Why do consumers have "no meaningful information about the quality of care"? Because businesses are the ones buying the insurance, not the patients. And insurers have no stake in long-term results.
September 21, 2012
Leslie Michelson: Doctor to the 1% (and Maybe Someday to You)
By JOSEPH RAGO
Wall Street Journal
The rich are different than you and me. Not only—yes, yes—do they have more money, but they've also heard of, and many have hired, Leslie Michelson.
...So the health-care delivery system, to the extent it qualifies as a system, "has no quality control, no integration, no coordination." Doctors "tend to operate in an independent and isolated way, and even specialists who've been treating the same patient for years and years typically never, ever speak to one another."
Private Health is designed to backfill these gaps whenever one of its patients has a medical emergency or complex condition, say, a traumatic brain injury or newly diagnosed cancer. A personal-care team parachutes in, led by a clinician employed by the company, and compiles a brief on the patient. They centralize and digitize the patient's medical records, usually dog-eared paper piles that can run to thousands of pages. Research scientists immerse themselves in the latest findings and treatment regimens for the particular condition involved.
Tests are double-checked—biopsy tissues are sent to an outside pathologist, MRIs to another radiologist. For an era of targeted therapies, Private Health runs a full battery of molecular diagnostics "to sequence the entire three billion base pairs of somebody's DNA in a couple of hours," Mr. Michelson marvels.
The goal is to ensure an accurate diagnosis and lay out all the treatment options. Private Health functions as a kind of running, independent second opinion. It operates in the twilight zone where there isn't a "best practice" for when and how to treat, but a continuum of risks and benefits that vary from patient to patient.
The clinician helps locate the right experts, Mr. Michelson says, and then works to "fuse together all these multiple specialists in a single team with a single objective." There are "no redos, no lost scans, no ambling around going from specialist to specialist, trying to figure out what's going on." The most frequent reaction is: "This is how medicine was always supposed to be practiced."
The idea for Private Health came to Mr. Michelson when he was running the Prostate Cancer Foundation, the multibillion-dollar philanthropy Michael Milken set up in 1993. Prostate cancer is a common disease but treatment isn't straightforward. Surgeons end up recommending surgery, radiation specialists radiation, still others "watchful waiting," etc.
Mr. Michelson says people started asking him for advice, which led to the prototype for Private Health. Eventually he decided to improve his process across more diseases and help more people.
One irony is that for all its white-glove extras (a research department, genetic profiling), a lot of what Private Health does are core functions that patients would value and providers or insurers ought to be doing but rarely do (case management, using computers). Why is that?
Cost is part of it. "It's too expensive for us to do it for everybody right now," Mr. Michelson says. Another part, he thinks, is that "the incentives are attenuated because of the structure of insurance," namely, job-based coverage.
Since businesses are the customers, not the individuals who change jobs every three years on average, insurers "act rationally" and don't invest in services with "short-term costs and long-term payback." Mr. Michelson thinks the better option is for businesses to convert to cash vouchers so their workers can buy portable policies. Right now, there is "no meaningful information about the quality of care, virtually no information about price, and no sensitivity to price," but that would change if the insurance industry built "an enduring relationship with consumers," he says.
"I understand that it is woven into the fabric of our society that employers can and should continue to pay for health insurance for their employees," Mr. Michelson declares. "But why, circa 2012, should HR departments be selecting and administering one or two or three plans for a thousand or a hundred thousand workers and their dependents? You don't need a Ph.D. in economics to understand that you will guarantee suboptimization."
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Friday, September 21, 2012
Kaiser incident probed as hate crime
Kaiser has a very top-down culture, which does not foster good relationships between employees.
RIVERSIDE: Kaiser incident probed as hate crime
BY BRIAN ROKOS AND DAVID KECK
Press Enterprise
12 September 2012
Riverside police are expected to meet with Kaiser Permanente officials Thursday, Sept. 13, to discuss why a mannequin with black paint on its face and a racial slur written on its chest was left hanging in the health care provider’s Magnolia Avenue hospital.
Police opened an investigation this week after a hospital worker walked into the Magnolia Avenue police station on Monday afternoon, Sept. 10, and said he found the black-faced mannequin hanging near his work area on Friday, Sept. 7, said Sgt. David Amador, who is in charge of the investigation.
The worker brought photos of the mannequin, which had a racial slur and the word “hang” written across its chest. The mannequin was discovered in an area that is not open to the public.
Police were just getting into the investigation as of Wednesday and were exploring a range of possibilities for what might have prompted the incident, Amador said. “We are looking at it as a hate crime,” Amador said. “We’re looking at why it was placed there, who placed it there and for what purpose.”
KNBC Ch. 4 reported the incident on its 6 p.m. newscast on Tuesday, Sept. 11, speaking to workers at the hospital.
“You’re not sure what to think,” employee Tyree Hale, who is black, told the TV station.
Kaiser was pursuing a separate investigation into the incident. Peggy Hinz, Kaiser’s director of issues and brand management, promised a thorough inquiry.
“At Kaiser Permanente, we are deeply committed to respecting diversity, preventing discrimination and providing a work environment free of harassment,” Hinz wrote in an email. “We take the matter that has been brought to our attention extremely seriously. We are moving quickly to investigate the matter and will take appropriate action. We do not tolerate any form of discrimination in our workplace and will take all appropriate measures to address the full scope of this situation.”
RIVERSIDE: Kaiser incident probed as hate crime
BY BRIAN ROKOS AND DAVID KECK
Press Enterprise
12 September 2012
Riverside police are expected to meet with Kaiser Permanente officials Thursday, Sept. 13, to discuss why a mannequin with black paint on its face and a racial slur written on its chest was left hanging in the health care provider’s Magnolia Avenue hospital.
Police opened an investigation this week after a hospital worker walked into the Magnolia Avenue police station on Monday afternoon, Sept. 10, and said he found the black-faced mannequin hanging near his work area on Friday, Sept. 7, said Sgt. David Amador, who is in charge of the investigation.
The worker brought photos of the mannequin, which had a racial slur and the word “hang” written across its chest. The mannequin was discovered in an area that is not open to the public.
Police were just getting into the investigation as of Wednesday and were exploring a range of possibilities for what might have prompted the incident, Amador said. “We are looking at it as a hate crime,” Amador said. “We’re looking at why it was placed there, who placed it there and for what purpose.”
KNBC Ch. 4 reported the incident on its 6 p.m. newscast on Tuesday, Sept. 11, speaking to workers at the hospital.
“You’re not sure what to think,” employee Tyree Hale, who is black, told the TV station.
Kaiser was pursuing a separate investigation into the incident. Peggy Hinz, Kaiser’s director of issues and brand management, promised a thorough inquiry.
“At Kaiser Permanente, we are deeply committed to respecting diversity, preventing discrimination and providing a work environment free of harassment,” Hinz wrote in an email. “We take the matter that has been brought to our attention extremely seriously. We are moving quickly to investigate the matter and will take appropriate action. We do not tolerate any form of discrimination in our workplace and will take all appropriate measures to address the full scope of this situation.”
Friday, September 14, 2012
Doctor, Hospital Deals Probed, but not Kaiser Permanente, which does the exact same thing
Isn't this exactly what Kaiser Permanente has done? Does Kaiser have the political clout to escape examination?
Doctor, Hospital Deals Probed
September 13, 2012
By ANNA WILDE MATHEWS
The Sacramento Bee/Associated Press
California's attorney general has launched a broad investigation into whether growing consolidation among hospitals and doctor groups is pushing up the price of medical care, reflecting increasing scrutiny by antitrust regulators of medical-provider deals.
The office of the attorney general, Kamala D. Harris, has sent subpoenas, known as civil investigative demands, to several big hospital operators in the state, including San Francisco-based Dignity Health and San Diego's Scripps Health and Sharp HealthCare. Northern California's 24-hospital Sutter Health system has also received one, as has Santa Barbara-based Cottage Health System, according to people with knowledge of the matter. Subpoenas have also gone to major California health insurers, those people said.
The probe, which has been under way for several months, is examining hospital systems' reimbursement from the insurers, according to people with knowledge of the matter. The regulator appears to be focusing on whether the systems' tie-ups with physicians, as well as ownership of hospitals, have given them the market power to boost prices in a way that violates antitrust law, these people said.
Nationally, health-care providers are rapidly merging into bigger health systems, moves that they say will improve efficiency. The number of hospital deals last year, 86, was the biggest since 2000, according to Irving Levin Associates, a research firm that tracks health-care transactions.
Also, nearly a quarter of all specialty physicians who see patients at hospitals are now employed by the hospitals, according to an estimate from the Advisory Board Co. ABCO +0.51% That is more than four times the 5% in 2000. Among primary-care doctors who see patients in hospitals, the employed share has doubled to about 40% in the same time frame.
The American Hospital Association said consolidation doesn't routinely drive up prices; the California Hospital Association referred questions to the national group. Hospitals are merging and employing more doctors in order to streamline and improve care, under pressure from health regulators urging a more integrated approach under the federal health overhaul law, said Melinda Hatton, AHA's general counsel. "The antitrust agencies and national health-care policy don't seem to be really in sync at this point," she said.
Some research suggests that mergers can drive up health-care prices. A 2010 study published in the journal Health Affairs said concentration among health-care providers in California had led to "a definite shift in negotiating strength toward providers, resulting in higher payment rates and premiums."...
Doctor, Hospital Deals Probed
September 13, 2012
By ANNA WILDE MATHEWS
The Sacramento Bee/Associated Press
California's attorney general has launched a broad investigation into whether growing consolidation among hospitals and doctor groups is pushing up the price of medical care, reflecting increasing scrutiny by antitrust regulators of medical-provider deals.
The office of the attorney general, Kamala D. Harris, has sent subpoenas, known as civil investigative demands, to several big hospital operators in the state, including San Francisco-based Dignity Health and San Diego's Scripps Health and Sharp HealthCare. Northern California's 24-hospital Sutter Health system has also received one, as has Santa Barbara-based Cottage Health System, according to people with knowledge of the matter. Subpoenas have also gone to major California health insurers, those people said.
The probe, which has been under way for several months, is examining hospital systems' reimbursement from the insurers, according to people with knowledge of the matter. The regulator appears to be focusing on whether the systems' tie-ups with physicians, as well as ownership of hospitals, have given them the market power to boost prices in a way that violates antitrust law, these people said.
Nationally, health-care providers are rapidly merging into bigger health systems, moves that they say will improve efficiency. The number of hospital deals last year, 86, was the biggest since 2000, according to Irving Levin Associates, a research firm that tracks health-care transactions.
Also, nearly a quarter of all specialty physicians who see patients at hospitals are now employed by the hospitals, according to an estimate from the Advisory Board Co. ABCO +0.51% That is more than four times the 5% in 2000. Among primary-care doctors who see patients in hospitals, the employed share has doubled to about 40% in the same time frame.
The American Hospital Association said consolidation doesn't routinely drive up prices; the California Hospital Association referred questions to the national group. Hospitals are merging and employing more doctors in order to streamline and improve care, under pressure from health regulators urging a more integrated approach under the federal health overhaul law, said Melinda Hatton, AHA's general counsel. "The antitrust agencies and national health-care policy don't seem to be really in sync at this point," she said.
Some research suggests that mergers can drive up health-care prices. A 2010 study published in the journal Health Affairs said concentration among health-care providers in California had led to "a definite shift in negotiating strength toward providers, resulting in higher payment rates and premiums."...
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Man Wins Lawsuit Against Kaiser Permanente; first time a Fresno jury finds Kaiser guilty of malpractice
I doubt that this was the first time that Fresno Kaiser failed to properly care for a patient. It's just the first time that Kaiser lawyers failed to convince a Fresno jury that Kaiser shouldn't have to pay for patient's damages.
Kerman Man Wins Lawsuit Against Kaiser Permanente
By Audrey Asistio
KSEE24 News
September 4, 2012
It's been a rough three years for Dusten Chevalier. Before the 27-year-old became confined to a wheelchair, he loved the outdoors. Racing dirt bikes, football, baseball, he did it all. But Chevalier says that all changed after he ended up in a Kaiser Permenente emergency room, in Fresno.
“It all started off with my stomach hurting and I actually got my appendix taken out. When I got home my if side was kind of hurting and was a little red. So we went back to the ER. Come to find out, I had an infection but they never told me any of this. I didn't even know I had a blood test pending,” said Chevalier.
He says the hospital failed to tell him that he tested positive for MRSA, an infection that could be fatal. The infection went untreated and he eventually lost the use of his legs and feet.
“At first it didn't seem real. It was hard to even imagine my life now, because before I was really into sports everything I did was outside. It was hard. It still is. Every day is really hard, but I don't know I'm just thankful I'm alive because I could have died,” expressed Chevalier.
Chevalier took Kaiser to court. After a month long battle, The jury verdict included damages in the total amount of $5,000,000.
Kaiser Permanente released a statement regarding this case that reads in part, “Kaiser Permanente, immediately after diagnosing the patient's infection, made repeated attempts to contact him to get him the treatment he needed. This was to no avail, as he provided inaccurate addresses and contact information. Kaiser Permanente went so far as to contact the Clovis Police Department to help locate the patient to get him to come in for treatment. Given these facts the jury found that, for the most part, much of the responsibility in this case fell upon the plaintiff himself, thus reducing the award by 70%.” This means Kaiser will only need to pay Chevalier 1.5 million dollars.
Chevalier claims he provided Kaiser with accurate contact information. Medical experts say the cost of his care will cost millions of dollars over the course of his lifetime.
Chevalier's attorney says this is the first time a Fresno County Jury ruled against Kaiser Permanente in a malpractice case.
Kerman Man Wins Lawsuit Against Kaiser Permanente
By Audrey Asistio
KSEE24 News
September 4, 2012
It's been a rough three years for Dusten Chevalier. Before the 27-year-old became confined to a wheelchair, he loved the outdoors. Racing dirt bikes, football, baseball, he did it all. But Chevalier says that all changed after he ended up in a Kaiser Permenente emergency room, in Fresno.
“It all started off with my stomach hurting and I actually got my appendix taken out. When I got home my if side was kind of hurting and was a little red. So we went back to the ER. Come to find out, I had an infection but they never told me any of this. I didn't even know I had a blood test pending,” said Chevalier.
He says the hospital failed to tell him that he tested positive for MRSA, an infection that could be fatal. The infection went untreated and he eventually lost the use of his legs and feet.
“At first it didn't seem real. It was hard to even imagine my life now, because before I was really into sports everything I did was outside. It was hard. It still is. Every day is really hard, but I don't know I'm just thankful I'm alive because I could have died,” expressed Chevalier.
Chevalier took Kaiser to court. After a month long battle, The jury verdict included damages in the total amount of $5,000,000.
Kaiser Permanente released a statement regarding this case that reads in part, “Kaiser Permanente, immediately after diagnosing the patient's infection, made repeated attempts to contact him to get him the treatment he needed. This was to no avail, as he provided inaccurate addresses and contact information. Kaiser Permanente went so far as to contact the Clovis Police Department to help locate the patient to get him to come in for treatment. Given these facts the jury found that, for the most part, much of the responsibility in this case fell upon the plaintiff himself, thus reducing the award by 70%.” This means Kaiser will only need to pay Chevalier 1.5 million dollars.
Chevalier claims he provided Kaiser with accurate contact information. Medical experts say the cost of his care will cost millions of dollars over the course of his lifetime.
Chevalier's attorney says this is the first time a Fresno County Jury ruled against Kaiser Permanente in a malpractice case.
Monday, September 3, 2012
Jury Awards $7.8M in Hospital Negligence Suit
Jury Awards $7.8M in Hospital Negligence Suit
ABC News
September 1, 2012
(AP)
A western Tennessee jury has awarded $7.8 million in damages to the family of a child who suffered severe brain damage as a result of an improperly treated wound at a hospital. The Dyersburg State Gazette reported Friday ( http://bit.ly/OEYOh1 ) that the lawsuit was filed against Dyersburg Regional Medical Center and others. It stemmed from when then-12-year-old Jonathan Reynolds was treated in 2004 after falling on a nail. The lawsuit claimed that proper procedures were not taken to avoid infection and the hospital personnel failed to give him the proper antibiotics. The boy caught a flesh-eating bacterium that required numerous skin grafts. He also developed severe brain injuries after slipping into a coma. A jury in Dyer County returned the verdict earlier this month after a 15-day trial.
ABC News
September 1, 2012
(AP)
A western Tennessee jury has awarded $7.8 million in damages to the family of a child who suffered severe brain damage as a result of an improperly treated wound at a hospital. The Dyersburg State Gazette reported Friday ( http://bit.ly/OEYOh1 ) that the lawsuit was filed against Dyersburg Regional Medical Center and others. It stemmed from when then-12-year-old Jonathan Reynolds was treated in 2004 after falling on a nail. The lawsuit claimed that proper procedures were not taken to avoid infection and the hospital personnel failed to give him the proper antibiotics. The boy caught a flesh-eating bacterium that required numerous skin grafts. He also developed severe brain injuries after slipping into a coma. A jury in Dyer County returned the verdict earlier this month after a 15-day trial.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Dr. David McKee sues patient's son for Internet defamation and hires a private detective to find out which nurse called McKee a "tool"
UPDATE: Defendant Dennis Laurion wins Internet defamation case in Minnesota Supreme Court.
David McKee v. Dennis Laurion
"When a doctor hires a private detective to find out which one of the 4,400 nurses in St. Louis County, MN may have called him a “tool” you know the man is serious about defending his reputation. That is just what Dr. David McKee of Northland Neurology and Myology is doing in preparation for the next leg of his defamation lawsuit against the son of a former patient, Dennis Laurion.
"When neurologist Dr. David McKee treated World War II veteran Kenneth Laurion his reportedly insensitive remarks and dreadful bedside manner had the vet’s son, Dennis Laurion, up in arms. The younger Laurion took his wrath to the web and posted unfavorable reviews about Dr. McKee on several rate-your-physician websites. Dennis Laurion contended that Dr. McKee failed to treat the elder Laurion with concern and respect.
According to Laurion, Dr. McKee “seemed upset” that Kenneth McKee was moved to a ward after a stint in the intensive care unit and said to his patient, “When you weren’t in ICU, I had to spend time finding out if you transferred or died.”
Laurion also reported that the doctor dismissed the stroke patient’s need for therapy before pulling Kenneth Laurion up to his feet and forcing him to walk without any regard for whether the patient’s hospital gown was tied at the back. Dennis Laurion even went so far as to write that when he “mentioned Dr. McKee’s name to a friend who is a nurse, she said, ‘Dr. McKee is a real tool!’”
"Angered by Laurion’s Internet critique, Dr. McKee filed a defamation suit against Dennis Laurion for $50,000. In his case Dr. McKee alleged that after treating Kenneth Laurion for his stroke, Dennis Laurion made “false and malicious statements” about the doctor to “nineteen different professional and medical organizations, regulatory agencies, and websites.”
"Upon hearing the case, Sixth Judicial District Judge Eric Hylden dismissed Dr. McKee’s lawsuit because he found Dennis Laurion’s comments to be a matter of opinion and thereby protected by the First Amendment. But in January of 2012 the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed Judge Hylden’s decision and ruled that a jury should evaluate that certain statements made by Dennis Laurion for their truthfulness and defamatory potential and returned the case to the lower court for further consideration.
"McKee v. Laurion is now scheduled to go to trail in January of 2013. But the Laurions are not backing down. They are already busy filing petitions with the Minnesota Supreme Court. The Laurions contend that the Minnesota Court of Appeals made an error in their determination that Dennis Laurion made false statements about his father’s allegedly “not-so-nice” neurologist. It appears that the only evidence the appeals court had to support their decision was Dr. McKee’s assertion that Dennis Laurion lied. And when you consider that a stroke sufferer will be dragged into court to give testimony on this issue just after his 88th birthday, it seems that Dr. McKee’s private investigator might have an easy time finding that nurse." ---DefamationLaw.net
Doctor's suit tests limits of online criticism
McClatchy Tribune News Service
March 30, 2012
MINNEAPOLIS — Two years ago, Dennis Laurion logged on to a rate-your-doctor website to vent about a Duluth neurologist, Dr. David McKee.
McKee had examined Laurion's father, Kenneth, when he was hospitalized after a stroke. The family, Laurion wrote, wasn't happy with his bedside manner. "When I mentioned Dr. McKee's name to a friend who is a nurse, she said, 'Dr. McKee is a real tool!' " he wrote.
McKee wasn't amused. He sued Laurion for defamation, and now the case is pending before the Minnesota Supreme Court.
McKee, 50, is one of a small number of doctors who have gone to court to fight online critics, in cases that are testing the limits of free speech on the Internet. "Doctors are not used to public criticism," said Eric Goldman, an associate professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law in California, who tracks such lawsuits. "So it's a new phenomenon for them."
While such cases are rare, Goldman said, they've been popping up around the country as patient review sites such as vitals.com and rateyourdoctor.com have flourished. Defamation suits are "kind of the nuclear option," Goldman said. "It's the thing that you go to when everything else has failed."
McKee's lawyer, Marshall Tanick, said the doctor felt he had no choice but to sue to protect his reputation and his medical practice.
"It's like removing graffiti from a wall," Tanick said. He said Laurion distorted the facts — not only on the Internet, but in more than a dozen complaint letters to various medical groups. "He put words in the doctor's mouth," making McKee "sound uncaring, unsympathetic or just stupid."
[Maura Larkins comment: Wait a minute. Dr. McKee is complaining that someone filed a complaint about a doctor??? Patients are just supposed to silently accept whatever a doctor dishes out?]
McKee calls Laurion "a liar and a bully," and says he has spent more than $7,000 to "scrub" the Internet of more than 100 vitriolic comments, many traced to a single computer (IP address) in Duluth.
"Somebody who holds a grudge against you can very maliciously go on the Internet, post anything they want, and ... basically redefine who you are," he said.
Laurion, 65, a retired Coast Guard chief petty officer, says he deleted the Internet comments shortly after the lawsuit was filed and "never rewrote them."
At the same time, his lawyer, John D. Kelly, defends the postings. He says it was Laurion's perception that "the doctor's speech and conduct were tactless and inconsiderate." And that, he argued, is "constitutionally protected."
So far, Minnesota courts have had mixed reactions. A district court in Duluth dismissed McKee's lawsuit last year, but the state Appeals Court reinstated it in January. Laurion has appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
The dispute isn't about McKee's medical decisions, but about something less tangible: his body language and comments when he walked into Kenneth Laurion's room at St. Luke's Hospital in Duluth on April 20, 2010.
In his online postings, Dennis Laurion wrote that McKee "seemed upset" because he thought his father, then 84, was still in intensive care.
"Never having met my father or his family, Dr. McKee said, 'When you weren't in the ICU, I had to spend time finding out if you transferred or died,' " according to Laurion's account. "When we gaped at him, he said, 'Well, 44 percent of hemorrhagic strokes die within 30 days. I guess this is the better option.' "
Laurion, who was visiting with his wife and mother, wrote that McKee was brusque and dismissive during the exam, especially when his father raised concerns that his hospital gown was hanging open at the back. "Dr. McKee said, 'That doesn't matter,' " according to Laurion's account. "My wife said, 'It matters to us,' " and they left the room.
McKee discovered the online comments when a patient brought them to his attention. He filed suit, seeking more than $50,000 in damages. "The way he quoted me was completely inaccurate," McKee said in an interview. At the time, he said, nobody in the room "appeared to me to be the slightest bit upset."
[Maura Larkins comment: Figure it out, Dr. McKee. Their husband and father was in your care. They couldn't afford to make you angry. You were in a position of power.]
According to court documents, McKee admitted making a "jocular comment" about only two ways to leave the intensive care unit, but said he only meant that he was relieved to find Laurion in his hospital bed. He denied citing any statistic about stroke deaths and said the entire story was distorted beyond recognition.
"Every physician gets an occasional complaint from a patient, or even a patient's family member, but this was so ridiculous," he said. "This just seemed so extremely over the top, and really meant to be harmful."
In the first legal battle, district Judge Eric Hylden in Duluth sided with Laurion. "The statements in this case appear to be nothing more or less than one man's description of shock at the way he and in particular his father were treated by a physician," he wrote in dismissing the suit in April 2011.
The appeals court disagreed, ruling in January that some of the statements were fair game for a defamation suit and sending the dispute back for trial.
Tanick, McKee's lawyer, said the case isn't just about someone voicing an opinion. He said Laurion defamed the doctor by accusing him of things "that never happened."
Laurion's lawyer, however, says it's a matter of perception. "Something happened in that room that disturbed the four members of the family significantly," he said.
More than a dozen defamation suits have been filed since 2004 by doctors or dentists over online reviews; most have been dismissed or settled, according to Goldman.
Some medical practices have even tried to silence critics by requiring patients to sign a form forbidding them from posting comments on the Internet.
But Dr. Jeffrey Segal, a North Carolina neurosurgeon who promoted the controversial forms, says he's since had a change of heart; he "retired" them last year in the face of widespread criticism...
Here's a similar case from California.
David McKee v. Dennis Laurion
"When a doctor hires a private detective to find out which one of the 4,400 nurses in St. Louis County, MN may have called him a “tool” you know the man is serious about defending his reputation. That is just what Dr. David McKee of Northland Neurology and Myology is doing in preparation for the next leg of his defamation lawsuit against the son of a former patient, Dennis Laurion.
"When neurologist Dr. David McKee treated World War II veteran Kenneth Laurion his reportedly insensitive remarks and dreadful bedside manner had the vet’s son, Dennis Laurion, up in arms. The younger Laurion took his wrath to the web and posted unfavorable reviews about Dr. McKee on several rate-your-physician websites. Dennis Laurion contended that Dr. McKee failed to treat the elder Laurion with concern and respect.
According to Laurion, Dr. McKee “seemed upset” that Kenneth McKee was moved to a ward after a stint in the intensive care unit and said to his patient, “When you weren’t in ICU, I had to spend time finding out if you transferred or died.”
Laurion also reported that the doctor dismissed the stroke patient’s need for therapy before pulling Kenneth Laurion up to his feet and forcing him to walk without any regard for whether the patient’s hospital gown was tied at the back. Dennis Laurion even went so far as to write that when he “mentioned Dr. McKee’s name to a friend who is a nurse, she said, ‘Dr. McKee is a real tool!’”
"Angered by Laurion’s Internet critique, Dr. McKee filed a defamation suit against Dennis Laurion for $50,000. In his case Dr. McKee alleged that after treating Kenneth Laurion for his stroke, Dennis Laurion made “false and malicious statements” about the doctor to “nineteen different professional and medical organizations, regulatory agencies, and websites.”
"Upon hearing the case, Sixth Judicial District Judge Eric Hylden dismissed Dr. McKee’s lawsuit because he found Dennis Laurion’s comments to be a matter of opinion and thereby protected by the First Amendment. But in January of 2012 the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed Judge Hylden’s decision and ruled that a jury should evaluate that certain statements made by Dennis Laurion for their truthfulness and defamatory potential and returned the case to the lower court for further consideration.
"McKee v. Laurion is now scheduled to go to trail in January of 2013. But the Laurions are not backing down. They are already busy filing petitions with the Minnesota Supreme Court. The Laurions contend that the Minnesota Court of Appeals made an error in their determination that Dennis Laurion made false statements about his father’s allegedly “not-so-nice” neurologist. It appears that the only evidence the appeals court had to support their decision was Dr. McKee’s assertion that Dennis Laurion lied. And when you consider that a stroke sufferer will be dragged into court to give testimony on this issue just after his 88th birthday, it seems that Dr. McKee’s private investigator might have an easy time finding that nurse." ---DefamationLaw.net
Doctor's suit tests limits of online criticism
McClatchy Tribune News Service
March 30, 2012
MINNEAPOLIS — Two years ago, Dennis Laurion logged on to a rate-your-doctor website to vent about a Duluth neurologist, Dr. David McKee.
McKee had examined Laurion's father, Kenneth, when he was hospitalized after a stroke. The family, Laurion wrote, wasn't happy with his bedside manner. "When I mentioned Dr. McKee's name to a friend who is a nurse, she said, 'Dr. McKee is a real tool!' " he wrote.
McKee wasn't amused. He sued Laurion for defamation, and now the case is pending before the Minnesota Supreme Court.
McKee, 50, is one of a small number of doctors who have gone to court to fight online critics, in cases that are testing the limits of free speech on the Internet. "Doctors are not used to public criticism," said Eric Goldman, an associate professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law in California, who tracks such lawsuits. "So it's a new phenomenon for them."
While such cases are rare, Goldman said, they've been popping up around the country as patient review sites such as vitals.com and rateyourdoctor.com have flourished. Defamation suits are "kind of the nuclear option," Goldman said. "It's the thing that you go to when everything else has failed."
McKee's lawyer, Marshall Tanick, said the doctor felt he had no choice but to sue to protect his reputation and his medical practice.
"It's like removing graffiti from a wall," Tanick said. He said Laurion distorted the facts — not only on the Internet, but in more than a dozen complaint letters to various medical groups. "He put words in the doctor's mouth," making McKee "sound uncaring, unsympathetic or just stupid."
[Maura Larkins comment: Wait a minute. Dr. McKee is complaining that someone filed a complaint about a doctor??? Patients are just supposed to silently accept whatever a doctor dishes out?]
McKee calls Laurion "a liar and a bully," and says he has spent more than $7,000 to "scrub" the Internet of more than 100 vitriolic comments, many traced to a single computer (IP address) in Duluth.
"Somebody who holds a grudge against you can very maliciously go on the Internet, post anything they want, and ... basically redefine who you are," he said.
Laurion, 65, a retired Coast Guard chief petty officer, says he deleted the Internet comments shortly after the lawsuit was filed and "never rewrote them."
At the same time, his lawyer, John D. Kelly, defends the postings. He says it was Laurion's perception that "the doctor's speech and conduct were tactless and inconsiderate." And that, he argued, is "constitutionally protected."
So far, Minnesota courts have had mixed reactions. A district court in Duluth dismissed McKee's lawsuit last year, but the state Appeals Court reinstated it in January. Laurion has appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
The dispute isn't about McKee's medical decisions, but about something less tangible: his body language and comments when he walked into Kenneth Laurion's room at St. Luke's Hospital in Duluth on April 20, 2010.
In his online postings, Dennis Laurion wrote that McKee "seemed upset" because he thought his father, then 84, was still in intensive care.
"Never having met my father or his family, Dr. McKee said, 'When you weren't in the ICU, I had to spend time finding out if you transferred or died,' " according to Laurion's account. "When we gaped at him, he said, 'Well, 44 percent of hemorrhagic strokes die within 30 days. I guess this is the better option.' "
Laurion, who was visiting with his wife and mother, wrote that McKee was brusque and dismissive during the exam, especially when his father raised concerns that his hospital gown was hanging open at the back. "Dr. McKee said, 'That doesn't matter,' " according to Laurion's account. "My wife said, 'It matters to us,' " and they left the room.
McKee discovered the online comments when a patient brought them to his attention. He filed suit, seeking more than $50,000 in damages. "The way he quoted me was completely inaccurate," McKee said in an interview. At the time, he said, nobody in the room "appeared to me to be the slightest bit upset."
[Maura Larkins comment: Figure it out, Dr. McKee. Their husband and father was in your care. They couldn't afford to make you angry. You were in a position of power.]
According to court documents, McKee admitted making a "jocular comment" about only two ways to leave the intensive care unit, but said he only meant that he was relieved to find Laurion in his hospital bed. He denied citing any statistic about stroke deaths and said the entire story was distorted beyond recognition.
"Every physician gets an occasional complaint from a patient, or even a patient's family member, but this was so ridiculous," he said. "This just seemed so extremely over the top, and really meant to be harmful."
In the first legal battle, district Judge Eric Hylden in Duluth sided with Laurion. "The statements in this case appear to be nothing more or less than one man's description of shock at the way he and in particular his father were treated by a physician," he wrote in dismissing the suit in April 2011.
The appeals court disagreed, ruling in January that some of the statements were fair game for a defamation suit and sending the dispute back for trial.
Tanick, McKee's lawyer, said the case isn't just about someone voicing an opinion. He said Laurion defamed the doctor by accusing him of things "that never happened."
Laurion's lawyer, however, says it's a matter of perception. "Something happened in that room that disturbed the four members of the family significantly," he said.
More than a dozen defamation suits have been filed since 2004 by doctors or dentists over online reviews; most have been dismissed or settled, according to Goldman.
Some medical practices have even tried to silence critics by requiring patients to sign a form forbidding them from posting comments on the Internet.
But Dr. Jeffrey Segal, a North Carolina neurosurgeon who promoted the controversial forms, says he's since had a change of heart; he "retired" them last year in the face of widespread criticism...
Here's a similar case from California.
Friday, August 24, 2012
California labor board files complaint against SEIU in Fresno election for voter intimidation
See all posts re SEIU.
Judge rules against SEIU in California fight
By Alec MacGillis
Washington Post
July 21, 2011
A judge ruled this week that the Service Employees International Union improperly coerced workers caught in the middle of SEIU’s high-stakes turf battle with a breakaway union in California, potentially invalidating a 2010 election involving 43,500 employees.
SEIU, the nation’s most politically influential union, has been engaged in a costly fight with the former leaders of a 150,000-worker California chapter that formed a breakaway union in 2009. The split followed clashes with then-SEIU President Andy Stern over his emphasis on growing membership even if it meant giving concessions to employers.
Last fall, SEIU won the biggest standoff, an election to represent 43,500 Kaiser Permanente workers in Northern California.
The vote was a big setback for the breakaway union, the National Union of Healthcare Workers, leaving it with fewer than 10,000 members.
But this week, Administrative Law Judge Lana Parke ruled that Kaiser had improperly withheld pay raises from workers in Southern California who had switched to the new union and that SEIU had then improperly threatened the workers voting in the Northern California election that they, too, could have raises denied if they made the switch. It is now up to the National Labor Relations Board to decide whether to call a second election, as the judge recommends.
Leaders of the breakaway union noted that the ruling came at the same time as SEIU and other unions are arguing in favor of new rules proposed by the labor relations board to reduce employer coercion against workers before union elections.
“SEIU has been promoting itself an as advocate for labor law reform and workers, and against coercion and intimidation, but no institution has done more to coerce and thwart workers about which union they want to join,” said John Borsos, vice president of the breakaway union...
California labor board files complaint against SEIU in Fresno election for voter intimidation
NUHW.org
AUGUST 22, 2012
The California Public Employment Relations Board has filed an official complaint against SEIU-UHW West for its conduct in the 2009 Fresno homecare election.
Citing SEIU’s “physical and verbal threats,” “menacing and abusive behavior,” “unlawful destruction and removal” of property and a campaign of lies intended to mislead 10,000 Fresno homecare workers into voting to stay in SEIU, the board has affirmed the serious charges brought by homecare workers against SEIU.
NUHW President Sal Rosselli spoke out in support of the board’s decision,
“Today’s complaint validates entirely what Fresno homecare workers have said about what they experienced from SEIU. Threats, destruction of property, mail tampering, abusive behavior and violations of workers’ rights, all waged in a deliberate campaign of intimidation by SEIU following the direct instructions of Dave Regan, an ethically bankrupt leader who sits atop SEIU-UHW and serves on the SEIU International Executive Board to this day.”
Judge rules against SEIU in California fight
By Alec MacGillis
Washington Post
July 21, 2011
A judge ruled this week that the Service Employees International Union improperly coerced workers caught in the middle of SEIU’s high-stakes turf battle with a breakaway union in California, potentially invalidating a 2010 election involving 43,500 employees.
SEIU, the nation’s most politically influential union, has been engaged in a costly fight with the former leaders of a 150,000-worker California chapter that formed a breakaway union in 2009. The split followed clashes with then-SEIU President Andy Stern over his emphasis on growing membership even if it meant giving concessions to employers.
Last fall, SEIU won the biggest standoff, an election to represent 43,500 Kaiser Permanente workers in Northern California.
The vote was a big setback for the breakaway union, the National Union of Healthcare Workers, leaving it with fewer than 10,000 members.
But this week, Administrative Law Judge Lana Parke ruled that Kaiser had improperly withheld pay raises from workers in Southern California who had switched to the new union and that SEIU had then improperly threatened the workers voting in the Northern California election that they, too, could have raises denied if they made the switch. It is now up to the National Labor Relations Board to decide whether to call a second election, as the judge recommends.
Leaders of the breakaway union noted that the ruling came at the same time as SEIU and other unions are arguing in favor of new rules proposed by the labor relations board to reduce employer coercion against workers before union elections.
“SEIU has been promoting itself an as advocate for labor law reform and workers, and against coercion and intimidation, but no institution has done more to coerce and thwart workers about which union they want to join,” said John Borsos, vice president of the breakaway union...
California labor board files complaint against SEIU in Fresno election for voter intimidation
NUHW.org
AUGUST 22, 2012
The California Public Employment Relations Board has filed an official complaint against SEIU-UHW West for its conduct in the 2009 Fresno homecare election.
Citing SEIU’s “physical and verbal threats,” “menacing and abusive behavior,” “unlawful destruction and removal” of property and a campaign of lies intended to mislead 10,000 Fresno homecare workers into voting to stay in SEIU, the board has affirmed the serious charges brought by homecare workers against SEIU.
NUHW President Sal Rosselli spoke out in support of the board’s decision,
“Today’s complaint validates entirely what Fresno homecare workers have said about what they experienced from SEIU. Threats, destruction of property, mail tampering, abusive behavior and violations of workers’ rights, all waged in a deliberate campaign of intimidation by SEIU following the direct instructions of Dave Regan, an ethically bankrupt leader who sits atop SEIU-UHW and serves on the SEIU International Executive Board to this day.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)