“Americans should never believe, even incorrectly, that one’s criminal activity will go unpunished simply because it was committed on behalf of a corporation.” This was the pronouncement made by Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates a day after she issued new guidance to Department of Justice attorneys outlining the importance of individual accountability in DOJ prosecutions. The Department of Justice has thus increased the risk in medical fraud cases. The Yates Memo announced an official DOJ initiative to hold individuals responsible for corporate misdeeds, both criminal and civil. By having the Justice Department’s number two official instruct prosecutors to target individual business people for criminal prosecution and civil sanctions, DOJ is upping the ante in white collar enforcement.

The Yates Memo is the latest in a line of similar pronouncements that began in 1999 when then-Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder penned a similar memo titled “Bringing Criminal Charges Against Corporations.” The principles stated in the Holder Memo continued to evolve through several subsequent memos from later Deputy Attorneys General (Thompson Memo (2003), McNulty Memo (2006), Filip Memo (2008)), and were eventually “codified” in the U.S. Attorney’s Manual (“USAM”) as the Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations (USAM § 9-28.000).

The “Principles” are a detailed framework that federal prosecutors are supposed to rely on in assessing whether and what charges to bring against a corporation in a criminal case. They also provide corporations and their counsel tools for considering important issues such as cooperation and remediation. The “Principles” and other sections of the USAM are being revised to incorporate the Yates Memo’s dictates on individual accountability for corporate wrongdoing.

The notion of targeting individuals for prosecution has been a stated goal expressed by numerous DOJ officials in recent years. It should not be news to anyone inside or outside a corporation that federal prosecutors are being asked to identify and prosecute individual executives and managers for their roles in corporate misconduct. However, the Yates Memo provides a telling insight into DOJ’s current policy objective: reach the highest-level business leaders through cooperation deals with lower-ranking executives.

While this shift in policy appears to be a response to repeated criticism that too many individuals evaded punishment for wrongdoing related to the financial crisis and a related push to improve integrity within the banking sector, it will have significant implications for healthcare providers and their employees. Recognizing the challenges required to go back and pursue individuals after the conclusion of a case originally aimed at corporate liability, DOJ attorneys have now been instructed to focus on individuals from the start of an investigation. Once a case is underway, the inquiry into individual misconduct will proceed in tandem with the broader corporate investigation.

Only in the rarest of circumstances will the DOJ now release individuals from civil or criminal liability when resolving a matter with a corporation. Any decision to conclude a corporate case, without simultaneously settling individual liability, will require the DOJ attorney to demonstrate, to his/her supervisor, a clear plan for resolving any related individual cases promptly and before the statute of limitations expires. Further, if the decision is made not to proceed against individuals, the justification for such a decision must be memorialized and approved by the relevant U.S. Attorney or Assistant Attorney General overseeing the investigation.

Orthopaedic care for patients living in remote areas may be managed through phone or email, allowing patients to receive treatment without traveling to a larger, urban hospital for care, according to a study presented at the 2016 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS). The study also found that remote care may provide significant savings in time, missed work, and health care and transportation costs for residents living in rural areas.

Orthopaedic surgeons at a McGill University Health Centre in Montreal used commercial, encrypted email and phone calls to communicate with primary care physicians in six towns in the northern area of Quebec about their patients, who primarily suffered from bone fractures, injuries which typically require travel to a larger hospital for care. The towns are part of a geographic area surrounding the hospital which spans 375,291 square miles (972,000 square kilometers), including areas where medical services are extremely limited.

The retrospective study, using data from January 2008 to June 2013, found that out of 921 email consults, 731 patients were able to receive treatment from their local doctor with the guidance of an orthopaedic surgeon at McGill.

“These results show that you don’t need an expensive, elaborate system to clinically manage patients with more common conditions,” said Adam Cota, MD, lead study author and now an orthopaedic trauma fellow at OrthoIndy at St. Vincent Indianapolis.

Researchers used a basic email system, requiring virtually no start-up costs or dedicated personnel. In contrast, sophisticated telehealth communication systems have higher operating costs. Dr. Cota noted that the email application meets Canada’s requirements for protecting patient information.

For patients, receiving proper orthopaedic treatment and care near their home eliminates the need to travel, take time off from work, or pay for child care and other related expenses. In addition, the study estimated a savings of nearly $3.7 million ($5.5 million in Canadian dollars) over the study timeframe in medical transportation, which in Canada, is provided free of charge from rural areas.

“We feel that these results will be important for planning and enhancing delivery of orthopaedic care in remote communities,” said Dr. Cota, “and a low-cost referral system like this can result in significant savings by the patient and/or insurance or government provider.”

In 2014 an Orange County Grand Jury indicted 45-year-old Kareem Ahmed and 14 others, alleging he formulated topical creams and oversaw an extensive network of kickbacks that paid doctors and pharmacists more than $25 million to prescribe and distribute the products. Ahmed, president of Ontario company Landmark Medical Management, and the others faced a total of 44 counts on felony charges including conspiracy, trading rebates for patient referrals, insurance fraud and involuntary manslaughter, according to the original two grand jury indictments. The amounts individual doctors received between 2010 and 2013 allegedly ranged from $600,000 to more than $2.5 million. Among those Ahmed allegedly paid were Daniel Capen, M.D. (more than $2.5 million); Andrew Jarminski, M.D. (more than $1.9 million); pharmacist Michael Rudolph (more than $1 million); and Rahil Kahn, M.D. (more than $1 million), according to the indictment.

The grand jury was instructed that it had to unanimously find a defendant committed only a single act encompassed within the count to return a true bill on that count. After the grand jury found the indictments to be true, defendants demurred in the trial court, resulting in the People amending the indictments to add hundreds of new counts – a separate count for each victim – and adding an additional allegation in a single count of involuntary manslaughter.

The defendants moved to set aside the amended indictments on the ground the grand jury had not made separate findings as to each victim, but instead had been instructed to find only one act. Defendants posited that the amendments thus impermissibly changed the offenses charged by the grand jury in violation of Penal Code section 1009. As to the involuntary manslaughter count, the defendants contended the new allegation, embedded in the single charge of involuntary manslaughter, also impermissibly changed the offense charged by the grand jury. The court denied the motion.

The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded in the case of Kareem Ahmed v Superior Court.

The Court of Appeal ruled that “there is no logical basis upon which we can conclude that the grand jury made a finding as to each of the new counts in the amended indictment. The additional counts are new offenses, not shown to be found by the grand jury, and thus changed the offenses charged in violation of section 1009. Accordingly, the indictment was ‘not found, endorsed, and presented as prescribed in’ the Penal Code….. Based on our conclusion that adding multiple counts of insurance fraud changed the offense charged in violation of section 1009, we will grant the petition for writ of mandate setting aside most of the charges in the two indictments.”

The trial court was ordered to issue a new order granting the motion with respect to all counts in the Charbonnet indictment except counts 1, 298, and 323, and all counts in the Ahmed indictment except count 1. The court is further directed to, at the prosecutor’s election, order the case resubmitted to a grand jury pursuant to sections 997, 998, and 1009. Count 1 is a conspiracy charge not addressed in this writ petition. Counts 298 and 323 repeated counts 30 and 33 from the original indictment, which alleged violations with respect to a single victim during a timeframe entirely within the statute of limitations.

The defendants had argued that the indictments alleged conduct outside the statute of limitations. In particular, defendants argued the statute of limitations for violations of section 549 and Business and Professions Code section 650 is three years (§ 801), and the statute of limitations for a violation of section 550 is four years (§§ 801.5, 803, subd. (c)(6)). With the indictments being filed on June 17, 2014, defendants argued they cannot be tried for conduct prior to June 17, 2011 and June 17, 2010, respectively.

At this point it is not clear how much of this major case remains. After remand the district attorney will have an opportunity to attempt to resurrect part of its case. It is not known at this time how successful this will be.

NBC Sports reports that contracts being offered to new Los Angeles Rams players state that the laws of Missouri, not California, control the relationship. The NFL Players Association has in turn instructed all certified contract agents to reject that term as “inappropriate.”

Critics says other language in the contract makes the purpose of this strategy clear. The Rams hope to nudge any workers’ compensation claims away from California and into Missouri.

From the contract: “The parties hereto acknowledge that this Player Contract has been negotiated and executed in Missouri; that should any dispute, claim or cause of action (collectively ‘dispute’) arise concerning rights or liabilities arising from the relationship between the Player and the Club, the parties hereto agree that the law governing such dispute shall be the law of the State of Missouri. Furthermore, the exclusive jurisdiction for resolving Workers’ Compensation related claims shall be the Division of Workers’ Compensation of Missouri, and the Missouri Workers’ Compensation Act shall govern.”

The NFLPA strongly disagrees. “We believe that any reference to the state of Missouri is inappropriate since the Rams have relocated to California as evidenced by the fact that they have changed their name on their website to the Los Angeles Rams, are prepared to hold off-season workouts and training camp in California, and will practice and play their home games in California in 2016,” the union says in the memo to all agents.

The Rams, however, say that the use of such language is more geared toward player bonuses paid out in March as an effort to help players pay a lesser state income tax, according to the Los Angeles Daily News. Pro Football Talk offered another follow up on Sunday with the Rams offering further clarification that all deals will simply roll over into California when the team moves in April.

Forbes has yet to release its 2016 valuation of every NFL franchise, but the man in charge of putting them together told the Washington Post in January that upon moving back to Los Angeles, the Rams doubled their value. Michael Ozanian, Forbes’s executive editor, said then that the Rams are now worth about $3 billion following the move to Los Angeles and the construction of their palatial new stadium in Inglewood. Assuming that value, the Rams would then trail only the Dallas Cowboys and New England Patriots in Forbes’ rankings.

The team is planning to move out of Rams Park and St. Louis by the end of the month.

The claim examiner’s task of reserving for future medical care is becoming more complex by the day. It is hard to even imagine what medical science will have to offer injured workers even a few years down the road. For example, Vanderbilt University just announced that the FDA has given clearance to market and sell the powered lower-limb exoskeleton created by a team of Vanderbilt engineers and commercialized by the Parker Hannifin Corporation for both clinical and personal use in the United States.

Indego®, which allows people paralyzed below the waist to stand up and walk, is the result of an intensive, 10-year effort. The initial development was funded by a grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. In 2012 Parker, a global leader in motion and control technologies, purchased an exclusive license to market the design and has worked closely with the Vanderbilt group to develop a commercial version of the medical device.

Until recently “wearable robots” like Indego were the stuff of science fiction. In the last 15 years, however, advances in robotics, microelectronics, battery and electric motor technologies have made it practical to develop them to aid people with stroke and spinal cord injuries. The device acts like an external skeleton. It straps in tightly around the torso. Rigid supports are strapped to the legs and extend from the hip to the knee and from the knee to the foot. The hip and knee joints are driven by computer-controlled electric motors powered by advanced batteries. Patients use the powered apparatus with walkers or forearm crutches to maintain their balance.

“You can think of our exoskeleton as a Segway with legs. If the person wearing it leans forward, he moves forward. If he leans back and holds that position for a few seconds, he sits down. When he is sitting down, if he leans forward and holds that position for a few seconds, then he stands up” one of the engineers said.

Indego is the second exoskeleton to receive FDA certification for U.S. use. The first was a device produced by Rewalk Robotics Ltd. However, Indego’s clearance came after completion of the largest exoskeleton clinical trail conducted in the United States. According to the Parker news release, “Over the course of more than 1,200 individual sessions, study participants were able to use Indego to safely walk on a variety of indoor and outdoor surfaces and settings with no serious adverse events.”

One of the design goals was to give users the maximum amount of personal freedom possible. One of his requirements, for example, was to allow the user to put the exoskeleton on and take it off while sitting in a wheelchair. As a result, the Indego is considerably lighter and less bulky than the other exoskeletons under development.

Beginning this summer,  the scientists will head a four-year U.S. Department of Defense-funded study of the tangible economic and rehabilitation benefits of exoskeletons for people with spinal cord injuries. This will be performed at three medical centers: James Haley Veteran’s Hospital in Tampa (the first VA center in the country to use Indego), the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota and the Vanderbilt University Medical Center.

People who use wheelchairs regularly can develop serious problems with their urinary, respiratory, cardiovascular and digestive systems, as well as getting osteoporosis, pressure sores, blood clots and other afflictions associated with lack of mobility. The risk for developing these conditions can be reduced considerably by regularly standing, moving and exercising their lower limbs. The study, which will involve 24 participants, is designed to determine whether regular use of the Indego will also reduce these conditions.

Indego has been available in Europe since November, when it received the CE Mark, the European Union’s equivalent of FDA approval. The initial price is $80,000. The next step is getting the device approved for health insurance reimbursement. This involves getting the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to approve a “rate code” for the exoskeleton: a numeric code that identifies the characteristics of patients who Medicare/Medicaid will reimburse for purchasing a given piece of medical equipment. Typically, the government will reimburse 80 percent of the cost of approved medical devices. In most cases private health insurance providers adopt the CMS code.