ONE WOULD NORMALLY ASSUME THAT THERE WAS LITTLE, OR NO, CORRELATION BETWEEN THE ISSUES OF LOSS OR SUSPENSION OF A MEDICAL LICENSE AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW BUT THERE ARE NO LIMITS TO THE INGENUITY OF OUR LAWMAKERS. THERE IS A LITTLE KNOWN SECTION OF THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW (DLR) WHICH CAN HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT UPON THE LICENSE OF A PHYSICIAN – OR – ANY PERSON WHO IS LICENSED BY THE STATE TO CONDUCT ONE’S PROFESSION. THIS PORTION OF THE LAW EXTENDS TO A LOCALITY WHICH HAS THE POWER TO AUTHORIZE THE CONDUCT OF A BUSINESS.
WE KNOW WE HAVE WRITTEN BEFORE ABOUT THE UNPLEASANT TOPIC OF WHAT YOU SHOULD DO IF YOU RECEIVE A LETTER FROM THE OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL CONDUCT. WE ARE AWARE THAT THIS MAY BE REPETITIOUS AND FOR THAT WE APOLOGIZE – BUT – WE HAVE RECEIVED MANY CALLS FROM PHYSICIANS PLAGUED WITH OPMC ISSUES AND KNOW FROM THESE EXPERIENCES THAT A REPEAT IS NEEDED OF EARLIER CAUTIONS.
THE THRUST OF THIS REPORT S TO DISCUSS EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS YOU MAY HAVE ENTERED IN TO WITH STAFF MEMBERS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO MALPRACTICE ISSUES. THE STANDARD ARRANGEMENTS CONCERNING COMPENSATION, WORK ASSIGNMENTS, VACATIONS AND THE LIKE ARE EASILY HANDLED. QUESTIONS ABOUT MALPRACTICE INSURANCE AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, INSURANCE RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING END OF EMPLOYMENT ARE NOT SO SIMPLY HANDLED.
A RECENT DECISION CONCERNING THE AWARDING OF HOSPITAL PRIVILEGES IS WORTHY OF REPORTING AND YOUR REVIEW. FACTUAL BACKGROUND – A NEUROSURGEON APPLIED FOR PRIVILEGES AND MEDICAL STAFF MEMBERSHIP AND THE SAME WERE DENIED BY THE INSTITUTION WHICH HAD RECEIVED TWO NEGATIVE REPORTS ABOUT THE PHYSICIAN FROM ANOTHER HOSPITAL WHICH RELATED TO ALLEGED POOR INTERPERSONAL SKILLS AND PROBLEMS DEALING WITH HIS/HER SUBORDINATES. UPON THE DENIAL THE PHYSICIAN APPEALED TO THE NEW YORK PUBLIC AND HEALTH PLANNING COUNCIL.
A MEDICAL PRACTICE EVIDENTLY THOUGHT THAT YOU CANNOT HAVE TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING AND BELIEVED THAT A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WAS A “GOOD THING” – BUT- IN THE PROCESS OVERSTEPPED THE BOUNDARIES OF WHAT WOULD BE DEEMED ACCEPTABLE BY A COURT.
THE FOLLOWING REPORT CONCERNING SEXUAL HARASSMENT WAS IN THE “PIPELINE” AND RECENT STORIES AND HEADLINES MAKE THE TOPIC EVEN MORE RELEVANT TODAY. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS USED ITS POWERS UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW OF 1964 BUT WE WILL FOCUS PRIMARILY ON THE SIMILAR NEW YORK STATUTE AS THE LATTER APPLIES TO ALL EMPLOYERS WHEREAS THE FEDERAL IS LIMITED TO THOSE WITH 15 OR MORE EMPLOYEES. FURTHER, FOR THOSE PRACTICING IN NEW YORK CITY YOU ARE CONFRONTED WITH A LAW WHICH HAS A BROADER VIEW OF WHAT DOES OR DOES NOT CONSTITUTE HARASSMENT.
A RECENT COURT DECISION IS OF SUFFICIENT INTEREST TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION. THE CASE BRINGS INTO PLAY THE GROWTH OF TELEMEDICINE AND OF EXPOSURE TO A MALPRACTICE CLAIM OF THE PRACTITIONER. DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN WAS A RADIOLOGIST – A NEW JERSEY RESIDENT – PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ONLY IN NEW JERSEY. HE ALLEGEDLY MISREAD A SONOGRAM AND THUS THERE WAS A DELAY IN BOTH THE DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF THE PATIENT’S BREAST CANCER CONDITION. THE PATIENT/PLAINTIFF IN QUESTION WAS A RESIDENT OF NEW YORK AND BROUGHT SUIT IN THE NEW YORK COURTS AGAINST THE RADIOLOGIST AND OTHERS.
A FEW YEARS AGO, NEW YORK ANNOUNCED THAT IT WAS EXPANDING ITS EFFORTS TO PURSUE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS AND ABUSES OF THE MEDICAID PROGRAM. THERE HAVE BEEN A CONTINUED SERIES OF REPORTS ANNOUNCING RESULTS OF ITS INVESTIGATIONS AND WE THOUGHT YOU WOULD FIND IT INTERESTING TO REVIEW SOME OF THE ACCOUNTS REPORTED.
THE IMPORTANCE OF PROTECTIONS BOTH FOR MALPRACTICE PREVENTION PROGRAMS (NEW YORK PUBLIC HEALTH LAW) AND FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAMS (NEW YORK EDUCATION LAW) CAME INTO JUDICIAL FOCUS IN A LITIGATION BASED ON A SURGICAL INCIDENT WHICH LEFT THE PATIENT WITH PERMANENT AND COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENTS.
A RECENT COURT DECISION WOULD SEEM TO ANSWER THE RIDDLE AS TO WHEN A FINDING OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE DOES NOT RESULT IN THE PERSON WHO COMMITTED THE ACT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT. SURPRISED? HERE ARE THE FACTS OF THE CASE.
A THIRD YEAR ORTHOPEDIC RESIDENT PERFORMED SURGERY ON THE PATIENT’S FEMUR WHILE UNDER THE DIRECT SUPERVISION OF THE PATIENT’S PHYSICIAN. THE SELECTION OF THE ANGLE AND LOCATION OF THE DRILL – AS WELL AS THE DECISION TO HALT THE DRILLING – WERE PERFORMED AT THE DIRECTION OF THE SUPERVISING PHYSICIAN.
