Garfunkel Wild continues to increase its Healthcare practice and lawyer recognition in Chambers USA 2022 annual rankings of the foremost law firms and lawyers in the country. Chambers & Partners conducts research that includes thousands of interviews with clients and peers, and determines rankings based on select criteria, including legal knowledge, experience, client service and effectiveness.

In the latest Chambers USA 2022 legal directory, Chambers cited a wide range of client and competitor feedback on Garfunkel Wild including:

  • “The firm is practical, very responsive and business and project-oriented. They are a full-service firm for the healthcare industry and are always able to find attorneys to meet our needs.”
  • “The firm has industry expertise and tremendous resources.”
  • “The firm is good at building coalitions and getting from A to B. I am uniformly impressed with the work they do, their knowledge and their willingness to give advice you don’t want to hear.”

Garfunkel Wild’s 2022 rankings include:

PRACTICE

Healthcare (New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut)

LAWYERS

Healthcare (New York)

  • Robert Andrew Wild
  • Judith Eisen
  • Andrew Blustein
  • Debra Silverman

Healthcare (New Jersey)

  • Andrew E. Blustein
  • Jeffrey S. Brown
  • Julia P. Belton

Healthcare (Connecticut)

  • Barry B. Cepelewicz
  • Merton G. Gollaher

 

Garfunkel Wild Complimentary Webinar – Preparing for a Virtual OSV; Practical Tips

Thursday, June 16, 2022
2:00 pm – 3:00 pm (EST)

Speakers:  Jeffry Adest and Emily Schwerd

Garfunkel Wild’s Jeffry Adest and Emily Schwerd will present the webinar “Virtual OSVs: Key Differences From an OSV and Lessons Learned From the Field″ on June 16, 2022 from 2:00 pm – 3:00 pm (EST).

Federally Qualified Health Centers and Look Alikes (“FQHCs”) can expect to experience a HRSA Operational Site Visit (“OSV”) at least once every three years.  As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, HRSA implemented “Virtual” OSVs which it expects to continue until it can safely resume in-person OSVs.  This webinar will discuss the key differences between a virtual vs. in-person OSV, how to prepare for a virtual OSV and lessons learned from the field.  Finally the presenters will provide FQHCs with practical strategies for ensuring full compliance with HRSA requirements as well as insight into how to avoid common mistakes and pitfalls.

Click Here to view. 

 

Garfunkel Wild Complimentary Webinar – FTCA Deeming: What Do I Need To Do In Order To Submit The Application

Thursday, June 9, 2022
2:00 pm – 3:00 pm (EST)

Speakers:  Jeffry Adest and Sandra Jensen

Garfunkel Wild’s Jeffry Adest and Sandra Jensen will present the webinar “FTCA Deeming: What Do I Need To Do In Order To Submit The Application″ on June 9, 2022 from 2:00 pm – 3:00 pm (EST).

HRSA has issued its CY 2023 FTCA Application and PAL, which contains important requirements to receive FTCA coverage. Applications are due by July 8, 2022.  This webinar will briefly discuss the FTCA requirements and changes made to this year’s application.  The webinar will then focus on FTCA documentation requirements.  We will discuss key areas of concern and tips on how FQHCs can avoid common pitfalls.

Click Here to view. 

 

Last month, the New York State Department of Health (“DOH”) published Guidelines for Performing Liposuction with and without Fat Grafting in the Office-Based Surgery Setting (the “Guidelines”). The Guidelines are meant to improve safety and reduce adverse events and deaths related to liposuction in the office-based surgery (“OBS”) setting.  In a surprising move, the Guidelines provide that any physician performing liposuction procedures in an OBS setting must be a board-certified or board-eligible in plastic surgery, plastic surgery of the head and neck, plastic and reconstructive surgery or dermatology.  In addition, the physician must have privileges in their specialty for the same procedure at a licensed Article 28 acute care hospital and/or ambulatory surgery center.  The Guidelines also include patient selection criteria, pre-procedure testing, anticoagulation, clinical guidelines for the OBS setting and post-op/follow up guidelines.

Click here for the Guidelines.

The Guidelines essentially provide that any physicians not board certified or board eligible in plastics or dermatology should not perform most liposuction procedures.  Historically, the OBS laws in New York have not addressed scope of practice issues, and there are numerous OBS practices performing liposuction that do not include plastic surgeons or dermatologists, as is permitted under New York law.  The Guidelines are voluntary, and cannot be enforced as law or regulation, but their existence raises concern for non-plastics/dermatology physicians as it could be asserted in malpractice cases or licensure actions that they establish the standard of care in New York for the performance of liposuction in the OBS setting.  We expect that the Guidelines will be challenged by affected practitioners and OBS accrediting bodies.

Download the Alert »

Should you have any questions regarding the above, please contact the Garfunkel Wild attorney with whom you regularly work, or contact us at info@garfunkelwild.com.

 

 

This case involves the 2018 demutualization of the medical malpractice insurer Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company (“MLMIC”) and who was entitled to the more than $2.5 billion in cash consideration that was to be distributed as a result of that demutualization.  Specifically, the New York Court of Appeals had to decide between the employer-medical provider that paid the malpractice premiums and the employee-physician who was the policyholder on the MLMIC policy.  Although many employees voluntarily signed consent or assignment forms in 2018 and 2019 and thereby released those monies to their employers, many litigations were spawned throughout New York State involving the remaining employee-physicians before the matter was heard last month by the New York Court of Appeals.

In a decision dated May 19, 2022, the New York Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the physicians in this matter.  The Court concluded that Insurance Law Section 7307 is dispositive of the issue, finding that the statute was clear that the monies must go to the policyholder absent an agreement by the policyholder to forego the right to such monies.

In response to the employers’ statutory argument that the party that paid the premiums is entitled to the conversion funds, the Court found as follows:

  • Those payments  by employers were merely for insurance coverage, not for an ownership interest in MLMIC.
  • Those payments by employers did not thereby transform the employers into policyholders, the status necessary to receive the funds under the statute.
  • Those payments by employers were made on behalf of the employees and thus attributable to the employees for purposes of the statute.
  • That section of the statute referring to payment of premiums merely addressed the method by which the amount to be paid to the policyholder was to be calculated.

The Court also rejected an equitable claims of unjust enrichment brought by the employers, relying in part on the conclusions underlying its statutory analysis.  Click here for a copy of the decision.

Download the Alert »

Should you have any questions regarding the above, please contact the Garfunkel Wild attorney with whom you regularly work, or contact us at info@garfunkelwild.com.