Holland & Hart Healthcare Law Blog

DISRUPTIVE CONDUCT: DR. BADRI’S BAD BEHAVIOR

“Disruptive conduct” by a physician as a basis for suspension of medical staff privileges is a standard that is sometimes abused because of the elasticity of its application to conduct which is merely disagreeable or politically insensitive. In the case of Badri v. Huron Hospital, et al, Case No. 1:08cv 1913 (N.D. Ohio, 2010) a federal district judge granted summary judgment against a plaintiff physician whose surgical privileges were suspended by the hospital following an extraordinary series of admittedly inappropriate, offensive and abusive behavior and repeated violations of the hospital’s code of conduct. 

A sample includes the following described by the  court.

‘On May 13, 2004, Dr. Badri was heard complaining in a loud voice that “ in order to get promoted around here you have to screw physicians.” Dr. Badri was later observed standing behind Dr. Ravakhoh and motioning as if to “stab him in the back and making a very rude motion as if to have something inserted into Dr. Ravakhoh”s behind.”’

Following his dismissal Dr.Badri filed a federal lawsuit against the hospital and members of its medical staff claiming that his misconduct was the result of dependency on steroids and other prescription drugs and his emotional impairment all resulting from an automobile accident in 2002.

MARKET DRIVEN HEALTH CARE IN 2057: The Movie

How about a popular movie on market based health care reform?  There is actually one out there although it hasn’t yet penetrated the cloud over the current health care debate, and surprisingly didn’t score well in the box office count over the weekend.  On the first day after the House passage of the Obama Administration’e Health Care Reform Bill as approved by the Senate and following passage by the house of a bill to amend it, it might be interesting to review a future that is at least equally as bleak as the “Tea Party”  people and their surrogates have been painting the likely affects of health care reform.  The movie presents a society in which high pressure sales people use guilt, guile and outright fraud to coerce people to purchase very very expensive electronic organ replacement devices such as hearts, kidneys. livers, eyes, knees,, etc. (called “artiforgs” ) The artiforgs can provide an electronic read out to various patrolling repossession gleaners, the status of their credit accounts.

Is the “Slaughter Solution” for Health Care Reform Constitutional?

I

Let the games begin!  The Democrats are going to use the “self execution” rule, also known as the “Slaughter solution” by the Right and the “Gingrich” rule by the left, depending on whose ox is being gored, to pass and deliver a health care reform bill to the President. This is a “cram down” use of House rules to defeat the “cram down” defeat of majority rule in the Senate by filibuster.  Is it Constitutional?  Some, including a conservative former 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge, Michael McConnell say no, citing a violation of the “presentation clause” and the case of Clinton v. State of New York, 524 U. S. 417 (1998) (line item veto permits the President to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of acts of Congress and all such acts must be first approved by both houses and Congress and the presented to the President for signature to create new law).

Filibuster v. “Slaughter solution” or Obamascare v. Obamacare.

The anti-Obamacare crowd blogs are up on the ramparts today decrying and vilifying the sneaky move Democrats are proposing to use a House of Representatives rule to push through health care reform.  The opponents entitle the maneuver the “Slaughter solution” after the House Rules Committee Chairman, Louise Slaughter, ( D. NY). It was also previously called the "Gephardt Rule" and the "Gingrich Rule."  It is unconstitutional they say because it deprives the public of a vote by its representatives and it fails to comply with the “presentation” clause of the Constitution, Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 which requires a bill to be passed by both houses of Congress and presented to the President for his signature before becoming law.

Fast track, "compassionate use," FDA approval bill for terminal patients filed.

Should the FDA provide “fast track” approval for curing edge drugs and devices that may help terminal patients?

Citing concerns that the current FDA approval processes may be too slow to help dying patients, ” Representative Diane Watson (D-CA) introduced H.R. 4732, the Compassionate Access Act of 2010, recently  The bill would amend the federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) to create a new expedited review system for patients in need of compassionate access to tests that have not otherwise completed the FDA review process.