The Indiana Supreme Court heard argument on May 10, 2012, from two uninsured patients that claimed a non-profit hospital overbilled them. Specifically, they claimed the Hospital charged them more than insured patients for the same treatment. Both patients acknowledged signing contracts for payment in which they agreed to pay the Hospital’s bill if the “account is not paid by a private or governmental insurance carrier.” In response to the Hospital demand for payment, the patients argued, based on a long standing line of Indiana case law, that; where no specific price is specified in the contract for services, the law implies a promise to pay only a “reasonable charge” for the services. The patients argued unless the charge is specified in advance of the treatment a “reasonable charge” would be based on what is commonly charged to the majority of other patients in the community. (Read more…)

The Federal Court in the Southern District of Ohio dismissed a debtor’s claim against Reid Hospital, in Richmond, Indiana, and one of its employees, under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (“FDCPA”). The Court found that the Hospital was a creditor to whom the Plaintiff owed a debt, and therefore could not be held civilly liable under the FDCPA. While the FDCPA is sometimes erroneously used by debtors to challenge hospitals’ attempts to collect unpaid bills, the Act itself clearly states that it applies only to debt collectors, and the term “debt collector” does not include the creditor, its officers, or its employees. Reid Hospital was represented by Kathryn Cordell and David Honig of Hall, Render, Killian, Heath & Lyman. For further information about this case, or about any health-care related FDCPA questions, please contact Ms. Cordell or Mr. Honig at (317) 633-4884.

In September of 2011, the Indiana Court of Appeals rendered its opinion in Doe Corp. v. Honore, 950 N.E.2d 722 (Ind. Ct. of App. 2011). The central issue in the case was whether the trial court had equitable power to consider a request for a preliminary determination of law after the Medical Review Panel had issued its written Opinion.

In the present case, the parties agreed that the nurse member of the Medical Review Panel would not be allowed to opine as to causation in the Panel’s written Opinion. The Medical Review Panel chair agreed to abide by the parties’ agreement and no preliminary determination of law was sought on the issue before the Medical Review Panel meeting. However, when the written Opinion was issued by the Panel, the nurse member opined as to causation despite the agreement amongst the parties that they would not offer such an opinion. (Read more…)

In May of 2011, the Indiana Court of Appeals rendered its opinion in Robertson (Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund “Fund”) v. B.O., et al. 949 N.E.2d 404 (Ind. Ct. of App. 2011). The central issue in the case was whether the Fund can introduce evidence concerning the existence and compensable nature of plaintiff’s damages after plaintiff settled with the health care provider in the underlying medical malpractice claim. The claim arose out of a labor and delivery and the alleged failure to adequately monitor the fetus and timely respond to fetal strips. The infant was not diagnosed with abnormalities after birth or in the first few years of life. At age four (4), Plaintiff was diagnosed with spastic diplegia, a form of cerebral palsy. In a medical malpractice complaint, plaintiff alleged medical negligence occurred during his birth. (Read more…)

With the excessive over sharing that has become the hallmark of social networking, employers in the health care arena are becoming hyper-vigilant in protecting their facilities, hospitals, residents, and patients by developing policies and procedures related to mobile devices and social networking while on the job. In light of reports across the country that nurses and aides have been misusing photographs of residents and patients, while disseminating protected health information in the process, employers are taking aggressive steps to curb such behaviors. Yet these policies can sometimes go too far. In an effort to either vet job applicants or to check on current employees, some companies and government agencies are going beyond a little research on a person’s social networking profile—instead, they are asking for user names and passwords to log in as the user and have a look around.

(Read more…)

The penalty for using Facebook or a cell phone at work can be more than termination.  Last month, an Oregon jury convicted Nai Mai Chao, a nursing assistant, of misdemeanor invasion of personal privacy for taking disturbing photos of elderly or disabled patients and posting them to her Facebook wall.  She spent eight days in jail for taking graphic photos of patients using bed pans and posting them on Facebook.  The pictures show at least two patients—one of a patient lying down and another of the back of a patient’s head.  The rest of the pictures are the contents of bed pans.  Chao denied taking the photographs, but admitted to posting them.  She surrendered her nursing certificate in January, and was fired from the Regency Pacific Nursing and Rehab Center in Gresham, Oregon.

(Read more…)