Welcome to the Nexus of Ethics, Psychology, Morality, Philosophy and Health Care

Welcome to the nexus of ethics, psychology, morality, technology, health care, and philosophy
Showing posts with label Civil Law Suit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil Law Suit. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Psychologist contractors say they were following agency orders

Pamela MacLean
Bloomberg News
Originally posted May 5, 2017

A pair of U.S. psychologists accused of overseeing the torture of terrorism detainees more than a decade ago face reluctance from a federal judge to let them question the CIA’s deputy director to show they were only following orders.

The judge indicated at a hearing Friday that the psychologists should be able defend themselves in the 2015 lawsuit without compromising government secrecy around the exact role Gina Haspel played in the agency’s overseas interrogation program years before she was tapped to be second in command by the Trump administration.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the case on behalf of three ex-prisoners, one of whom died in custody, is urging the judge not to let the psychologists’ lawyers question Haspel and a retired Central Intelligence Agency official. While the defendants want to demonstrate their actions were approved by the agency, the ACLU says that won’t shield them from liability.

The article is here.

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Will These 2 Court Cases Finally Hold Our Torturers Accountable?

By David Cole
The Nation
Originally posted May 9, 2016

Here is an excerpt:

Torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, by contrast, are not committed to the political branches’ discretion. As the district court in Washington recognized, the very fact that Congress has made torture a crime and, under the Torture Victim Protection Act, grounds for a civil action for damages, refutes the notion that it is an inappropriate subject for courts. The fact that at the margins it may be difficult to decide whether particular actions constitute torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment does not make them “political questions.” Courts every day must decide whether particular conduct meets statutory definitions; that is what they do.

The district court in the CACI case ruled that because the military supervised the contractors at Abu Ghraib, the case must be dismissed as political because it would necessitate judicial intrusion on sensitive military judgments. But in doing so, it relied on cases that alleged only negligent action by contractors engaged in otherwise lawful and authorized military operations.

The article is here.

Friday, April 4, 2014

Borderline Disorder: Medical Personnel and Law Enforcement

By Dien Ho, Kenneth A. Richman, and Mark Bigney
The Hastings Center - Bioethics and the Law
Originally published April 3, 2014

Here is an excerpt:

The American Civil Liberties Union recently filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of a 54-year old New Mexico resident, “Jane Doe.” The defendants are the board of managers of El Paso County Hospital District, the University Medical Center of El Paso, two physicians, and agents of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The lawsuit alleges that on December 8, 2012 Ms. Doe was returning from a visit in Mexico when an agent of CBP informed her that she had been chosen for increased inspection and secondary screening.

After frisking failed to produce any contraband, agents sent her back in line to finish customs procedures. According to the complaint, a drug-sniffing dog, possibly prompted by a CBP agent, lurched at Ms. Doe. Agents then led her to a private room where she was subjected to further searches, including visual examination of her anus and vagina with a flashlight and the insertion of an agent’s finger into her vagina. Throughout the search, Ms. Doe never expressed consent, nor did the agents present a warrant.

The entire story is here.

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Parity Laws: Powerful Weapon--or Pipe Dream?

By Heidi Anne Duerr, MPH
Psychiatric Times
Originally published May 6, 2013

Is true mental health parity really possible, even with the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA)? It’s beginning to look like the answer is maybe–but only with a fight.

Across the US, the war for parity is being fought, with numerous law suits asking courts to help ensure the law has real bite. In the meantime, does this mean patients without legal support and know-how are going without proper care—or that real parity is just a pipe dream?

Just recently, the US District Court for the District of Vermont was the first court to interpret and support the MHPAEA.1 In this case, the plaintiff alleged Fletcher Allen Health Care Inc, the plaintiff’s health plan administrator, violated the parity law “by imposing, both in writing and in practice, more stringent reviews for mental health benefits than are imposed for medical benefits.”

Specifically, the complaint noted the insurer “conducts prospective and concurrent medical necessity reviews of routine, outpatient, out-of-network mental health office visits while … [the plan] conducts no such reviews for comparable medical office visits.” In addition, the plaintiff alleged that the plan “imposes a numeric cap on the number of routine outpatient visits participants may request before pre-approval is required for all subsequent medical necessity reviews.”

Meanwhile, the New York State Psychiatric Association filed a class-action suit against UnitedHealth Group for violating both federal and state antidiscrimination laws. Among other complaints, the suit noted UnitedHealth Group denied or delayed access to care and required continuing authorizations for psychotherapy, intensive outpatient treatment, and partial hospitalization.

The entire story is here.

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Pfizer disputes claim against antidepressant

By Linda Johnson
Associated Press
Originally published January 31, 2013

The maker of Zoloft is being sued in an unusual case alleging the popular antidepressant has no more benefit than a dummy pill and that patients who took it should be reimbursed for their costs.

Zoloft's maker, Pfizer Inc., the world's biggest drugmaker by revenue, disputes the claim, telling the Associated Press Thursday that clinical studies and the experience of millions of patients and their doctors over two decades prove Zoloft is effective.

The lawsuit was described as frivolous by Pfizer and four psychiatry experts interviewed by the AP.

Not so, according to plaintiff Laura A. Plumlee, who says Zoloft didn't help her during three years of treatment. Her attorney, R. Brent Wisner of the Los Angeles firm Baum Hedlund Aristei Goldman, argues the Food and Drug Administration shouldn't have approved Zoloft because Pfizer didn't publish some clinical studies that found the drug about as effective as a placebo.

(cut)

Kirsch, associate director of Harvard Medical School's Program in Placebo Studies, has published a book and several medical journal articles on the effect. With colleagues, he reviewed numerous studies of popular antidepressants, including unpublished studies obtained using the Freedom of Information Act.

"The difference between drug and placebo is very small," below the level that benefits patients, Kirsch concluded.

He said Pfizer produced two studies showing Zoloft worked better than placebo — the FDA's requirement for approval — but most Zoloft studies showed its effect was the same as a placebo.
Dr. Michael Thase, who heads the mood and anxiety disorders program at the University of Pennsylvania's medical school, said research by others using the same unpublished studies concluded antidepressants have "a modest effect over placebo," on average about 15 percentage points.

That's partly because the rate of study participants improving when they're taking a placebo has been rising, said New York University's Sussman.

The entire story is here.

Friday, February 8, 2013

Physicians and Malpractice Data

On Average, Physicians Spend Nearly 11 Percent Of Their 40-Year Careers With An Open, Unresolved Malpractice Claim

By Seth A. Seabury, Amitabh Chandra, Darius N. Lakdawalla, and Anupam B. Jena

Abstract

The US malpractice system is widely regarded as inefficient, in part because of the time required to resolve malpractice cases. Analyzing data from 40,916 physicians covered by a nationwide insurer, we found that the average physician spends 50.7 months—or almost 11 percent—of an assumed forty-year career with an unresolved, open malpractice claim. Although damages are a factor in how doctors perceive medical malpractice, even more distressing for the doctor and the patient may be the amount of time these claims take to be adjudicated. We conclude that this fact makes it important to assess malpractice reforms by how well they are able to reduce the time of malpractice litigation without undermining the needs of the affected patient.

The research can be found here.

Thanks to Ken Pope for this information.

Sunday, December 30, 2012

Amgen Agrees to Pay $762 Million for Marketing Anemia Drug for Off-Label Use


By ANDREW POLLACK and MOSI SECRET
The New York Times
Published: December 18, 2012

The biotechnology giant Amgen marketed its anemia drug Aranesp for unapproved uses even after the Food and Drug Administration explicitly ruled them out, federal prosecutors said on Tuesday.

The federal charges were made public as Amgen pleaded guilty to illegally marketing the drug and agreed to pay $762 million in criminal penalties and settlements of whistle-blower lawsuits.

Amgen was “pursuing profits at the risk of patient safety,” Marshall L. Miller, acting United States attorneyin Brooklyn, said in a telephone news briefing on Tuesday.

David J. Scott, Amgen’s general counsel, entered the guilty plea at the United States District Court in Brooklyn to a single misdemeanor count of misbranding the drug, Aranesp, meaning selling it for uses not approved by the F.D.A.

Amgen agreed to pay $136 million in criminal fines and forfeit $14 million, with about $612 million going to settle civil litigation.

The entire article is here.

Friday, December 21, 2012

Drug Executive Faces Manslaughter Charges


By SCOTT SAYARE
The New York Times
Published: December 11, 2012

A French court brought manslaughter and injury charges on Tuesday against a drug executive and six companies in a case involving a diabetes and weight-loss drug that caused cardiovascular damage, the Paris public prosecutor’s office said.

The executive, Jacques Servier, 90, and six companies of the Servier group are accused of having known the risks associated with the drug, Mediator, which they produced and marketed until French authorities ordered it withdrawn in 2009, the spokeswoman, Agnès Thibault-Lecuivre, said.

The entire article is here.

Thursday, November 8, 2012

Suit filed against Capitola psychologist for allegedly sexually abusing a child patient

By Jessica M. Pasko
The Santa Cruz Sentinel
Originally published October 23, 2012

A civil lawsuit has been filed against a Capitola psychologist who is facing criminal charges of sexual abuse against a child.

Dr. John William Visher was arrested last month at his La Selva Beach home after Capitola police investigated allegations that he committed lewd acts against an 8-year-old girl. The girl had been his patient and detectives believe the incidents occurred at Visher's former Bay Avenue office in 2009.

Last week, the girl's family filed a personal injury suit against Visher in the civil divisions of Santa Cruz County Court. It charges him with sexual harassment, professional negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and seeks unspecified damages.

Visher pleaded not guilty on Oct. 9 to five felony charges that include lewd acts upon a child, sending obscene material and possession of material depicting a minor engaging in sexual conduct. He is due back in court Nov. 14.

The entire story is here.

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

J&J Settles Lawsuit Alleging Injury From Antipsychotic


By Peter Loftus
The Wall Street Journal
Originally published September 10, 2012

Johnson and Johnson agreed to a last-minute settlement of a lawsuit claiming that a boy's use of its antipsychotic drug Risperdal caused abnormal breast growth.

The settlement—whose terms were confidential—averted a civil trial scheduled to begin Monday in which plaintiffs' lawyers intended to summon J&J Chief Executive Alex Gorsky as a witness. Mr. Gorsky previously held leadership roles at the J&J division responsible for marketing Risperdal during the period when the boy's alleged injury occurred.

Robert C. Hilliard, an attorney for the plaintiff, told a judge in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Monday "this case has reached a final resolution." He said the settlement amount was confidential.

Saturday, February 18, 2012

Jury awards $16.5 million in State College suit

By Matt Carroll
Centredaily.com

A jury awarded $16.5 million Thursday to a woman who said she was drugged with carbon dioxide and manipulated to believe she was raped by family members at the hands of a former State College psychologist.

Her attorney, Bernard Cantorna, asked the jury to hold Julian Metter, 59, accountable for planting a “horror story” in the woman’s mind while she was drugged with carbon dioxide.

The jurors responded after five hours of deliberation, unanimously ordering Metter to pay what Cantorna said is the largest jury verdict in Centre County history.

“They clearly wanted to send a message that Dr. Metter is a danger to the public and anyone he might attempt to treat,” Cantorna said. “They wanted to make sure anybody and everybody could find this case and make sure he can never do this to anyone again.”

Metter, who had been in practice for 20 years, lost his license to practice psychology in June 2009 when he pleaded guilty to fraudulently billing Medicare, according to the National Council Against Health Fraud.

He was sentenced in February 2011 to serve five months in prison followed by two years probation. Cantorna said Metter is free to continue treating people, just not as a psychologist, after his probation.

When contacted Thursday night, Metter said he was saddened and disappointed by the jury’s decision. He said he will appeal the verdict.

“It was very surprising,” Metter said. “Everyone with me who knows (the woman) and the situation really felt we brought forward a very accurate picture.”

Cantorna said his client was made to believe she was raped at the hands of her family and abused in cultlike rituals by prominent members of the community.

Metter was accused in the civil lawsuit of creating those images and suggesting them as reality while the woman was drugged and in her most vulnerable state.

“He took a woman who never had any history of this and made her relive the most horrific things one could imagine,” Cantorna said Thursday during closing arguments in the six-day civil trial. “He made her live it.”

The lawsuit alleged the woman suffered lasting emotional anguish as a result. It also stated she suffered a brain injury due to repeated exposures to a mixture of carbon dioxide and oxygen.

The entire story is here.

Here is the civil complaint.

Here is a copy of the Consent Agreement and Order from the PA State Board of Psychology.

Here is Metter on Autism, with his center's "treatments" that fall outside the scope of a psychologist's practice.