Showing posts with label UCLA lawsuits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UCLA lawsuits. Show all posts
Thursday, January 8, 2015
Serving a claim against UC Regents
This is how you serve the UC Regents. You don't need to serve a tort claim.
Friday, June 20, 2014
Olive View-UCLA Medical Center settles in patient dumping case
Don't let this story worry you too much. These people were unworthy of blue-dot-level medical care. You're much more worthy of care in the eyes of UCLA. You'll get at least purple-dot treatment. Unless, perhaps, your health problem itself is a red-dot problem. (In case you missed it: irony alert!)
SYLMAR>> Olive View-UCLA Medical Center has agreed to pay $40,750 to settle a patient dumping case involving a man who waited in the hospital’s emergency department for more than six hours and never received care for his pain and acute appendicitis, federal officials announced Thursday.
The settlement was made between Olive View and the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services based on a case in 2011. Federal officials said the Sylmar facility violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act by “failing to provide an individual with an appropriate medical screening examination within the capability of the hospital’s emergency department in order to determine whether he had an emergency medical condition.”
According to the complaint, a man complaining of abdominal pain waited in Olive View’s emergency department for more than six hours where he received no care. He left and received medical treatment at another hospital, where he was diagnosed with acute appendicitis among other medical issues and underwent an immediate laparoscopic appendectomy.
Olive View has since made several corrections, Olive View spokeswoman Azar Kattan said. Those include additional physicians assigned to provide rapid medical screening to patients given a triage score of at least 3. On the 1-5 scale, a triage score of 1 is most urgent, Kattan said.
She also said the computer system was modified to provide real-time alerts to the nursing staff among other actions.
“These corrective actions were accepted by the regulatory agencies involved at the time of the original citation in 2011,” Kattan said in a written statement. “We believe they have corrected the problems identified and ensure the timely assessment and treatment of patients seeking care in our emergency room.”
SYLMAR>> Olive View-UCLA Medical Center has agreed to pay $40,750 to settle a patient dumping case involving a man who waited in the hospital’s emergency department for more than six hours and never received care for his pain and acute appendicitis, federal officials announced Thursday.
The settlement was made between Olive View and the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services based on a case in 2011. Federal officials said the Sylmar facility violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act by “failing to provide an individual with an appropriate medical screening examination within the capability of the hospital’s emergency department in order to determine whether he had an emergency medical condition.”
According to the complaint, a man complaining of abdominal pain waited in Olive View’s emergency department for more than six hours where he received no care. He left and received medical treatment at another hospital, where he was diagnosed with acute appendicitis among other medical issues and underwent an immediate laparoscopic appendectomy.
Olive View has since made several corrections, Olive View spokeswoman Azar Kattan said. Those include additional physicians assigned to provide rapid medical screening to patients given a triage score of at least 3. On the 1-5 scale, a triage score of 1 is most urgent, Kattan said.
She also said the computer system was modified to provide real-time alerts to the nursing staff among other actions.
“These corrective actions were accepted by the regulatory agencies involved at the time of the original citation in 2011,” Kattan said in a written statement. “We believe they have corrected the problems identified and ensure the timely assessment and treatment of patients seeking care in our emergency room.”
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
YOU MUST FILE A TORT CLAIM AT UCLA MEDICAL CENTER RATHER THAN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
See below for recent lawsuits against UCLA.
YOU MUST FILE A TORT CLAIM AT UCLA MEDICAL CENTER RATHER THAN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
The University of California works hard to conceal the tort claim process.
You can't sue if you don't file a tort claim within 6 months, so the Regents try to prevent those who have been harmed from filing a tort claim.
At first I was duped by the following document published by the Regents of the University of California:
[Maura Larkins' warning: the following is deceptive, produced by the Regents to avoid tort claims.]
"The Office of The General Counsel of The Regents (“OGC”)... THE REGENTS IS NOT SUBJECT TO CLAIM-FILING PROVISIONS OF THE TORT CLAIMS ACT California Government Code section 905.6 exempts The Regents of the University of California from claim-filing provisions of the Tort Claims Act. A claimant who wishes to file suit against The Regents may serve OGC as specified in section 1 above."
But if you go to "section 1 above", you see an address in San Francisco. It's the wrong address for filing a tort claim. Clearly, the Regents want you to come to them for health care, but if they harm you, they don't want to repair the damage.
I did more research and deciphered the truth with much difficulty. You have to present a tort claim to the specific campus medical center that is involved.
Why is UCLA so afraid of tort claims?
Perhaps it has a lot to hide, as suggested by this story.
YOU MUST FILE A TORT CLAIM AT UCLA MEDICAL CENTER RATHER THAN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
The University of California works hard to conceal the tort claim process.
You can't sue if you don't file a tort claim within 6 months, so the Regents try to prevent those who have been harmed from filing a tort claim.
At first I was duped by the following document published by the Regents of the University of California:
[Maura Larkins' warning: the following is deceptive, produced by the Regents to avoid tort claims.]
"The Office of The General Counsel of The Regents (“OGC”)... THE REGENTS IS NOT SUBJECT TO CLAIM-FILING PROVISIONS OF THE TORT CLAIMS ACT California Government Code section 905.6 exempts The Regents of the University of California from claim-filing provisions of the Tort Claims Act. A claimant who wishes to file suit against The Regents may serve OGC as specified in section 1 above."
But if you go to "section 1 above", you see an address in San Francisco. It's the wrong address for filing a tort claim. Clearly, the Regents want you to come to them for health care, but if they harm you, they don't want to repair the damage.
I did more research and deciphered the truth with much difficulty. You have to present a tort claim to the specific campus medical center that is involved.
Why is UCLA so afraid of tort claims?
Perhaps it has a lot to hide, as suggested by this story.
Sunday, April 27, 2014
More scrutiny for UCLA's School of Medicine In the wake of a whistleblower lawsuit
The $10-million, mid-trial settlement this week between the UC system and the former head of orthopedic surgery Dr. Robert Pedowitz at UCLA has prompted a consumer group to seek an independent investigation by California Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris or Gov. Jerry Brown.
Dr. Robert Pedowitz
See also: UC OKs paying surgeon $10 million in whistleblower-retaliation case UC OKs paying surgeon $10 million in whistleblower-retaliation case
More scrutiny for UCLA's School of Medicine
A. Eugene Washington, MD, MSc
Dean, David Geffen School of Medicine UCLA
Vice Chancellor, UCLA Health Sciences
[Maura Larkins' comment: Dr. Washington's conflicts of interest
are particularly dangerous since he is in charge of inculcating
a culture of greed and disregard for many patients at one of the
country's premier medical schools.]
Photo by Elisabeth Fall
More scrutiny for UCLA's School of Medicine
...[A] new study raises a red flag about universities' financial ties to industry.
By Chad Terhune
Los Angeles Times
April 25, 2014
In the wake of a $10-million payout to a whistleblower, UCLA's School of Medicine is drawing more scrutiny over its financial ties to industry and the possibility that they compromised patient care.
A new study in this month's Journal of the American Medical Assn. raised a red flag generally about u niversity officials such as Eugene Washington, the dean of UCLA's medical school who also serves on the board of healthcare giant Johnson & Johnson.
The world's biggest medical-products maker paid Washington more than $260,000 in cash and stock last year as a company director.
"There are real risks here," said Walid Gellad, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh and co-author of the JAMA study. "Are the policies in place enough to govern these potential conflicts among the leadership of academic medical centers?"
Meanwhile, the $10-million, mid-trial settlement this week between the UC system and the former head of orthopedic surgery at UCLA has prompted a consumer group to seek an independent investigation by California Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris or Gov. Jerry Brown.
In a 2012 lawsuit against UCLA and UC regents, Dr. Robert Pedowitz, 54, alleged that they failed to act on his complaints about widespread conflicts of interest among the medical school faculty and that they later retaliated against him for raising those concerns as a whistleblower.
As department chairman, Pedowitz testified, he became concerned about colleagues who had financial ties to medical-device makers or other companies that could unduly influence their care of patients or research into new treatments.
University officials said they thoroughly investigated Pedowitz's claims and found no wrongdoing and no evidence that patient care was jeopardized. UC regents said they agreed to settle to avoid the time and expense of further litigation.
In a statement Friday, UCLA said Washington's work as a J&J director did not compromise the "integrity of operations" at UCLA, and that his outside activities complied with university policies.
"Dr. Washington has absolutely no oversight of purchasing decisions involving devices or supplies," UCLA said. "Dr. Washington's board service provides significant benefits to both UCLA and the wider field of medicine. As the only physician on the board, Dr. Washington provides a frontline perspective on patient care and the needs of doctors."
Such ties between healthcare companies and physicians have drawn increasing attention from government officials and patient advocates. Taking effect this fall is a provision of the federal Affordable Care Act that requires public disclosure of financial relationships between medical companies and doctors.
Consumer Watchdog, a Santa Monica advocacy group that asked for the state investigation, said the troubling nature of Pedowitz's allegations and the large settlement amount warrant further inquiry.
"It is apparent that UCLA's policies governing financial conflicts are either inadequate or unenforced," Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog, wrote in a letter sent to state officials Thursday.
"Are the same failures happening at other hospitals in the UC system? Your independent investigation is needed to ensure that patients are not harmed," he wrote.
Consumer Watchdog said the investigation also should determine whether oversight of UC's relationships with medical companies should be taken away from university administrators such as Washington and given instead to an independent monitor.
A spokesman for the attorney general said Harris is reviewing the consumer group's request. He would not comment further.
Responding to the letter, UCLA said its "current policies and procedures represent best practices that have continued to become stronger and more rigorous in recent years.... We are always looking for ways to improve further."
In an interview last week, the chief compliance officer of the UCLA Health System said Washington encouraged her to investigate Pedowitz's claims fully. Washington testified at Pedowitz's trial, and his handling of the surgeon's allegations came up regularly.
The compliance officer, Marti Arvin, said industry relationships are unavoidable at universities and that patients benefit from that collaboration.
"Having those relationships with industry is a component of allowing us to meet our mission of leading-edge patient care, education and research," Arvin said.
Washington was reelected to J&J's board Thursday. The company said "we see absolutely no financial conflict of interest with Dr. Washington serving on our board."
He wasn't alone among academic medical center officials who served on the boards of major pharmaceutical companies in 2012, the year examined by researchers.
For instance, the dean of USC's School of Pharmacy, R. Pete Vanderveen, serves on the board of Mylan Inc., a major drugmaker based in Canonsburg, Pa.
A spokeswoman for USC said the university has policies in place to manage potential conflicts. But USC said that's "a moot point in this case because the School of Pharmacy has no business relationship with Mylan."
The study found that 41 board members at large drug companies held leadership posts at academic medical centers. Their average compensation for serving as a company director was $312,564.
"These leaders are wearing two very important hats at the same time," said Gellad, the study's co-author. "There are a lot of benefits from academic medical centers having interactions with industry, but we can't ignore the risks."
chad.terhune@latimes.com
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
UCLA pays $10 million for retaliation against surgeon who exposed industry payments that may have compromised patient care
This case is just a small part of a larger problem at UCLA. Another small part of the problem, the behavior of Eugene Washington, dean of the David Geffen Medical School at UCLA, is discussed HERE.
UCLA'S $10 MILLION WHISTLE-BLOWER RETALIATION CASE:
UCLA surgeon Dr. Robert Pedowitz, who said the medical school allowed doctors to take industry payments that may have compromised patient care
UC OKs paying surgeon $10 million in whistleblower-retaliation case
The settlement ends a case brought by the ex-head of UCLA's orthopedic surgery department
By Chad Terhune
Los Angeles Times
April 22, 2014
University of California regents agreed to pay $10 million to the former chairman of UCLA's orthopedic surgery department, who had alleged that the well-known medical school allowed doctors to take industry payments that may have compromised patient care.
The settlement reached Tuesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court came just before closing arguments were due to begin in a whistleblower-retaliation case brought by Dr. Robert Pedowitz, 54, a surgeon who was recruited to UCLA in 2009 to run the orthopedic surgery department.
In 2012, the surgeon sued UCLA, the UC regents, fellow surgeons and senior university officials, alleging they failed to act on his complaints about widespread conflicts of interest and later retaliated against him for speaking up.
UCLA denied Pedowitz's allegations, and officials said they found no wrongdoing by faculty and no evidence that patient care was jeopardized. But the UC system paid him anyway, saying it wanted to avoid the "substantial expense and inconvenience" of further litigation.
[Maura Larkins: Closing arguments were about to begin in the case. UCLA had already invested "substantial expense and inconvenience", and would have incurred very little expense or inconvenience if it had simply allowed the closing arguments to go forward. The reason it settled was that it realized that the weight of the evidence showed that UCLA did indeed jeopardize patient safety and certainly violated conflict of interest standards and the legal rights of the whistle-blower.]
As department chairman, Pedowitz testified, he became concerned about colleagues who had financial ties to medical-device makers or other companies that could unduly influence their care of patients or taint important medical research.
He also alleged that UCLA looked the other way because the university stood to benefit financially from the success of medical products or drugs developed by its doctors.
One of the orthopedic surgeons that Pedowitz complained about testified at trial about receiving $250,000 in consulting fees in 2008 from device maker Medtronic. In memos to university officials, Pedowitz raised concerns about the financial dealings of other doctors as well.
Inside the courtroom Tuesday, Pedowitz sat in the front row with his wife and daughter as the judge told jurors that a settlement had been reached. He said he felt vindicated by the outcome.
"These are serious issues that patients should be worried about," Pedowitz said in an interview. "These problems exist in the broader medical system and they are not restricted to UCLA."
The seven-week trial in downtown Los Angeles offered a rare glimpse into those potential conflicts at a time when there is growing government scrutiny of industry payments to doctors.
Starting this fall, the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, part of President Obama's healthcare law, requires public disclosure of financial relationships between healthcare companies and physicians.
Many doctors and universities defend long-standing industry arrangements as essential for carrying out cutting-edge research and top-flight medical education.
In a statement Tuesday, the UC regents said they "resolved this lawsuit to end a prolonged conflict and permit UCLA Health Sciences to refocus on its primary missions of teaching, research, patient care and community engagement."
The statement added that "multiple investigations by university officials and independent investigators concluded that conduct by faculty members was lawful. Patient care was not compromised."
This latest settlement eclipses a $4.5-million payout the UC regents made last year to resolve a racial discrimination lawsuit filed by another UCLA surgeon.
Pedowitz, as part of his settlement, left the UCLA faculty, effective Tuesday. He had agreed to step down as department chairman in 2010 after initially voicing his concerns to top UCLA officials. He filed a whistleblower retaliation complaint in March 2011.
Experts in medical ethics say the UCLA case shows much more needs to be done within academia and by government regulators to address potential conflicts of interest in medicine.
Susan Chimonas, associate director of research at Columbia University's Center on Medicine as a Profession, said some medical schools are still reluctant to take on specialists who bring in considerable money from patients, medical research and patents on breakthrough products.
"Institutions can be dependent on the money these big-earning specialties like orthopedic surgery bring in," Chimonas said. "They are the cash cows and they can set their terms. This is not the first time I've heard of medical schools having policies that are not well enforced."
In an interview last week, the chief compliance officer at the UCLA Health System flatly rejected the notion that the university didn't enforce its policies or look fully into Pedowitz's allegations. She also said industry ties are unavoidable at a big medical school and rules are in place to prevent conflicts.
"We have processes in place to identify those relationships in a transparent fashion and ensure they don't have any inappropriate influence on the actions of the university," said Marti Arvin, chief compliance officer. "In order to meet our mission, it is important we have both the brilliant minds we have at UCLA and collaboration with industry."
Arvin said the university "thoroughly and objectively investigated those allegations of noncompliance raised by Dr. Pedowitz. We were able to determine the vast majority were unsubstantiated."
She said two doctors fell short of university expectations in their handling of outside income, but there was no violation of law or university policy in either instance.
Arvin cited the case of Dr. Nick Shamie, the orthopedic surgeon who testified at trial about receiving $250,000 from Medtronic for consulting work. She said department policy at the time didn't require Shamie to send that outside income through UCLA's faculty compensation plan.
At trial, Pedowitz said he was deeply troubled by the large amount of money Shamie was paid. He testified that he was particularly concerned that Shamie was trying to enroll patients in a research study involving Medtronic at the time.
"I saw this as an obvious problem," Pedowitz testified.
In court, Shamie said he abided by university policy and didn't pursue the study further because finding patients was too difficult. He couldn't be reached for additional comment.
The other physician cited by Arvin for a potential shortcoming was Dr. David McAllister, vice chairman of clinical operations for the orthopedic surgery department.
He didn't report payments from the Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation, a nonprofit tissue bank that does business with UCLA, because he didn't think disclosure was required in that instance because it didn't involve a for-profit entity, Arvin said.
McAllister also declined to comment, referring a call to UCLA.
Shortly before Pedowitz joined UCLA in 2009, the university was already facing criticism from Congress over the failure of a top spine surgeon to report nearly $460,000 in payments he received from Medtronic and other medical companies while researching their products' use in patients, government records show.
Dr. Jeffrey Wang, who left for USC Spine Center last fall, stepped down as head of UCLA's spine program in 2009 after U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) publicized his lapse in disclosure as part of a larger investigation into medical conflicts of interest.
Several patients are now suing Wang and UCLA in state court for negligence, fraud and malpractice in connection with surgeries involving Medtronic's controversial Infuse bone graft. UCLA said it doesn't comment on pending litigation. Wang couldn't be reached for comment.
Shortly after raising his concerns, Pedowitz said, he was pressured to step down as department chairman in 2010. Pedowitz said he was further retaliated against by being denied patient referrals and prevented from participating in grants and other activities.
Before UCLA, Pedowitz worked at UC San Diego and as chairman of orthopedics and sports medicine at the University of South Florida.
Mark Quigley, an attorney representing Pedowitz, said the case could have been avoided if the UC system enforced the policies it already has in place.
"What good are all the policies if they protect the wrongdoers and fail to protect the actual whistleblower?" Quigley said. "The university wanted to cover it all up."
UCLA'S $10 MILLION WHISTLE-BLOWER RETALIATION CASE:
"Shortly before Pedowitz joined UCLA in 2009, the university was already facing criticism from Congress over the failure of a top spine surgeon to report nearly $460,000 in payments he received from Medtronic and other medical companies while researching their products' use in patients, government records show.
"Dr. Jeffrey Wang, who left for USC Spine Center last fall, stepped down as head of UCLA's spine program in 2009 after U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) publicized his lapse in disclosure as part of a larger investigation into medical conflicts of interest.
"Several patients are now suing Wang and UCLA in state court for negligence, fraud and malpractice in connection with surgeries involving Medtronic's controversial Infuse bone graft."
"...'What good are all the policies if they protect the wrongdoers and fail to protect the actual whistleblower?' Quigley said. 'The university wanted to cover it all up.'"
UCLA surgeon Dr. Robert Pedowitz, who said the medical school allowed doctors to take industry payments that may have compromised patient care
UC OKs paying surgeon $10 million in whistleblower-retaliation case
The settlement ends a case brought by the ex-head of UCLA's orthopedic surgery department
By Chad Terhune
Los Angeles Times
April 22, 2014
University of California regents agreed to pay $10 million to the former chairman of UCLA's orthopedic surgery department, who had alleged that the well-known medical school allowed doctors to take industry payments that may have compromised patient care.
The settlement reached Tuesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court came just before closing arguments were due to begin in a whistleblower-retaliation case brought by Dr. Robert Pedowitz, 54, a surgeon who was recruited to UCLA in 2009 to run the orthopedic surgery department.
In 2012, the surgeon sued UCLA, the UC regents, fellow surgeons and senior university officials, alleging they failed to act on his complaints about widespread conflicts of interest and later retaliated against him for speaking up.
UCLA denied Pedowitz's allegations, and officials said they found no wrongdoing by faculty and no evidence that patient care was jeopardized. But the UC system paid him anyway, saying it wanted to avoid the "substantial expense and inconvenience" of further litigation.
[Maura Larkins: Closing arguments were about to begin in the case. UCLA had already invested "substantial expense and inconvenience", and would have incurred very little expense or inconvenience if it had simply allowed the closing arguments to go forward. The reason it settled was that it realized that the weight of the evidence showed that UCLA did indeed jeopardize patient safety and certainly violated conflict of interest standards and the legal rights of the whistle-blower.]
As department chairman, Pedowitz testified, he became concerned about colleagues who had financial ties to medical-device makers or other companies that could unduly influence their care of patients or taint important medical research.
He also alleged that UCLA looked the other way because the university stood to benefit financially from the success of medical products or drugs developed by its doctors.
One of the orthopedic surgeons that Pedowitz complained about testified at trial about receiving $250,000 in consulting fees in 2008 from device maker Medtronic. In memos to university officials, Pedowitz raised concerns about the financial dealings of other doctors as well.
Inside the courtroom Tuesday, Pedowitz sat in the front row with his wife and daughter as the judge told jurors that a settlement had been reached. He said he felt vindicated by the outcome.
"These are serious issues that patients should be worried about," Pedowitz said in an interview. "These problems exist in the broader medical system and they are not restricted to UCLA."
The seven-week trial in downtown Los Angeles offered a rare glimpse into those potential conflicts at a time when there is growing government scrutiny of industry payments to doctors.
Starting this fall, the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, part of President Obama's healthcare law, requires public disclosure of financial relationships between healthcare companies and physicians.
Many doctors and universities defend long-standing industry arrangements as essential for carrying out cutting-edge research and top-flight medical education.
In a statement Tuesday, the UC regents said they "resolved this lawsuit to end a prolonged conflict and permit UCLA Health Sciences to refocus on its primary missions of teaching, research, patient care and community engagement."
The statement added that "multiple investigations by university officials and independent investigators concluded that conduct by faculty members was lawful. Patient care was not compromised."
This latest settlement eclipses a $4.5-million payout the UC regents made last year to resolve a racial discrimination lawsuit filed by another UCLA surgeon.
Pedowitz, as part of his settlement, left the UCLA faculty, effective Tuesday. He had agreed to step down as department chairman in 2010 after initially voicing his concerns to top UCLA officials. He filed a whistleblower retaliation complaint in March 2011.
Experts in medical ethics say the UCLA case shows much more needs to be done within academia and by government regulators to address potential conflicts of interest in medicine.
Susan Chimonas, associate director of research at Columbia University's Center on Medicine as a Profession, said some medical schools are still reluctant to take on specialists who bring in considerable money from patients, medical research and patents on breakthrough products.
"Institutions can be dependent on the money these big-earning specialties like orthopedic surgery bring in," Chimonas said. "They are the cash cows and they can set their terms. This is not the first time I've heard of medical schools having policies that are not well enforced."
In an interview last week, the chief compliance officer at the UCLA Health System flatly rejected the notion that the university didn't enforce its policies or look fully into Pedowitz's allegations. She also said industry ties are unavoidable at a big medical school and rules are in place to prevent conflicts.
"We have processes in place to identify those relationships in a transparent fashion and ensure they don't have any inappropriate influence on the actions of the university," said Marti Arvin, chief compliance officer. "In order to meet our mission, it is important we have both the brilliant minds we have at UCLA and collaboration with industry."
Arvin said the university "thoroughly and objectively investigated those allegations of noncompliance raised by Dr. Pedowitz. We were able to determine the vast majority were unsubstantiated."
She said two doctors fell short of university expectations in their handling of outside income, but there was no violation of law or university policy in either instance.
Arvin cited the case of Dr. Nick Shamie, the orthopedic surgeon who testified at trial about receiving $250,000 from Medtronic for consulting work. She said department policy at the time didn't require Shamie to send that outside income through UCLA's faculty compensation plan.
At trial, Pedowitz said he was deeply troubled by the large amount of money Shamie was paid. He testified that he was particularly concerned that Shamie was trying to enroll patients in a research study involving Medtronic at the time.
"I saw this as an obvious problem," Pedowitz testified.
In court, Shamie said he abided by university policy and didn't pursue the study further because finding patients was too difficult. He couldn't be reached for additional comment.
The other physician cited by Arvin for a potential shortcoming was Dr. David McAllister, vice chairman of clinical operations for the orthopedic surgery department.
He didn't report payments from the Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation, a nonprofit tissue bank that does business with UCLA, because he didn't think disclosure was required in that instance because it didn't involve a for-profit entity, Arvin said.
McAllister also declined to comment, referring a call to UCLA.
Shortly before Pedowitz joined UCLA in 2009, the university was already facing criticism from Congress over the failure of a top spine surgeon to report nearly $460,000 in payments he received from Medtronic and other medical companies while researching their products' use in patients, government records show.
Dr. Jeffrey Wang, who left for USC Spine Center last fall, stepped down as head of UCLA's spine program in 2009 after U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) publicized his lapse in disclosure as part of a larger investigation into medical conflicts of interest.
Several patients are now suing Wang and UCLA in state court for negligence, fraud and malpractice in connection with surgeries involving Medtronic's controversial Infuse bone graft. UCLA said it doesn't comment on pending litigation. Wang couldn't be reached for comment.
Shortly after raising his concerns, Pedowitz said, he was pressured to step down as department chairman in 2010. Pedowitz said he was further retaliated against by being denied patient referrals and prevented from participating in grants and other activities.
Before UCLA, Pedowitz worked at UC San Diego and as chairman of orthopedics and sports medicine at the University of South Florida.
Mark Quigley, an attorney representing Pedowitz, said the case could have been avoided if the UC system enforced the policies it already has in place.
"What good are all the policies if they protect the wrongdoers and fail to protect the actual whistleblower?" Quigley said. "The university wanted to cover it all up."
Saturday, July 20, 2013
Black Surgeon Wins $4.5 Million Settlement In Racial Bias Lawsuit
Black Surgeon Wins $4.5 Million Settlement In Racial Bias Lawsuit
Jul 19, 2013
By NewsOne Staff
Christian Head, a former surgeon at UCLA’s medical school, will receive a $4.5 million after settling a racial discrimination lawsuit against the University of California Board of Regents, the Los Angeles Times reports.
When Head, 51, filed the lawsuit in April, he accused the university of failing to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation against him after he used traditional channels to complain about racism he felt he experienced from his colleagues. The regents settled the lawsuit in a closed session Thursday.
Head alleged that he was routinely humiliated in public. During a meeting in 2006 with faculty, staff and graduating medical school residents, a slide show created by the residents — and typically reviewed by staff — was presented. In that presentation was a photo in which Head’s face was superimposed on a gorilla that was being sodomized by a department chairman, according to the lawsuit.
“The case presented difficult issues of alleged discrimination and retaliation that were strongly contested,” the university said in a statement. “…The matter was settled to the mutual satisfaction of the parties.”
Here is more from The Times:
Without admitting fault or liability, the university acknowledged that “an inappropriate slide was shown” and regrets the incident, the statement said.
Dr. Gerald Berke, chairman of the David Geffen School of Medicine‘s Department of Head and Neck Surgery, and Dr. Marilene Wang were named in the lawsuit and were accused of making “inappropriate racial comments and insinuations about blacks” and Head for years, the court document stated. Both are UCLA physicians and professors.
Neither Berke nor Wang could be reached for comment.
The settlement will be paid through a state general liability fund.
Head received his medical degree from Ohio State University in 1993. He joined UCLA’s medical school in 1993. He has resigned from his position. The Times was not able to reach Head for comment on the settlement.
Jul 19, 2013
By NewsOne Staff
Christian Head, a former surgeon at UCLA’s medical school, will receive a $4.5 million after settling a racial discrimination lawsuit against the University of California Board of Regents, the Los Angeles Times reports.
When Head, 51, filed the lawsuit in April, he accused the university of failing to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation against him after he used traditional channels to complain about racism he felt he experienced from his colleagues. The regents settled the lawsuit in a closed session Thursday.
Head alleged that he was routinely humiliated in public. During a meeting in 2006 with faculty, staff and graduating medical school residents, a slide show created by the residents — and typically reviewed by staff — was presented. In that presentation was a photo in which Head’s face was superimposed on a gorilla that was being sodomized by a department chairman, according to the lawsuit.
“The case presented difficult issues of alleged discrimination and retaliation that were strongly contested,” the university said in a statement. “…The matter was settled to the mutual satisfaction of the parties.”
Here is more from The Times:
Without admitting fault or liability, the university acknowledged that “an inappropriate slide was shown” and regrets the incident, the statement said.
Dr. Gerald Berke, chairman of the David Geffen School of Medicine‘s Department of Head and Neck Surgery, and Dr. Marilene Wang were named in the lawsuit and were accused of making “inappropriate racial comments and insinuations about blacks” and Head for years, the court document stated. Both are UCLA physicians and professors.
Neither Berke nor Wang could be reached for comment.
The settlement will be paid through a state general liability fund.
Head received his medical degree from Ohio State University in 1993. He joined UCLA’s medical school in 1993. He has resigned from his position. The Times was not able to reach Head for comment on the settlement.
Friday, October 5, 2012
UCLA hospitals to pay $865,500 for breaches of celebrities' privacy
UCLA hospitals to pay $865,500 for breaches of celebrities' privacy
July 08, 2011
By Molly Hennessy-Fiske
Los Angeles Times
UCLA Health System has agreed to pay $865,500 as part of a settlement with federal regulators announced Thursday after two celebrity patients alleged that hospital employees broke the law and reviewed their medical records without authorization.
Federal and hospital officials declined to identify the celebrities involved. The complaints cover 2005 to 2009, a time during which hospital employees were repeatedly caught and fired for peeping at the medical records of dozens of celebrities, including Britney Spears, Farrah Fawcett and then-California First Lady Maria Shriver.
Violations allegedly occurred at all three UCLA Health System hospitals — Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, Santa Monica UCLA Medical Center and Orthopaedic Hospital and Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital, according to UCLA spokeswoman Dale Tate.
The security breaches were first reported in The Times in 2008.
The violations led state legislators to pass a law imposing escalating fines on hospitals for patient privacy lapses.
After the law took effect on Jan. 1, 2009, state regulators fined Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center $95,000 in connection with privacy breaches that year that sources said involved the medical records of Michael Jackson, who was taken to the hospital after his death in June 2009.
The same month, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office for Civil Rights began investigating alleged violations of the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act at the hospitals, according to the settlement agreement.
Investigators found that UCLA employees examined private electronic records "repeatedly and without a permissible reason" in 2005 and 2008, including an employee in the nursing director's office, according to the agreement reached Wednesday.
The employee was not named in the agreement, and the hospital spokeswoman declined to identify who it was. But the timing and description of the alleged violations cited in the agreement suggest that it may have been Lawanda Jackson, an administrative specialist at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center who was fired in 2007 after she was caught accessing Farrah Fawcett's medical records and allegedly selling information to the National Enquirer.
Jackson later pleaded guilty to a felony charge of violating federal medical privacy laws for commercial purposes but died of cancer before she could be sentenced. Fawcett died of cancer in 2009.
Federal investigators faulted the hospital system for failing to remedy the problems, discipline or retrain staff.
"Employees must clearly understand that casual review for personal interest of patients' protected health information is unacceptable and against the law," Georgina Verdugo, director of the Office for Civil Rights, said in a statement Thursday, adding that healthcare facilities "will be held accountable for employees who access protected health information to satisfy their own personal curiosity."
As a condition of the settlement, UCLA Health System was required to submit a plan to federal regulators detailing how officials would prevent future breaches. They agreed to retrain staff on privacy protections, formulate privacy policies, appoint a monitor to oversee improvements and report to regulators for the next three years.
UCLA Health System released a statement Thursday noting that, "Over the past three years, we have worked diligently to strengthen our staff training, implement enhanced data security systems and increase our auditing capabilities."
"Our patients' health, privacy and well-being are of paramount importance to us," said Dr. David T. Feinberg, chief executive of the UCLA Hospital System. "We appreciate the involvement and recommendations made by OCR in this matter and will fully comply with the plan of correction it has formulated. We remain vigilant and proactive to ensure that our patients' rights continue to be protected at all times."
July 08, 2011
By Molly Hennessy-Fiske
Los Angeles Times
UCLA Health System has agreed to pay $865,500 as part of a settlement with federal regulators announced Thursday after two celebrity patients alleged that hospital employees broke the law and reviewed their medical records without authorization.
Federal and hospital officials declined to identify the celebrities involved. The complaints cover 2005 to 2009, a time during which hospital employees were repeatedly caught and fired for peeping at the medical records of dozens of celebrities, including Britney Spears, Farrah Fawcett and then-California First Lady Maria Shriver.
Violations allegedly occurred at all three UCLA Health System hospitals — Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, Santa Monica UCLA Medical Center and Orthopaedic Hospital and Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital, according to UCLA spokeswoman Dale Tate.
The security breaches were first reported in The Times in 2008.
The violations led state legislators to pass a law imposing escalating fines on hospitals for patient privacy lapses.
After the law took effect on Jan. 1, 2009, state regulators fined Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center $95,000 in connection with privacy breaches that year that sources said involved the medical records of Michael Jackson, who was taken to the hospital after his death in June 2009.
The same month, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office for Civil Rights began investigating alleged violations of the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act at the hospitals, according to the settlement agreement.
Investigators found that UCLA employees examined private electronic records "repeatedly and without a permissible reason" in 2005 and 2008, including an employee in the nursing director's office, according to the agreement reached Wednesday.
The employee was not named in the agreement, and the hospital spokeswoman declined to identify who it was. But the timing and description of the alleged violations cited in the agreement suggest that it may have been Lawanda Jackson, an administrative specialist at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center who was fired in 2007 after she was caught accessing Farrah Fawcett's medical records and allegedly selling information to the National Enquirer.
Jackson later pleaded guilty to a felony charge of violating federal medical privacy laws for commercial purposes but died of cancer before she could be sentenced. Fawcett died of cancer in 2009.
Federal investigators faulted the hospital system for failing to remedy the problems, discipline or retrain staff.
"Employees must clearly understand that casual review for personal interest of patients' protected health information is unacceptable and against the law," Georgina Verdugo, director of the Office for Civil Rights, said in a statement Thursday, adding that healthcare facilities "will be held accountable for employees who access protected health information to satisfy their own personal curiosity."
As a condition of the settlement, UCLA Health System was required to submit a plan to federal regulators detailing how officials would prevent future breaches. They agreed to retrain staff on privacy protections, formulate privacy policies, appoint a monitor to oversee improvements and report to regulators for the next three years.
UCLA Health System released a statement Thursday noting that, "Over the past three years, we have worked diligently to strengthen our staff training, implement enhanced data security systems and increase our auditing capabilities."
"Our patients' health, privacy and well-being are of paramount importance to us," said Dr. David T. Feinberg, chief executive of the UCLA Hospital System. "We appreciate the involvement and recommendations made by OCR in this matter and will fully comply with the plan of correction it has formulated. We remain vigilant and proactive to ensure that our patients' rights continue to be protected at all times."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)