“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…
“She agreed that she could be “contact[ed]” about “health-related … services that may be of interest to [her],” and authorized Dr. Patrowicz to “use and disclose” her contact information “in order to perform the necessary administrative … and business functions of [his] practice.”
The patient complained that the doctor’s message qualified as telemarketing and was unlawful. So, how did this play out? In the end, the doctor wasn’t annihilated. Why? The TCPA contains an exception that can be applied to healthcare messaging. The doctor’s legal counsel trusted this exception would protect him from the worst, and in this case, U.S. District Court Judge Deborah K. Chasanow agreed. What is this “exception” and why should doctors care? Our source material elaborates below…“Under the health care message exception found at § 64.1200(a)(2), a covered entity or its business associate may lawfully place a telemarketing call that delivers a message about health care, as long as the called party provides prior express consent.
The exception applies here because the calls delivered a ‘health care message,’” the court said. “[A] ‘health care message’ is exactly what it sounds like: A message related to an individual’s care or services. … The calls here delivered ‘health care messages’ because they relate to patients’ care and services – indeed, each call discussed impending changes to patients’ primary care.”
While it is reasonable to conclude the doctor’s messages incorporated a marketing angle, the Court Judge determined the exception still applied. The message warned patients they would lose their doctor if they did not sign up for his new practice. The Court Judge stated it “is hard to imagine a message more related to ‘health care’ than one that notifies a patient that she may soon lose her doctor.” “In sending the prerecorded calls, [Dr. Patrowicz] no doubt also sought to make sales; [he] wanted patients to buy memberships for his new practice,” the court wrote. “But nothing in the TCPA suggests that a health care message cannot also encourage sales. … Thus, when a call ‘delivers a health care message[,]’ it is ‘immaterial’ whether it was ‘sent for a marketing purpose’ – either way, it requires mere prior express consent.” Let’s pause to broaden our horizons. How have other courts applied this exception? One applied the exception to a hospital that texted patients advertisements specific to flu shot services. Does that mean doctors and hospitals can count on a free pass? Absolutely not. As it turns out, the patient’s case was built on a falsehood. The judge found that despite the patient’s claims otherwise, the patient did in fact provide prior express written consent for the calls she received. When the patient shared her phone number with the practice, she signed several forms, including a privacy form granting the practice permission to “use and disclose” her contact information for numerous reasons. The court determined that the calls and texts the patient received fell under that umbrella. The sandbar upon which she planted her case collapsed. Dr. Patrowicz motioned for summary judgment, which the court granted. The court’s opinion on the case can be read here. While the doctor lived to practice another day, the case should serve as an important reminder and a stern warning to doctors everywhere. The fact this was litigated at all is a bad outcome. Savvy plaintiffs will attempt to capitalize on these laws if given a chance. You must consider the content and purpose of your messages before scheduling a blast. Obtain written authorization from your patients before sending such materials – no matter what. Doctors shouldn’t interpret the outcomes of this case as an invitation to act brazenly – the exception won’t always bail you out. If you don’t take these rules into consideration, it is only a matter of time before you’re bitten. In this case, the doctor dodged a bullet. That’s good. We argue it is better never to be targeted in the first place. What do you think? Let us know your thoughts 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…
This telephone consumer protection act has been on the books for 20 years. We are most familiar with it because we are supposed to be able to be put on a do not call list for telemarketing. Does that telemarketing do not call list work? Not at all. We have been on that list for about a decade and we still get telemarketing calls all the time. Why? Because the law is not enforced. Many of the telemarketing calls are made from overseas where US law has no jurisdiction. The part that is frightening is that “it’s the second most frequent federal lawsuit after employment law claims”. As I understand the law, a patient or client must given consent, written or verbal to receive “marketing materials”. Does that work? Of course not. Because the number of marketing emails explodes, and we the people don’t have the time or money to sue each and every entity. What is the payout for such lawsuits? I’d be curious to know. Unless it is a huge company onshore the likelihood of a payout is small.
The fact that in a case such as this where a patient of the doctor sued, when he was trying to inform his patients that he was changing his practice, is unconscionable. Had he not contacted his patients, would they have sued him for patient abandonment?
Do such laws make us safer? No, they do not. Compliance with the law by getting written or verbal consent is difficult, unless one is granting this by accepting terms and conditions that are 11 pages long in 6 point type. Then one can simply opt out. Therefore the need for the law is unnecessary. If one doesn’t want a robo call, one can just hang up. If one doesn’t want a text message, one can simply block it. If one doesn’t want an email from a sender, one just needs to block the sender and mark the email as spam.
This is simply another make work for attorney’s law that has little impact on the day to day lives of Americans, is frequently flouted, and may make an occasional person some money, if the perpetrated can be identified. Statistics on how many such lawsuits are successful would be useful.