Category Archives: Employee Issues
The Texas Medical Association (TMA) is challenging a 600% hike in administrative fees for seeking federal dispute resolution in the No Surprises Act (NSA) situations. The association seeks relief by filing a fourth lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The Texas Medical Society is the largest state medical society in the nation, even though it is the 2nd largest State followed by Alaska, representing more than 57,000 physicians and medical student members.
The hike only applies to out-of-network physicians or provider and a health plan payor. These situations occur when emergency services are provided by a doctor or health care provider outside of the patient’s insurance network or when out-of-network services are provided at an in-network facility.
The federal agencies set the initial administrative fee at $50 and announced in October 2022 it would remain at $50 for 2023. Two months later the agencies announced a 600% hike in the fee to $350 beginning in January 2023, “due to supplemental data analysis and increasing expenditures in carrying out the Federal IDR process since the development of the prior 2023 guidance.”
The steep jump in fees will dramatically curtail many physicians’ ability to seek arbitration when a health plan offers insufficient payment for care.
The reason that I know the TX Medical Society filed this lawsuit, because it just happened, is because I joined ASMAC, which is the American Society of Medical Association Counsel. It’s an amazing association comprised of Presidents of State medical associations all of whom are lawyers trying to protect physicians. Kelly Walla is the Vice President and General Counsel for the Texas Medical Association, and she circulated an email letting us know. She was a week late in circulating the email because, apparently, the power has been out in Austen.
The association claims that the new uptick in administrative fees violates the notice and comment requirements. I do have a personal question – if the association is successful and gets the fee requirement eradicated due to notice and comment violations, wouldn’t TX just reinstitute the hike in fees, but allow comments next time? If we really ask ourselves, do the comments matter? Who looks at them and do they carry any weight?
Since this hike only applies to out-of-network providers, I wonder if, in TX, the networks are closed. Closed networks means that, supposedly, the network has enough providers and it’s not accepting more providers. What network has “enough providers?” If the law states that everyone has the freedom to pick their provider of choice or “access to care,” then a closed network would fly in the face of that prospect. I have been successful in fighting “closed networks” in the past and gaining access to that “closed network.”
Going back to Texas, the rules include establishing the nonrefundable administrative fee all parties must pay to enter the federal independent dispute resolution (IDR) process in the event of a payment disagreement between an out-of-network physician or provider and a health plan in circumstances covered by the law. The suit lists two radiology groups as plaintiffs: the Texas Radiological Society and Houston Radiology Associated. These groups bill small value claims, so they will be particularly hurt because most claims billed are less than $350, according to the suit. Apparently, the Emergency Department Practice Management Association supports the association’s lawsuit. CMS’ reasoning for the hike is the backlog. But, making independent dispute resolution more expensive, when doctors have a right to IDR, in my opinion, is counterintuitive. Get more arbitrators. Don’t heighten your fences.
How much power does an Executive Order signed by your State’s Governor actually wield? Governors, all of whom are elected, serve as the CEOs of the 50 states, five commonwealths, and territories of the U.S.
As CEO of their particular State, Governors are responsible for ensuring that each State is adequately prepared for emergencies and disasters of all types and sizes. Most emergencies and disasters are handled at the local level, and few require a presidential disaster declaration or attract worldwide media attention. Yet here we are. A global pandemic affecting every single person on the planet.
This is not a tornado. It’s not Sept. 11 or giant killer hornets, which are also apparently a new thing. This virus has uprooted the world in a way that no one has ever witnessed.
Not everyone is following Governors’ Executive Orders. For example, multiple adult day care centers contacted me recently from New York. Governor Cuomo has issued multiple Executive Orders regarding telehealth, basically relaxing the rules and forcing higher reimbursement rates and allowing for more telehealth, when in the past, it would not have been allowed. However, private insurance companies are refusing to obey the governor’s executive orders. The private companies argue that the providers signed a binding contract that does not include telehealth. The private payors argue that contract law trumps a governor’s executive order, even though the governor has ordered it because of the pandemic. Governor Cuomo has suspended New York State Public Health Law §2999-cc, as well as numerous others.
These adult day centers have followed the governor’s executive orders and are providing telehealth to maintain elderly socialization. The mental health aspect is their main concern right now.
There is no consistency in how the private companies are complying or not complying. Some private payors have issued amendments to the providers’ contracts, allowing telehealth, but at a serious financial decrease. Where the visit would have been reimbursed at $100-200, the new contract amendments allow for reimbursement rates of $25.
Others stick to the contracts and refuse to reimburse telehealth for these adult day care centers at all.
According to one of the companies that spoke with me, the adult day care centers in New York are losing approximately $56,000 per month. Now, I know that most health care providers are losing money in this pandemic. My friend who is an ER nurse says she has never seen the ER so empty. We cannot have our hospitals close. But in the case of the adult day care centers, we can point to a legal reason that providers should be reimbursed during this pandemic. The private payors are blatantly not following the Governor’s Executive Order.
Here, in North Carolina, the reimbursement rates for health care providers are increasing, sometimes doubling, as in the case of home health due to the shortage of health care providers willing to go onto someone’s home. From about $15 to $33 per hour. Thank you to all you home health workers! It is a scary time, and you are essential.
The providers want to sue to get the reimbursements that they are owed.
This is just one example of how discombobulated COVID-19 has made everyone.
Then add in the next variable of New Yorkers re-entering society and the “stay at home” Orders being lifted. I do not think that the problem with private payors not following a Governor’s Executive Order will just vanish when the state reopens. These providers have lost their higher reimbursable rates and cannot get that money unless they sue.
If I were a betting woman, I would bet that there are hundreds of intricate ways that insurance companies have not followed their particular states’ executive orders. Think about this: even if the companies were truly trying to abide by all executive orders, those companies in multiple states may get opposing orders from different states. So then a nationwide private payor is expected to follow 50 different executive orders. I can see why it would be difficult to comply with everything.
We have to ask ourselves – does an Executive Order, in a time of crisis, trump normal laws, including basic contract law? If the answer is yes, then how do we make private payer insurance companies comply?
Knicole Emanuel is a permanent panelist on Monitor Monday. Listen to her live reporting every Monday at 10-10:30 a.m. EST.
Written by my partner, Isaac Mamaysky. This article is germane to health care providers during this COVID19 pandemic.
The governor of Ohio recently made national headlines by telling employers across the state to check employees’ temperatures every day before work. Whenever employers conduct health screenings or otherwise make decisions based on their employees’ health, the Americans with Disabilities Act becomes a key consideration.
The ADA regulates employer-mandated medical examinations, the medical questions employers are allowed to ask employees, and of course, the provision of reasonable accommodations to disabled individuals, including during a pandemic.
During the 2009 H1N1 swine flu pandemic, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission published a document called Pandemic Preparedness in the Workplace and the Americans With Disabilities Act. Having faded into relative obscurity in the intervening years, the EEOC’s guidance once again became relevant when COVID-19 was named a global pandemic.
Since that time, employment attorneys have referenced the 2009 guidance and wrestled with its implications for 2020. Last week, the EEOC updated its H1N1 guidance to clarify exactly how the principles apply today. The EEOC also updated a separate guidance document called What You Should Know About the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and COVID-19 and released a supplemental webinar titled Ask the EEOC.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the Ohio governor’s request aligns with the EEOC’s compliance guidelines, which help employers navigate ADA considerations while keeping COVID-19 out of the workplace. While medical examinations are normally prohibited under the ADA, the EEOC explains that examinations are appropriate when an employee would pose a “direct threat” to others by transmitting COVID-19.
Taken together, the EEOC’s updated guidance materials provide the following key takeaways for employers.
Employers should not ask questions related to disabilities, such as whether an employee has a compromised immune system or a medical condition that makes the employee more susceptible to COVID-19.
Employers can ask questions about symptoms of COVID-19 to ensure that sick employees stay home. Likewise, when employees call in sick without giving details, employers can ask about symptoms of COVID-19 in order to protect the rest of the workforce. However, employers should not ask these questions of employees who are already working remotely and have not been interacting with customers or coworkers.
Employers can check temperatures and conduct COVID-19 screenings of current employees, and of new employees but only after making a conditional job offer. If an employer has a reasonable belief based on objective evidence that a particular employee might have COVID-19 (due to a hacking cough, for example), the employer may conduct a health screening only of that one employee, rather than the entire workforce.
If an employee refuses to answer COVID-19 screening questions or refuses a temperature check, then the employer may bar the employee from the workplace. The EEOC encourages employers to assure employees that their medical information will remain confidential, which may make employees more likely to comply with employer requests.
Any records resulting from medical screenings should be maintained in a separate medical file (i.e., not as part of an employee’s personnel file) and treated as a confidential medical record. If a manager receives medical information while teleworking, and thus cannot follow the employer’s usual confidentiality protocols, the medical information should be safeguarded to the greatest extent possible until it can be properly filed when the manager returns to the workplace. This may mean documenting medical information using initials or ensuring that laptops and devices cannot be accessed by others in the household.
Likewise, employers who send an employee home should keep the decision confidential. Employers can tell other employees that they were exposed to a coworker with COVID-19, and then send home all employees who worked in close proximity to that person, but employers should not identify the coworker in question.
That person’s identity should only be shared with those who have a need to know, such as a supervisor who interviews the coworker about who might have been exposed to them in the workplace. Likewise, if an employee is teleworking due to having COVID-19, the employer can share the fact that the employee is teleworking but should not share the reason the employee is teleworking.
Employers can delay the start date of an employee who has symptoms of COVID-19. If an employer needs an employee to start working immediately, then the employer can withdraw a job offer to an employee with COVID-19.
Employers can request that employees who recently traveled to affected areas or were exposed to a person with symptoms of COVID-19 stay out of work until a certain number of days passes without symptoms. Employers should not specifically ask employees if they have a family member with COVID-19, which would be prohibited by the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. Employers can ask, more generally, if employees have been exposed to any person with symptoms of COVID-19.
Employers can require a doctor’s clearance prior to allowing an employee to return to work. Note, however, that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tells employers not to require a doctor’s note to validate symptoms, because that discourages employees from staying home.
Employers can require employees to adopt infection-control practices in the workplace, such as prohibiting handshakes and requiring frequent hand-washing, wearing masks, maintaining six feet of distance from other employees, and related measures.
For the moment, much of this guidance applies to essential businesses, such as supermarkets and transportation companies, which are still open despite quarantines and other social distancing measures. Many nonessential businesses, which are currently closed, aspire to reopen as soon as possible.
While the exact timeline is still unclear, many businesses will likely reopen while COVID-19 is more controlled than it is today but still a risk, especially for employees with compromised immune systems and other medical conditions (such as lung disease and heart issues).
Since employers cannot ask questions related to disabilities, how can they determine which employees may be unavailable when they reopen? The EEOC explains that an inquiry is not disability-related if it identifies nonmedical reasons for absence on the same footing with medical reasons.
So, for example, an employer is permitted to ask a survey question along the following lines: In the event our business reopens in the near future, would you be unable to come to work for a reason such as your child’s day care center being closed, public transportation being sporadic, other dependents needing care, or having a compromised immune system or other health condition?
In this way, employers can determine which staff will be unavailable without running afoul of the ADA.
Depending on how early a particular business reopens, certain vulnerable employees might need to continue working from home for some period of time. Of course, employers are not absolved of their obligations to provide reasonable accommodations during a pandemic.
The EEOC observes that the rapid spread of COVID-19 has increased the number of requests for reasonable accommodations. This number will continue to increase if businesses reopen while the virus is not fully contained.
If an employer’s usual reasonable accommodation processes are delayed due the volume of inquiries, the EEOC encourages employers to implement temporary solutions that enable employees to keep working while the discussion and potential provision of reasonable accommodations is pending. The EEOC’s webinar provides extensive details on this topic.
Reflecting the general uncertainty surrounding current events, the EEOC is still unsure whether COVID-19 is a disability under the ADA. As the EEOC observes, our knowledge of COVID-19’s spread and containment changes day by day and its status as a disability will become clearer as time goes on.
As employers and their attorneys have seen, federal and state laws and regulations are changing equally fast. For now, while much of the country is on pause, employers should watch the changing landscape closely.
In the coming weeks and months, and especially as businesses reopen, states are expected to implement many new safety protocols. Perhaps a number will even follow Ohio’s lead by beginning each workday with a temperature check.
This article originally appeared in Law 360’s Expert Analysis section on March 31, 2020.
To learn more about the issues raised by this client bulletin, please contact Isaac Mamaysky at firstname.lastname@example.org
Note: This bulletin is for general use and should not be construed to provide legal advice as to particular factual situations.
No, this is not a Shakespearean blog post. The Hamlet in this case is not the Prince of Denmark; it is a hospital system who hired a doctor, Dr. Hernandez as an independent contractor and whose private practice flopped. When the hospital at which he had privileges refused to hire him as an employee, Hernandez sued Hamlet under the False Claims Act (FCA) and Unfair Trade Practices- AND WON!!
Relationships between hospitals and physicians may forever be changed.
In an October 2018 decision, Hamlet H.M.A., LLC V. Hernandez, the NC Court of Appeals ruled that a hospital can be liable to a physician for Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices (UDTP) – causing a new level of care to be needed in negotiations between hospitals and physicians.
Dr. Hernandez accepted a position with Sandhills Regional Medical Center. The original offer was for Dr. Hernandez to set up his own independent practice and to be an independent contractor for the hospital. The offer guaranteed a minimum collection amount for the first 18 months of the 36-month contract. The base salary was $325,000, with a bonus based on worked RVUs. Dr. Hernandez countered and asked to be considered as an employee instead of as an independent contractor. Sandhills sent an email offering a base salary of $275,000 as an employee. As any reasonable, logical person would do, Dr. Hernandez responded with an email stating that it would be irrational to accept a base salary so much lower in order to obtain employee status. The hospital offered an “employee status option” at the end of 18 months.
Dr. Hernandez then sent Sandhills an email asking to extend the time period of guaranteed income to 24 months, rather than 18 months. Plaintiff replied that it could not extend the period of guaranteed income, but raised the monthly salary from $47,616.82 to $49,500.00 and also added a signing bonus of $30,000.00. After further negotiations, the parties entered into a Physician Recruitment Agreement on March 9, 2011.
Dr. Hernandez’s private practice flopped, and at the end of the first 18-month period, he requested to exercise the employment option in his contract and to become an employee of Sandhills. But Sandhills did not give Dr. Hernandez an employment contract.
On August 29, 2014, Sandhills filed a complaint against Dr. Hernandez alleging breach of contract and demanding repayment of the entire amount paid to Dr. Hernandez, a total of 21 payments amounting to $902,259.66. Dr. Hernandez filed an answer with counterclaims for breach of contract, fraud, unfair or deceptive trade practices, and unjust enrichment. A jury trial was held in Superior Court in Richmond County at the end of August and the beginning of September 2016. The jury returned a verdict for Sandhills for $334,341.14 (a random number).
Dr. Hernandez countered sued the hospital for Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices (UDTP) alleging that the hospital fraudulently induced him to enter into the contract with the hospital as an independent contractor. His allegations that the hospital violated UDTP because the hospital offered a lower salary to be considered an employee was shocking and unprecedented. Most likely, Sandhills never even contemplated that it could be held liable under UDTP because of a disparity in salary offered to Dr. Hernandez depending on his employment status. Most likely, the man or woman who sent the email to Dr. Hernandez with the disparate salaries never asked its general counsel whether the action could penalize the hospital. Who would have thought to?
One exception to UDTP is the “learned profession” exception. Basically, the courts have held that if the two parties to an agreement are learned professionals and the topic of the contract has to do with the parties’ speciality; i.e, medicine, in this case, then the parties cannot allege UDTP because both parties were knowledgeable. The issue of first impression presented by Hamlet is whether the “learned profession” exception set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(b) applies to a dispute between a physician and a hospital relating to alleged false claims made by the hospital to induce the physician to enter into an employment contract. If the learned profession exception were to apply, then Dr. Hernandez’s UDTP claim against Sandhill would be dismissed.
Dr. Hernandez alleged that the hospital made false representations to induce him to enter into a contract. The Court held that the fact that he is a physician does not change the nature of the negotiation of a business contract. The Court found that the “learned profession” exception does not apply to any negotiation just because the two parties are physicians. For example, if a physician and a hospital were to contract to buy a beach house, then the exception would not apply because the nature of the contract (were something go awry and cause an UDTP lawsuit) because buying a beach house has nothing to do with being a physician or hospital. Similarly, here, the Court held that an employment contract had nothing to do with rendering medicine. Therefore, the exception did not apply. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s directed verdict against Dr. Hernandez.
This decision definitely creates more tension between hospitals and physicians. Now, in negotiations with employees and independent contractors, hospitals need to be mindful that UDTP claims can be alleged against them. This case is recent precedent for an unfamiliar modern world of health care negotiations.
With so much news about Medicare and Medicaid, I decided to do a general update of Medicare and Medicaid in the news. To the best of my ability, I am trying not to put my own “spin” on the stories, but just relay what is happening. Besides, Hurricane Florence is coming, and we have to hunker down. FYI: There is no more water at Costco.
Here is an overview of current “hot topics” for Medicare and Medicaid:
Affordable Care Act
On September 5, 2018, attorneys argued in TX district court whether the Affordable Care Act should be repealed. The Republican attorneys, who want the ACA repealed will argue that the elimination of the tax penalty for failure to have health insurance rendered the entire law unconstitutional because the Supreme Court upheld the ACA in 2012 by saying its requirement to carry insurance was a legitimate use of Congress’ taxing power. We await the Court’s decision.
In Maine, two hospitals illegally turned away emergency room patients in mental health crises and sometimes had them arrested for trespassing. The hospitals are Central Maine Medical Center and St. Mary’s Regional Medical Center, and they have promised to address and change these policies. It is likely that the hospitals will be facing penalties. Generally, turning away a patient from an ER is over $100,000 per violation.
Six San Francisco Bay Area medical professionals have been indicted for an alleged kickback scheme in which three paid and three received kickbacks for healthcare referrals in home health.
Medicaid Work Requirements
In June, Arkansas became the first state to implement a work requirement into its Medicaid program. The guinea pig subjects for the work requirement were Medicaid expansion recipients aged 30-49, without children under the age of 18 in the home, did not have a disability, and who did not meet other exemption criteria. On a monthly basis, recipients must work, volunteer, go to school, search for work, or attend health education classes for a combined total of 80 hours and report the hours to the Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) through an online portal. Recipients who do not report hours any three months out of the year lose Medicaid health coverage until the following calendar year. September 5th was the reporting deadline for the third month of the policy, making today the first time that recipients can lose Medicaid coverage as a result of the work requirement. There are 5,426 people who missed the first two reporting deadlines, which is over half of the group of 30-49 year olds subject to the policy beginning in June. If these enrollees do not do not log August hours or an exemption into the portal by September 5th, they will lose Medicaid coverage until January 2019.
Accountable Care Organizations
According to a report in late August, accountable care organizations (ACOs) that requires physicians to take on substantial financial risk saved Medicare just over $100 million in the model’s first year, the CMS said in a report released Monday.
Lower Medicare Drug Costs
Back in May, the Trump administration published a “blueprint” for lowering drug costs. Advocacy groups are pushing back, saying that his plan will decrease access to drugs.
Balance billing is when a patient presents at an emergency room and needs emergency medical services before the patient is able to determine whether the surgeon at the hospital is “in-network” with his insurance…most likely, because the patient is unconscious and no one has time to check for insurance networks. More and more states are passing laws to protect consumers from balance billing. An example of balance billing was Drew Calver, whose health plan paid $56,000 for his 4-day emergency stay at St. David’s Medical Center. Once he was discharged, he received a bill from the hospital for $109,000. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) regulates company plans that practice this. The hospital eventually reduced the bill to $332.
During a fire, staff at two Santa Rosa, California-based nursing homes “abandoned their residents, many of them unable to walk and suffering from memory problems, according to a legal complaint filed by the California Department of Social Services.” The Department of Social Services accused the staff members of being unprepared for the emergency fire.
Makes you wonder what could possibly happen in the fast-approaching hurricane. At least with a hurricane, we have days advance notice. Granted there is no more water in the stores or gasoline at the pumps, but Amazon Prime, one-day service still works…for now.
Attorney/Client Privilege: Its Importance to Health Care Providers, and TIPS to Avoid Potential Pitfalls as to Former Employees
This blog is intended to provide TIPS to health care providers who have any amount of attrition with staff members and why these TIPS as to attorney/client privilege are so important.
First, I’d like to say, for the past few weeks, I have been moving homes and firms, concurrently. Add in a trial or two into the mix and I haven’t been able to blog as often. But I’m fairly moved in now (to both) and have one of the trials mostly wrapped up.
The idea for this blog, in particular, actually came to me while Robert Shaw, Senior Counsel, and I were Santa Fe, New Mexico for a trial.
While preparing the witnesses for trial, I re-realized an important aspect of attorney/client privilege that is vital to health care providers if there is any attrition in their staff.
I say “re-realized” because I already knew the importance of attorney/client privilege, but I realized the importance for health care providers to understand its importance, as well…hence, this blog.
If, for whatever reason, your company is forced to lay off staff or, even, if you have staff voluntarily leave your office, you need to read the entirety of this blog and pay special attention to the TIPS at the bottom.
What if you need to rely on that former employee for testimony in a hearing?
For example, you are CEO of a small or large health care provider company and your Medical Director or Compliance Director leaves your employment and you need the former employee to testify in the future. Your former employee and your attorney will not be protected by attorney/client privilege.
You may be thinking…so what?
But attorney/client privilege is key in trial.
Let me give you an illustrative example:
You own a dental practice and accept Medicaid. Lucy is your office manager. She oversees the Medicaid billing, ensures regulatory compliance, and deals with denials that come from NCTracks. She also enters the data into NCTracks. You, as the dentist, provide dental services, but you have little to do with what Lucy does. You trust her and she does her job well.
DHHS via Program Integrity conducts an audit and determines that you owe $750,000 in alleged overpayments. Maybe the auditor didn’t know that the notation “cavies” means cavities and dinged you for billing for filling a cavity because the auditor could not discern from the service note that a cavity was actually filled. Or, maybe you coded the service for scraping the wall of a gingival pocket, and the auditor did not understand what “curettage” is in the service note.
Regardless, you receive a Notice of Overpayment on May 4, 2015. On May 7, 2015, Lucy tells you that she is having her first baby and wants to be stay at home mother. You congratulate her and begin your search for another office manager. You end up hiring Bill.
By the time that you need to get ready to defend your $750,000 overpayment with your attorney, Lucy has given birth to Annie and hasn’t worked for you for over a year.
But your attorney, in order to defend the overpayment, will need Lucy to testify at court. Before a witness testifies in court, your attorney must meet with him or her to prepare the witness for direct examination and cross examination by opposing counsel. (If your attorney does not, instruct him or her to do so).
When I am in a situation such as the one I have outlined above. I am extremely careful. Because there is no attorney/client privilege between “Lucy” and me because she is a former employee, I am very precise in my prep. For example, I would never discuss legal strategy with Lucy. I would never show privileged information; I would never try to “lead” Lucy’s opinion. Leading a witness’s opinion could come across like, “Lucy, If I ask you on the stand whether your opinion is that curettage means scraping a gingival pocket, you would agree, correct?” Instead, I would ask, “Lucy, what do you understand curettage to mean and how would you normally code the procedure?”
Any attorney worth his or her salt knows that attorney/client privilege does not attach to a former employee.
Why does that matter?
Any opposing attorney worth his or her salt will cross exam Lucy as to every detail possible involving the meeting between Lucy and me. And I mean every detail.
Q: “You met with Ms. Emanuel in preparation for this meeting, correct?”
Q: “When exactly was that?”
A: “Two weeks ago.”
Q: “What documents did Ms. Emanuel show you?”
A: “She showed me my direct examination.”
Q: “What do you mean? A hard copy of the questions that you would be asked?”
Q: “Ms. Emanuel, I expect that you have no problem providing me with a copy of what you showed Lucy?”
Me: “Not at all.”
Boom! By Lucy testifying that I showed her my hard copy of my direct examination questions, opposing counsel is entitled to review my draft questions along with any notes I may have notated on that hard copy of Lucy’s direct testimony. What happens if I have privileged notes contained within my questions? My attorney notes contained within the questions are now discoverable by the other side.
[BTW: I would never show Lucy my actual list of questions, unless I fully anticipated giving my list to opposing counsel.]
But you can see the potential pitfalls. Anything discussed or shown to Lucy by your counsel will be discoverable by opposing counsel. What if your counsel, without thinking, tells Lucy that he or she thinks this is a weak case? Or tells Lucy that he or she hopes the other side doesn’t pick up on…..X?
Even if the attorney prepping Lucy states something disparaging about opposing counsel, or God forbid, the judge, those remarks are discoverable and Lucy must testify to those comments on the stand.
On one occasion, I actually had opposing counsel question my witness about our conversation during a 10 minute break, during which I was smart enough not to speak about the case. My witness answered, “We discussed that I think you are b$#@!” But counsel’s question was valid and allowable. Because just as easily, during the break, I could have said, if I were not worth my salt, “Lucy, I did not like how you answered that question. You need to say…..X.”
Judges do not look favorable on coached testimony.
As a health care provider, what measures can you take that if you are forced to call former employees as witnesses, you are poised for the best result?
1. Try to maintain a cordial relationship with former employees.
I know this can be difficult as every provider needs to terminate staff or has disgruntled employees. But, even if you are firing staff, try to do so in a professional, amicable manner. Explain that it is a business decision, not personal (regardless the reason). Give the soon-to-be-fired employee notice, such as 30 days, if possible. If you would recommend the employee to a colleague, let the employee know and to whom. These small steps can help your future in case of trial.
2. Re-hire the employee.
In my opinion, this avenue has an aura of attempted deceit, and I do not recommend this route unless you are re-hiring the employee in good faith. For example, if you truly did not want to fire the staff member and you genuinely could use that person back in your office, or, if, in the case of Lucy, she decides that she wants to come back to work of her own volition and you still have the need.
An employee is protected by attorney/client privilege, generally.
3. Be knowledgeable or hire a knowledgeable attorney.
If you are concerned that your attorney may disclose something otherwise confidential in witness prep of a former employee, have a lengthy discussion with your attorney prior to the preparation session. Sit in with your attorney during the prep of the former attorney.
Along the same lines as above, come to an understanding with your attorney which documents may be considered “hot docs” and essential to the case, and, which should not be discussed with a former employee at all.
4. Test the waters.
Prior to your attorney contacting Lucy, call Lucy yourself. Have a chat. Catch up. Ask Lucy whether she is willing to testify on your behalf. If Lucy starts cussing you out, you may want to think of alternative witnesses. If there are no alternative witnesses, you may want to discuss with your attorney whether an affidavit or deposition could substitute for Lucy’s testimony at trial.
5. Pay for Lucy’s time
There is nothing wrong or unethical about compensating Lucy for her trial preparation and appearance at trial. Obviously, this compensation is discoverable by opposing counsel and questions can be asked about the compensation situation. But I believe it is better to have a happy Lucy, who feels that her time is valuable, rather than an increasingly frustrated Lucy, as each second ticks along.
6. Think ahead
If you know you will be terminating an employee or if you receive notice that an employee is leaving, think about the most important aspects of his or her job and memorialize the procedures. For example, in the case of Lucy, ask Lucy to draft a memo to the file as to her procedures in billing Medicaid. Have her write which service notes are billed for which codes and the reasons in support and how she manually enters data into NCTracks. It may seem tedious, but these notes will be invaluable during any future litigation.
Along the same vein as above, if possible, have Lucy train Bill prior to her leaving. That way, if Lucy is an undesirable witness, Bill can testify that he follows the same protocol as Lucy because Lucy trained him and he follows her protocol.
Hopefully, these TIPS will be helpful to you in the future in the case of employees leaving your practice. Print off the blog and review it whenever an employee is leaving.