Holland & Hart Healthcare Law Blog

Federal Tort Claims Act: Switched at birth in '46, To Late To Complain Now.

Rowena Madrigan and Beverly Bowker claimed that they were wrongfully switched at birth. They and Ms. Bowker's real father, Michael Ryan sued the United Stated under the Federal Tort Claims Act for negligence at Sanding Rock Hospital in Ft. Yates, North Dakota, in sending Ms. Bowker and Ms. Madrigan home with the wrong folks in 1946. The "girls" heard rumors throughout their lives that they had be switched at birth and when they met sometime before 1973 they noticed family resemblances in the other families. They discussed paternity blood tests in the 1970s but deferred allegedly because they were unreliable. The plaintiffs submitted to DNA tests in 2002 and again in 2004.The aggrieved parties filed administrative actions against the United States in 2003 and 2004. These were dismissed because of the running of the two year statute of limitations on federal tort claims.  In Ryan et al. v. United States of America No. 07-1994 (8th Cir., 2008), the Court of appeals affirmed despite claims by the Plaintiff that they didn't know for sure until the DNA testing.

Cal. Appeals Court Holds Medical Staff Retroactive Board Certification Rule Unfair

Dr. Sohail Nassim held provisional medical staff privileges in internal medicine and nephrology at Los Robles Regional Medical Center near Los Angles, California. He joined the medical staff of Los Robles in 2001. After he arrived, the hospital's internal medicine department changed the qualification rules to limit membership to those subspecialists who were board certified within 2 test dates following completion of speciality training. In order for Dr. Nassim to take the nephrology test he was required to first pass his internal medicine boards. These requirements made it virtually impossible for him to comply with the timing requirements.

Are Medical Records Produced in Litigation In the Public Realm Thereafter?

In Hageman v. Southwest Gen. Health Ctr, Slip Opinion No. 2008-Ohio-3343, (July, 2008) the Ohio Supreme Court held that an attorney who obtained medical records of an opposing party in litigation may be held liable for the subsequent disclosure of those documents outside of the litigation, when the documents had not been disclosed at a hearing. This was a divorce case in which the attorney representing Mr. Hageman's wife obtained medical records of Mr. Hageman by subpoena during a hotly disputed custody battle. The records apparently disclosed Mr. Hageman's psychological records, his bi-polar condition and homicidal feelings toward his wife. While the records were not used in the domestic case, Mrs. Hageman's attorney passed them on to a prosecutor assessing assualt charges against Mr. Hageman involving his wife. The records were not used in those proceedings either.

Physician Recruitment: Recruited Doc Bites Group in Arkansas.

Many physician recruitment efforts are three party arrangements where a physician group either solicits a hospital to help support a newly recruited physician or a hospital solicits a group as a place to practice for a new physician recruited by the hospital. Typically in these deals the group agrees to accept the recruit into its practice and to accept a guaranteed income payment from the hospital for a year.  The recruit accepts a salary from the group.  The hospital’s subsidy covers expenses and some level of income for the first year less the production of the recruit.  The recruit is required to remain practicing in the hospital’s market for two or three additional years. The amount of any subsidy is folded into a note which is forgiven by the hospital each year prorate to the fulfillment of the practice requirement.  The recruit and the practice group are jointly and severally liable on the note as it is forgiven.