CMA tells California Supreme Court it must protect patient data in CURES The California Medical Association (CMA) has filed an amicus brief with the California Supreme Court asking that it give meaningful privacy protection to patient data contained in the Controlled Substance Utilization Review and Evaluation System (CURES) database. CMA was joined on the brief by the American Medical Association, California Psychiatric Association, California Dental Association and the American Dental Association. This case, Lewis v. Superior Court (Medical Board), examines the constitutionality of the Medical Board of California's practice of routinely data mining the confidential prescription records of California patients. In response to a patient complaint—a complaint that had nothing to do with Dr. Lewis's prescribing practices—the medical board investigator accessed from CURES the prescribing records of every single one of Dr. Lewis's patients during a three-year period. In addition, it obtained three years of confidential prescription records for all medications, including non-controlled substances, dispensed to Dr. Lewis's patients from the corporate headquarters of CVS Pharmacy. The information obtained identified patients by name and included details about medications prescribed to them. The medical board did not obtain any patient authorizations, warrants or issue subpoenas prior to accessing this patient data. CMA’s amicus brief underscores the importance of confidentiality of medical information as an indispensable component of quality medical care. It explains the importance of recognizing that patients have a privacy interest in their medical information maintained in CURES, despite the government’s arguments that patients have a diminished expectation of privacy in their prescription data. The brief shows how prescription records can reveal sensitive information about an individual’s medical condition and argues that the medical board’s routine, unfettered and indiscriminate access to prescription data from CURES circumvents existing laws protecting the confidentiality of medical records. The brief also addresses the heightened importance of protecting patient privacy rights in the digital age where technology has facilitated the government’s ability to store and mine large amounts of data. The ACLU of California and the Electronic Frontier Foundation also filed amicus briefs in this case in support of Dr. Lewis. The California Supreme Court will likely schedule oral arguments in this case in 2016. Click here to read CMA's brief. Contact: CMA's Center for Legal Affairs, (800) 786-4262 or legalinfo@cmanet.org. November 9, 2015 General CMA Legal Case List, CURES, Amicus Briefs, California Supreme Court 0 0 Comment Read More »
CMA files brief in case challenging the constitutionality of MICRA The California Medical Association (CMA), together with the American Medical Association (AMA), has filed an amicus brief supporting the constitutionality of the non-economic damages cap of California's landmark Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA). This appeal is the latest in a protracted line of cases challenging MICRA's constitutionality since the Legislature enacted the statute in 1975. The California Supreme Court has previously upheld the constitutionality of MICRA's cost saving provisions, including MICRA's $250,000 cap on non-economic damages. Despite Supreme Court precedent, after a trial court reduced the non-economic damages awarded in a medical negligence case to $250,000, the plaintiff appealed, challenging MICRA's constitutionality once again. The plaintiff argues that in order to ensure access to justice, California needs more malpractice lawsuits. The plaintiff asserts that the potential for “low” awards dissuades contingency-fee lawyers from taking such cases, making the limitation on non-economic damages unconstitutional. The plaintiff also argues that Section 3333.2 of the Civil Code violates the right to damages awarded by the jury and that MICRA is obsolete. In their brief, CMA and AMA argue that to strike down MICRA would contravene decades of California law, directly violate Supreme Court precedent and contradict the Legislature’s stated purposes in enacting the limitation on non-economic damages. CMA and AMA explain that to adopt plaintiff's line of reasoning would be to reintroduce the very volatility that MICRA was enacted to prevent and would only serve to increase the costs of medical negligence litigation, thereby threatening access to affordable health care for all Californians. The brief also argues that the plaintiff does not have a right to a certain measure of damages and the courts may not invalidate legislation by second-guessing whether the legislation is adequately serving its purpose. The appeals court is expected to schedule the case for oral argument in the coming months. Read the brief here. Contact: CMA legal information line, (800) 786-4262 or legalinfo@cmanet.org. June 18, 2014 General MICRA, Professional Liability, CMA Legal Case List, Legal Advocacy 0 0 Comment Read More »
CMA files brief in case of intentional retaliatory actions by hospital CEO against physician leader On Monday California Medical Association (CMA) filed an amicus brief with the California Court of Appeal in the case of Michael W. Fitzgibbons, M.D. v. Integrated Health Care Holdings, Inc. (IHHI), arguing that a hospital must be held vicariously liable for the intentional, retaliatory actions of the hospital’s CEO against a vocal physician leader on the hospital’s medical staff. In 2005, troubled Tenet Corp. sold Western Medical Center of Santa Ana (WMC) and three other Orange County hospitals to IHHI. Dr. Fitzgibbons, then chief of WMC’s medical staff, became concerned that patient care might suffer due to IHHI's financial condition and the manner in which it undertook the purchase of his hospital. IHHI sued Dr. Fitzgibbons for defamation after he raised this concern amongst medical staff leadership. A California appellate court dismissed the lawsuit and ordered IHHI to pay Dr. Fitzgibbons' attorneys fees incurred in defending himself. The appellate court, agreeing with an amicus brief that CMA filed in the case, held that IHHI's lawsuit violated Dr. Fitzgibbons' protected speech activity under California's anti-SLAPP (“Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation”) statute. Two weeks after the appellate court issued its opinion, in June 2006, Dr. Fitzgibbons was arrested by the Santa Ana police after he was reported for allegedly waving a gun in traffic in an act of apparent road rage. It was later discovered that the hospital CEO had laundered hospital funds and used them to hire a thug to plant the gun and drugs in the doctor’s car in an effort to intimidate and discredit him. In a lawsuit brought against IHHI, a jury in February 2013 awarded Dr. Fitzgibbons $5.7 million in actual and punitive damages for the hospital CEO's actions. But in April of that year, the trial court reversed the jury decision saying it could not hold IHHI legally responsible for paying damages because the outrageous acts committed by the hospital CEO were too “startling and unforeseeable” to fall within the scope of a hospital CEO’s employment. According to CMA’s brief, the trial court misapplied the law on employer liability over the actions of employees by failing to see the broader context of the actions of the CEO as part of a campaign by a hospital officer to retaliate against a vocal physician leader. The evidence in the case demonstrated that the CEO used his discretion and the authority of the hospital to marshal IHHI funds, under the guise of a hospital project, to wage a campaign of retaliation against the doctor for challenging the manner in which IHHI managed the hospital and for prevailing in IHHI’s slander lawsuit. In the brief, CMA urged the appeals court to reverse the judgment of the trial court and restore the jury verdict in favor of Dr. Fitzgibbons. “The abuses of power by hospitals or their CEOs come in many forms,” the brief said. CMA argues that making the hospital vicariously responsible for its CEO in this case will serve three purposes: to prevent recurrence of the wrongful conduct; to give great assurance of compensation for the victim; and to ensure that the victim’s losses will be born equally by those who stood to benefit from the CEO’s actions. Click here to read CMA’s brief. Contact: CMA Center for Legal Affairs, (800) 786-4262 or legalinfo@cmanet.org. March 27, 2014 General CMA Legal Case List, Legal Advocacy, Amicus Briefs 0 0 Comment Read More »
