- Email: [email protected]
Legislation & Litigation
claim ing th e ag re e m e n t w as an n u lled a n d , th e re fo re , th e o w n e r-d e n tist h ad n o right to a n y p a rt o f th e $27,000 fo r th e a s s o c ia te ’s w o rk u n c o lle c te d at th e tim e o f his d e p a rtu re fro m the p ra c tic e . T h e trial c o u rt ru led fo r the o w n e r-d e n tist sin c e h e had b o rn e e x p e n se s fo r th e a s s o c ia te ’s w ork. 1 ______vs______ , 533, P 2d 660, 1975.)
From the States LEGISLATION
&
LITIGATION
LEGISLATION
T h e pressure for malpractice remedies has lessened. Apparently those states (about 20) that have not adopted sig nificant legislation will wait until 1976; at that time the court tests on limiting recoveries from malpractice suits (N evada) and on requiring use of re view panels before litigation (Te nn essee) will provide some guidance. This report comments on a new Illinois law limiting malpractice recoveries to $500,000, shortening the malpractice statute of limitations to five years, and requiring use of review panels before litigation.
C alifo rn ia h as new law s on p eer review im m u n ity , m alp ractice claim re p o r t ing, an d su b stitu tio n of generic d ru g s by p h arm acists ■ S ev e ra l n ew law s w e re a p p ro v e d in S ep te m b e r. T h e p e e r rev iew im m u n ity sta tu te w as stre n g th e n e d in its ap p licatio n to inho sp ital m edical o r d en tal co m m it te e s . T h e law req u irin g in su ra n c e co m p a n ie s to re p o rt in fo rm atio n on m a lp ra c tic e claim s ag ain st d e n tists an d p h y sician s w as e x p a n d e d to in clu d e in fo rm atio n on re s e rv e s set asid e a n d to re q u ire th e c o m p an ies to re p o rt in fo rm atio n from p a s t y ea rs w h e re it is av aila b le . A new drug p re sc rip tio n law p e rm its p h a rm a cists to su b s titu te g en e ric fo r p ro p rie ta ry d ru g s. A n e m e rg en cy a p p ro p ria tio n o f $2 m illion w as ap p ro v e d to p ro v id e d e n tu re s fo r M ed icaid (M edi-C al) re cip ien ts. Illinois lim its m alp ractice recoveries a n d p erm its dentists a n d physicians to “ asso ciate” in p ractices ■ T h e la te st m a lp ra c tic e rem e d ia l law in Illin o is p la c e s a $500,000 lim it on in d iv id u al re c o v e rie s fro m a c tio n s ag ain st any k in d o f h ealth p ra c titio n e r. T h e new la w ’s sh o rten in g o f th e sta tu te o f lim ita tio n s an d re q u ire m e n t fo r u se of rev iew p an els ap p ly on ly to p h y sician s a n d h o sp itals. A n a m e n d m e n t to the 1120 n JADA, Vol. 91, December 1975
“ p ro fe ssio n a l a ss o c ia tio n ” law p e r m its d e n tists, p h y sic ia n s, an d n u rse s to jo in in a n a ss o c ia te d p ra c tice . A sim ilar law o n p ro fessio n al c o rp o ra tio n s c o n tin u e s th e p ro h ib itio n on co m b in ed d e n tist-p h y sicia n p ra c tic e a rra n g e m e n ts. M issouri creates m alp ractice study com m ittee ■ A S e n a te re so lu tio n calls fo r a se le c t co m m itte e to stu d y a n d re c o m m en d so lu tio n s to th e p ro fe ssio n a l m alp ra c tic e p ro b le m s by th e en d o f 1975. R hode Islan d establishes m alpractice study com m ission ■ T h e H o u se o f R e p re se n ta tiv e s co m m issio n on m ed ical m alp ra c tic e in su ran c e ra te s has th e a u th o rity to su m m o n w itn e sses an d to issu e su b p o e n as.
LITIG ATION
Three cases Involving dentists are reported this month. A New Jersey superior court upheld a hospital action removing two oral surgeons from the emergency staff. A Missouri court of appeals remanded a case involving a dispute between two dentists in an in corporated practice and the Arizona supreme court upheld a trial court judgment favoring one dentist over another in a practice sharing arrange ment.
A rizo n a su p rem e c o u rt upholds dentist-p ro p rie to r’s rig h t to re ta in p e r centage of am o u n ts owed to his associate-d en tist ■ T h e o w n e r o f the p ra c tic e ag reed to b e a r th e e x p e n se s o f his a s s o c ia te ’s w o rk in re tu rn fo r a p e rc e n ta g e o f th e am o u n ts co lle c te d a s a re su lt o f th a t w o rk . T h e a sso c i a te left th e p ra c tic e an d , at th a t tim e, $27,000 w as still ow ing fo r his w o rk . T h e o w n e r-d e n tist co lle c te d the a m o u n t ow ing a n d reta in e d his p e r c e n ta g e . T h e a ss o c ia te b ro u g h t su it
M issouri c o u rt of ap p eals re q u ire s new tria l on incom e tax deficiency betw een tw o d entists in c o rp o ra te practice ■ T h e tw o d e n tists w e re sh a re h o ld e rs in a d e n ta l p ra c tic e c o rp o ra tio n . A fte r an au d it by th e In te rn a l R ev en u e S e r vice, o n e o f th e d e n tists p aid a defic ien c y a ss e ssm e n t fo r th e c o rp o ra tio n . H e claim ed th a t th e o th e r d e n tist o w ed m ore th a n $6,000 o f th e a s s e s s m en t an d b ro u g h t su it to re c o v e r th a t a m o u n t. T h e p la in tiff p rev ailed at tria l, b u t th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls set a sid e th e ju d g m e n t an d re m a n d e d th e ca se b e c a u se th e e v id e n c e o f h o w m uch o f th e c o rp o ra tio n each d e n tist o w n ed w as n o t c lea rly re v e a le d in th e evi d e n c e su b m itted at th e tria l.J_________ v.v_________ , 523, SW 2d 547, 1975.)
New Jersey tria l c o u rt u p h o lds hospital rescision of em ergency staff privileges o f tw o o ra l surgeons ■ T h e oral su r g e o n s claim ed te n u re p riv ileges b e c a u se o f th e ir y e a rs o f se rv ic e on the e m e rg e n c y s ta ff o f th e d e fe n d a n t-h o sp ital. T h e c o u rt a g ree d th a t th e ir te n u re g av e th e o ral su rg e o n s an in te re st in th e ir sta ff a ssig n m en ts th a t could no t be w ith d raw n w ith o u t c a u se . T h e c o u rt, h o w e v e r, fo u n d th a t th e d is h a rm o n y ca u se d b y th e tw o oral su r g e o n s an d th e ir lack o f c o o p e ra tio n w ith o th e r sta ff officials w ere p ro p er c a u se fo r th e ir rem o v al fro m th e staff. ( -------------------------vs J e r s e y C ity M e d ica l C e n te r, 343, A 2d 489,’ 1975.) Illinois tria l c o u rt sentences dental la b o ra to ry technician to 90 days in jail fo r unlaw ful d en tal p ractice ■ T h e d e fe n d a n t w as en jo in ed fro m p ra c tic ing d e n tistry w ith o u t a lic e n se in 1973. E arly in 1975 th e d e fe n d a n t again m ad e d e n tu re s d ire c tly fo r m em b ers of th e p u b lic. A c o n te m p t p e titio n w as b ro u g h t and th e d e fe n d a n t w as fo u n d g u ilty , se n te n c e d to 90 d ay s in ja il, a n d o rd e re d to p ay th e c o sts o f the Illin o is D en tal S o cie ty fo r p ro se c u tio n o f th e case. (Illin o is D e n ta l S o c ie ty ex rei S ta te o f Illin o is v.v H o yer, no c ita tio n a v ailab le, 1975.)
From the States LEGISLATION
&
LITIGATION
LEGISLATION
T h e pressure for malpractice remedies has lessened. Apparently those states (about 20) that have not adopted sig nificant legislation will wait until 1976; at that time the court tests on limiting recoveries from malpractice suits (N evada) and on requiring use of re view panels before litigation (Te nn essee) will provide some guidance. This report comments on a new Illinois law limiting malpractice recoveries to $500,000, shortening the malpractice statute of limitations to five years, and requiring use of review panels before litigation.
C alifo rn ia h as new law s on p eer review im m u n ity , m alp ractice claim re p o r t ing, an d su b stitu tio n of generic d ru g s by p h arm acists ■ S ev e ra l n ew law s w e re a p p ro v e d in S ep te m b e r. T h e p e e r rev iew im m u n ity sta tu te w as stre n g th e n e d in its ap p licatio n to inho sp ital m edical o r d en tal co m m it te e s . T h e law req u irin g in su ra n c e co m p a n ie s to re p o rt in fo rm atio n on m a lp ra c tic e claim s ag ain st d e n tists an d p h y sician s w as e x p a n d e d to in clu d e in fo rm atio n on re s e rv e s set asid e a n d to re q u ire th e c o m p an ies to re p o rt in fo rm atio n from p a s t y ea rs w h e re it is av aila b le . A new drug p re sc rip tio n law p e rm its p h a rm a cists to su b s titu te g en e ric fo r p ro p rie ta ry d ru g s. A n e m e rg en cy a p p ro p ria tio n o f $2 m illion w as ap p ro v e d to p ro v id e d e n tu re s fo r M ed icaid (M edi-C al) re cip ien ts. Illinois lim its m alp ractice recoveries a n d p erm its dentists a n d physicians to “ asso ciate” in p ractices ■ T h e la te st m a lp ra c tic e rem e d ia l law in Illin o is p la c e s a $500,000 lim it on in d iv id u al re c o v e rie s fro m a c tio n s ag ain st any k in d o f h ealth p ra c titio n e r. T h e new la w ’s sh o rten in g o f th e sta tu te o f lim ita tio n s an d re q u ire m e n t fo r u se of rev iew p an els ap p ly on ly to p h y sician s a n d h o sp itals. A n a m e n d m e n t to the 1120 n JADA, Vol. 91, December 1975
“ p ro fe ssio n a l a ss o c ia tio n ” law p e r m its d e n tists, p h y sic ia n s, an d n u rse s to jo in in a n a ss o c ia te d p ra c tice . A sim ilar law o n p ro fessio n al c o rp o ra tio n s c o n tin u e s th e p ro h ib itio n on co m b in ed d e n tist-p h y sicia n p ra c tic e a rra n g e m e n ts. M issouri creates m alp ractice study com m ittee ■ A S e n a te re so lu tio n calls fo r a se le c t co m m itte e to stu d y a n d re c o m m en d so lu tio n s to th e p ro fe ssio n a l m alp ra c tic e p ro b le m s by th e en d o f 1975. R hode Islan d establishes m alpractice study com m ission ■ T h e H o u se o f R e p re se n ta tiv e s co m m issio n on m ed ical m alp ra c tic e in su ran c e ra te s has th e a u th o rity to su m m o n w itn e sses an d to issu e su b p o e n as.
LITIG ATION
Three cases Involving dentists are reported this month. A New Jersey superior court upheld a hospital action removing two oral surgeons from the emergency staff. A Missouri court of appeals remanded a case involving a dispute between two dentists in an in corporated practice and the Arizona supreme court upheld a trial court judgment favoring one dentist over another in a practice sharing arrange ment.
A rizo n a su p rem e c o u rt upholds dentist-p ro p rie to r’s rig h t to re ta in p e r centage of am o u n ts owed to his associate-d en tist ■ T h e o w n e r o f the p ra c tic e ag reed to b e a r th e e x p e n se s o f his a s s o c ia te ’s w o rk in re tu rn fo r a p e rc e n ta g e o f th e am o u n ts co lle c te d a s a re su lt o f th a t w o rk . T h e a sso c i a te left th e p ra c tic e an d , at th a t tim e, $27,000 w as still ow ing fo r his w o rk . T h e o w n e r-d e n tist co lle c te d the a m o u n t ow ing a n d reta in e d his p e r c e n ta g e . T h e a ss o c ia te b ro u g h t su it
M issouri c o u rt of ap p eals re q u ire s new tria l on incom e tax deficiency betw een tw o d entists in c o rp o ra te practice ■ T h e tw o d e n tists w e re sh a re h o ld e rs in a d e n ta l p ra c tic e c o rp o ra tio n . A fte r an au d it by th e In te rn a l R ev en u e S e r vice, o n e o f th e d e n tists p aid a defic ien c y a ss e ssm e n t fo r th e c o rp o ra tio n . H e claim ed th a t th e o th e r d e n tist o w ed m ore th a n $6,000 o f th e a s s e s s m en t an d b ro u g h t su it to re c o v e r th a t a m o u n t. T h e p la in tiff p rev ailed at tria l, b u t th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls set a sid e th e ju d g m e n t an d re m a n d e d th e ca se b e c a u se th e e v id e n c e o f h o w m uch o f th e c o rp o ra tio n each d e n tist o w n ed w as n o t c lea rly re v e a le d in th e evi d e n c e su b m itted at th e tria l.J_________ v.v_________ , 523, SW 2d 547, 1975.)
New Jersey tria l c o u rt u p h o lds hospital rescision of em ergency staff privileges o f tw o o ra l surgeons ■ T h e oral su r g e o n s claim ed te n u re p riv ileges b e c a u se o f th e ir y e a rs o f se rv ic e on the e m e rg e n c y s ta ff o f th e d e fe n d a n t-h o sp ital. T h e c o u rt a g ree d th a t th e ir te n u re g av e th e o ral su rg e o n s an in te re st in th e ir sta ff a ssig n m en ts th a t could no t be w ith d raw n w ith o u t c a u se . T h e c o u rt, h o w e v e r, fo u n d th a t th e d is h a rm o n y ca u se d b y th e tw o oral su r g e o n s an d th e ir lack o f c o o p e ra tio n w ith o th e r sta ff officials w ere p ro p er c a u se fo r th e ir rem o v al fro m th e staff. ( -------------------------vs J e r s e y C ity M e d ica l C e n te r, 343, A 2d 489,’ 1975.) Illinois tria l c o u rt sentences dental la b o ra to ry technician to 90 days in jail fo r unlaw ful d en tal p ractice ■ T h e d e fe n d a n t w as en jo in ed fro m p ra c tic ing d e n tistry w ith o u t a lic e n se in 1973. E arly in 1975 th e d e fe n d a n t again m ad e d e n tu re s d ire c tly fo r m em b ers of th e p u b lic. A c o n te m p t p e titio n w as b ro u g h t and th e d e fe n d a n t w as fo u n d g u ilty , se n te n c e d to 90 d ay s in ja il, a n d o rd e re d to p ay th e c o sts o f the Illin o is D en tal S o cie ty fo r p ro se c u tio n o f th e case. (Illin o is D e n ta l S o c ie ty ex rei S ta te o f Illin o is v.v H o yer, no c ita tio n a v ailab le, 1975.)