Author: JGL Law

Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A. is pleased to announce that 12 firm attorneys have been named Maryland “Super Lawyers” or “Rising Stars” for 2016. In addition, firm partner Timothy F. Maloney also was selected to the 2016 Maryland Super Lawyers Top 100 list.

The firm’s other 2016 “Super Lawyers” are David Bulitt; Jeffrey N. Greenblatt; Andrew E. Greenwald, Jay P. Holland; Burt M. Kahn; Walter E. Laake, Jr.; Timothy P. O’Brien and Steven B. Vinick. Matthew M. Bryant, Anne Grover and Veronica Nannis and are the firm’s 2016 Super Lawyers “Rising Stars.”

Published by Thomson Reuters, Super Lawyers recognizes only the top 5 percent of all Maryland attorneys who embody excellence in the practice of law. Regarded as among the state’s top up-and-coming attorneys, the Super Lawyers Rising Stars must be 40 years old or younger, or have been in practice for 10 or fewer years. Super Lawyers are chosen through statewide surveys of attorneys, independent research and peer reviews by practice area.

Maloney was honored for his work in the General Litigation practice category. He has obtained millions of dollars in recoveries for his clients in a wide variety of complex matters, including civil rights, employment discrimination, whistleblower actions and high-stakes business litigation. He also has successfully taken on the government in numerous high-profile police misconduct and criminal defense cases. Maloney earned his law degree from the University of Baltimore School of Law and holds a B.A. from Georgetown University.

Bulitt, who serves as the firm’s assistant managing director, was recognized for his practice in the Family Law category. He helps clients reach favorable divorce settlements that protect their rights, their assets and their children, as well as other family law matters. He has successfully litigated divorce cases throughout Maryland and the District of Columbia and has served as a court-appointed attorney on behalf of children in custody disputes. Bulitt earned his law degree from the University of Baltimore School of Law and a B.A. from the University of Maryland.

Greenblatt was listed in the category of Family Law. For more than 40 years, he has represented clients in matters including prenuptial agreements, divorce, alimony, child custody, visitation and support, complex marital property division, and domestic violence. Greenblatt earned his law degree from the American University Washington College of Law and holds a B.S. from Syracuse University.

Greenwald was recognized for his work in the category of Personal Injury – Medical Malpractice: Plaintiff. A founding member of the firm, Greenwald has obtained millions of dollars in recoveries for his clients. He is widely recognized as a leading birth trauma and obstetrical malpractice attorney and has been called upon by lawyers in many other states to evaluate and litigate medical malpractice cases. Greenwald earned his law degree from Georgetown University Law Center and also holds a B.S. from the University of Wisconsin.

Chair of the firm’s Labor, Employment, and Qui Tam Whistleblower practice, Holland was named a “Super Lawyer” in the Employment & Labor Law category. He counsels clients in individual and class action cases involving gender and race discrimination and sexual harassment, violations of the wage and hour laws, and wrongful termination. He also has an active qui tam practice, representing whistleblowers in actions under the federal False Claims Act. Holland earned his law degree from the Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law and holds a B.A. from the University of Massachusetts.

Managing director of the firm, Kahn was recognized for his work in the Medical Malpractice category. Over the past four decades, he has distinguished himself as one of the go-to litigators in Maryland and Washington, DC, for cases where law and medicine intersect. He has obtained millions of dollars in compensation for injured clients, often without going to trial. Kahn earned his law degree from the American University Washington College of Law. He also has a B.A. from State University of New York.

A founding member of the firm, Laake was honored for his practice in the category of Personal Injury – Plaintiff. He has more than four decades of experience and has obtained millions of dollars in verdicts and settlements for injured clients. His work also has established many important legal principles that protect the rights of injured people, including the first case in Maryland – in the 1970s – that applied strict liability to a product liability case. Laake holds a law degree from the University of Maryland School of Law and a B.A. from the University of Maryland.

O’Brien was honored for his practice in the category of Estate Planning & Probate. He has more than two decades of experience advising clients on a wide range of estate and trust issues. He has helped families recover estate assets that have been misused, settle tax liabilities with the IRS, and protect assets for future generations. He also assists with the administration of estates, trusts and guardianships. O’Brien holds a law degree from the University of Baltimore School of Law and a B.S. from Frostburg State College.

Vinick was recognized for work in the category of Personal Injury – Plaintiff. He has more than 20 years of experience in representing clients in matters including medical malpractice, personal injury and criminal defense. He has obtained numerous significant verdicts on behalf of his clients and has earned a reputation as a skilled litigator and highly effective courtroom advocate. Vinick holds a law degree, cum laude, from the University of Baltimore School of Law and a B.A., magna cum laude, from the University of Maryland at College Park.

Bryant was recognized for his work in the General Litigation category. He has represented clients in matters involving employment disputes, professional licensing, civil rights violations and criminal defense. He also has an active appellate practice. Bryant earned his law degree from the University of Maryland School of Law and holds an A.B., magna cum laude, from Kenyon College.

Grover was recognized for her practice in the category of Family Law. She has represented clients throughout Maryland, as well as in interstate jurisdictional matters and appeals. Her work has involved separation and divorce, child custody disputes, contempt and enforcement proceedings, drafting and negotiating prenuptial agreements, and obtaining protective orders. Grover earned her law degree, cum laude, from the American University Washington College of Law. She also holds a B.A. from Catholic University of America.

Nannis was honored for her work in the Civil Litigation category. She has represented clients in civil matters involving civil rights, employment law and commercial disputes. She also is a leader in the firm’s qui tam practice, representing whistleblowers who report misuse of government health care funds under the federal False Claims Act. Nannis earned her law degree, cum laude, from the Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law. She also holds a M.A., summa cum laude, from the Catholic University of America and a B.A., magna cum laude, from George Washington University.

Joseph, Greenwald & Laake’s, Jay Holland recently discussed noncompete clauses with Family Practice News. When reviewing employment contract language, Holland stresses the importance of understanding your state’s employment laws, since noncompete rules vary widely from state to state. 

Physicians should consider their, “career and lifestyle goals carefully prior to entering into a noncompete. The first approach should always be an attempt to exclude the noncompete from your prospective agreement if you are joining a practice. If a noncompete is unavoidable, then strive to make it the least onerous possible.” 

In general, he recommends that “noncompete clauses should be no greater in scope than is necessary to protect the business or goodwill of the employer.”

For more information on employment contracts or noncompete clauses, contact Jay Holland at jholland@jgllaw.com or 240-553-1198.

The full article can be found at Family Practice News – Noncompete clauses: Be wary, negotiate early.

This week, a judge in Los Angeles, California vacated a $7.1 million verdict in favor of former Los Angeles Times sports columnist T.J. Simers, who claimed that the paper discriminated against him because of his age and disability. Simers alleged that the discrimination began after he suffered a stroke and other health problems in 2013, when he was 62 years old. Among other things, the newspaper cut his column from three times a week to two, and suspended him for alleged ethics violations. The newspaper ultimately took his column away altogether and reassigned him to sports reporting, which Simers considered a demotion. After the demotion, Simers resigned.

Or was he terminated? In a lawsuit against the Times, Simers argued that the newspaper’s actions against him were discriminatory and that his resignation was effectively a termination—a constructive discharge. After a six-week trial in October, a jury agreed with Simers, and awarded him $7.13 million dollars in damages.

Unfortunately for Simers, the judge disagreed. On Monday, the judge vacated a substantial part of the jury’s damages award, and yesterday he vacated the remainder of the award—stripping it down to nothing. According to news reports, the judge ruled that Simers had failed to prove he was constructively discharged, rather than having voluntarily resigned, explaining: “An employee who is demoted is not simply permitted to quit and sue because they do not like the new assignment . . . . While it may be a difficult experience to be criticized and demoted, an employee’s embarrassment and hurt feelings do not transform a resignation into a constructive discharge.”

Simers’ case raises one of the thorniest issues in employment law—the difference between a resignation and a constructive discharge. Generally, there are three ways that an employment relationship can end: (1) resignation, (2) termination, or (3) constructive discharge. A resignation is considered to be a voluntary act by the employee, for which the employer cannot be held liable. A termination is an adverse action by the employer, for which the employer can be held liable if it terminated the employee for an unlawful reason, such as the employee’s age, disability, race, or religious beliefs.

Constructive discharge involves elements of both a resignation and a termination, but is neither. Constructive discharge occurs when an employer discriminates against or harasses an employee so severely that the employee’s working conditions become intolerable. In such a case, if the employee resigns because of the severity of the workplace discrimination or harassment, the law views this resignation as actually being a termination. Even though the employer did not directly terminate the employee, courts have said that the resignation amounts to a “constructive” termination, or “constructive discharge.”

There are sound policy reasons for the constructive-discharge doctrine. If the doctrine did not exist, an employer could avoid liability for discrimination or unlawful harassment by making simply making an employee’s working conditions unbearable, driving the employee to resign.

As Mr. Simers discovered, a constructive discharge can be difficult to prove, however. Maryland courts have said that to succeed on such a claim, an employee must prove that the employer “deliberately caused or allowed the employee’s working conditions to become so intolerable that a reasonable person in the employee’s place would have felt compelled to resign.”[1] Courts have said that “[d]issatisfaction with work assignments, a feeling of being unfairly criticized, or difficult or unpleasant working conditions are not so intolerable as to compel a reasonable person to resign.”[2] As the judge in Simers’ case said, “an employee’s embarrassment and hurt feelings do not transform a resignation into a constructive discharge.”

If, however, the employer’s actions rise to the level that “a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to resign,” the resignation might constitute a constructive discharge.[3] As the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals put it, “[t]he doctrine of constructive discharge protects an employee from a calculated effort to pressure him into resignation through the imposition of unreasonably harsh conditions, in excess of those faced by his co-workers.”[4]

An employee who is constructively discharged may sue for damages, including back pay and compensation for mental and emotional suffering. Any employee who believes that he or she is being discriminated against or unlawfully harassed faces a challenging legal situation and should immediately consult with an employment attorney.

In a recent Washington Post article, The legal maneuver that allows corporations to pretend that state laws don’t exist, Jay Holland addresses how companies are dodging Maryland Employment laws by including “choice-of-law” provisions in their employee contracts. These provisions essentially allow businesses to pick which state will govern their employment related matters. While this standardizes agreements for companies who operate nationally, it also allows them to protect their own interests.

As Jay Holland stated in the Washington Post article, “These laws — wage and hour laws, discrimination, consumer protection —  are intended to be broadly interpreted, broadly construed, to provide protection to individuals who did not necessarily have the power to individually negotiate their contracts. The courts seem to be losing sight of that, in my view.”

For more information on employee contracts or other employment related legal matters, contact Jay Holland at 240-553-1198 or jholland@jgllaw.com.

On September 17, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the Title IX claim of G.G., a transgender junior at Gloucester High School in Virginia who was born female but identifies as male.[1] G.G. alleged that the school board’s policy prohibiting him from using the boys’ bathroom violated the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.[2] G.G. recently appealed the court’s decision to the Fourth Circuit on October 21, 2015.[3]

At the start of his sophomore year, G.G. was permitted by school administrators to use the boys’ restroom at his school.[4] However, some members of the community began to complain, and two months after granting G.G. this permission, the school board instituted a policy requiring students to use the restrooms and locker rooms that correspond to their “biological genders.”[5] The school board also required schools to provide transgender students with an “alternative appropriate private facility.”[6] The school subsequently installed three unisex, single-stall restrooms and made adjustments to its communal bathrooms, such as raising the doors and walls of bathroom stalls.[7] But G.G. has protested these requirements, arguing that he cannot use the girls’ restroom as girls and women would react negatively to his masculine appearance and that the use of the single-stall restrooms would cause undue stigmatism and isolation.[8]  

On behalf of G.G., the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) and the ACLU of Virginia filed suit against the Gloucester County School Board, alleging that the bathroom policy is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment and discriminates on the basis of sex in violation of Title IX. They also filed a motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the school from enforcing its policy and thereby permitting G.G. to use the boys’ restrooms at the start of the 2015-2016 school year.

In G.G. v. Gloucester County School Bd., the Eastern District of Virginia denied G.G.’s motion for preliminary injunction and dismissed the Title IX claim.[9] Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or activities by recipients of federal financial assistance.  Specifically, G.G. argued that the school board’s resolution violated Title IX by differentiating “between students who have a gender identity congruent with their birth sex, and those who do not.”[10] The court found that a Department of Education regulation, 34 C.F.R. § 106.33, permits schools to provide separate bathroom facilities on the basis of sex as long as the facilities are comparable, and a clear reading of the term “sex” includes biological sex.[11] It explained that this regulation “effectuate[s] Title IX’s provision allowing separate living facilities based on sex.”[12] The court held that because the school board’s policy of providing separate bathrooms based on biological sex was permissible under § 106.33, it did not need to determine whether the term “sex” in § 106.33 includes “gender identity.”[13]  Furthermore, the court denied G.G’s motion for preliminary injunction, finding that he had failed to prove adequate proof of hardship.[14]

On October 21, 2015, the ACLU filed its appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[15] The United States Government filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of G.G..[16] A hearing is scheduled for January 27, 2016.

An “increasingly contentious issue”[17]

The Eastern District of Virginia is not the only jurisdiction considering the rights of transgender students to use the school bathroom or locker room associated with their gender identity, rather than their biological gender. Currently on appeal in the Third Circuit is a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania which held, in part, that a transgender college student did not have a Title IX discrimination claim because Title IX’s prohibition on discrimination “on the basis of sex” only refers to one’s biological sex.[18] The U.S. Department of Education clearly set forth its position on what has been called an “increasingly contentious issue” when it recently issued a finding that an Illinois school district violated Title IX by denying a transgender student athlete, who identifies as female, access to the girls’ locker room.[19] 

Has Maryland weighed in?

On October 27, 2015, the Maryland Department of Education issued guidelines on non-discrimination and providing safe spaces and supportive environments for transgender and gender non-conforming students across the state,[20] which were lauded by the National Center for Transgender Equality.[21] The Department of Education acknowledged that “[p]erhaps the most difficult and sensitive issue school administrations will face is the bathroom and locker rooms.”[22] The guidelines suggest that schools systems permit access to the bathroom and locker room that corresponds to the student’s gender identity and that schools designate a unisex or gender-neutral single stall bathroom that may be used by all students. The Department also suggests that schools provide private, non-stigmatizing space for students who are uncomfortable with shared locker rooms or who desire increased privacy.

Maryland Senate Bill 212: The Fairness for All Marylanders Act, which went into effect last October, added “gender identity” to the list of protected classifications under the Civil Rights Law of Maryland and prohibits discrimination by places of public accommodation on the basis of gender identity.[23] However, schools are not considered “places of public accommodation” under the Act.[24]

The Maryland Department of Education acknowledged that the law has not settled on whether it is discriminatory to require transgender students to use a particular bathroom or locker room.[25] These policies are likely to develop and change over the next few years as the law develops not only in Maryland but across the country.

As previously discussed in this blog, in the spring of 2014, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals in State v. Hailes,[1] made important rulings regarding several evidentiary issues. The Hailes court held that a “hard blink” can be a statement, that a “Dying Declaration” does not require actual imminent death, only a belief of imminent death, and that the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment does not suppress a dying declaration.[2] After further appeal, the Court of Appeals of Maryland recently affirmed that decision.

On November 22, 2010, Melvin Pate was shot once in the right side of his face. The bullet passed through Pate’s neck and severed his spinal cord. Pate lost the ability to speak and to could no longer move any of his extremities. Two days after Pate was shot he was transferred to the Shock Trauma Center at the University of Maryland Medical Center in Baltimore. Immediately after Pate arrived at Shock Trauma doctors told him that he had twenty-four hours to live. His eyes welled up with tears.

Two days later, on November 26, 2010, detectives showed Pate a photographic array that included a photo of Hailes. Pate “blinked hard” when shown a photo of Jermaine Hailes, thereby identifying him as his assailant. When Pate blinked, his prognosis had not changed, he was on medical life support, and “by all indications, believed that his death was imminent.”[3] Nonetheless, Pate survived for two more years, eventually passing away on November 27, 2012 as a result of complications caused by the gunshot wound. Hailes was indicted for first-degree murder on December 11, 2012.[4]

In the trial court, Hailes moved to suppress Pate’s out-of-court identification, alleging that Pate could not “communicate,” that Pate’s hard blink was not a dying declaration, and that such an identification violated Hailes’ rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.[5] Hailes prevailed on his motion and the State took an interlocutory appeal.[6] For the first time in Maryland, the court had to determine whether a hard blink was an admissible Dying Declaration and whether its use violated Hailes’ Sixth Amendment Rights.

The Court of Special Appeals first held that blinking “is a legally acceptable mode of communication.”[7] The Court of Special Appeals then went on to say that the actual time of death is immaterial, and that the necessary element is a subjective one – the declarant’s expectation of imminent death.[8] After recognizing that Pate’s hard blink amounted to a dying declaration, the court turned to whether its admission would violate the Sixth Amendments’ Confrontation Clause. After analyzing the Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington,[9] the court held that the Confrontation Clause does not apply to Dying Declarations so the Clause’s various requirements need not be addressed, let alone satisfied.

In affirming the Court of Special Appeals, the Court of Appeals agreed that Pate’s identification was a “communication”; it agreed that Pate’s hard blink amounted to a Dying Declaration; and that a Dying Declaration was indeed an exception to the Sixth Amendment.

The Court of Appeals reviewed the factual evidence for clear error. It held that the trial court was correct in determining that Pate’s identification of Hailes was a dying declaration. The Court stated that it was undisputed that: Pate was shot in the face, that pate lost the ability to speak and move, that a doctor told his mother in front of him that he “wouldn’t make it,” and that Pate’s eyes welled up with tears.[10] The Court of Appeals was, likewise, “unconvinced” by Hailes’ reliance on the fact that Pate died two years after he identified Hailes.

The Court then moved on to its analysis of the Confrontation Clause. In reviewing historic precedent, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Court of Special Appeals and ruled that “we reach the same conclusion that Supreme Court has consistently endorsed for more than a century, and hold that the Confrontation Clause does not apply to dying declarations.”[11] The Court then went on to say that “although it is accurate that, in Crawford and its progeny, the Supreme Court has not yet held that the Confrontation Clause does not apply to dying declarations, our holding is entirely consistent with Crawford and its progeny.”[12] Dying declarations were an exception to the common law Right of Confrontation when the Sixth Amendment was ratified, and remain so today. The Court, like the Court of Special appeals then declined to address whether Pate’s identification of Hailes was testimonial or non-testimonial.[13]

The law in the State of Maryland is now settled.   

Reinstated case by relator under False Claims Act alleging that hospital knowingly submitted false or fraudulent claims for reimbursement to federally funded healthcare programs). United States v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority (6th Cir. 2015)

In a recent interview with Westlaw Journal, Jay Holland discusses the “most robust fraud-fighting tool in the government’s arsenal: the False Claims Act.”

Westlaw Journals: Are companies and individuals in the financial industry frequent targets of the False Claims Act? What industries are frequently targeted?

Holland: Yes, the DOJ successfully uses the False Claims Act to target bad actors in the financial industry to recover misappropriated government funds. Most of these cases involve financial institutions that do business in the home mortgage industry. The Bank of America/Countrywide Mortgage $1 billion settlement is a prime example of this type of case, and the potential scope of a settlement. In that case, Countrywide (which was later purchased by Bank of America) was alleged to have falsified borrowers’ eligibility for Federal Housing Administration-insured home loans. By falsifying a borrower’s eligibility for FHA-backed mortgage insurance, the federal government carried the burden of paying hundreds of millions of dollars when ineligible homeowners inevitably defaulted on their mortgages. In that case, the federal government also alleged that Countrywide engaged in a scheme to over-value home appraisals to support loans that may have exceeded the actual value of the properties. Bank of America was forced to pay FHA $500 million for its losses, and devote another $500 million to establish a refinance program for Countrywide borrowers who were under water as a result of these practices and mortgage-bubble induced recession. 

Westlaw Journals: Has the False Claims Act been used before in conjunction with the government’s TARP program?

Holland: Use of The False Claims Act has been successful in recovering funds that were misappropriated under the TARP program. One common scheme was for financial institutions to falsify the status of their financial condition in order to receive TARP funds. This type of fraud occurred in a $4 million FCA settlement in October of this year against One Financial, as well as a $2.4 million FCA settlement against Regions Financial Corp. Some banking institutions saw the TARP fund as a very attractive way to boost both their institutional and personal bottom lines — as occurred in the One Financial case. Although TARP emanates from the 2008–2009 financial collapse, it is certainly still likely that additional TARP cases are in the works (FCA cases stay under seal while the federal government investigates the claims) as the audits and investigations can take years, and the statute of limitations can extend to 10 years for the government.

Westlaw Journals: When the government brings a False Claims Act lawsuit, what types of damages/recovery can be pursued?

Holland: By statute, the False Claims Act will apply a civil penalty of anywhere between $5,500 and $11,000 for each false payment that the federal government makes, plus three times the amount of damages the government sustains because of the fraudulent claims for payment. 31 U.S.C.A. § 3729. Also, as the vast majority of these cases are brought by whistleblowers, called “relators,” under the statute, defendants are also liable for the attorneys fees and costs incurred by relator’s counsel. Criminal penalties and liability are also possible. When fraud is in play, it may not be too far of a bridge to gap to hold individual bad actors criminally liable. We are now seeing a government emphasis on exploring and pursuing criminal penalties as result of what has become to be known as the DOJ “Yates” memo. By that memorandum, DOJ has stated its policy to intensively investigate whether criminal charges are appropriate in fraud cases.

Westlaw Journals: What lessons can be learned from the settlements in United States v. Estate of Layton P. Stuart, No. 15-CV- 01044, settlement announced (D.DC Oct. 16, 2015), and United States v. $17,693,837.10 from John Hancock Life Insurance Policy No. XXX6473 et al., No. 13-CV-00409, settlement announced (E.D. Ark. Oct. 16, 2015)?

Holland: Do not assume that because your business is not technically in “government contracting” that you are beyond the reach of the most robust fraud-fighting tool in the government’s arsenal: the False Claims Act. If you are in the financial services industry, then it is highly likely that federal purse strings are attached in some way to your industry. As seen from the Stuart settlements, if FHA, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac may ultimately be liable for a borrower default, and if the lender does not turn square corners, it may be liable for up to three times the government’s losses. That holds true as well for specially created programs like TARP. The business community as a whole needs to be aware that whenever it receives any funds or financial benefit from the federal government, they are exposing themselves to possible liability.

This segment originally appeared in the November 16, 2015 issue of the Westlaw Journal (pg. 15).

On November 18, 2015, Jay Holland will be presenting at the Maryland State Bar Association’s conference, Essentials of Maryland Labor & Employment Law, on federal and state whistleblower issues. The event will take place at the Ecker Business Training Center in Columbia, MD from 9:00 am until 3:15 pm. Attendees will receive 4.5 CLE Credits. For more information, email Jay Holland at jholland@jgllaw.com.

Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A. is pleased to announce that its client, Dr. Mara Rainwater, has helped the U.S. Government secure a $95 million settlement in a False Claims Act case involving a for-profit educational institution’s alleged misuse of U.S. Department of Education (DOE) financial aid funds.

The defendants in the case are Education Management Corporation, Education Management, LLC (EDMC) and its affiliates and subsidiaries that allegedly submitted fraudulent claims for millions of dollars from the DOE. The defendants are among the largest recipients of Higher Education Act, Title IV (HEA) federal student financial aid funds from the DOE.

Dr. Rainwater was a professor and also supervised other faculty members at EDMC, a Pennsylvania corporation, which operates schools on more than 100 ground campuses, and also offers online education programs. Other defendants in the case are South University, LLC; South University Online; Argosy Education Group, Inc.; and Argosy University Online.

“We were very honored to be able to successfully represent Dr. Rainwater to help return these federal funds to the student loan program,” said Brian J. Markovitz, a partner with Joseph, Greenwald & Lake, PA and the attorney for Dr. Rainwater. “The student loan program is the only avenue for many individuals, who otherwise would have no access to a college education, and Dr. Rainwater bravely spoke up to protect those critical funds.”

According to the complaint, the defendants falsely certified every year that they were in compliance with the HEA’s requirement that any unused funds from students who enrolled but never attended, or did not complete a certain percentage of the defendants’ classes, were returned to the DOE. This is a core prerequisite to eligibility for the receipt of Title IV funds, and a condition of payment to receive DOE funding. The complaint claims that the defendants further falsely certified every year that they were in compliance with HEA requirements that they made no substantial misrepresentations regarding their institutions, were adequately tracking HEA standards for academic progress, and were fiscally responsible.

“At the center of Dr. Rainwater’s complaint are allegations that EDMC continued students’ participation, who actually dropped out of school, instead of failing them so it could collect the full of amount of financial aid funds available from the federal government, monies that should have gone to other students who were actively participating at their educational institutions,” Markovitz explained.  

The qui tam lawsuit, United States of America ex rel. Dr. Mara Rainwater v. Education Management Corporation et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

Reestablished limitations on the scope of appellate review of the Prince George’s County District Council in local Planning Board matters. County Council of Prince George’s County v. Zimmer Development Co. (Md. 2015)

When we go to the doctor or the hospital, we expect our healthcare providers to perform their responsibilities without any errors. But the truth is that physicians are only human and are capable of making mistakes or committing oversights – just like the rest of us.

Unfortunately, though, a mistake in the medical field often has much more catastrophic consequences than an error made in most other professions. The wrong diagnosis or treatment regimen could result in injury or even death.

While those who have suffered injury at the hands of a negligent healthcare provider can file a medical malpractice lawsuit to recover damages for the wrong committed, the monetary award doesn’t necessarily make up for the burden of the years – or even lifetime – of pain caused by the erroneous act. That’s why the best solution for medical malpractice often is to attempt to prevent it from ever taking place.

Empowered Patients

The first line of defense in medical malpractice is you, the patient. While the legal responsibility falls on the medical provider, patients can educate themselves to help reduce the chances of a serious medical error being made. The following is a checklist you can use to empower yourself to avoid healthcare errors and to prevent becoming a victim of malpractice.

• Know your medications: It is imperative that you know the full extent of medications you are taking before you see a medical provider. Inform every healthcare professional you see about the list of medications you take. This can help prevent you from receiving a prescription that has a serious reaction to another drug you are currently taking. Put the list in writing and take it with you to every appointment with every doctor.
• Know what allergies you have: Just as some medications can react with one another, some people’s bodies can have negative reactions to certain medications. For example, someone who is allergic to penicillin could suffer serious health consequences if given certain antibiotics. To help prevent serious illness or injury, share the full extent of your allergies with every healthcare provider you see.
• Keep a journal: Document your healthcare journey. This is important for a couple reasons. First, by taking notes about your condition, your healthcare visits and your treatment plan, you are establishing a record that you can refer to if you need reminders about doctors’ instructions or if you need to explain your history of care to a new healthcare provider. In addition, having this kind of documentation can work toward your favor in a medical malpractice lawsuit should one of your healthcare providers commit an error.
• Ask questions, and do your research: Being an informed patient is important to your health and safety. Do not hesitate to ask your medical provider follow-up questions during or after your visit. Even before you seek out medical care, conduct independent research about your health issue – including finding information related to specific tests, procedures and medications your provider might suggest. Make sure you are getting your information from a reliable source, such as the Mayo Clinic website.
• Ask a relative or friend to accompany you: Besides offering the moral support you might need to overcome a health scare, a friend or relative can help serve as your eyes and ears in the doctor’s office. Not only can they help you remember the information and directions given to you by your healthcare provider, they can also serve as your informed advocate should you lose the ability to make medical decisions for yourself.

While the best-case scenario is that your healthcare needs are adequately attended to, there is always the chance that your provider – or another participant in the management of your care – will commit an error that could turn into a serious cause of action for a medical malpractice lawsuit. By empowering yourself with the tips above, you can help minimize the likelihood of an accident that could result in long-lasting pain and suffering.