|
By:
Priya Bathija and
Robert Preston
 Physicians
have long provided free care or reduced rates to
financially disadvantaged patients and as a professional
courtesy to colleagues and their families. Physicians
have also engaged in the practice of waiving insurance
co-payments and deductibles as a means of assisting
patients in managing health care costs. The ability of
physicians to provide professional courtesy has been
restricted by both federal and state laws.
As we discussed in the last issue, under federal law,
physicians are generally not permitted to waive the
co-payments or deductibles required of patients enrolled
in federal health care programs, including Medicare and
Medicaid. Doing so could potentially violate the Stark
II Regulations, the Anti-Kickback Statute, or the Civil
Monetary Penalty Statute. For a complete discussion of
these federal regulations, please see the first part of
this article which is available at
http://www.bdblaw.com/new/H&MReporterVol2Iss2.asp.
Ohio laws also address this issue. Ohio law, like
federal law, generally does not permit physicians to
waive co-payments or deductibles. State laws also
hinder a physician’s ability to provide free care or
reduced rates.
Breach of Contract and Fraudulent and Deceptive
Business Practices
In addition to federal restrictions, physicians who
waive co-payment and deductibles face potential contract
and fraud issues under Ohio law. Provider contracts
with third-party payors often include an obligation for
physicians to collect co-payments and deductible amounts
from the patient. These payments are intended, in part,
to prevent the over-utilization of services.
Failure to seek payments may result in a breach of
contract as well as fraudulent and deceptive business
practices. For example, if a physician bills a
third-party payor $100 as his or her “usual and
customary charge” and then, upon receiving $80 from the
payor, waives the patient’s $20 co-payment, the
physician’s submission of the $100 claim would be a
breach of the physician’s contract to collect the
co-payment. Physicians must review the co-payment
provisions of each provider contract they enter into to
determine the obligations imposed by the third-party
payor.
Insurance Fraud
In Ohio, waiver of co-payments may also be a violation
of existing insurance law. The Revised Code defines
insurance fraud as “presenting to, or causing to be
presented to, an insurer, a claim for payment pursuant
to a policy or a claim for any other benefit pursuant to
a policy knowing that the statement or any part of the
statement is false or deceptive.” A “statement” here
includes a bill for services, diagnoses or prognosis.
Thus a physician presenting a claim to an insurer for an
amount that assumes the beneficiary has paid the
co-payment or deductible when it actually has been
waived may, under Ohio law, be guilty of insurance
fraud.
Medical Practices Act
The Ohio State Medical Board has the authority to
revoke, suspend or reprimand physicians who waive
co-payments or deductibles as an enticement for patients
to receive health care services from the physician (R.C.
§ 4731.22(B)(28)). However, Ohio law (R.C. §
4731.22(N)) does allow the waiver of co-payments in the
following two circumstances:
-
Where the health benefit plan
expressly allows such a practice, and waiver of the
deductible and co-payment is made with the full
knowledge and consent of the plan purchaser, payor
and third-party administrator; or
-
For any professional services
rendered to another physician. This exception
applies only to a professional courtesy extended to
another physician and does not apply to family
members or employees of physicians.
Compliance with R.C § 4731.22(N) does not, however,
immunize a physician against the risk of being accused
of insurance fraud. Full compliance with insurance law
(R.C. § 2913.47) is also required. Accordingly, even if
a waiver is permitted under R.C. § 4731.22(N), claims
submitted to payors still must not be deceptive.
Conclusion
As we stated in the last issue, to assure compliance
with both federal and state law, a physician must use
careful judgment in determining whether or not to waive
co-payments and deductibles even when offered as a
professional courtesy to other physicians. Co-payments
and deductibles should only be waived for patients
enrolled in Medicare and other government-sponsored
programs if the physician complies with Stark II, the
Anti-Kickback Statute, and the Civil Monetary Penalty
Statute.
Co-payments and deductible amounts may be waived for
patients enrolled in private third-party payor plans.
Under federal and state law, such a waiver is generally
permissible only with the full knowledge and consent of
all parties involved including the plan purchaser, payor
and third-party administrator. Physicians who wish to
offer waivers must review their contracts with
third-party payors to ensure that any contractual
provisions regarding collections of required co-payments
and deductible amounts are not violated. Requests for
reimbursement from third-party payors should clearly
indicate any amounts waived and the consent of the
parties.
Physician providers should make
sure that their courtesy policies are in compliance with
federal and state laws. These polices should be reduced
to writing and approved in advance by the governing body
of the provider entity.
______________________________
Priya Bathija is an Associate
attorney and member of the Health & Medicine Practice
Group. She can be contacted at
pbathija@bdblaw.com or
614.227.4282.
Bob Preston
is a Partner of the Health & Medicine and Trusts &
Estates Practice
Groups. He can be contacted at
rpreston@bdblaw.com or
614.227.4287.
By:
Paul A. Dzenitis
 Despite
the passage of tort reform, nursing home negligence case
filings are still common. There are several reasons
that these claims are still being filed. First, caps on
jury awards for non-economic damages do not apply to
wrongful death cases, and many nursing home cases
involve allegations of wrongful death. Second, the
limitations placed on expert witness testimony as part
of tort reform do not apply to nursing experts.
Moreover, regional and national law firms continue to
advertise their services to those seeking recovery for
nursing home neglect. Finally, it appears that
excessive verdicts in nursing home negligence cases are
still available. For example, on May 6, 2006, a
Franklin Circuit Court jury awarded $20 million to the
family of an 84-year-old resident who died of a heart
attack (Loren Richards vs. Beverly Enterprises).
This article
offers some advice for those who are either currently
trying a long term care case or may face this type of
litigation in the future. Knowing what to expect and
how to help your lawyer prepare for a jury will reduce
your risk of losing at trial.
Long term
care cases usually settle. Sometimes the cost of
defense – paying for lawyers, experts, and the time
required to defend a case through a jury trial – exceeds
plaintiff’s demand. Under these circumstances, some
clients make a reasonable business decision to settle
out of court in exchange for dismissal of the pending
lawsuit. However, some cases will not settle.
Sometimes the nursing home defendant may decide on
principle to fight a lawsuit. Other times, the parties
cannot agree to an out-of-court settlement. For
instance, if the plaintiff’s attorney and her client
decide their case is worth millions, and the nursing
home disagrees, there is no alternative but trial. In a
recent case that our firm defended, plaintiff’s counsel
demanded $12 million to settle a case for the suffering
and death of a 90-year-old resident who developed
bedsores, dehydration and malnutrition. With the
plaintiff demanding millions of dollars for the death of
a woman in her nineties, our client was left with no
alternative but to try the case to a jury.
Any case that
is filed may end up in front of a jury. There is no
guarantee that a case will be settled or dismissed, no
matter how ridiculous the plaintiff’s theory is or how
paltry you consider the damages to be. For the best
chances of a positive result, you should understand some
of the common themes and techniques employed by the
plaintiff’s bar. Plaintiff’s lawyers push simple themes
that resonate with a jury. Plaintiffs allege facility
operators place “profits over patients.” They compare
compensation for the top officers of the company with
the salaries for the lowest paid aides. They cite
management’s efforts at increasing the acuity levels of
residents for higher reimbursement rates while not
spending enough money for linens and housekeeping.
Plaintiffs
also present evidence from expert witnesses that, based
upon census levels and nursing assignment sheets, the
facility was short-staffed and could not meet the needs
of its residents. A common technique among plaintiff’s
lawyers is to call ex-employees to testify about short
staffing and unclean conditions at the nursing home.
This testimony smacks of the “60 Minutes” or “PrimeTime”
investigative reporting that is now part of our popular
culture. These ex-employees have usually been fired,
and they are biased. However, their testimony can be
damaging because it adds drama to an otherwise dull
proceeding for a jury, and, if believed, it places the
entire facility in a bad light. A jury will be more
inclined to punish a nursing home with an excessive
verdict if they believe care was compromised because of
cost-cutting measures.
The following
tips will help you and your lawyer in defending a
nursing home negligence civil trial.
1. Sequester
the medical records.
Plaintiff’s
lawyers seek to generalize about the nursing home
industry and cost-cutting measures at the facility.
Your lawyer will seek to place the resident’s medical
condition directly at issue. However, your lawyer
cannot do so without the support of the complete nursing
home chart.
Once the
lawsuit is filed, your lawyer will request a copy of all
of the records on the resident. Instruct your staff to
provide a complete copy of all of the records including
any documentation of labs, hospital records, or
correspondence. Your lawyer is trying to learn
everything he can about the resident. He needs to know
what hospital records to subpoena to begin developing
his medical defense. Any note, no matter how
insignificant, could be important in developing the
defense of the case, and it is important that your
lawyer sees the entire record at the outset. Because
your lawyer is required to turn over to the plaintiff’s
lawyer any information that he plans on introducing at
trial, records uncovered immediately before or during
trial cannot be used to formulate your defense.
Moreover, your lawyer will consult with expert witnesses
who will be called to defend the care provided in the
case. It is critical that your lawyer and your experts
have all of the relevant information.
After a
complete copy of the facility record has been provided,
keep the original record locked away in a secure
location. If portions of the chart disappear or are
lost, the nursing home may open itself up to damages for
destruction of evidence. If you are unable to maintain
the chart in its original condition, give it to your
lawyer.
2. Make
yourself and your staff available.
A lawyer is
only as good as the facts of the case. To present a
defense, your lawyer has to know how your facility
operates, how each unit is staffed, and how staffing
numbers are calculated. Your lawyer will ask to meet
with your administrator, director of nursing, and staff
scheduler. Every facility operates differently, and
your lawyer will seek to understand as much as he can
about how your building works, so that he can explain
this in common-sense language to a jury of laypeople.
The only way a lawyer can effectively cross-examine and
challenge the plaintiff’s staffing allegations is by
understanding precisely how you staff your facility.
And if the facility has faced staffing challenges, your
lawyer needs to learn this as soon as possible so that
he can develop alternative defenses.
Your lawyer
needs to understand the different personalities of the
people who work at your building. Your factual defense
will be presented through facility witnesses who
provided care to the resident. The lawyer wants to know
who will be the best witnesses to present to a jury of
laypeople. A jury trial is like a beauty pageant. The
jury is judging who is credible based upon what they
wear, how they look, and the manner in which they answer
questions. Since your lawyer has questioned hundreds of
similar witnesses at deposition and trial, he knows what
to look for in an effective witness.
While the
plaintiff’s lawyer will push general themes such as
“profits over patients,” your lawyer will humanize the
facility as much as possible. In a recent trial in
which plaintiff’s counsel alleged a nursing home ignored
and abandoned a woman resulting in the development of a
stage IV pressure ulcer, an aide was called as a witness
for the defense and made a powerful impression on the
jury. The jury responded to the credibility of the aide
who spent more time providing loving care to a resident
nearing death than did the resident’s family.
The aide
testified she would stay after hours to fix the
resident’s hair and nails. She consoled the family
after the loss of their mother and attended the
resident’s memorial service. Finally, the aide saved
the obituary of the resident and kept it in her Bible.
This testimony was devastating to the plaintiff’s
allegation that the facility staff ignored the
resident. However, we learned about this aide only
after asking to meet with everyone who had ever provided
care to the resident. The aide’s name did not appear in
the medical records, but she knew more about the
resident than anyone else at the facility. If we had
not asked to meet with everyone, or if the facility had
failed to allow us to meet with everyone, we could not
have presented this compelling testimony to the jury.
3. Meet with
your lawyer and select an appropriate representative to
sit at counsel table during trial.
Your
representative will be the “face” of the nursing home
that the jury will see every day during jury selection
and throughout trial. Do not just select someone you
can afford to be without for the month-long trial. The
representative must be capable of assisting your
lawyer. He must provide feedback to the lawyer about
potential jurors. The representative must provide a
layperson’s input to the lawyer about the impact of a
particular piece of evidence. This person must also be
willing to help out from minute to minute as changes in
strategy occur with the presentation of evidence.
4. Prepare
to see the case through to the end.
Before the
case was filed, a reasonably competent plaintiff’s
lawyer made a determination that she can make more money
by filing the case than by not filing it. My clients
have told me countless times that the family will not
see a case through to trial. But do not depend on the
family’s having a change in heart about filing the
lawsuit. From its inception, prepare the case with your
lawyer as if it is going to trial, because forging a
strong defense is the best method of securing a
dismissal or an acceptable settlement.
Defending a nursing home
negligence case is more complex than defending a typical
medical malpractice case. Knowing how to defend the
medical aspects of the case is only the tip of the
iceberg. By understanding the common themes of the
plaintiff’s bar and hiring a lawyer who has experience
defending long term cases, you can dramatically increase
the prospects of a successful outcome.
_____________________________
Paul Dzenitis
is a Shareholder of the Health & Medicine Practice Group.
He can be contacted at
pdzenitis@bdblaw.com
or 216.615.7337.
|
|
|
Don Antrim, a
shareholder at Buckingham Columbus, is a prominent
member of our Health & Medicine Practice Group, yet he
did not start his career in the field of health care
law. “When I came out of law school in ’74 I went to
work at the Ohio Attorney General’s office. I worked in
securities litigation, and I became the lead civil
attorney going after securities fraud in Ohio. It wasn’t
until later that I began to focus on health care.”
What drew Don into the health and
medicine field was his work in corporate takeovers
during the late ‘70s. “I went into private practice
at that time, continuing my securities work. One of
my clients was a publicly held company in a takeover
situation, and I represented them successfully. They
operated long term care facilities, and I was also
able to help them with a Medicaid reimbursement
issue. They needed an attorney with administrative
experience, and my work at the Attorney General’s
office had given me that experience.
“One thing led to another, and I
continued to do more health care work and moved away
from the securities litigation practice. In
securities cases, the period of time from filing a
compliant to trial could easily be four years.
Because of the delay and the backlog, along with
changes to securities law in the early and mid ‘80s,
I moved my practice toward health care, representing
some national health care chains.”
In the past 25 years, Don has kept up
with huge changes in the legal aspects of delivering
health care. “We’ve seen enormous changes in the
regulation of health care, particularly the
anti-kickback statute and the Stark law. That
brought about a panoply of health care regulation.
And of course there was HIPAA. I represent corporate
and physician clients ranging from hospitals to
imaging facilities to large physician groups and
individual physicians. They all face these legal
issues, and my experience means I can help them with
both the regulatory and business aspects of the
delivery of health care.
“I’ve been practicing law for 32
years, and I’ve adapted with the changes that have
occurred. When client demands called for it, I moved
into it. I don’t do medical malpractice defense work
– other partners do that and do an excellent job at
it. I focus on representing physicians and
institutional clients in regulatory issues, and I
bring my experience in government to the job. Before
and after going into private practice, I worked with
Ohio House and Senate committees to draft various
health care regulations. Specifically, I helped
draft some of the regulations concerning ambulatory
surgery centers, and in 1981 I worked with my first
ambulatory surgery center client.
“I believe that our clients get the
best of all possible worlds – breadth of experience
along with knowledge of what’s current. In our
Health & Medicine Practice Group, we’ve been at it
long enough that we can talk about regulatory
issues, but also specific business issues. We have a
level of maturity. We draw on our experience, but we
also stay on top of what’s changing in our clients’
environment.”
Don describes himself as “an
inveterate fly fisherman,” and every two years he
travels to Alaska on a salmon fishing trip, where he
goes off into the bush and floats down the river
self-guided. He donates his time and legal expertise
to environmental groups, including Trout Unlimited
and the Mad River Steering Committee, and regularly
rolls up his sleeves to help clean up rivers and
riverbanks.
|
OIG Issues New Self-Disclosure
Protocol for Hospitals
The Department of Health & Human Services, Office of
Inspector General (the “OIG”) issued an open letter to
health care providers on April 24, 2006, which
encouraged hospitals to use the self-disclosure protocol
to resolve civil monetary penalty liabilities. The open
letter also announced the new self-disclosure protocols
(“SDP”). The SDP is to serve as an avenue for resolving
physician self-referral and anti-kickback statute
violations. The letter also stated that, under certain
circumstances, the OIG would impose lesser penalties on
providers that use the SDP. The letter is available at
http://www.ig.hhs.gov/fraud/openletters.html. For
more information on the SDP, please contact
Tom
Hess.
____________________________________
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
On February 8, 2006, President Bush signed the Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005 (the “DRA”) into law. The DRA
significantly modifies several Medicare and Medicaid
provisions. Among other things, the new law
accomplishes the following:
-
The DRA extends the specialty hospital moratorium to
later this year.
-
The DRA authorizes certain gainsharing demonstration
projects to test and evaluate gainsharing
arrangements between hospitals and physicians.
-
The DRA provides for an exception of certain caps
imposed by the Medicare and Medicaid programs on
benefits for outpatient physical therapy,
speech-language pathology, and occupational therapy
services furnished by providers other than
hospitals.
-
Under the DRA, “capped rental” durable medical
equipment items rented after January 1, 2006 may be
rented for up to 13 months. In addition,
beneficiaries will be given the opportunity to
purchase power-driven wheelchairs on a lump-sum
basis at the time they receive the wheelchair.
After the rental period is completed, the title to
the durable medical equipment transfers to the
Medicare beneficiary.
-
The DRA imposes a 36-month limit on the amount of
time that oxygen equipment may be rented. Again,
after the rental period ends, the oxygen equipment
is transferred to the Medicare beneficiary.
-
The DRA increases the penalty for hospitals that do
not submit quality of care data.
-
The DRA eliminates the 4.4 percent reduction in
payments for physicians’ services that went into
effect on January 1, 2006. Payment will remain
frozen at the 2005 level.
-
The DRA limits payments for certain procedures
performed in ambulatory surgery centers.
-
The DRA limits reimbursement for the technical
component of certain imaging services.
-
Every
entity that receives at least $5 million in Medicare
payments annually is required to establish fraud and
abuse policies by January 1, 2007.
____________________________________
Another Tool to Eliminate Part
D Hassles
Many Medicare beneficiaries are turning to their doctors
for guidance in choosing the program that will provide
them with the drugs they need and for authorizations and
exceptions to plan formularies. Fortunately, there are
resources that help physicians assist patients from a
clinical standpoint and on Medicare Part D in general.
The latest resource is a one-page form developed by the
American Medical Association (the “AMA”) on which
doctors can request prior authorizations and exceptions
to plan formularies for patients. This form is
available at:
http://www.ama-assn.org/go/medicarerx. The document
requires the doctor to give identifying information
about the physician and beneficiary, the patient’s
medical diagnosis and recommended drug therapy, and the
reasons why the doctor believes a covered drug will be
harmful or less effective. The AMA, health plans and
Centers for Medicaid and Medicare are heavily promoting
the form and believe that it will help both physicians
and patients cut unnecessary paperwork and get
prescriptions faster.
For a more comprehensive list of the Medicare Part D
resources available to physicians please see our guide
to Medicare Part D Resources which is available at
http://www.bdblaw.com/new/H&MReporterVol2Iss2.asp,
or visit the CMS website at
www.cms.hhs.gov. For more information on Medicare
Part D, please contact
Shila Nalawadi or
Priya Bathija.
____________________________________
Changes for Imaging Joint
Ventures
The Stark laws, which govern physician self-referral for
Medicare and Medicaid patients, are going to become a
major obstacle for physicians who have invested in
imaging joint ventures. As of January 1, 2007, both
nuclear medicine and PET scans will be officially added
to the designated health services list, which could
cause investors to face hefty fines.
In order for physician-investors to continue referring
patients under imaging joint ventures, they must ensure
that the arrangements fall under a Stark exception. If
physician-investors are unable to restructure under such
an exception, they will be forced to sell their interest
in the venture. Physician-investors should be cautious
when selling entities in which they have a working
financial relationship, because they are still in danger
of violating Stark. One way to avoid such a violation
is to fall under the isolated transaction exception.
If physician-investors refuse to fall under either
exception they can no longer refer Medicare or Medicaid
patients to the imaging centers they own. This will
require physicians to monitor their referrals much more
closely. Physician-investors must also realize that
they could still be violating Stark by referring a
patient whose private insurance company covers the
service, if that patient has Medicare listed as a
secondary payer. Physician-investors may also be in
trouble if either the private insurer or state laws
similar to Stark prohibit self-referrals.
As a result of these pending changes,
physician-investors in imaging centers should evaluate
whether they are in compliance with the Stark exceptions
or if more procedures should be in place before
referring patients to imaging centers. For more
information on physician investment in imaging centers
or the Stark exceptions mentioned above, please contact
Don Antrim or
Joe Feltes.
____________________________________
Ohio Merit Rule is Challenged
A case pending before an Ohio Appeals Court may
determine the fate of Ohio’s merit rule. Ohio Rule of
Civil Procedure 10(d) requires that all medical
liability complaints be accompanied by an affidavit of
an expert witness verifying the viability of the
action. The expert is to be a medical expert in the
same field as the alleged negligence who has reviewed
the medical record.
The purpose of Rule 10(d) was to reduce the number of
frivolous medical negligence lawsuits. While Ohio law
has always required plaintiffs to have a medical expert
testify in a case about the standard of care, this
affidavit helps to determine at the outset whether there
is a reasonable basis for the case to proceed.
The pending Ohio Court of Appeals decision has the
potential to both minimize the effect of the rule and
erode its importance.
The court will ultimately decide whether the trial court
erred in allowing a plaintiff to file a medical
liability case without properly filing the required
certificate of merit. If the court allows the plaintiff
to file in the absence of an already existing exception
to the rule, the law will fail to fulfill its purpose.
The court has yet to make a final determination in the
case. However, the court’s interpretation of the rule
has the potential to seriously affect the scope of
medical negligence lawsuits.
For more information on the impact of this case on the
merit rule, or the merit rule itself, please contact
Philip Howes.
____________________________________
Competitive Acquisition Program
for DME
CMS recently filed a proposed rule that will
phase in a competitive acquisition program (CAP)
for durable medical equipment, prosthetics,
orthotics and supplies (DMEPOS) under Medicare
Part B. The new rule will eventually require
CMS to move from the use of fee schedules to
competitively bid contracts. This new rule will
apply to certain items of durable medical
equipment (DME), enteral nutrition, and
off-the-shelf orthotics. The proposed rule will
also change the Medicare payments for oxygen
equipment and certain rented DME enacted in the
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. If enforced, the
new rule will also establish a fee schedule for
home dialysis supplies and equipment that are
still paid on a reasonable charge basis.
Under this proposed rule, suppliers in a
competitive bidding area would submit bids for
selected items, and CMS would use these bids to
establish Medicare payment amounts for these
items. The proposed rule allows suppliers whose
bids are lower than the Medicare payment amounts
to offer a rebate to beneficiaries, lowering
their costs for acquiring the DME items they
need. The rule also requires that beneficiaries
who live in a certain competitive bidding area
will be permitted to obtain DMEPOS only from
contracted suppliers. This provision also
applies to beneficiaries who permanently reside
outside of a competitive bidding area but visit
that area to obtain their DMEPOS.
Although the CAP is not projected to be
completely operational until after 2009, it will
be implemented in several metropolitan areas by
2007. For more information on the development
of the proposed rule, and its applicable
geographic and equipment-specific exemptions,
contact
Priya Bathija.
 Thomas
Hess,
Buckingham
ColumbusSM,
was re-appointed to the Board of Examiners of the
Nursing Home Administrators (BENHA) by Governor Taft.
Also, Mr. Hess was interviewed by Columbus
Business First. The interview involved, in part,
the difference between marketing of and soliciting for
legal services and what is ethically permissible.
Save the Date for these Upcoming Presentations:
August -
Stephen P. Griffin,
Buckingham
CantonSM,
will be presenting to the Medical Faculty of The Ohio
State University Medical Center. His topic is on
"Giving Testimony in a Malpractice Case, at the
Request of the Attorney General's Office." On
October 18, Mr. Griffin will also be speaking at
the Physician Insurers Association of America (PIAA)
Claims/Risk Management Workshop at The Hershey Hotel.
His topic is about a case he defended in Summit County
Common Pleas Court having to do with "Chronic Pain
Management."
Out and About – Recent Presentations:
Joe Feltes,
Buckingham
CantonSM,
spoke at the Ohio State Bar Association's
Annual Convention. His topic was "Spam I Am (Not):
Adventures and Misadventures Involving E-mail and the
Internet. What It Means to Us and Our Clients!"
Mr. Feltes also presented with
Christopher S. Humphrey,
Buckingham
CantonSM,
at the Akron General Medical Center's Grand Rounds on
"Pay-for-Performance."
_______________________________
Mark Frasure,
Buckingham
CantonSM, and Thomas
Hess,
Buckingham
ColumbusSM,
spoke at a Lorman Education Services seminar in Akron,
Ohio. Their topic was “Management of Medical Records
in Ohio.” Mr. Hess also presented at an Ohio
Health Care Association training seminar in Columbus,
Ohio. His topic was "Advance Directives."
_______________________________
G. Brenda Coey,
Buckingham
CantonSM,
presented a seminar on "Three Major Issues Impacting
Long-Term Care Providers: Falls, Wounds, and
Elopement" at Menorah Park Center for Learning.
_______________________________
Richard Milligan,
Buckingham
CantonSM,
was a guest speaker at Bill Emley’s Stark County Bar
Association’s installation luncheon, speaking on Ethics
and Professionalism. Joining him on the panel of
speakers was the Honorable Sara Lioi of the Stark County
Court of Common Pleas; Jonathan Coughlan, Disciplinary
Counsel for the Supreme Court of Ohio; Jonathan Marshall
of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances &
Discipline; and Denise Platfoot Lacey, secretary of the
Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism.
_______________________________
Ronald Wilt and Robin Bravchok,
Buckingham ClevelandSM, gave a presentation for the Northeast Ohio
Ultrasound Society in Independence, Ohio. Mr. Wilt
discussed "Recent Changes in Malpractice Laws,
Including a Case Law and Legislative Update."
Ms. Bravchok's topic was "Basic HIPAA Issues."
_______________________________
If you are interested in obtaining information on
upcoming seminars or would be interested in having
speakers from BDB make a presentation to your
organization, please contact: Lorna J. Henderson, Client
Relations Administrator, at
800.686.2825 ext. 86473
or
lhenderson@bdblaw.com.
|
