Menu Close

Tag: 2018 News

FDA Approves Non-Opioid Pain Patch

Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. received approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for its non-opioid painkiller patch, ZTlido (lidocaine topical system) 1.8%.

ZTlido is indicated for the relief of pain associated with post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN), also referred to as post-shingles pain. ZTlido is a major advancement in analgesics because of its proprietary adhesion technology demonstrating 12-hour wear with efficient lidocaine delivery, even during exercise. ZTlido was designed to solve a problem that is commonly reported with transdermal/topical patches: they don’t stay on.

“Post herpetic neuralgia is a perfect example of why we have an opioid crisis,” William Pedranti, chief operating officer at the Sorrento subsidiary SCILEX told Reuters. “There’s no opioids that are approved by the FDA to treat PHN (but) the number 1 prescribed product first-line is an opioid.”

“Topical lidocaine is an important option for healthcare providers to have in their armamentarium for treating PHN, a difficult-to-treat neuropathic pain,” stated Dr. Jeff Gudin, Director, Pain Management and Palliative Care, Englewood Hospital and Medical Center. “The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s guideline of non-opioid treatments for chronic pain recognizes topical lidocaine as an alternative first-line therapy. ZTlido now offers providers and patients this option.”

According to recent IMS data, more than 100 million prescription lidocaine patches were sold in the US in 2017. Sorrento intends to have Scilex complete the final steps necessary to commercial launch of ZTlido in the US with the objective to make the product commercially available to patients sometime in 2018.

ZTlido is comprised of a non-aqueous adhesive material containing 1.8% lidocaine, which is applied to a non-woven polyester felt backing and covered with a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film release liner. The release liner is perforated in the middle and removed prior to application to the skin. The size of the topical system is 10 cm × 14 cm x 0.08 cm thick. ZTlido is indicated for relief of pain associated with post-herpetic neuralgia. It should be applied only to intact skin.

The treatment’s approval puts the bandage-like patch into a market currently split between Endo International Plc’s Lidoderm, which has been on the market for nearly 20 years, and generic versions of that product.

ZTlido improves upon Lidoderm by offering better adhesion and delivers equivalent doses of the pain-relieving active ingredient, lidocaine, more effectively, the company said.

“We’re not saying that it (ZTlido) is a massively better product,” Raghuram Selvaraju, an analyst at H.C. Wainwright said. “It is an incrementally better product, which we believe, is going to be actively promoted.” Selvaraju expects U.S. sales of the drug to peak at $1.1 billion in 2025.

Ride Share Drivers Reluctant to Take E.R. Patients

Ride-hail drivers are, by and large, untrained, self-employed workers driving their own cars on a part-time basis. They’re not medical professionals.

But as health care costs have risen and ride-hail has become more pervasive, people are increasingly relying on Uber and Lyft drivers to get them to the hospital when they need emergency care.

A recent (yet to be peer-reviewed) study found that, after Uber enters new markets, the rates of ambulance rides typically go down, meaning fewer people call professionals in favor of the cheaper option.

People have always taken taxis to the hospital, but ride-hail technology makes it much easier, especially in less densely populated cities. This money-saving tactic might make sense for people in noncritical condition, but it puts ride-hail drivers in an uncomfortable position. They’re forced to choose between assuming potential legal liability if something goes wrong, or dealing with a sense of guilt and the fear of getting a lower rating if they decline or cancel the ride.

If Uber drivers were employees of Uber, then Uber would be liable if something bad happened to a passenger en route to the hospital. But because drivers are independent contractors, they could be held responsible for any failure to provide care during the business transaction.

As independent contractors, Uber and Lyft drivers can turn down any ride that makes them uncomfortable. The companies also charge riders for cleaning fees and repay drivers for the expense, though drivers say this process is a major headache that can take weeks. Both companies said low ratings or demerits for canceling on a rider experiencing a medical emergency could be expunged from a driver’s record.

“Uber is not a substitute for law enforcement or medical professionals,” an Uber spokesperson told BuzzFeed News. “In the event of any medical emergency, we encourage people to call 911.”

Lyft said the same, adding, “If a driver encounters a passenger with an emergency situation, they should contact 911. After that, they should report the incident to our 24/7 critical response line so we can take appropriate action.”

But drivers told BuzzFeed News that neither Uber or Lyft have provided them with direct guidance about what they should do when a passenger expects to be taken to the ER.

And it’s not just the patients who are put at risk when they opt to call a car rather than an ambulance. When drivers give rides to sick people, they’re exposed to germs and the possibility of infection. One driver remembered with horror picking a patient up at the hospital whose colostomy bag exploded on the way home. Another said he had to wipe down the backseat of his car after driving a woman in labor to the hospital. Experienced drivers recommend getting leather or plastic, never fabric, seats.

Uber and Lyft didn’t create this problem. Emergency medical transportation is expensive, with ambulance rides costing patients hundreds or even thousands of dollars, even if they have health insurance. More than half of Americans say an unplanned $1,000 expense would put them in debt.

OSHA Citation Upheld for Failure to Fully Complete Form 300 Log

In 2012, a five-man crew of employees of Key Energy Services, Inc. was working on an oil rig. A large sections of tubing was being pulled out of the well hole. A wet box was being used to deflect a liquid that was coming out with the tubing, in order to avoid getting crew members wet.

A sudden release of pressure from the well tubing caused a powerful blast; which blew the wet box upward and into a tree. After the blast, Norberto Gomez was found lying on the floor, with a head wound; he was hospitalized with a fractured skull.

The DIR Division of Occupational Safety and Health was notified, and dispatched an investigator. Cal/OSHA requested Key Energy’s Form 300 log, which is a log in which employers are required to record work-related injuries.

In June 2013, the Division issued four citations to Key Energy, including a citation for failing to fully complete the Form 300 log entries. The Form 300 citation was based on the failure to include complete information in column F, identifying the “object/substance that directly injured or made person ill.”

Key Energy appealed the citations. The ALJ issued a decision upholding the Form 300 citation and imposed a $450 penalty. Key Energy petitioned for reconsideration. The Board denyied the petition for reconsideration. Key Energy then petitioned the superior court for a writ of mandate directing the Board to vacate its decision on the citation in issue. The trial court denied the writ. Key Energy appeals that denial.

The employer contends substantial evidence did not support the Board’s finding that it violated the regulation. The court of appeal concluded that substantial evidence supports the finding of violation in the unpublished case of Key Energy Services, Inc. v. Cal. Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Bd.

The heading of Form 300 column F states: “Describe injury or illness, parts of body affected, and object/substance that directly injured or made person ill. (e.g. Second degree burns on right forearm from acetylene torch).” For Gomez’s injury, the entry in column F reads: “Fractured skull-Forehead.”

The ALJ rejected Key Energy’s argument that it was only required by the regulation to “use” Form 300, not to fully complete it. “It would be pointless to require employers to use the form 300, but not require them to fill it out correctly and completely.” The ALJ added: “Even if Employer were unsure as to what actually caused the injury on December 10, 2012, Employer could have recorded ‘unknown’ in column ‘F.’ “

The court of appeal noted that the record contains no evidence supporting Key Energy’s argument. It offered no evidence regarding the reason for its omission of information from column F of Form 300 for Gomez’s accident. Shortly after the accident that injured Gomez, Key Energy conducted itself as if the wet box were the object that directly injured him. The record contained substantial evidence that Gomez was struck by the wet box.

DOJ Claims Interest in Multi-District Opioid Litigation

The Department of Justice announced it will be filing a Statement of Interest in a multi-district action regarding hundreds of lawsuits against opioid manufacturers and distributors.

The plaintiffs include numerous cities, municipalities, and medical institutions that have borne the costs of the prescription opioid crisis. The plaintiffs seek to recover the costs associated with providing treatment and public safety measures relating to the opioid epidemic from those who allegedly used false, deceptive, or unfair marketing practices for prescription opioid drugs.

The Justice Department will primarily argue that the federal government – through various federal health programs and law enforcement efforts – has borne substantial costs from the opioid epidemic and seeks reimbursement.

Named in the litigation are opioid manufacturers Purdue Pharma LP, Johnson & Johnson, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, Endo International PLC and Allergan PLC and the three biggest drug distributors in the country – AmerisourceBergen Corp, Cardinal Health Inc and McKesson Corp..

The consolidated litigation pending before U.S. District Judge Dan Polster involves at least 355 lawsuits filed by cities, counties and others.

Polster has been pushing for a quick, global settlement in the litigation and has invited state attorneys general who have cases in state courts or who are conducting a multistate probe of the companies to participate in those talks.

The first settlement hearing was held in January. A second one is expected March on 6.

The Justice Department is not expected to participate in the settlement discussions. Its statement of interest in the litigation will allow it to eventually get a share of the final settlement the companies pay.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers have not quantified the potential costs involved in the cases but have compared them with the litigation by states against the tobacco industry that led to 1998’s $246 billion settlement.

Consideration of Cancer “Latency Period” Required for AOE-COE

Richard Johnson worked as a firefighter for the City of South San Francisco (CSSF) from March 1973 to October 2001. He then worked for the City of Pacifica (Pacifica). He was exposed to known carcinogens during each period of employment. He was diagnosed nasopharyngeal cancer in 2007.

The cancer was found to have initially manifested itself during 2005, when Johnson first noted symptoms of nasal obstruction. The disability was found to have occurred in 2007, during Johnson’s employment with Pacifica.

Johnson filed a workers’ compensation claim against Pacifica. He invoked the presumption of section 3212.1 that cancer manifesting during (or within certain periods following) employment as a firefighter that involves exposure to known carcinogens arose out of and in the course of that employment.

Pacifica denied liability and joined CSSF as a party to the case. CSSF eventually settled with Johnson for all of his cancer-related compensation, and it then sought contribution from Pacifica. An arbitrator denied the petition, ruling that evidence of the latency period for the cancer suffered by Johnson showed the injurious exposure under section 5500.5(a) occurred during Johnson’s earlier employment with CSSF. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) upheld and adopted the arbitrator’s order.

CSSF petitioned for review, contending the WCAB, in adopting the arbitrator’s determination, erroneously utilized a more lenient preponderance evidentiary standard in applying section 5500.5(a), rather than the more stringent cancer presumption rebuttal standard provided in section 3212.1. The Court of Appeal affirmed the WCAB in the published case of City of South San Francisco v WCAB, City of Pacifica.

Labor Code section 3212.1 establishes a presumption that cancer manifesting during and for a specified period following employment in certain public safety positions, including firefighters, arose out of and in the course of that employment.

Section 5500.5, subdivision (a) (section 5500.5(a)), however, limits employer liability for a cumulative injury to the employer who employed the applicant during the one year preceding the earliest of (1) the date of injury or (2) the last date of injurious exposure to the hazards that caused the injury. Thus, either CSSF or Pacifica would be potentially responsible for compensation for the entire injury, dependent upon the proper application of section 5500.5(a).

The arbitrator determined the date of injury was in 2007. The dispositive issue was whether the last injurious exposure resulting in the injury occurred during CSSF or Pacifica employment.

The Court of Appeal ruled that an employer is not liable under section 5500.5(a) absent evidence that exposure during that employment was a contributing cause of the disease or injury, i.e., that the exposure was injurious.

Section 3212.1 does not eliminate the requirement that an industrial injury be proximately caused by the hazardous exposure. Instead, it applies presumptions of a causal link between exposure to the industrial hazard (a known carcinogen) and the manifested injury (cancer), unless the employer disproves the existence of such a link.

California Voters to Revisit Billion Dollar Stem Cell Funding

California received its first royalty check on $3 billion in bonds sold to support stem cell research. Now, debate is kicking up on whether a $190,346 check is enough of a return on investment to get voters’ OK for billions more to fund the state stem cell agency, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM).

The payment from City of Hope, a Los Angeles County-based research center, comes as supporters of CIRM gear up for a 2020 voter initiative to fund another series of billion-dollar bond sales. The current authority to sell bonds ends in 2019.

Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York also are among the states publicly funding stem cell research, though none to the extent of California in issuing billions of dollars in bonds.

In the aggregate, CIRM has awarded $2.48 billion to fund stem cell research, including infrastructure such as lab construction at Stanford University and University of California campuses, since voters approved Proposition 71 creating the agency in 2004.

California Proposition 71 was on the November 2, 2004 general election ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment. Voters approved it. The measure has been codified as Article XXXV of the California Constitution and is also known as the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative.

The City of Hope’s Beckman Research Institute paid the state $190,346 according to a CIRM royalty formula when the agency awarded the institute $5.125 million to develop stem cell therapies for glioblastoma, an aggressive form of brain cancer. The payment was announced Feb. 12.

The 2012 City of Hope award led to two clinical trials and a number of offshoot inventions subsequently licensed to a Mustang Bio, a subsidiary of Fortress Biotech Inc., CIRM spokesman Kevin McCormack said in a blog post.

But, as the original funding based upon Proposition 71 is about to run out, the promoters of CIRM are out with a new scheme to get another $5 billion from California taxpayers. The initial $3 billion in bonds were estimated to cost the state $5.5 billion to $6 billion in interest and principal over their 30-year life.

CIRM battled lawsuits over Prop. 71’s validity that hindered California’s ability to sell bonds and defended against complaints about built-in conflicts for the initiative requiring disease advocates and researchers sit on the governing board.

Victorville Physician Arrested for Illegal Opioid Prescriptions

A medical doctor was arrested on federal charges of illegally selling prescriptions without a legitimate medical purpose to undercover operatives who visited the physician’s Victorville medical office.

Wendell Mark Street, 66, of Las Vegas, was arrested without incident at his residence by special agents with the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Street is a 1981 graduate of the Medical College of Wisconsin. He practiced at 14075 Hesperia Road in Victorville, Street surrendered his California medical license in 2016.

The 44 page Accusation filed by the California Medical Board in December 2014 essentially details prescriptions written to a number of patients who are identified only by their first and last name initials. Details are provided on how each of them was prescribed controlled substances in violation of law or professional standards. By February 23, 2016, Street and his attorney, Thomas Chapin Esq., signed a Stipulated Surrender of License.

The arrest is the result of a 10-count indictment returned by a federal grand jury on February 9. The indictment charges Street with five counts of illegally distributing the painkiller oxycodone and five counts of illegally distributing the tranquilizer alprazolam (often sold under the brand name Xanax). Street allegedly issued the prescriptions in 2013 in exchange for cash “while acting and intending to act outside the usual course of professional practice and without a legitimate medical purpose.”

Street allegedly wrote prescriptions without performing any physical examinations in exchange for $200 to $300 in cash from each of two undercover investigators with the California Medical Board and an informant. During the investigation into Street, investigators executed a search warrant at his Victorville office in 2014.

Street is expected to make his initial appearance in the United States District Court in Las Vegas. The five counts related to illegal distribution of oxycodone each carry a statutory maximum penalty of 20 years in federal prison. The five counts related to alprazolam each carry a sentence of up to five years in prison.

This case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Victoria A. Degtyareva of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force.

Red Bluff City Councilman Gets Jail Time for Comp Fraud

A former Red Bluff City Councilman who pleaded guilty in November to four felonies was sentenced Thursday to a five-year, eight-month suspended prison sentence and placed on probation for five years. The Record Searchlight reported that the 44-year-old Suren Patel, who faced a maximum seven-year, eight-month sentence, pleaded guilty tin November to workers’ compensation fraud, grand theft and two counts of public officer crime.

Under the sentence handed down Thursday, Patel will have to serve 364 days in jail, minus 120 days of custody credits, do 80 hours of community service and pay more than $12,500 in restitution. If he violates his parole, he faces nearly eight years in prison.

Tehama County Superior Court Judge Matthew C. McGlynn, who labeled Patel a thief who has shown no remorse for his crimes, imposed the suspended sentence as recommended by probation officials.

After court, Tehama County District Attorney Gregg Cohen, who argued that Patel deserved a prison sentence, said he was “disappointed” in the ruling because Patel violated his position of public trust as a Red Bluff City Councilman and should go to prison. “He certainly deserved it,” he said.

Patel entered his guilty pleas on Nov. 17, but did so without being guaranteed a stipulated sentence, said Tehama County Assistant District Attorney Matt Rogers Patel was originally charged with seven criminal counts that included perjury, elder theft, and conspiracy to commit a crime.

Cohen has said Patel had been the subject of an investigation that started in 2015 that culminated in his July 2016 arrest in Florida.

Patel, the former owner of the American Best Valley Inn in Red Bluff, was arrested as he tried to board a plane, Cohen has said.

Among charges Patel faced were theft, not paying taxes to the city and fraud.  Cohen said Patel did not pay taxes he owed to the city as owner of the American Best Valley Inn. He was investigated for embezzlement in connection to a complaint filed by a guest at the hotel who said her credit card was charged $6,000 after she stayed there, Cohen said. Restitution has been made in her case, he said.

Authorities opened the investigation against Patel in March 2015 and that May the District Attorney’s Office took computers, cell phones and business records from the hotel.

During the investigation, the DA’s Office learned Patel had not paid workers’ compensation insurance and was committing welfare fraud by getting two employees benefits, Cohen has said.

DWC Suspends Popular AME – As He Remains in Jail

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.

Crawford & Company/Broadspire Opens in Australia

Crawford & Company announced the expansion of its service portfolio in Australia to include workers’ compensation. This capability will be delivered through Broadspire, the TPA solution of Crawford & Company. The company’s workers’ compensation service offering will support existing customers and other large insurers, corporations and government departments.

“We are excited to bring our workers’ compensation solution to the Australia market to complement our other professional claims solutions which are already well established in country,” said Stuart Greaves, head of Broadspire Australia. “The expansion enables us to further Crawford’s mission of restoring and enhancing lives, businesses and communities as we work to provide the best care for those affected by injury.”

As part of its market launch, Broadspire is sponsoring the 19th Annual National Workers’ Compensation Summit in Sydney to introduce the new service line to insurers, brokers, government bodies and self-insured organizations.

“Providing professional claims management on workers’ compensation claims, along with appropriate clinical oversight for injured employees is a critical aspect of the services we provide,” said Danielle Lisenbey, global president, TPA Solutions for Broadspire.

“Each risk management program is designed around individual client needs to help reduce claims costs and workers’ compensation premiums.”

Broadspire’s workers’ compensation claims solution includes injury management services, legal cost containment, subrogation and a full suite of analytics. This is combined with medical management and multi-disciplinary expertise that it says can help ensure a swift and healthy return to work for employees.