Will IVF Clinics Be Able to Afford Cost of Business in Alabama?

Medical Justice provides free 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. If you are navigating a medico-legal obstacle, visit our booking page to schedule a free consultation – or use the tool shared below.

"Can Medical Justice solve my problem?" Click here to review recent consultations...

We’ve been protecting doctors from medico-legal threats since 2001. We’ve seen it 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.

The Alabama Supreme Court just ruled on a lawsuit that could shutter IVF clinics in the state. Or at least make their cost of doing business go up.

What happened?

An IVF Clinic was run by the Center for Reproductive Medicine (CRM) in Mobile, Alabama. In December 2020, a patient at the Mobile Infirmary Medical Center entered the cryogenic nursery where frozen embryos were stored. This patient was not authorized to enter. They removed some of the embryos and dropped some on the floor. These embryos were destroyed. How or why it happened, I cannot say.

CRM was part of the Mobile Infirmary Medical Center.

At least three couples (James and Emily LePage, William and Caroline Fonde, and Felicia Burdick-Aysenne and Scott Aysenne ) received the bad news about their frozen embryos. They sued the fertility clinic and the hospital. Their lawsuit was based on an 1872 law called Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. To prevail, they would need to prove that the frozen embryos were minors who died.

The law lets parents sue for monetary damages “when the death of a minor child is caused by the wrongful act, omission, or negligence of any person.”

So, sue they did, arguing negligence, wantonness, and breach of contract.

The lower-level court dismissed all claims other than breach of contract. The families appealed. And won.

On or around February 20, 2024, the Alabama Supreme Court concluded that frozen embryos are children.

In the court’s main opinion, Justice Jay Mitchell referred to frozen embryos in turn as “embryonic children” and “extrauterine children.”

While the state’s Wrongful Death of a Minor statute doesn’t explicitly include “unborn children”—let alone “extrauterine children”—in its purview, “the ordinary meaning of ‘child’ includes children who have not yet been born,” asserted Mitchell.

Furthermore, Alabama’s Supreme Court “has long held that unborn children are ‘children’ for purposes of Alabama’s that law,” he wrote. The central question in this case, said Mitchell, is “whether the Act contains an unwritten exception to that rule for extrauterine children—that is, unborn children who are located outside of a biological uterus at the time they are killed.”…

“neither the text of the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act nor this Court’s precedents exclude extrauterine children from the Act’s coverage.”

There were dissenting opinions.

Justice Will Sellers also rejected the idea that this is an easy and obvious call. “Any sequence of linguistic gymnastics, cannot yield the conclusion that embryos developed through in vitro fertilization were intended by the legislature to be included in the definition of ‘person,’ much less the definition of ‘minor child,'” he wrote. Rather, the inclusion of in utero children in certain statutes was there to allow for punishment of violence perpetrated against pregnant women. “To equate an embryo stored in a specialized freezer with a fetus inside of a mother is engaging in an exercise of result-oriented, intellectual sophistry, which I am unwilling to entertain,” Sellers added.

Importantly, even interpreting the 1872 law to include unborn intrauterine children is a modern twist. Dissenting Justice Greg Cook wrote:

“In fact, for 100 years after the passage of the Wrongful Death Act, our caselaw did not allow a claim for the death of an unborn infant, confirming that the common law in 1872 did not recognize that an unborn infant (much less a frozen embryo) was a ‘minor child’ who could be killed.”

No other state has reached the same conclusion about frozen embryos. Justice Cook suggested that being “the sole outlier” should “cause us to carefully reexamine our conclusions.”

He concluded the decision could end IVF in Alabama, since “no rational medical provider would continue to provide services for creating and maintaining frozen embryos knowing that they must continue to maintain such frozen embryos forever or risk the penalty of a Wrongful Death Act claim for punitive damages.”

Would insurance costs rise?

They’d have to.

Historically, veterinarians covered for professional liability paid low premiums for insurance. Non-economic damages are, for the most part, unavailable in veterinary medical lawsuits. There are exceptions, but the dollar value at play pales by orders of magnitude compared to people.[1] Pets are considered “property” or “chattel.” A cell phone is also considered property or chattel. If frozen embryos are treated as children, damages from lawsuits will also rise. For example, do non-economic damages affect premium costs to cover ob-gyns and neonatologists? Yes, they do.

From a practical perspective, one risk mitigation technique would be to forego freezing embryos. Implant all embryos that are created. This would, of course, make it harder for those trying to conceive. And it might make it impossible for those who want children but have to undergo treatments destroying or decreasing their likelihood of future fertility.

The Alabama Supreme Court looked overseas for supporting laws.

In Italy, “cryopreservation of embryos” is banned “except when a bona fide health risk or force majeure prevented the embryos from being transferred immediately after their creation,” writes Parker. He also points approvingly to countries with other stringent regulations, such as a rule limiting the number of embryos that can be transferred at a time.

“These regulations adopted by other countries seem much more likely to comport with upholding the sanctity of life,” Parker concludes, writing that “certain changes to the IVF industry’s current creation and handling of embryos in Alabama will result from this decision.”

No less important, with the modern trend of criminalizing aspects of medicine that were previously the sole province of civil litigation, one could imagine zealous prosecutors filing charges for involuntary manslaughter or even intent to kill murder depending upon the facts of any given case.

The southern US state’s largest hospital [recently] paused its in-vitro fertilization (IVF) services in the wake of the decision, over fears it could expose them to criminal prosecution.

The University of Alabama at Birmingham health system said it would continue retrieving eggs from women’s ovaries. But it said it would halt the next step in the IVF process, in which the eggs are fertilized with sperm before being implanted into the uterus.

“We are saddened that this will impact our patients’ attempt to have a baby through IVF,” the leading state medical provider said in a statement.

“But we must evaluate the potential that our patients and our physicians could be prosecuted criminally or face punitive damages for following the standard of care for IVF treatments.”

For IVF providers in Alabama, expect a letter from your professional liability carrier soon.

What do you think?

As this post is going to publication, the Alabama state legislature and governor are discussing a bill to exempt IVF (extrauterine fertilized embryos) from the downstream effects of the 1872 law. As to whether this will be enough to settle the IVF industry down remains to be seen. Some legal analysts have posited that given the Alabama Supreme Court ruling, a fix that sticks might require a state constitutional amendment – which would require more than just a legislative vote.

 

[1] In 2012, “the Louisiana Court of Appeals in Barrios v. Safeway Insurance Company upheld a $10,000 emotional damages award while taking “judicial notice of the emotional bond that exists between some pets and their owners and the family status awarded some pets.” https://www.dvm360.com/view/non-economic-damages-pet-injuries-are-veterinarians-expediting-evolution-law.

The Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) reports that in 2014, Judge Eric Richardson of the State Court of Fulton County, Georgia, in a lawsuit by a pet owner against a kennel, held that a dachshund’s “intrinsic value” was a more appropriate remedy than replacement value and that the owners were entitled to compensation for veterinary fees and other non-economic elements. The kennel appealed. The ALDF filed a brief urging the Georgia Court of Appeals to affirm the trial court, arguing that companion animals are intrinsically valued family members and emotionally and financially worth more than their market value.

Medical Justice provides free 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. If you are navigating a medico-legal obstacle, visit our booking page to schedule a free consultation – or use the tool shared below.

"Can Medical Justice solve my problem?" Click here to review recent consultations...

We’ve been protecting doctors from medico-legal threats since 2001. We’ve seen it 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.

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. Byrd Adatto was selected as a Best Law Firm in the 2023 edition of the “Best Law Firms” list by U.S. News – Best Lawyers. With over 50 combined years of 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.

Hard to Find HIPAA Questions and Answers

Medical Justice provides free 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. If you are navigating a medico-legal obstacle, visit our booking page to schedule a free consultation – or use the tool shared below.

"Can Medical Justice solve my problem?" Click here to review recent consultations...

We’ve been protecting doctors from medico-legal threats since 2001. We’ve seen it 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.

We receive all types of HIPAA questions from our members. Answers to such questions are not all that easy to identify. Anyway, we present answers to several of these below.

(Q) I have heard that HIPAA does not allow you to have a Business Associate relationship with a vendor overseas. Is that correct?

(A) On first blush, it would seem that one might be foreclosed from storing data on an overseas cloud server, as US authorities would have limited to no jurisdiction over the overseas entity. But, HHS clarifies otherwise. It’s cool.

Do the HIPAA Rules allow a covered entity or business associate to use a CSP that stores ePHI on servers outside of the United States?

Answer:

Yes, provided the covered entity (or business associate) enters into a business associate agreement (BAA) with the CSP and otherwise complies with the applicable requirements of the HIPAA Rules. However, while the HIPAA Rules do not include requirements specific to the protection of electronic protected health information (ePHI) processed or stored by a CSP or any other business associate outside of the United States, OCR notes that the risks to such ePHI may vary greatly depending on its geographic location. In particular, outsourcing storage or other services for ePHI overseas may increase the risks and vulnerabilities to the information or present special considerations with respect to the enforceability of privacy and security protections over the data.

(Q) Can I store protected health information (PHI) on my personal Google Drive account?

(A) Generally, no. If you are storing PHI on Google Drive, you will need to have a Business Associate Agreement with Google. And, yes, Google does provide such agreements for Google Apps for Business, Education, or Government accounts. These are paid accounts. You have to shell out checks to Google for the document. Meaning, you have to have a paid account.

Most personal Google accounts are free, and they do not come with Business Associate Agreements.

BTW, if you encrypt a document prior to uploading it to your personal Google account, you should not need a Business Associate Agreement. Why? Because you rendered the document secure before uploading it to the cloud. Meaning, the document is secure anywhere it finds itself.

(Q) I hear about HIPAA authorization. I also hear about HIPAA consent. Aren’t they the same thing?

(A) Well, they are not precisely the same thing.

Authorization is what you HAVE to secure from a patient before disclosing protected health information unless there’s a named exception to disclosure.

Consent is something you are allowed to obtain from a patient before disclosing protected health information for a use that requires no such authorization.

For example, you must obtain a patient’s prior authorization to send protected health information to their designated attorney. Before sending the records, you want to confirm the patient has signed the authorization. And send only the records identified by that authorization.

In contrast, the Privacy Rule permits a covered entity but does not require it, to voluntarily obtain patient consent for disclosures of protected health information related to treatment, payment, and healthcare operations. As an example, if a patient asks you verbally to submit an insurance form so you can get paid, in theory, you do not need their written authorization. That’s an exception. But, you are allowed to have processes in place to obtain their “consent.”

(Q) Can an individual revoke their authorization?

(A) Yes. Patients can revoke their authorization at any time. The revocation must be in writing. It is effective when the covered entity receives the written request.

The Privacy Rule requires that the Authorization must clearly state the individual’s right to revoke, and the process for revocation must either be set forth clearly on the Authorization itself, or if the covered entity creates the Authorization, and its Notice of Privacy Practices contains a clear description of the revocation process, the Authorization can refer to the Notice of Privacy Practices. Authorization forms created by or submitted through a third party should not imply that revocation is effective when the third party receives it since the revocation is not effective until a covered entity that had previously been authorized to make the disclosure receives it.

If a patient has given you authorization to post before-and-after photos on your website, and later they demand you take them down, just do it. It is their right to make that demand. Obviously, once protected information has been released into the internet ether, it may be impossible to “protect” that information down the road. You can only do what you can do.

(Q) If a vendor is storing electronic medical records and the subscription terminates, does that vendor have to maintain the records, give them to the provider, or something else?

(A) Here, the vendor is a Business Associate. The Dept of Health and Human Services posed the question and answer as follows:

Do the HIPAA Rules require a Cloud Service Provider (CSP) to maintain ePHI for some period of time beyond when it has finished providing services to a covered entity or business associate?

Answer:

No, the HIPAA Rules generally do not require a business associate to maintain electronic protected health information (ePHI) beyond the time it provides services to a covered entity or business associate.  The Privacy Rule provides that a business associate agreement (BAA) must require a business associate to return or destroy all PHI at the termination of the BAA where feasible.  45 CFR  § 164.504(e)(2)(J). 

If such return or destruction is not feasible, the BAA must extend the privacy and security protections of the BAA to the ePHI and limit further uses and disclosures to those purposes that make the return or destruction of the information infeasible.  For example, return or destruction would be considered ‘‘infeasible’’ if other law requires the business associate CSP to retain ePHI for a period of time beyond the termination of the business associate contract.

And there may be state laws about retaining medical records.  

OK, that’s all for today. What do you think?

Medical Justice provides free 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. If you are navigating a medico-legal obstacle, visit our booking page to schedule a free consultation – or use the tool shared below.

"Can Medical Justice solve my problem?" Click here to review recent consultations...

We’ve been protecting doctors from medico-legal threats since 2001. We’ve seen it 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.

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. Byrd Adatto was selected as a Best Law Firm in the 2023 edition of the “Best Law Firms” list by U.S. News – Best Lawyers. With over 50 combined years of 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.

Turning Lemons into Lemonade. Qui Tam Lawsuits.

Medical Justice provides free 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. If you are navigating a medico-legal obstacle, visit our booking page to schedule a free consultation – or use the tool shared below.

"Can Medical Justice solve my problem?" Click here to review recent consultations...

We’ve been protecting doctors from medico-legal threats since 2001. We’ve seen it 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.

Sometimes doctors find themselves in toxic work relationships. Perhaps they’ve joined a group or healthcare institution, wildly idealistic, and ready to do the best job possible. Soon, they learn about the corporate culture. It’s not pretty. There may be some backstabbing. Poor communication. Rotten service. But, if they keep their head down, they can stay out of the crossfire.

Then, they learn about billing fraud. With their name being used to submit insurance claims.

Now what?

If the claim is in your name, and you take no action, you may get caught in the inevitable dragnet. It’s not a good idea to remain willfully blind when your license and freedom are on the line. The carriers (including the federal and state government) will want their money back.

Enter the False Claims Act. What’s that?

It’s easier just to quote directly from the Department of Justice website.

Many of the [DOJ] Fraud Section’s cases are suits filed under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 – 3733, a federal statute originally enacted in 1863 in response to defense contractor fraud during the American Civil War.

The FCA provided that any person who knowingly submitted false claims to the government was liable for double the government’s damages plus a penalty of $2,000 for each false claim.  The FCA has been amended several times and now provides that violators are liable for treble damages plus a penalty that is linked to inflation.

In addition to allowing the United States to pursue perpetrators of fraud on its own, the FCA allows private citizens to file suits on behalf of the government (called “qui tam” suits) against those who have defrauded the government.  Private citizens who successfully bring qui tam actions may receive a portion of the government’s recovery.  Many Fraud Section investigations and lawsuits arise from such qui tam actions.

The Department of Justice obtained more than $2.2 billion in settlements and judgments from civil cases involving fraud and false claims against the government in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2022.

Qui Tam lawsuits allow private citizens to step into the shoes of the government to prosecute claims against fraudsters. Sometimes the government will then step in and take over. Sometimes, they take a pass and allow the person with insider information to go all the way. If money is collected, some of what is collected is used to pay the one who provided the information to make this happen. The whistleblower wins the lottery.

A payday for turning in the fraudster.

Of the more than $2.2 billion in False Claims Act settlements and judgments reported by the Department of Justice this past fiscal year, over $1.7 billion related to matters that involved the health care industry, including drug and medical device manufacturers, durable medical equipment, home health and managed care providers, hospitals, pharmacies, hospice organizations, and physicians. The amounts included in the $1.7 billion reflect recoveries arising only from federal losses, and, in many of these cases, the department was instrumental in recovering additional amounts for state Medicaid programs.

As noted above, the $2.2 billion addressed money collected by the federal government. State governments also got in on the action.

And some states have unique laws which allow for collection of whistleblower awards related to fraud against private insurers.

In 2015, there was a $22.75 million settlement with Warner Chilcott (pharmaceutical manufacturer)—invoking California Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (CIFPA) involving fraud against private health plans. The plaintiff whistleblower received 49% of the recovery.

Back to federal whistleblower cases.

In 1986, Congress strengthened the False Claims Act by increasing incentives for whistleblowers to file lawsuits alleging false claims on behalf of the government. These whistleblower, or qui tam, actions comprise a significant percentage of the False Claims Act cases that are filed. Qui tam cases may be pursued by the government or the whistleblower, and this past year significant recoveries were obtained by both. When a qui tam action is successful, the whistleblower, also known as the relator, typically receives a portion of the recovery ranging between 15% and 30%. Whistleblowers filed 652 qui tam suits in fiscal year 2022, and this past year the department reported settlements and judgments exceeding $1.9 billion in these and earlier-filed suits.

The list of whistleblower or government audited lawsuits alleging healthcare fraud is long.

Select highlights.

Carrefour Associates LLC and its related companies, which operate under the name Crossroads Hospice, paid $5.5 million to resolve allegations that Crossroads Hospice knowingly submitted false claims to Medicare for hospice services for patients who were not terminally ill.

Signature Home Health Services of Florida LLC and its related entities (collectively, SignatureHomeNow) paid $2.1 million to resolve allegations that SignatureHomeNow improperly admitted and provided services to Medicare beneficiaries who: (i) were not homebound; (ii) did not require certain skilled care; (iii) did not have valid or otherwise appropriate plans of care in place; and/or (iv) did not have appropriate face-to-face encounters needed to be appropriately certified to receive home health services.

Hayat Pharmacy paid $2.05 million to resolve allegations that it submitted false claims to Medicare and Medicaid for prescription medications that the pharmacy had switched from lower cost medications to higher cost medications without any medical need and/or a valid prescription.

The department also resolved several matters in which providers billed federal health care programs for unnecessary drug testing. Physician Partners of America LLC (PPOA), its founder, its former chief medical officer, and certain of its affiliated entities paid $24.5 million to resolve allegations that they billed federal health care programs for unnecessary urine drug, psychological, and genetic testing. The United States alleged that PPOA required its physician-employees to order multiple urine drug tests at the same time without determining whether any testing was reasonable and necessary, or even reviewing the results of initial testing to determine whether additional testing was warranted. Similarly, the United States alleged that PPOA instructed physicians to automatically order psychological and genetic testing that it did not use or intend to use, and that PPOA instructed physicians to schedule bi-weekly telehealth appointments for the sole purpose of increasing revenue during the pandemic. Finally, the United States alleged that, at the time PPOA was engaged in this conduct, it obtained a loan under the Paycheck Protection Program while certifying that it was not engaged in illicit activity. This settlement resolved allegations under the False Claims Act, the Physician Self-Referral Law (Stark Law), and the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA).

MD Spine Solutions LLC dba MD Labs Inc. and two of its owners agreed to pay up to $16 million to resolve allegations that MD Labs submitted claims for medically unnecessary urine drug tests.

Who is motivated to file qui tam lawsuits? Employees with a conscience. Employees who were fired for speaking up. Employees on the receiving end of demotions, pay cuts, bullying. Employees who asked their boss to fix a problem and were told to shut up. Ex-spouses with insider information.

As you can see above, whistleblowers who win their case (or contributed to the government winning its case), can receive quite a handsome payday; sometimes enough to live on for the rest of their life.

None of this is to suggest the process is easy. But if you see fraud and the problem is not timely remedied, there are incentives to speaking up.

What do you think?

Medical Justice provides free 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. If you are navigating a medico-legal obstacle, visit our booking page to schedule a free consultation – or use the tool shared below.

"Can Medical Justice solve my problem?" Click here to review recent consultations...

We’ve been protecting doctors from medico-legal threats since 2001. We’ve seen it 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.

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. Byrd Adatto was selected as a Best Law Firm in the 2023 edition of the “Best Law Firms” list by U.S. News – Best Lawyers. With over 50 combined years of 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.

Occupational Hazard of Working as a Physician for a Cult

Medical Justice provides free 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. If you are navigating a medico-legal obstacle, visit our booking page to schedule a free consultation – or use the tool shared below.

"Can Medical Justice solve my problem?" Click here to review recent consultations...

We’ve been protecting doctors from medico-legal threats since 2001. We’ve seen it 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.

Physicians can be held accountable by professional licensing boards for actions outside of the exam room and surgery suite. For example, if you are pulled over with a DUI, do not be surprised if the Board gets involved. Yes, nothing you did directly impacted patient care. You were presumably not taking care of a patient when the police pulled you over. But many Boards presume that a DUI is a harbinger of a general alcohol abuse problem which could turn into a later patient safety matter. Alcohol abuse may cloud one’s judgment while taking care of a patient. Or the Board may conclude you will show up while on call and have ETOH on your breath.

Danielle Roberts was licensed as a physician in NY. She became involved with the NXIVM cult. She had previously been invited to join a “secret society: called Dominus Obsequious Soroium, or DOS.” Entry to the secret society required being branded on the pelvis with the initials of NXIVM’s founder, Keith Raniere. Dr. Roberts performed at least 17 such brandings, captured on video.

One such “brandee” left the secret society, and filed a complaint to the Board of Medicine.

New York’s Bureau of Professional Medical Conduct (OPMC) charged Roberts with 47 counts of professional misconduct. In addition to the brandings, she was accused of failing to report the outbreak of an infectious norovirus-like illness at a NXIVM retreat.

Roberts countered that branding was not the practice of medicine and the OPMC had no jurisdiction to discipline on that charge.

The hearing committee disagreed and revoked her license to practice medicine. Roberts appealed and the case went to trial court, which upheld the decision revoking her license.

“Unlike tattooing and body art, branding is not regulated in New York, but courts have nonetheless considered electric cauterization to come under the purview of a medical procedure,” wrote Justice Lisa Fisher. And the hearing committee had substantial evidence to establish a professional connection, including Roberts’s own testimony that she relied on her medical expertise and had been approached by society members to fulfill the role of brander for that reason. “Several of the DOS members who were branded, including the complainant, provided testimony to the effect that they were relieved or comforted knowing that a physician would be performing the branding,” Justice Fisher noted.

The Justice also noted that Dr. Roberts used her medical knowledge to achieve a particular outcome.

“Although petitioner contends that her ritualistic branding of DOS members was for nonmedical reasons and lacked a sufficient nexus with the practice of medicine, it is apparent that petitioner used her medical knowledge and training to create a specific physical condition – a permanent scar – on the enrollees. In doing so, the Bureau’s expert testified that petitioner’s actions in branding DOS members constituted the practice of medicine by ‘operating’ on a physical condition.”

Dr. Roberts provided post-branding care, and society-members were foreclosed from selecting other physicians from such care.

DOJ photo of Danielle Robert

Department of Justice photo of Danielle Robert

Brand cauterized in secret ritual

Multiple women were branded with a cauterizing tool wielded by a doctor in a secret ritual.

Yellowstone Spoiler Alert: In one episode, ranchers working at the Yellowstone Ranch engaged in group activity, which if revealed, would end in prison terms for all. The ranchers were asked to prove their fealty by first being branded. Once branded with the ranch’s logo, the ranchers pulled off their mischief, with the understanding that all had sealed lips. Given Dr. Roberts’ situation, one wonders if the fellow ranch hands were practicing medicine without a license. Back to the DOS cult, if Dr. Roberts had taken a pass and sent a “branding iron” to another cult member, would they have been convicted of practicing medicine without a license? By the way, the tools used in Yellowstone were different than those used in NVIXM/DOS. Roberts was alleged to have used a cauterizing pen, as opposed to a branding iron.

In 2020, the founder of NXIVM and the inspiration for the branding logo, Keith Raniere, was sentenced to 120 years in prison.

Finally, another physician lost his license over his involvement with NVIXM.

Brandon Porter, a medical doctor, conducted unlicensed human-subjects research on 200 people for NXIVM. During a “fright study”, Porter exposed subjects to disturbing videos, including actual footage of a decapitation. In 2016, Porter was present at a NXIVM retreat (“V-Week”) where 300 to 400 individuals were struck by an unidentified disease; Porter failed to report the outbreak, in violation of his duties as a licensed medical doctor.  Porter was stripped of his medical license in 2020.

The details:

Brandon B. Porter, a former doctor at St. Peter’s Hospital in Albany, violated 40 state and federal regulations, according to an investigation against him by the New York Department of Health. The department’s investigation into Porter found that the doctor not only conducted unlicensed “human subject research,” but that he failed to obtain proper consent from people or keep records from his supposed studies.

Between 2010 and 2017, Porter allegedly performed unsanctioned neurological research on more than 200 “subjects” to study psychological responses to certain stimuli as part of NXIVM’s studies into Tourette’s syndrome, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, and “Executive Success Program” for self-betterment, according to the department’s investigation.

In one study, dubbed the “Fright Study,” Porter forced his subjects to watch violent and “horrific” video clips, including footage of four women being dismembered with a machete and a conscious male being forced to eat his own brain matter.

“The Respondent, who knew or should have known that human subjects participating in the Fright Study could have been caused mental pain and suffering, and/or psychological injury while viewing the disturbing and violent actual video and film clips, failed to terminate such study,” the department of health said in its investigation.

Regarding this allegation against Dr. Roberts:

“…she was accused of failing to report the outbreak of an infectious norovirus-like illness at a NXIVM retreat.”

Losing one’s license over that oversight seems unduly harsh.

The take-home point is this. As physicians, our behavior is held to higher standards than the general public. The medical professionals in this cult seemingly avoided prison time. But their careers as physicians seem to be over.

What do you think?

Medical Justice provides free 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. If you are navigating a medico-legal obstacle, visit our booking page to schedule a free consultation – or use the tool shared below.

"Can Medical Justice solve my problem?" Click here to review recent consultations...

We’ve been protecting doctors from medico-legal threats since 2001. We’ve seen it 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.

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. Byrd Adatto was selected as a Best Law Firm in the 2023 edition of the “Best Law Firms” list by U.S. News – Best Lawyers. With over 50 combined years of 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.

Medical Boards, DEI, and Lawsuits. Identity Politics on Life Support?

Medical Justice provides free 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. If you are navigating a medico-legal obstacle, visit our booking page to schedule a free consultation – or use the tool shared below.

"Can Medical Justice solve my problem?" Click here to review recent consultations...

We’ve been protecting doctors from medico-legal threats since 2001. We’ve seen it 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.

 

Physicians are aware of the mantra “Do No Harm.” There’s a Virginia-based advocacy group also called Do No Harm. One of its missions is to erase identity politics in medical education and clinical practice. It has filed 150 discrimination complaints to the Office of Civil Rights under the US Dept of Education. And with the assistance of the Pacific Legal Foundation, it just filed a lawsuit against the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners. Actually, the lawsuit is against Governor John Bel Edwards, in his official capacity as the executive who nominates/selects medical board members.

The gist of the lawsuit is this.

Louisiana passed a law in 2018, Act 599, which specifies the governor must consider candidates ethnicities when making appointments from four entities: LSU Health Sciences Center at Shreveport, LSU Health Sciences Center at New Orleans, Louisiana Hospital Association, and a consumer list of candidates without background medical expertise (laypersons). Every other member from the four entities must have a minority background, such that at least two of the four seats will be filled by minority candidates during the next appointment cycle.

The Act does not define a minority.

Other requirements for physician members are straightforward: “resident of state for more than six months, currently licensed and in good standing to engage in practice of medicine in Louisiana, actively engaged in the practice of medicine in Louisiana, five years of experience in practice of medicine in Louisiana after licensure, not convicted of a felony, not been placed on probation by the Board.”

In the lawsuit, Do No Harm alleged the statute enables the exclusion of non-minority candidates, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The lawsuit catapult enabled liftoff after the Supreme Court decision last year ending affirmative action in higher education. There, Students for Fair Admission, Inv. versus President and Fellows of Harvard College, held “Harvard’s and UNC’s (University of North Carolina’s) admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

In a historic decision, the Supreme Court severely limited, if not effectively ended, the use of affirmative action in college admissions on Thursday. By a vote of 6-3, the justices ruled that the admissions programs used by the University of North Carolina and Harvard College violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause, which bars racial discrimination by government entities.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that college admissions programs can consider race merely to allow an applicant to explain how their race influenced their character in a way that would have a concrete effect on the university. But a student “must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual — not on the basis of race,” Roberts wrote. The majority effectively, though not explicitly, overruled its 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, in which the court upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s consideration of race “as one factor among many, in an effort to assemble a student body that is diverse in ways broader than race.” Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joined the Roberts opinion.

Back to the Louisiana lawsuit. It’s not the only one. Do No Harm has also sued Medical Board of California requiring CME courses cover implicit bias training, arguing it violates participants rights to free speech.

In 2019, the California Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 241. As of January 1, 2022, all continuing medical education courses in California must include discussion of “implicit bias.” But the efficacy of implicit bias training in reducing disparities and negative outcomes in healthcare is controversial in the medical community and lacks evidence. Because of that controversy, because they prefer to teach different, evidence-based subjects, and because they do not want to espouse the government’s view on implicit bias, Plaintiffs Azadeh Khatibi and Marilyn Singleton, as well as at least one member of Plaintiff Do No Harm, do not want to be compelled to include discussion of implicit bias in the continuing medical education courses they teach.  

Rather than respect the freedom and judgment of continuing medical education instructors to choose which topics to teach, California law now requires the Medical Board of California to enforce the mandate that all continuing medical education courses include discussion of implicit bias. Under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the government cannot compel speakers to engage in discussions on subjects they prefer to remain silent about. Likewise, the government cannot condition a speaker’s ability to offer courses for credit on the requirement that she espouse the government’s favored view on a controversial topic. This case seeks to vindicate those important constitutional rights.

Also in the firing line include governor of Tennessee (addressing Board of Podiatric Medical Examiners) and the medical journal Health Affairs. The common denominator is using race as the distinguishing feature in selecting candidates for leadership roles or positions.

Given that the US Supreme Court has re-defined the contours of what is permissible, oversight organizations are changing direction or messaging. For example,

Joe Knickrehm, vice president of communications for the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB), told Medscape Medical News that the organization recommends medical boards include appointees who “reflect the demographics of the state” and are “drawn from different regions…and diverse specialties.”

FSMB’s board membership policy further states that “sex, race, national or ethnic origin, creed, religion, disability, gender identity, sexual orientation, marital status, or age above majority should not preclude an individual from serving on the board.”

While being drawn from different specialties and different regions are ways to define diversity, that is not the colloquial meaning which has permeated public discourse in the recent past. It will be interesting to see how many, if any, of such lawsuits work their way to a decision. And whether some organizations will update their policies in advance  to render the matter moot.

What do you think?

Medical Justice provides free 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. If you are navigating a medico-legal obstacle, visit our booking page to schedule a free consultation – or use the tool shared below.

"Can Medical Justice solve my problem?" Click here to review recent consultations...

We’ve been protecting doctors from medico-legal threats since 2001. We’ve seen it 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.

 

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. Byrd Adatto was selected as a Best Law Firm in the 2023 edition of the “Best Law Firms” list by U.S. News – Best Lawyers. With over 50 combined years of 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.

Those Damned Forms

Medical Justice provides free 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. If you are navigating a medico-legal obstacle, visit our booking page to schedule a free consultation – or use the tool shared below.

"Can Medical Justice solve my problem?" Click here to review recent consultations...

We’ve been protecting doctors from medico-legal threats since 2001. We’ve seen it 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.

Doctors are frequently asked to fill out a variety of forms. No one loves doing it. But it’s part of the job.

Two recent questions by our members highlighted situations when the “ask” goes beyond what is “allowed.”

The first situation addressed a patient wanting to tap into her FSA account. FSA stands for Flexible Spending Account. It lets an employee put away pre-tax dollars for qualified medical expenses. Employers may make contributions to FSA accounts. If you don’t use it, you lose it.

Qualified medical expenses seems like a straightforward term. But does it apply to an elective cosmetic surgery? Meaning, can a routine cosmetic surgery be covered by a FSA? If the surgery is performed strictly for cosmetic reasons, the answer is generally no. And since FSA are covered by IRS regulations, the same caveat applies to Health Savings Accounts (HSAs).

In accordance with IRS regulations regarding taxable medical deductions, IRC 213(d) is especially relevant in regards to the eligibility of certain medical expenses like cosmetic procedures. Under IRS 213(d), medical care refers to:

“The term “medical care” means amounts paid for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of a disease, or for the purpose of affecting any structure or function of the body.”

This particular definition is vital in helping benefits administrators determine whether a specific medical procedure is eligible for reimbursement through consumer-directed healthcare accounts like FSAs, HSAs and HRAs. In the vast majority of cases, cosmetic procedures are not meant to prevent or treat a specific medical condition or are simply done for “general health” purposes, so therefore they are rarely covered by most consumer spending accounts.

A cosmetic surgery/procedure is any surgery/procedure that is directed at improving the patient’s appearance and does not meaningfully promote the proper function of the body or prevent or alleviate an illness or disease.

Are there exceptions to this rule?

Yes.

If the cosmetic procedure is performed to address a medical problem, such as a congenital abnormality, or reconstruction after an accident or disfiguring illness, it will likely be covered, assuming it is covered by a letter of medical necessity. This letter must outline how an account holder’s medical condition necessitates a specific cosmetic procedure, how the treatment will be used to alleviate the issue.

If the cosmetic procedure is elective and unrelated to an underlying medical condition, then no letter of medical necessity can/should be written. And such a procedure will likely not be covered by FSA or HSA.

Onward to paperwork for Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

From the Department of Labor’s website:

The FMLA entitles eligible employees of covered employers to take unpaid, job-protected leave for specified family and medical reasons with continuation of group health insurance coverage under the same terms and conditions as if the employee had not taken leave. Eligible employees are entitled to:

  • Twelve workweeks of leave in a 12-month period for:
    • the birth of a child and to care for the newborn child within one year of birth;
    • the placement with the employee of a child for adoption or foster care and to care for the newly placed child within one year of placement;
    • to care for the employee’s spouse, child, or parent who has a serious health condition;
    • a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the essential functions of his or her job;
    • any qualifying exigency arising out of the fact that the employee’s spouse, son, daughter, or parent is a covered military member on “covered active duty;”

OK, is elective cosmetic surgery a serious health condition?

Again, from the Dept. Of Labor:

Serious health condition means an illness, injury, impairment or physical or mental condition that involves inpatient care as defined in § 825.114 or continuing treatment by a health care provider as defined in § 825.115. Conditions for which cosmetic treatments are administered (such as most treatments for acne or plastic surgery) are not “serious health conditions” unless inpatient hospital care is required or unless complications develop. Restorative dental or plastic surgery after an injury or removal of cancerous growths are serious health conditions provided all the other conditions of this regulation are met. Mental illness or allergies may be serious health conditions, but only if all the conditions of § 825.113 are met.

See a theme?

Elective cosmetic surgery not addressing some underlying medical condition generally does not warrant reimbursement under FSA accounts, HSA accounts, or protected leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. That does not mean your patients will not ask. But be careful about certifying eligibility unless the core conditions are met.

What do you think?

Medical Justice provides free 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. If you are navigating a medico-legal obstacle, visit our booking page to schedule a free consultation – or use the tool shared below.

"Can Medical Justice solve my problem?" Click here to review recent consultations...

We’ve been protecting doctors from medico-legal threats since 2001. We’ve seen it 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.

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. Byrd Adatto was selected as a Best Law Firm in the 2023 edition of the “Best Law Firms” list by U.S. News – Best Lawyers. With over 50 combined years of 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.