Healthcare Law Briefs
1.
Service-Line Joint Ventures
A "Special Report" in the October 13, 2003 edition of Modern
Healthcare describes the next generation of hospital-physician
joint ventures, which range from joint ownership of specialty
facilities to management agreements for existing inpatient
programs. Contact Mike Cassidy at
mcassidy@tuckerlaw.com
if you have questions about these ventures.
<Top
2.
Guidance Regarding Interpretation
Requirements
Physicians' obligations to
provide interpreters for non-English speaking patients has been a
festering issue, even without the liability concerns. HHS has issued new
guidance, easing this requirement, for groups that participate in
federal healthcare programs. As with compliance guidance, the new
rules recognize that these requirements must be scalable, to match
practice resources, based upon the following four factors:
-
The number of patients with
language problems,
-
The frequency of patient
encounters,
-
The nature or "severity" of
the patients' medical problems, and
-
Available resources.
The document is available at
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/lep/revisedlep.html. Contact
Mike Cassidy
if you have questions.
<Top
3.
Third Circuit Decision
States Doctor/Shareholders Not Employees for Title VII
In Ziegler v. Anesthesia Associates of Lancaster, the
Third Circuit ruled that the physician/shareholders of the professional
corporation were not "employees" for purposes of the jurisdictional
requirements of Title VII. Therefore, a sex discrimination and equal pay
lawsuit against the group was dismissed under federal law for lack of
jurisdiction. This case follows the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision
in Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates, P.C. v. Wills.
<Top
4.
U.S. Supreme Court Stays Out of
Healthcare Cases
The Supreme Court has denied petitions for writs of certiorari ina number
of pending healthcare appeals watched by healthlaw attorneys, including
the following:
-
A claim
by an ER physician, infected with hepatitis C while on duty, who claimed
that requiring her to disclose her medical condition constituted a
discriminatory employment practice;
-
A claim
by a lay midwife that the Illinois Nursing and Advanced Practice Nursing
Act violated her constitutional rights;
-
An
attempt by two Alabama physicians, working in a federally funded health
center, the have their malpractice clams removed from state to federal
court; and
-
An
appeal by a whistleblower who was challenging a federal court's
authority to reduce the penalties in his qui tam suit.
<Top
>For more information about the
topics presented in this newsletter please contact one of the
Healthcare
Attorneys:
>Read
the September 2003 issue of our HEALTHCARE
NEWSLETTER.
 Tucker Arensberg,
P.C.
1500 One PPG
Place Pittsburgh, PA 15222 412/566-1212
<Back |
