Physicians Face Tougher Reporting Standards During Medical Staff Investigations:
New Guidance from the National Practitioner Data Bank Requires Reporting A Broader Range of Situations Involving Clinical Privileges
|
If your medical staff is investigating or restricting your clinical privileges, or you are about to surrender your clinical privileges to avoid an investigation, do not assume that the situation will be kept totally confidential. The medical staff may be obligated to report you to the National Practitioner Data Bank (the “NPDB”), a national clearinghouse of data about the competence of health care practitioners that the medical staffs of hospitals and other organizations check when reviewing applications for clinical privileges. Being reported to the NPDB can have significant consequences, such as spoiling job opportunities or requiring disclosure on, or amendments to, applications for professional licensure.
On October 26, 2018, the NPDB issued its current NPDB Guidebook, updated for the first time since 2015. The updates clarify that certain situations (some of which were previously understood
not to be reportable by medical staffs and health care attorneys) are, in fact, reportable. Among other examples, the new guidance states that:
- Many agreements not to exercise privileges (often made informally among physicians and medical staffs during investigations) are now reportable to the NPDB (Guidebook at Q.22).
- Taking a leave of absence while under investigation is generally reportable (Guidebook at Q.23).
- Withdrawing or resigning during a clinical privilege reappointment review may be reportable (Guidebook at Q.24).
- Restrictions to clinical privileges, such as proctoring requirements, are reportable if they are in effect for more than 30 days (Guidebook at E-41).
If you need assistance with issues involving your clinical privileges or questions about NPDB reporting, please contact
Heather Skelton or
Ethan Dunn.
|
|
Who Let the Dogs In? Who? Who?
Companies Welcome Pets at Work
“Dogs in the workplace is an unexpected mechanism for connection... Our dogs add to the fun, dynamic energy of our workplace.” -
Lara Hirschfield, Amazon’s “Woof Pack” Manager
Recent data suggests that 9% of employers allow workers to bring their pets to work. Among them are companies like Google, Amazon, Ben & Jerry’s, and
Gardner Skelton. While having pets in the office can provide many benefits, it can also spark a variety of interpersonal and legal issues.
Pets in the Workplace: Pros
- Pets are a point of common interest that can help to promote teamwork, communication and social interaction.
- Having pets in the office has been shown to reduce stress, increase employee satisfaction and improve morale.
- Allowing pets in the office tends to soften the company’s image, and make the company seem more progressive and forward thinking.
- Allowing pets in the office can be a great recruiting tool for potential hires and for retaining employees long-term.
Pets in the Workplace: Cons
- Pets often require a lot of attention and can be distracting and disruptive. Likewise, pet owners are sometimes unaware when their pet’s behavior is distracting and disruptive.
- Some employees may be allergic to, afraid of, or just not like certain animals.
- Pets can cause damage to the office equipment or coworkers' personal belongings.
- Some pets may not be properly trained for an office environment.
Legal Issues
There is always the possibility that a pet could bite or attack an employee, customer or service provider while on company property.
Establishing a Company Pet Policy
If you decide to invite your employees’ pets to work, we suggest you implement a policy that outlines the rules for bringing, caring for and supervising pets at the office. The policy should include consequences for misbehavior, specify what types of pets are allowed, quantify the frequency with which pets may visit the office, and clearly state how animals are to be leashed or contained during work hours.
If you need assistance drafting your Company’s Pet Policy, please contact
Nicole Gardner
.
|
|
The Art of the Deal:
Negotiating Binding Agreements
Two parties are trying to resolve a contentious dispute. One party indicates that a proposal is “acceptable,” if the other party signs and returns a scanned copy of the settlement agreement by 5:00 p.m. that day. The first party writes: “No other changes whatsoever are acceptable. If you ask for any additional changes, this will be treated as a rejection of this offer, and the offer will be rescinded and of no effect.” Several hours later, the second party replies: “Will get the document signed.” Notwithstanding this promise, the second party refuses to sign the settlement agreement. Do the parties have an enforceable agreement? The North Carolina Business Court recently answered this question in the negative.
In
Wining Taylors, LLC v. CE Precision, Inc.
, 2018 NCBC 96, although the plaintiff argued that a binding settlement agreement was reached, Judge Adam Conrad found that, because the defendant failed to satisfy any of the stated conditions, “the offer was effectively rejected and rescinded.” Judge Conrad’s full opinion is available here:
Wining Taylors, LLC v. CE Precision, Inc.
The moral: Be careful about setting “conditions” that are not material to your settlement.
|
|
Gardner Skelton PLLC
505 East Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28203
704.335.0350 phone / 704.390.7027 fax
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
