Med Mal News

New Jersey Insurer Fights Act Gagging Derogatory Commercial Speech

The New Jersey Physicians United Reciprocal Exchange (NJPURE), a doctor-run medical malpractice insurer, has brought suit in federal court seeking to block the New Jersey Department of Banking (DOB) from enforcing a law that bars it from criticizing its competitors. The insurer argues that the Insurance Trade Practices Act, codified at N.J.S.A. 17:29B-4, is unconstitutional on its face because it prohibits the exercise of free speech and is vague and overbroad.

The suit was prompted by the DOB's accusation that NJPURE violated the Act by making false and derogatory statements about other medical malpractice insurers, including by saying that some of them faced solvency problems or were less than honest with their insureds. NJPURE says the advertising materials at issue contained only true statements and that they were disseminated in order to educate doctors about financial issues that could affect them. It claims it relied on publicly available reports for its information.

Preventive Treatment Limits Incidence of Staph Infection

Noting that a large percentage of the world's population carry the staphylococcus aureus bacteria at any given time in their noses or on their skin, researchers writing in the New England Journal of Medicine have outlined pre-surgery steps that can be taken to decrease the numbers of these patients who will develop post-surgery staph infections. Bode, Lonneke G.M. M.D., et al, “Preventing Surgical-Site Infections in Nasal Carriers of Staphylococcus aureus,” NEJM Volume 362:9-17, Jan. 7, 2010, Number 1. The study involved nearly 7,000 patients who were scheduled for operations at a number of medical care facilities. They were screened upon admission for the presence of the bacteria. Those who carried it were then either treated before their operations with an antibiotic ointment and antiseptic soaps or with a placebo. The study found that those who received the treatments were more than 50% less likely to develop post-surgery infections than were those treated with placebo.

Whistleblower Is Vindicated in Texas

In a case that had been closely watched by advocates for free speech and patient safety, Texas nurse Anne Mitchell was found not guilty in February of misuse of official information, a charge leveled against her after she anonymously reported a doctor to the state's medical board for what she considered his unsafe treatment of patients. In the unusual case, instead of merely prompting an investigation of the doctor, Mitchell's whistle-blowing efforts brought a charge that she had violated patients' privacy rights by disclosing patient file numbers when she made her complaint to the medical board. Complicating matters further was the fact that the case was investigated by Sheriff Robert Roberts Jr., a patient and friend of the doctor in question. The prosecution argued that Mitchell acted in bad faith by making a spurious complaint to the medical board because she did not personally like the doctor she had accused of wrongdoing. However, testimony at trial disclosed that other nurses also were concerned, and that others felt the hospital had not satisfactorily dealt with past complaints about the doctor.

Following the unanimous verdict, the president of the Texas Nurses Association, Susy Sportsman, PhD, RN, said in a statement, “We are very pleased about the not guilty verdict and that justice prevailed for Ann. Mitchell. If anything was to be gained from the absurdity of this criminal trial, it is the reaffirmation that a nurse's duty to advocate for the health and safety of patients supersedes all else.” Mitchell, who after 25 years of service at Winkler County Memorial Hospital was fired from her position just prior to her indictment, is currently suing the hospital, the county and several government officials for violation her constitutional rights.

New Jersey Insurer Fights Act Gagging Derogatory Commercial Speech

The New Jersey Physicians United Reciprocal Exchange (NJPURE), a doctor-run medical malpractice insurer, has brought suit in federal court seeking to block the New Jersey Department of Banking (DOB) from enforcing a law that bars it from criticizing its competitors. The insurer argues that the Insurance Trade Practices Act, codified at N.J.S.A. 17:29B-4, is unconstitutional on its face because it prohibits the exercise of free speech and is vague and overbroad.

The suit was prompted by the DOB's accusation that NJPURE violated the Act by making false and derogatory statements about other medical malpractice insurers, including by saying that some of them faced solvency problems or were less than honest with their insureds. NJPURE says the advertising materials at issue contained only true statements and that they were disseminated in order to educate doctors about financial issues that could affect them. It claims it relied on publicly available reports for its information.

Preventive Treatment Limits Incidence of Staph Infection

Noting that a large percentage of the world's population carry the staphylococcus aureus bacteria at any given time in their noses or on their skin, researchers writing in the New England Journal of Medicine have outlined pre-surgery steps that can be taken to decrease the numbers of these patients who will develop post-surgery staph infections. Bode, Lonneke G.M. M.D., et al, “Preventing Surgical-Site Infections in Nasal Carriers of Staphylococcus aureus,” NEJM Volume 362:9-17, Jan. 7, 2010, Number 1. The study involved nearly 7,000 patients who were scheduled for operations at a number of medical care facilities. They were screened upon admission for the presence of the bacteria. Those who carried it were then either treated before their operations with an antibiotic ointment and antiseptic soaps or with a placebo. The study found that those who received the treatments were more than 50% less likely to develop post-surgery infections than were those treated with placebo.

Whistleblower Is Vindicated in Texas

In a case that had been closely watched by advocates for free speech and patient safety, Texas nurse Anne Mitchell was found not guilty in February of misuse of official information, a charge leveled against her after she anonymously reported a doctor to the state's medical board for what she considered his unsafe treatment of patients. In the unusual case, instead of merely prompting an investigation of the doctor, Mitchell's whistle-blowing efforts brought a charge that she had violated patients' privacy rights by disclosing patient file numbers when she made her complaint to the medical board. Complicating matters further was the fact that the case was investigated by Sheriff Robert Roberts Jr., a patient and friend of the doctor in question. The prosecution argued that Mitchell acted in bad faith by making a spurious complaint to the medical board because she did not personally like the doctor she had accused of wrongdoing. However, testimony at trial disclosed that other nurses also were concerned, and that others felt the hospital had not satisfactorily dealt with past complaints about the doctor.

Following the unanimous verdict, the president of the Texas Nurses Association, Susy Sportsman, PhD, RN, said in a statement, “We are very pleased about the not guilty verdict and that justice prevailed for Ann. Mitchell. If anything was to be gained from the absurdity of this criminal trial, it is the reaffirmation that a nurse's duty to advocate for the health and safety of patients supersedes all else.” Mitchell, who after 25 years of service at Winkler County Memorial Hospital was fired from her position just prior to her indictment, is currently suing the hospital, the county and several government officials for violation her constitutional rights.