Blog

The newest rage in medical care is the concierge medical practice. Who would not want to have a concierge? A concierge is there when you need something, takes care of matters for you, makes you feel pampered and special, and provides an excellent, personal service. Most of us are familiar with concierges in hotels where their services are complimentary. They are ready, willing, able and happy to provide information and take care of things for their hotel guests. So, if my doctor is going to create a concierge practice, I think I’™m going to like it! Not so fast. In truth, it is not going to be complimentary or for every patient. Most important, it is not going to be free. The new concierge patient must pay a hefty annual fee of a thousand dollars or more per year per person to remain their concierge doctor’s patient. If you can’™t or won’™t pay, you will have to find another doctor. Yes, it is a pay-to-play practice.

Why are these concierge doctors doing this? Is it for more money? The answer is both yes and no. Concierge doctors will make more money because of this annual fee, insurance payments, and the co-pay. Yes, you still have to have insurance and make the co-pay payment for each visit.

The doctors making this switch are doing so to rid themselves and their crowded waiting rooms of mostly poor, minority Medicare and Medicaid patients. By charging a hefty annual fee, only those who can afford that annual fee PLUS their annual health insurance premiums PLUS the per visit co-pays will stay with them, and those likely will not be Medicare or Medicaid patients. The concierge doctors’ rationalization is that by getting rid of the multitudes Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance patients who cannot or will not pay the annual fee, the doctors will be able to provide “premium services and amenities.” More simply put, they will only have to examine and treat those who have money. Top it all off with the reality that those of us who cannot or will not be forced to pay to remain a patient are given 30 days to find a new doctor.

This does not pass the smell test. There are many things very wrong about this practice:

1. It discriminates against those who cannot afford $1,000 or more, per family member per year to for this service.

2. It discriminates against Medicare and Medicaid patients as they are least likely to be able to afford the pay-to-play game.

3. It might well be illegal because Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance companies contract with these doctors to treat their insureds, and those contracts prohibit the doctors from collecting any more money than the co-pay.

4. It does not matter how long you have been with your doctor when the doctor decides to go concierge on you: Pay-to-play or leave.

5. By paying-to-play, you are promised the attention and care you should have been receiving all along without having to pay any additional fee.

Consider the modern version of the Hippocratic Oath that every doctor takes when they are licensed to practice medicine. Nowhere does it provide that it is permissible to require one to turn a blind eye to or their back on a patient because while he can pay for insurance, he cannot pay an additional, hefty annual fee for the privilege of being his patient. Physicians who transform their practices into concierge, pay-to-play practices are hypocritical of their Hippocratic Oath:

The Hippocratic Oath: Modern Version

The doctors fought hard for tort reforms to protect them from all lawsuits and minimize and cap the damages that an innocent victim and their families can recover. They blocked the courthouse door so the innocent victims could not hold them responsible for their negligent acts. Now they block their office doors so their patients who cannot afford to pay-to-play will not clutter their waiting rooms, take their precious time, and prevent them from providing the best possible care to every patient and uphold and honor the oath they took for that privilege. You see, in order to get the protections in place through tort reform laws, they threatened to leave states which would not pass them. It worked. Now, they only want to treat the affluent who supported that legislation to keep their doctors from leaving.

Aiding the concierge doctors in this decision is Congress’ reducing their Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates. The doctors don’t like it, and have decided they don’™t want Medicare and Medicaid patients cluttering their waiting rooms and practices. So they remind themselves that they remain a member of their own socioeconomic segment of society, with special obligations only to all their fellow human beings who can afford pay-to-play medicine.

When a commercial truck accident occurs, if an employment relationship is established between the truck driver and a trucking or shipping company, then that company can be held liable for the driver’s negligence under a legal theory known as “respondeat superior.” Under this doctrine, a trucking company or other employer can be held liable for the wrongful acts of its drivers. Trucking companies may try to fight liability under this theory by arguing that the wrongful act did not occur while within the scope of employment. Motor carriers also try to limit their liability by hiring drivers as independent contractors rather than employees.

In some cases, the manufacturer of the truck may also be held liable if the accident was caused by some defect in the truck.

A shipper of hazardous materials carried by the truck may also be legally responsible for any injuries that were caused or made worse by the type of cargo on board. For example, if a shipper fails to advise a truck driver or trucking company of hazardous material contained in a load of freight, the shipper may be liable for injuries that result if that material catches fire or is released.

If a third party logistics company, which is a company that specializes in brokering transportation services but is not a motor carrier, is involved, it may be difficult to recover from that company. It has generally been held that the respondeat superior doctrine cannot be used against logistics companies because they generally engage in independent contractor relationships with motor carriers so they are exempt from liability. In addition, section 14704 of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration often limits the liability of third party logistics companies in personal injury cases.

Legal help is only moments away when you need a personal injury lawyer at your side. We are standing by 24 hours a day. Click here to contact us online. Fill out our online case description or call us at 800-529-8008 to arrange a no-cost, no-obligation consultation.

Bailey & Galyen is investigating the claim that Samsung Electronics has been unlawfully including spyware on laptop computers that it sells. New Samsung laptop computers have been reported to come with Starlogger software that monitors keystrokes and captures screen shots at predetermined intervals. Both the keystrokes and screen shots can be secretly emailed to designated addresses, which could allow Samsung to spy on its own customers.

One report states that you can determine whether you have Starlogger on your Samsung computer by looking for its Registry key, which is used to load it when Windows is started. To see if this has occurred, open a command prompt and type Run Regedit. Then go to the Menu bar, select Edit then Find. You want to search for winsl, without the quotes. If it’s installed you should see a Registry key that looks like this:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINEsoftwaremicrosoftwindowscurrentversionrunwinsl

If you would like to discuss your rights and interests, or have information relating to this investigation, please contact us at Bailey & Galyen’s Houston office at (281) 335-7744.

Nine month old Liam John died of asphyxiation in the safe haven of his baby’s crib on April 11, 2005. The drop rail had detached from its plastic track, creating a gap through which the 9-month-old boy slipped through feet-first. Instead of falling to the floor, which could have been bad enough, Liam’™s head became stuck between the rail and the mattress causing him to be asphyxiated.

Neither the manufacturer or the Consumer Product Safety Commission had warned consumers/parents across the country about this potentially fatal flaw in Simplicity cribs. The question is what did the manufacturer know about this potentially lethal defect and when did they know it?

Since Liam’s civil suit was resolved and the matter has been publicized, complaints about the crib rails have been received by the manufacturer. Warnings were not issued, however, until two more infants died. Further, two and one half years after Liam’s death and after Liam’s civil products liability lawsuit was settled, the Consumer Product Safety Commission recalled approximately 1 million of these cribs.

The problem is two-fold. One, the manufacturer either did not test the crib to determine if it was safe, and/or two, it knew of the defects that made it unsafe but marketed the product anyway without making warning of these lethal dangers. Liam’™s parents’™ inability to get sufficient answers from the manufacturer about how and why this tragedy occurred, forced them to file a civil lawsuit.

That civil suit against the crib manufacturer most likely started like all civil suits:

1. The manufacturer denies it’s product was defective;
2. The manufacturer denies all of the allegations to that effect made in the lawsuit; and
3. The manufacturer blamed the parents/Plaintiffs for their son’s death.
4. The manufacturer refused to settle the case and forced Liam’s parents to endure the litigation for 2½ years.

The frivolity of the manufacturer’s defense throughout the protracted litigation ultimately gave way to reckoning and reason, and the manufacturer paid to settle the case. That settlement agreement has confidentiality language that prohibits any party from disclosing the amount the manufacturer paid to settle the case. That settlement agreement also states that this settlement is not the manufacturer’s admission that it did anything wrong. Somehow, Liam’s parents’ found the strength and fortitude to wage the battle for justice for Liam.

What protracts litigation and increases litigation costs and clogs the courts are these litigious practices of corporate America. Deny and delay is their mantra and modus operandi, and their battle cry is the plaintiff is responsible for their own losses, injuries and damages. The first defensive pleadings (called an œOriginal Answer) filed in response to the initiation or filing of a civil lawsuit that deny all of the allegations lack any sound basis in fact or law.[1] Corporate America forces the plaintiff to prove his case in the courtroom instead of resolving the case in the conference room.

While corporate America should resolve civil litigation earlier, it’s denials have ultimately resulted in a safer American workplace, playground and family life. Decades of civil products liability litigation has resulted in clearer, more easily seen and more readily understood safety warnings and/or modifications on virtually all machinery, firearms, food, drugs, and household products, to name a few. Neither Liam’s family or any other plaintiff whose personal loss has resulted in post-litigation improvements in our quality of life as for thanks or acknowledgement for these safety warnings and/or modifications. They remain anonymous as our benefactors. The trial lawyers who maneuvered their civil cases through the maze of corporate America’™s denials and delays aren’t as fortunate. For their commitment to righting these wrongs and seeking justice for Liam and his parents, they are villanized. Corporate America will surely keep manufacturing products that injure, maim and kill people, and trial lawyers will always be there to fight for the victims.

An accident involving a tractor trailer, 18-wheeler, semi truck or other commercial truck can result in serious physical injury and property damage. If you or a loved one has been injured in a truck accident, you may be entitled to compensation. It is important to contact an experienced truck accident attorney to discuss your case as soon as possible. Contact Bailey & Galyen at 800-529-8008 to schedule an appointment with one of out experienced Texas personal injury attorneys.

Truck drivers in Texas are required to possess a Commercial Drivers’ License (CDL) and limit the number of hours they drive during a given day. This law is intended to prevent Texas truck drivers from becoming fatigued or sleepy from long drives without adequate breaks or rest. Truckers must also avoid aggressive driving behavior, follow posted speed limits, properly maintain and inspect their truck, and yield to other vehicles on the road. If the truck driver decides to take shortcuts and avoid safety precautions, then it is likely that a major truck accident will transpire, in which the truck driver will be found negligent. If you find yourself a victim of a Texas truck accident, you should contact a qualified Texas truck accident lawyer at Bailey & Galyen immediately.