Cressman Law Firm, P.A.

Only this time, President Bush and the Republican led bureaucratic agencies, are going about the process of harming consumers on a more quiet path. Rather than seeking to change the laws, or passing Legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives, or the U.S. Senate, the new plan is to change the rules and the playing field so that consumers are prevented from filing lawsuits . In another attempt to limit the ability of consumers who have been victimized, or injured by corporate greed. In a last ditch effort, President Bush and his administration are trying to find ways to allow negligent corporations off the hook when their products injure, wound, and kill consumers. President Bush is seeking new ways by changing the playing field and using something known as Federal Preemption to stop lawsuits which the Republicans and President Bush continually cry out are preventing businesses in the United States from succeeding. This is despite the billions of dollars which are paid out year after year to top executives and the continual push to send manufacturing jobs overseas. And worse of all, the Republicans and President Bush are going about the process right in front of consumers who have no clue what is being done. Read the story here:

Once you have read the story, call your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senator and tell them to stop this process now before it is too late.

The Florida Supreme Court sided with patients and consumers of healthcare in the State of Florida on March 6, 2008 despite the attempts by the insurance industry, and the medical community to curtail the rights of patients to know about adverse medical incidents involving healthcare providers.

On March 6, 2008 the Florida Supreme Court held in Fla. Hospital Waterman, Inc. v. Buster, No. SC06-688; and Notami Hospital of Fla., Inc. v. Bowen, No. SC06-912 (Fla. 3-6-2008)that Article X, Section 25 of the Florida Constitution is not only constitutional, but is also self-executing and applies retroactively to documents which were in existence prior to the passage of the Amendment to the Florida Constitution.

Voters in the Florida may recall that this issue was known as the Patients Right To Know” Act, and was on the ballot in the 2004 election known as Amendment 7. The purpose of Amendment 7 was to provide access to adverse medical incidents involving healthcare providers so that patients and consumers of healthcare were able to make informed decisions as to whether they wanted to be admitted to certain hospitals, or be treated by certain physicians with regard to their healthcare. The amendment passed with overwhelming support by the Florida electorate (over 80% of the voters in Florida supported the passage of the amendment).

After the passage of Amendment 7 by the voters of Florida, the Republican led Florida Legislature bowed to pressure of special interest groups from the hospital, insurance and medical communities and passed several bills which were enacted as Section 381.028, Florida Statutes (2005). The sole purpose of the enactment of this statute was to thwart the will of the people and continue to protect the healthcare industry and ensure the healthcare industry in Florida would not have to disclose the fact that adverse medical incidents occurred in their facilities or hospitals. The Republican led Florida Legislature also sought to limit the effect of Amendment 7 by stating that the amendment would not apply retroactively.

The Florida Supreme Court agreed with the two of Florida’s District Courts of Appeal that the text of Amendment 7 on its face provided a sufficient rule by which patients would be able to gain access to records of a health care provider’s adverse medical incidents. The Florida Supreme Court went on to note that the amendment expressly provided that it would be effective on its passage without the need for legislative action. It was despite this language in the amendment that the Florida Legislature passed Section 381.028, Florida Statutes (2005), and tried to in essence gut the effectiveness of Amendment 7.

As for the retroactivity of Amendment 7, the Florida Supreme Court held that it provided access to existing records and histories of adverse medical incidents. In doing so the Court noted that “Medical providers’ interest in the continuing confidentiality of these materials does not constitute a substantive right.” It also noted that that Amendment 7 clearly encompassed access to existing adverse medical incident reports.

Despite the attempts of the Florida Legislature and the special interests which have been controlling the passage of legislation from 1999 through 2007 to protect the special interests of Florida, including the insurance industry, “big business,” the healthcare industry other related industries, and their efforts defeat any legislation meant to help or otherwise protect consumers in the State of Florida, the Florida Supreme Court has chosen to side with the citizens of the State of Florida. No doubt we will once again hear about “activist judges” and the Republican led Florida Legislature will once try to gut the decision of the Florida Supreme Court. For now though, the citizens and consumers of the State of Florida have won the battle and are entitled to see, review and consider the history of adverse medical incidents when making decisions about their healthcare.

If you believe you have been the victim of medical malpractice or medical negligence, or were injured as a result of what you believe may have been an adverse medical incident, you should immediately contact an experienced medical malpractice attorney who can help investigate and potentially recover the damages you may be entitled to as a result of the negligence of a health care provider.

Read the full opinion of the Florida Supreme Court in the Florida Hospital Waterman, Inc. v. Buster here.

Recently, a physician who refused to charge his patient's health insurance carrier for the treatment rendered to that patient following an automobile accident and instead tried to collect the entire amount of his bill from the settlement proceeds was blocked from doing so by the appellate courts. In the case before the Court, the physician was contracted with a large health insurance carrier to treat patients covered by policies issued by the insurance carrier. Part of the contract bewteen the physician and insurance carrier prevented the physician from billing the covered patients for more than the co-pay. After one such patient was involved in a car accident, the injured patient sought treatment from the physician.

A "Letter of Protection" (LOP) was provided to the physician from the patient's attorney; however, the LOP stated that the physcician should bill the health insurance carrier, and if the health insurance carrier refused to pay the physician's bill, then the physician's bill would be paid from the settlement proceeds. Despite the language in the LOP, and the fact the physician was under contract with the insurance carrier to treat patients isnsured by the carrier, the physician placed a stamp on the LOP stating that he was not under contract with any insurance carrier and would seek payment from the injured patient's automobile insurance ro settlement proceeds. When the case was over and a settllement was reached in the case, the physician stepped forward and demanded that his entire bill be paid from the settlment proceeds. The money was deposited with the court and trial court ruled in favor of the physician. The appellate court overruled the trial court and based, in part, on the physician's false statements about his relationship with the insurance carrier ruled that the physician was not entitled to payment of his bill from the settlement proceeds.

If you are involved in a vehicle accident, wehteher it is an automobile accident, motorcycle accident, trucking accident, or any other kind of accident, as well as a slip and fall accident, in which you or a loved one is injured, and you have health insurance, but a healthcare provider requests that you sign a Letter of Protection, you should immediately contact an attorney.

The Florida Department of Insurance "want Allstate to explain why it hasn't reduced property insurance rates enough under a state law passed last year that was designed to lower premiums. The company, which has 1,100 agents in Florida, carries roughly 300,000 homeowners policies in the state _ many in central Florida and away from the riskier coastal areas." In a ruling by the 1st District Court of Appeal, the Court gave Florida Insurance regulators 40 days to provide the documentation supporting their decision to suspend Allstate's ability to write new policies in the State of Florida. See Full Article