AHLA's monthly podcast featuring health lawyer and blogger Norm Tabler's informative and entertaining take on recent health law and other legal developments. Sponsored by Coker Group.
To learn more about AHLA and the educational resources available to the health law community, visit americanhealthlaw.org.
AHLA's monthly podcast featuring health lawyer and blogger Norm Tabler's informative and entertaining take on recent health law and other legal developments. Sponsored by Coker Group.
To learn more about AHLA and the educational resources available to the health law community, visit americanhealthlaw.org.
Support for A H L A and the following message comes from KCA Group, a national healthcare advisory firm working with hospitals and physician groups. Coca Group assists healthcare providers in their pursuit for a sound business model and an enhanced patient experience. For more information, visit coca group.com.
Speaker 2:Hi, I'm Norm tab. With this month's edition of the lighter side of Health Law, CEO O gets involved in operations. This event falls into the believe it or not category. It's not uncommon for the CEO of a company to take the ceremonial first step at an event like digging the first spade full of earth at a groundbreaking or cutting the ribbon at the entrance to a new building. Maybe surgeon Nathan Smith at Ball Health in Johnson City, Tennessee was thinking of that tradition when he invited hospital c Greg Neal to make the initial incision on a patient undergoing cardiac surgery. And maybe the CEO was thinking the same way because he did it. That's right. Non-physician CEO Greg Neal took the scalpel and cut into the unsuspecting and blessedly unak Cardiac surgery Patient, Nathan and Greg will not make that same mistake again. At least not at Ball Health because they've both been fired for the incident. You can't make this stuff up. Imagination In Pleading Award. This month's Imagination in pleading award goes to the attorneys for the CTOs family in North Dakota. CTO's family members were injured when Lyle Lima drove his truck into their horse drawn hay trailer, they filed suit against Lyle's eye doctor. The theory of the complaint was that the collision was the eye doctor's fault. Why? Because the eye doctor had examined Lyle earlier in the year and concluded that he was not legally blind. But how does that make the eye doctor liable for the Hay Wagon collision? Well, the theory goes, if the doctor had told Lyle he was legally blind, then maybe Lyle would've given up his driver's license and wouldn't have driven. And if he hadn't have driven, then he wouldn't have hit their hay wagon. Q E D. Well, was Lyle Blind? Was the doctor wrong? We don't know. But since the case came up on a motion to dismiss, the court had to assume that the family was right and Lyle was legally blind. But even so, the court ruled even if the doctor was wrong in finding that Lyle was not blind, there's no way the doctor can be liable for Lyle's traffic accident. All the doctor did was give his medical opinion to his patient. Lyle, the only person he owed a duty to the doctor, did not become Lyle's Auto Liability Insurance Company. The case is C versus Dakota Eye Institute, North Dakota Supreme Court win one for the geezers. Conventional wisdom has it that old people, and I include myself, love to insist. Life was tougher in the old days, and today's young people have it easy. While the California court has taken an action that that seems to confirm what we geezers have been saying, the court has decreed that as of next month's exam, the passing score on the bar exam will be 50 points lower than in the past. As recently as last year, it took a score of 1,440 out of 2000 to pass. Going forward, 1,390 will pass. But what about all those people who previously flunked the exam but with scores higher than the new cutoff? Too bad the court says they still flunked. Only new exam takers get the benefit of the relaxed standard. So the exam really was tougher in the old days. Context counts for a lesson on the importance of context. Take a look at this recent eighth circuit opinion upholding the conviction of Robert Ivers for threatening to murder a federal judge. Robert was conferring with his lawyers about suing an insurance company. He explained that a federal judge had previously ruled against him on the claim and he hated her for it. He said, quote, you don't know the 50 different ways I planned to kill her. Which by the way, should not be confused with Paul Simon's. 50 ways to leave your lover. Robert appealed his conviction, arguing that his statement should not have been admitted into evidence because it was protected by the attorney-client privilege. The three judge court carefully explained that a communication to your lawyer that you plan to murder a federal judge is not privileged unless it is made in order to obtain legal advice. Robert didn't ask for legal advice about killing the judge. He didn't need to because he already knew 50 different ways to do it. So it wasn't privileged conviction. Affirmed the case is US versus Ivers eighth Circuit. It's still who you know. Remember the old saying it's not what you know, but who you know. You might think that in the information age this would not apply any longer, but recent events indicate that you'd be wrong. Earlier this month we learned that a closely watched coronavirus vaccine trial had been halted over safety concerns, but for quite a while, no one knew what the safety concerns were. No one that is except the investment bankers at a closed door meeting organized by JP Morgan. According to the New York Times, the president of the vaccine company, AstraZeneca was glad to tell the high rollers all about the safety concern, namely that a vaccine recipient had suffered. Are you sitting down spinal cord damage in this case who you know determined what you know? If you weren't invited to the JP Morgan High roller lunch, you couldn't know what was happening with the vaccine trials that American taxpayers have poured billions into adding insult to insult. You've heard the phrase adding insult to injury. Well, this six circuit opinion could be titled, adding Insult to Insult. The plaintiff sued to challenge the merger of two healthcare companies. The complaint may have set a record for insults. A few examples, one company surrendered to the other like Marshall Patan surrendered to Hitler. The two companies are quote, engaged in incest, the likes of which have not been seen since. Soman Gamora. The Department of Health's inaction is quote like allowing criminals to rape and murder. And because one of the defense witnesses stuttered, they called him Porky Pig. You get the picture insult piled upon insult. But what about an injury? You need to allege injury in order to have standing. And despite the mountain of insults, the plaintiffs never got around to alleging any injury. So the trial court dismissed for lack of standing and the sixth circuit affirmed and severely chastised plaintiff's counsel for lack of civility. The case is beardon versus valid health. Sixth Circuit, September nerve of a burglar award. This month's nerve of a burglar award goes to former Indianapolis Colt, Daryl Reed. Darryl has pleaded guilty to being one of six former N NFL players who committed wire and healthcare fraud by submitting 3 million in fraudulent claims for medical equipment to the NFL Player Health Fund. The equipment included ultrasound machines used by gynecologists, and are you sitting down electromagnetic therapy devices for diagnosing horses? Well, it was a cult. The case is US versus McClure at Al Eastern District Kentucky. Well, that's it for this month's edition of the Lighter Side of Health Law. I hope you enjoyed it. Check your A H L A Weekly and Connections Magazine for the next edition.