As Georgia schools and other businesses respond to open and operate safely in the face of the COVID-19 Pandemic, many are posting warning signs consistent with a new law in the state passed to protect them from liability.
Georgia-based Business and Healthcare Law Firm
This summer, Georgia joined many other states in passing a law to protect businesses including healthcare facilities and workers from liability from lawsuits brought by individuals or their survivors related to infections from or exposure to COVID-19 in visiting the premises of or obtaining healthcare services or personal protective equipment from those facilities, entities or individuals. Senate Bill 359, signed by the Governor on August 5, 2020 provides that no healthcare facility or provider, entity or individual shall be liable for damages in an action involving a “COVID-19 liability claim” unless the claimant proves the actions of the healthcare facility, entity or individual resulted from gross negligence, willful and wanton misconduct, reckless or intentional infliction of harm.
government organizations that experienced revenue losses from COVID-19. The purpose of the Act is to offer financial relief and to establish telehealth benefits for patients needing non-COVID-19 services. Section A of the Act authorizes programs for relief and contains information about mandatory spending provisions, while section B contains provisions regarding discretionary and emergency appropriations. Over the next few weeks, this blog will discuss recent changes to the CARES Act, and the impact that those modifications are having on hospitals and physician practices. This post provides a brief overview of the CARES Act, as well as the attestation process that providers must follow upon receiving funds.
to audit providers suspected of fraud. UPIC contracts combine Zone Program Integrity Contractors (ZPIC’s) and Medicaid Integrity Contractors (MIC’s) to coordinate Medicare and Medicaid auditing. UPIC’s focus primarily on Medicare claims, and seek to distinguish between provider billing errors or fraud.
se be used and allows physicians to manage chronic illnesses remotely, without the in-person interaction that exposes provider and patient to the risk of spread. This increased reliance on telemedicine has prompted state and federal legislative bodies to pass new rules and guidelines to promote access to telehealth services by reducing costs, increasing availability, and promoting relationships between healthcare providers and their patients. Our Georgia-based business and healthcare law firm follows regulatory developments that impact healthcare providers. As of the date of this post, seven states (Arizona, Florida, Kansas, Maine, New Jersey, Oregon, and Utah) have waived restrictions on telehealth. More relaxation of telehealth rules may be expected.
On April 6, 2020, Lee Little Health Law co-presented with Brian Tuttle, Navigating HIPPAA and Telemedicine during COVID19.
We salute all of our clients and friends who are healthcare providers on the front lines of COVID-19 pandemic for their commitment and steady hand during these perilous days of uncertainty. All of us are better and safer because of you. Above all, we wish good health and safety for all healthcare providers. We appreciate the trust and confidence that our clients place in us. As we all work through this difficult time together, we reiterate our commitment to helping all healthcare providers.
As a business and healthcare litigation firm focused exclusively on advising and representing health care providers, we work virtually every day with contracts that involve non-compete agreements and other forms of restrictive covenants. Almost all physician employment, for example, will involve a physician employment agreement that contains a restrictive covenant. Typically, a restrictive covenant will apply to prohibit certain competitive activities both during the employment and for some agreed period following employment, often one to three years. The details of such agreements can vary dramatically and, contrary to the impressions of many medical practice owners and employed physicians, there are not “standard” provisions for duration, geographic scope, etc. Further, Georgia and South Carolina case law and relevant statutory provisions are subject to interpretation, about which reasonable minds can often differ.