Fee Splitting/Kickbacks
Successful Fee-Splitting Suit by Radiologists
The Culpeper decision has lessons for Emergency Medicine. The heart of
the suit is forced illegal fee-splitting. AAEM believes similar issues
exist with many EM contracts including large contract groups, privately
held contracts, and some contractual arrangements with hospitals.
Culpeper, Virginia, Dispute Ends
from http://acr.org,
the official website of the American College of Radiology
Eight years after having been barred from practicing, the radiology group
at Culpeper Memorial Hospital in Culpeper, Virginia, has returned to work
at that hospital in a settlement of a longstanding dispute. Effective
early August 1995, Virginia Radiology Associates, P.C., was granted a
contract and medical staff privileges to resume delivery of professional
radiological services at the Virginia hospital.
The radiologists had lost their staff privileges in Culpeper in 1988
over their refusal to participate in various financial arrangements that
they believed risked prosecution under the Medicare Anti- Kickback Law.
The dispute led to litigation, as well as an awareness of the issue by
the Department of HHS Office of Inspector General. The OIG issued a 1991
management advisory report alerting the industry of potential fraud and
abuse concerns raised by certain financial arrangements between hospitals
and hospital-based physicians.
Virginia Radiology Associates went through a 10-day trial in the spring
of 1995 and won summary judgment in their dispute with the hospital. At
trial, the judge ruled, as a matter of law, that the hospital's activities
were wrongful and violated Virginia law and public policy. Nevertheless,
the jury had awarded zero ($0) damages.
In the opinion, the trial judge, the Honorable Leonard B. Sachs, concluded
that the zero ($0) damage award was "arbitrary and capricious, or
one motivated by sympathy or bias or concern for the financial concern
of the local hospital." The judge concluded that the plaintiff radiologists
have offered overwhelming testimony regarding the kickback issue as well
as the importance of compliance with the medical staff bylaws at the defendant
hospital. Thus, he concluded that the "verdict shocks the conscience
of the Court."
In setting aside the jury verdict, the judge ordered, as additur, damages
in the amount of $2,996,973 plus interest from the date of verdict to
be awarded to the radiologists' professional corporation. The judge's
decision led to settlement discussions.
As a result of the settlement, the terms of which are confidential, all
litigation has been dismissed and the hospital has dropped its appeal
of the judge's ruling.
|