Hospital Couldn’t Collect Extra Fee From a Patient’s Injury Settlement

If you have been injured and you incur medical expenses, your health care pro-vider ordinarily has a right to get paid out of any money that you collect in a lawsuit for your injury. Recently, however, some health care providers have been getting greedy and trying to collect more than they have a right to receive.

In a recent case, the California Supreme Court said this has to stop.

A taxi passenger was injured when another driver struck the taxi. He went to the hospital and had extensive treatment. As part of the man’s health insurance plan, the hospital had agreed to accept a discounted rate for its services. So the hospital collected its discounted fee from the insurance company, and wrote off

the $14,000 difference between the discounted fee and its “regular” fee.

The man then filed a lawsuit against the other driver. When the hospital found out, it went to court and demanded that it receive an additional $14,000 out of any money the man collected in the lawsuit.

But the court said this was unfair. It said that since the hospital had agreed to accept a discounted fee from the insurance company, it had been paid in full and it wasn’t entitled to anything else. Regardless of what its “regular” fee might be, the hospital had received everything it was due and the man didn’t owe it a dime out of his lawsuit settlement.

Veterinary Malpractice Suits on the Rise

The loss of a beloved pet can cause real anguish to pet owners.

And sometimes the death is caused by faulty practices by veterinarians. A recent $39,000 malpractice verdict against a California vet – believed to be the largest ever in the country – shows that juries place a value on the emotional suffering related to losing a pet.

A California man lost his pet, a mixed breed dog he adopted from an animal rescue shelter. The dog suffered from non-life-threatening seizures. The veterinarian prescribed a variety of drugs over a two-month period that destroyed the dog’s liver.

The dog owner was awarded $9,000 toward his vet bills, and $30,000 for the “special and unique value” of his relationship to his dog.

The trend toward more lawsuits against vets is fueled in part by rising vet bills for more sophisticated treatments that they recommend. Pet owners have to pay out of pocket for the procedures since they are not typically covered by insurance.

Because pets are viewed under the law as personal property, pet owners typically can recover only their medical costs and the “replacement” value of the pet.

Vet malpractice claims can include injuries to humans. One example is if an animal was not properly vaccinated against roundworm, which can be transmitted via fecal matter and cause blindness in children.

Vets could also be liable for not disclosing the potential dangers to people who don’t want to vaccinate or test their animals for roundworm.

Patient Could Sue for Malpractice Despite Arbitration Agreement

A chiropractor recently tried to arbitrate a medical malpractice claim by a patient who had agreed to arbitration. But the California Court of Appeal said that agreement only related to back treatment the patient underwent two years before the alleged mistreatment occurred.

The patient signed an arbitration agreement when he first sought treatment for lower back pain.

Two years later, he returned for additional help related to his neck and shoulders. As a result of an alleged

injury resulting from this later treatment, the patient sued the chiropractor.

The chiropractor tried to have the malpractice suit arbitrated, but the court said the earlier agreement was not binding, saying it only applied to treatments to the patient’s lower back and was not an “open book account.”

The patient and chiropractor hadn’t established an ongoing doctor-patient relationship and the treatment of the patient’s neck and shoulders was unrelated to the back treatment.

Pedestrian Can Sue City for Faulty Traffic Light Programming

Pedestrians hit by cars in a crosswalk often have a claim against the driver, but they have a tougher time showing a municipality is at fault.

But a Nebraska case shows that a city can be sued for allegedly programming a crosswalk signal to change too quickly.

The pedestrian in the case began to cross the street when the “walk” symbol was illuminated, but when she stepped from the median, the traffic light turned red. As she crossed the second half of the intersection, she was struck by a pickup truck.

She sued the City of Omaha, claiming

that it was negligent in programming the crosswalk signal to provide only 23 seconds, an insufficient amount of time for a pedestrian to cross all lanes of traffic.

The city relied on a legal principle that municipalities shouldn’t be sued for exercising discretion in their decisions.

But the Nebraska Supreme Court said the city was not immune from the lawsuit because state law requires traffic lights to conform to state regulations. This meant the city had no discretion in programming the traffic signal, the court said.

‘Waiver of Liability’ Form Doesn’t Absolve Health Club for Drowning

Ever wonder if you could sue a health club even after signing a form that says you waive your right to sue?

You can in some instances, depending on the wording of the waiver and how it is presented to you.

A waiver of liability in a Wisconsin health club’s guest registration form did not bar a negligence suit over a woman’s drowning in the club’s lap pool. The woman had entered the pool and was observed doing sidestrokes, but then shortly thereafter was seen lying motionless near the bottom of the pool.

Her son sued the club for negligence, claiming its employees failed to adequately supervise the pool area or

properly perform lifeguard duties.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court said the language in the waiver was not clear enough to have fully notified the woman that she was waiving all causes of action, including claims for the negligence of the health club. The clause said the woman assumed “all liability for myself without regard to fault,” but it didn’t specify that the club couldn’t be sued for its own carelessness.

Also, because the form fulfilled two purposes – both guest registration and waiver of liability – it failed to sufficiently highlight the waiver language, the court said.