Posted On: May 30, 2008

Recent Michigan Supreme Court Oral Argument: The Miller v Allstate Conundrum

The Michigan Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in an important case involving the proper incorporation of health care corporations that provide licensed services to the public. The case is Miller v. Allstate. The major issue Miller is whether those providing a service requiring a license must incorporate under the Michigan Professional Services Corporation Act (PSCA) instead of under the Michigan Business Corporation Act (BCA). The Michigan Supreme Court is reviewing the decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled, which ruled that under the language of the PSCA, any licensed professional (including a health care professional) who incorporates must do so under the PSCA and not the BCA.

The Miller decision by the Michigan Court of Appeals has caused quite a stir in the Michigan legal and business communities. It has caught everyone off guard, including the State of Michigan. The State of Michigan has taken the formal position that the Miller decision goes contrary to the plain language and purposes of the business incorporation acts in Michigan, as well as the accepted interpretation of those acts by everyone, including the Michigan Attorney General and the State agency that administers corporate filings.

To understand why the Miller decision has caused such an uproar, it is necessary to understand the history of incorporating professional service corporations in Michigan. Traditionally, only members of the “learned professions” such as doctors and lawyers have been required to incorporate under the PSCA. In the past, any other kind of business that provided professional or personal services had the choice of incorporating under the PSCA or the BCA. This was true even if a license was required to provide the services in question. The Miller decision has changed all of this.

The Miller case concerns a patient who was referred to a physical therapy clinic for treatments. Licensed physical therapists administered the treatments pursuant to medical prescriptions that the patient’s doctor’s properly issued. The physical therapy company was incorporated under the BCA. When Allstate was billed for the patient’s treatments, it refused to pay, because the physical therapy company was supposedly improperly incorporated under the BCA instead of the PSCA.

Allstate claimed that the physical therapy company should have incorporated under the PSCA since its business involves providing professional services that require a license. Allstate took the position that that the physical therapy company’s incorporation was defective because it was incorporated under the BCA instead of the PSCA. Allstate claimed that this alleged technical deficiency gave it the legal right to refuse the charges from the physical Therapy company.

There are a number of interesting and important legal issues involved in the Miller case. But, the issue of which statute professionals should incorporate their businesses under has received the most press. This issue also probably has the most potential to disrupt the businesses that have been incorporated under the BCA and not the PSCA. It appears that a ruling by the Michigan Supreme Court in favor of Allstate point could cause Michigan businesses that incorporated under the BCA and provide licensed services significant difficulties. Some of these difficulties might include difficulty collecting receivables and possible personal shareholder liability for company obligations.

Posted On: May 26, 2008

Recent Qui Tam Settlement Expose Pharmaceutical Fraud

Qui Tam health care settlements occur regularly resulting in substantial recoveries for the governments of the United States and the various individual states from providers of false and fraudulent claims to the Medicare, Medicaid and other government programs.

On May 2, 2008, McKesson Corporation, a national distributor of branded and generic prescription medications, agreed to settle allegations that it violated federal reporting provisions relating to the sale of certain prescription medications regulated by the Drug Enforcement Administration announced United States Attorney Rod J. Rosenstein. Under the agreement between the company and six United States Attorney’s Offices, including the District of Maryland, McKesson has agreed to pay $13,250,000 in civil penalties, $2 million of which relates to conduct allegedly occurring at McKesson’s Landover, Maryland facility. In addition, McKesson has entered an administrative agreement with DEA in which it agrees to implement new policies and procedures to detect and prevent drug diversion beyond those currently required by federal regulation.

Posted On: May 24, 2008

Expert Witness Intimidation

A recent pattern of expert witness intimidation has emerged across the country. Some physicians encouraged by ambitious (to say the least) attorneys, and some professional organizations, are apparently concerned that expert testimony for plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases poses a "threat" to the administration of justice.

John Vail of the American Association of Justice's Center for Constitutional Justice believes that the fury of malpractice defendant physicians, funneled towards colleagues who testify that malpractice did indeed occur, and catalyzed by insurance company pressure to curtail malpractice litigation, has produced new weapons in the war against malpractice plaintiffs: peer review of medical expert testimony and scrutiny of that testimony by licensure boards.

Some states have defined such testimony as the "practice of medicine" and have permitted licensure boards to oversee and consider the testimony in licensing actions. These actions threaten the free flow of information to the courts and chill speech protected by the First Amendment. Wisely, according to Mr. Vail, courts are acting to dampen the threat.

However, credentialing committees and aggressive peer review may still be expected to consider such testimony as long as the AMA and other professional organizations and societies continue to campaign for medical liability "reform" and rail against "trial lawyers."

I am firmly against frivolous lawsuits. When I was chair person of the State Bar of Michigan Standing Committee on Professionalism, our committee addressed this issue, improper advertising by lawyers and lawyer competency, but believed, correctly, that our present Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, various statutes-, the State Bar of Michigan-and an active Court System--adequately deals with these concerns.

However, the existing court system and vigilant defense lawyers (who also provide services in "trials" and are properly referred to as "trial lawyers" too) have many tools at their disposal to deal with such actions. On the other hand, I believe that physicians and other medical professionals should be able, without fear of retaliation, to support activity designed to compensate victims of malpractice and incompetence and to improve the quality of health care in this country (where the Institute of Medicine has reported that over 98,000 persons die annually from medical errors).

The vast majority of physicians diligently observe the Hippocratic Oath every day in their practices and, of course, care about the quality of services they provide to their patients. Those who don't should be dealt with firmly.

Any physician threatened with adverse or retaliatory consequences for testifying truthfully and in good-faith in a malpractice action should seek the representation of a competent health care lawyer immediately.

Posted On: May 10, 2008

David Haron and Frank, Haron, Weiner & Navarro Create Health Care Lawyer Blog

I would like to introduce myself and my new HEALTH CARE LAWYER BLOG. I have been practicing business and health related transactional, regulatory and litigation law since 1969 when I graduated from the University of Michigan Law School and joined a firm in Detroit (after a stint as law clerk to the Chief Judge of the Michigan Court of Appeals). Presently, I am a Principal Member of Frank, Haron, Weiner and Navarro, P.L.C., a boutique law firm in Troy, Michigan, a northern suburb of Detroit. I have been named a Super Lawyer for 2007 by Law & Politics Magazine and am active in the community and the Bar Association.

Health Care is the number one industry in the United States and certainly in Michigan where most other industries are in the doldrums. There is more construction in Michigan in the health care field than any other (except, perhaps, casinos!) and the issues -- regulatory and transactional-are immense. Recently, my partner, Monica Navarro, and I taught a Health Care Law Class at Cooley Law School in Auburn Hills, Michigan. The subject, taught from a 1400 page text book covered everything from the definition of disease to the drug industry to antitrust considerations to death and dying. The students were fascinated by the breadth and scope of the subject--as were we when we looked at the text book. Given the attention the "health care crisis" is receiving in the current political campaign and the rising cost of health care in America and throughout the world, the subject--and this Blog--will have a long life.

Plese return often for insight into the area, information on subjects new to you and for detailed information in areas that will be of assistance to medical practitioners, attorneys and the general public.