Author: WorkCompAcademy

An Oakland orthopedic surgeon, and popular AME, who surrendered his medical license last year on grounds of sexual and unprofessional conduct, has now also been suspended from participating in California’s workers’ compensation system.

The DWC said John David Warbritton III, M.D. was one of 20 medical providers it recently suspended from participating in the workers’ compensation system, bringing the total number of providers suspended to 197.

Warbritton was a graduate of Harvard Medical School in 1980, and had an office at Frank Ogawa Plaza in Oakland. He surrendered his medical license on April 7, 2017, after the California Medical Board accused him of sexually harassing two of his workers’ compensation patients.

Warbritton is also facing felony criminal charges in federal court for allegedly transporting child pornography.

The criminal indictment, which was filed on Oct. 13, 2016, alleges that Warbritton violated federal law by knowingly transporting child pornography. He was initially released on an unsecured bond.

But, after the United States Pretrial Services officer reported a violation of his conditions of release (possessing child pornography images on a mobile phone), the Honorable Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte held a bail review hearing on January 17, 2017, and detained Dr. Warbritton. He was placed in the Santa Rita Jail.

Last May, he filed a Motion to Reopen his Detention Hearing. His lawyers claimed that “At the time of the alleged offense conduct and the subsequent pretrial release violation in this matter, Dr. Warbritton was suffering from both opioid use disorder and sexual impulsivity disorder.” They claim he subsequently began treatment with Carolyn Ann Schuman, M.D. for his opioid addiction, and that “his incarceration ultimately allowed him to “dry out” from the use of opioids and allowed the Suboxone treatment employed by Dr. Schuman to take effect.”

Prosecutors opposed the Motion claiming “defendant has been a hands-on offender because the defendant was arrested after returning to the United States from Thailand, where he admitted to agents he has spent long periods of time for the last several years” And among the child pornography taken from him by authorities, “one photo collage depicted the defendant along with an Asian female aged 8-10 years old. ….This photograph collage also raises concerns about whether the defendant may be a hands-on offender or someone who was preparing to do so.”

Prosecutors concluding by saying there are no conditions of release that could reasonably assure the safety of the community. Warbritton remains in custody awaiting trial.

Anthem Blue Cross is accusing Sonoma West Medical Center and Palm Drive Health Care District of participating in a business fraud scheme that has resulted in more than $13.5 million in improper payments to the medical center.

In a Feb. 9 letter to both the district and medical center,  According to the report in Reuters, Anthem threatened legal action and demanded the money be repaid. District and hospital officials say they’ve done nothing wrong and are preparing a response to the insurance giant.

The Anthem letter states that the medical center “appears to have conspired with several third parties to fabricate or misrepresent claims for toxicology testing services that were improperly billed to Anthem.”

Anthem alleges the fraudulent billing began after Sonoma West Medical Center partnered with Florida-based Durall Capital Holdings and its testing laboratory, Reliance Laboratory Testing.

The partnership with Durall was forged last year as a way to help the financially strapped hospital. In exchange for more than $2 million in much-needed funds, the hospital agreed to conduct toxicology testing for Durall, using part of the money to buy equipment.

John Peleuses, the medical center’s CEO, said the arrangement has been extremely helpful for the hospital, which has actually started showing a profit since September.

The insurance company says that according to the medical center’s own public records, health care providers from around the country send their patients’ specimens to Reliance’s Florida facility, which then distributes specimens to various labs for screening, including the one at Sonoma West Medical Center.

“Reliance Labs keeps a portion of the specimen and conducts testing on it, while purportedly passing on a portion of the sample to Sonoma West for additional testing,” Anthem’s letter states.

“Sonoma West bills Anthem for some or all of this testing – representing that it had performed the services when, in fact, it had not,” the letter states.

Peleuses rejected the claim that no testing is being done at the Sebastopol hospital. “We dispute the assertions in the letter and a response to Anthem is being prepared to address their concerns,” Peleuses said.

Anthem said a review of claims submitted by the medical center were for drug testing on urine samples where the patients “had no connection whatsoever with Sonoma West. That is, the patients were not treated at Sonoma West, nor were they treated by a physician connected with Sonoma West who ordered laboratory services to be performed at Sonoma West.”

Anthem’s letter, written by the insurance company’s associate general counsel Steven Cohen, pointed out that the medical center, as a hospital, “receives substantially higher amounts for urine drug testing, often 10 times or more, relative to the lesser amount” Anthem would pay clinical laboratories like Reliance.

“Indeed, it is that reimbursement delta that appears to be the only value that Sonoma West brings to its partners in the scheme,” Cohen wrote.

But Peleuses said there was nothing improper about billing at the higher rate, particularly in the case of rural hospitals which need higher reimbursement rates to stay competitive. Peleuses also said it was common for toxicology testing to be done by laboratories that do not take samples from patients.

Anthem gave the district and hospital until Friday to respond to several demands.

Alanna Brogan, executive director of the Palm Drive Health Care District, said a response would be submitted by Friday. “There are a number of inaccuracies in the letter and we will be responding to Anthem Blue Cross,” she said The district has scheduled a closed session Friday at 10 a.m. to discuss the matter.

Philip Sobol M.D., an orthopedic surgeon, agreed with Michael Drobot to receive kickbacks in exchange for performing surgeries at Pacific Hospital of Long Beach or referring spinal surgery patients to physicians who would perform the spinal surgeries at Pacific Hospital.

Sobol and Drobot concealed the kickbacks through a series of sham agreements including a management agreement and option agreement. Sobol received approximately $5.2 million dollars in kickbacks.

On November 24, 2015, Sobol entered into an agreement to plead guilty to a two-count information that charged him with Conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and Interstate Travel in Aid of a Racketeering Enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952.

Prosecutors filed a Sentencing Report in his criminal case on December 5. On February 24, 2017, the United States Probation Office reported that his sentencing range was 46-57 months’ imprisonment. The report noted that Sobol had agreed to pay restitution but “did not identify any victims from the harm.”

But prosecutors say the Court should apply an additional two level increase because the offense involved more than ten victims.

Prosecutors reported that “it is difficult to determine exactly how many surgeries defendant referred where he received a kickback because the kickbacks were paid through sham management and option agreements that were designed to approximate the number of surgeries referred or performed at Pacific Hospital, Drobot admitted in his plea agreement that he paid between $10,000 and $15,000 per surgery performed.”

His Sentencing Hearing was set for February 16, 2018. On that day, the federal court entered the following order.:

“Pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, it is the judgment of the Court that the defendant, Philip A. Sobol, is hereby committed on Counts 1 and 2 of the Information to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons for a term of 21 months. This term consists of 21 months on each of Counts 1 and 2, to be served concurrently.”

“Upon release from imprisonment, the defendant shall be placed on supervised release for a term of three years. This term consists of three years on each of Counts 1 and 2 of the Information, all such terms to run concurrently..”

“It is further ordered that the defendant surrender himself to the institution designated by the Bureau of Prisons at or before 12 noon, on July 16, 2018. In the absence of such designation, the defendant shall report on or before the same date and time, to the United States Marshal located at the United States Court House, 411 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana, California 92701- 4516.”

“It is recommended that the Bureau of Prisons designate confinement of defendant to the Lompoc, California facility.”

The 2017 California legislative session ended with Governor Jerry Brown signing into law a number of bills affecting California employers:

The laws about what employers can ask job applicants continue to evolve. Here are two new areas of inquiry that are now not allowed:

AB 168 bars employers from asking job applicants about their previous salary. The legislation’s goal is to narrow the gender gap by preventing employers from basing offers on prior salary and thus, presumably, perpetuating historical discrimination. This will also remove the perceived gap in negotiating power between an employers and employees who must disclose their prior salary.

AB 1008 precludes employers from inquiring about an applicant’s conviction history until after a conditional offer of employment; and Imposes new limitations upon and disclosure requirements for considering conviction history information.

Employers who wish to rely on criminal conviction information to withdraw a conditional job offer must notify the applicant of their preliminary decision, give them a copy of the report (if any), explain the applicant’s right to respond, give them at least five business days to do so, and then wait five more business days to decide what to do when an applicant contests the decision. There are exceptions for employers who operate health facilities hiring employees who will have regular access to patients or drugs.

And there are new requirements for leave, pay and other protection for workers.

SB 3 increases California’s minimum wage to $11 in January 2018 and to $15 by 2022.

SB 63 requires employers with between 20 to 49 employees to provide up to 12 workweeks of “parental leave.”

AB 450 prohibits employers from allowing federal immigration agencies access to worksites unless certain conditions are met.

SB 396 requires that the currently mandated sexual harassment training for supervisors be expanded to include gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation.

AB 46 – Public Employers Subject to Equal Pay Act Violations.

AB 1710 – Hostile work Environment Protections for Military Service Members.

Urine testing for patients with chronic pain has grown explosively over the past decade amid a rising death toll from opioid abuse. Pain doctors say drug testing helps them make sure patients are taking the drugs as prescribed and not mixing them with illegal substances.

Yet the testing boom costs billions of dollars annually and has raised concerns that some labs and doctors run urine tests needlessly – or charge exorbitant rates – to boost profits.

Some insurers have refused to pay, which can leave patients threatened with ruinously high bills they had no idea they had incurred.

“Surprise bills loaded with unexpected expenses and little explanation inflict sticker shock on vulnerable patients,” said James Quiggle, communications director of the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud, whose members include insurers, consumer groups and government agencies. Quiggle said many “puffed-up bills straddle a fine line between abuse and outright fraud.”

Prices for urine tests can vary widely depending upon complexity and the technology used. Some doctors’ offices use a simple cup test, which can detect several classes of drugs on the spot. These tests rarely cost more than $200, and typically much less.

Bills climb higher when labs check for levels of multiple drugs and bill for each one, a practice insurers argue is seldom medically justified. An egregious example is featured in an NPR story about Sunset Labs LLC in Houston. After a patient had back surgery in late 2015, her surgeon prescribed an opioid painkiller and a follow-up drug test that seemed routine – until the lab slapped her with a bill for $17,850.

It charged $4,675 to check her urine for a slew of different types of opioids: $2,975 for benzodiazepines, a class of drugs for treating anxiety, and $1,700 more for amphetamines. Tests to detect cocaine, marijuana and phencyclidine, an illegal hallucinogenic drug also known as PCP or angel dust, added $1,275 more.

Indeed, Kaiser Health News now refers to the urine drug testing business as “Liquid Gold.”

Kaiser Health News, with assistance from researchers at the Mayo Clinic, analyzed available billing data from Medicare and private insurance billing nationwide, and found that spending on urine screens and related genetic tests quadrupled from 2011 to 2014 to an estimated $8.5 billion a year.

There are virtually no national standards regarding who gets tested, for which drugs and how often. Medicare has spent tens of millions of dollars on tests to detect drugs that presented minimal abuse danger for most patients, according to arguments made by government lawyers in court cases that challenge the standing orders to test patients for drugs.

Payments have surged for urine tests for street drugs such as cocaine, PCP and ecstasy, which seldom have been detected in tests done on pain patients. In fact, court records show some of those tests showed up positive just 1 percent of the time.

Urine testing has become particularly lucrative for doctors who operate their own labs. In 2014 and 2015, Medicare paid $1 million or more for drug-related tests billed by health professionals at more than 50 pain management practices across the U.S. At a dozen practices, Medicare billings were twice that high.

Thirty-one pain practitioners received 80 percent or more of their Medicare income just from urine testing, which a federal official called a “red flag” that may signal overuse and could lead to a federal investigation.