Expert
Medical Justice Founder and CEO, Jeff Segal, MD, JD and our expert team provide consultations to doctors in need of guidance.
Meet the Experts Driving Medical Justice
Our Executive Team walks with our member doctors until their medico-legal obstacles are resolved.
Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD
Chief Executive Officer and Founder
Dr. Jeffrey Segal, Chief Executive Officer and Founder of Medical Justice, is a board-certified neurosurgeon. Dr. Segal is a Fellow of the American College of Surgeons; the American College of Legal Medicine; and the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. He is also a member of the North American Spine Society. In the process of conceiving, funding, developing, and growing Medical Justice, Dr. Segal has established himself as one of the country’s leading authorities on medical malpractice issues, counterclaims, and internet-based assaults on reputation.
Dr. Segal was a practicing neurosurgeon for approximately ten years, during which time he also played an active role as a participant on various state-sanctioned medical review panels designed to decrease the incidence of meritless medical malpractice cases.
Dr. Segal holds a M.D. from Baylor College of Medicine, where he also completed a neurosurgical residency. Dr. Segal served as a Spinal Surgery Fellow at The University of South Florida Medical School. He is a member of Phi Beta Kappa as well as the AOA Medical Honor Society. Dr. Segal received his B.A. from the University of Texas and graduated with a J.D. from Concord Law School with highest honors.
In 2000, he co-founded and served as CEO of DarPharma, Inc, a biotechnology company in Chapel Hill, NC, focused on the discovery and development of first-of-class pharmaceuticals for neuropsychiatric disorders.
Dr. Segal is also a partner at Byrd Adatto, a national business and health care law firm. With decades of combined experience in serving doctors, dentists, and other providers, Byrd Adatto has a national pedigree to address most legal issues that arise in the business and practice of medicine.
This seems to be yet another case of a physician opposing hospital policy out of concerns for patient safety and patient care. The patients that are suing are likely to prevail as their care has been disrupted, whether or not the remaining 3 oncologists pick up the slack, or a new oncologist will be recruited. They are likely to suffer delays in their care regardless.
There are a couple of key points:
1) The legal approach here is novel in this situation, with the institution of a class action law suit. The legal burden of proof is low. Class action law suits usually result in a settlement. That is so because the financial penalties for a loss at trial, are so severe that they would bankrupt any company attempting to do so, including this one.
2) There is an ongoing arrogance of the hospital administrators and hospital boards toward physicians. Even though most physicians are now employees, hospital administrators and their supporting boards are more likely to wish to make physicians subservient to their wishes, in order to assert their authority, political power and control.
To quote a former hospital board member “you physicians are no better than the man that sweeps the floor and you are just as easily replaced”. I may have agreed with the first part but not the second part of that statement.
But this whole attitude is pervasive in the ruling elites of hospitals, and again is about power and control. Patient care, or even hospital finances are secondary. Great patient care usually results in great financial results. So why not follow along with the wishes of physicians if their requests are reasonable and prudent as it pertains to patient care?
The history of medicine over the past 30 years would have been completely different, in many areas of the country if not for the arrogance of these administrators. One administrator, went from hospital to hospital (over many years) with the same attitude of antipathy toward physicians, and was eventually dismissed from each hospital in turn. The physician career wreckage, that was left in the administrator’s wake cannot be estimated. The disruption in patient care, and the disruption to hospitals where the administrator served also cannot be estimated.
Why is this attitude seemingly taught in hospital administrative training programs, and why do hospital board members fall under the sway of such toxic administrators?
Business of medicine is extremely complicated. On one hand the people who own the hospitals want to make as much money as possible, or with extreme greed they don’t set any limits. They are usually run by so called smart business people, who convince the owners that by hook or crook they would make lot of money for hospitals. They tend to think that they are the ones who are running the ship, & everybody else should follow their instructions or else they would be fired. These people usually have no medical background or they have any emotions or sympathy. They think that physicians who work with the hospitals are merely an ordinary employees and they rule over the physicians. But, they are so naive that without physicians there would be no patients & no patient care and hence there would be no business. When a doctor at the hospital treats and takes care of the patients , the hospital should follow their treatment guidelines. The hospital administrators cannot & should not dectate how physicians want to treat their patients. Administrators have no right to interfere in the patient care and physicians orders. Of Corse the same is required of physicians to be ethical & honest & provide the best possible care to their patients using best of their knowledge. At any given time if the case is beyond their expertise, immediately patient should be referred to appropriate specialist & the hospital should co-operate immediately. When a physician takes responsibility of patient care, he/she should take full responsibility of that patient as per their specialty. If the physician leaves the hospital or in this case if hospital lets this physician go, they have a responsibility of informing all of these patients that their physician would be replaced by another physician & it would be a smooth transitio, so their care would not be interrupted. The physician should be allowed to discuss all the current patients to new incoming physician, & he/she should be allowed enough time to do this. This equates to patient abandonment & for which hospital is 100% responsible.
If he was escorted out of the building, then I suspect he was fired. Toxic administrators are ruining healthcare, and I am glad they are getting sued. They just try to run off or fire physicians that stand up to them or call administrators out on their bad decisions.
I think the underlying interesting fact that is unknown is why he was fired. Perhaps he was giving patients water instead of oncologic drugs and pocketing the difference (may be difficult as an employee, but this has happened in Michigan and perhaps he could sell the drugs). Sexual misconduct with patients? Maybe something so egregious happened that it is an embarrassment for either side to speak up. Would be nice to have that piece of the puzzle. Hopefully if that ever comes up we can have a follow-up article. Always find these interesting. I’m just thankful I’m still in private practice. My father was a physician and saw hospitals buying up physician practices and then tossing the physicians. This is not new. This was back in the 70s. He told everyone not to do it, but the money was too good. So I suppose greed is on both sides of the table! Always be careful what you wish for, and be thankful for what you have.