Barta Law

Representation of a surgeon who was investigated and disciplined by a hospital during the reappointment process for staff privileges. The court found the hospital’s actions improper, which resulted in a confidential settlement of all the surgeon’s claims. Those claims included violation of fair procedure, violation of the hospital’s bylaws, intentional interference with right to practice medicine, unfair competition and violation of the Unruh Act.
 

A hospitalist protested hospital policies and practices that he believed constituted unsafe conditions and interfered with patient care. The hospital then accused the hospitalist of failing to follow hospital policies and terminated him. The case was favorably settled for the physician without a lawsuit even being filed.
 

Representation of a physician who was discriminated against because he protested a health care system’s violation of the laws prohibiting the corporate practice of medicine.
 

Medical Director of a family/urgent care medical practice was terminated and retaliated against by the medical corporation that owned the practice after the physician advocated for patient care, including conducting health studies into the health impacts of the Porter Ranch gas leak. The termination and retaliation disrupted the physician’s relationships with this patients and violated California laws governing continuity of care.
 

Representation of a physician who was retaliated against (by being labeled a “disruptive physician”) after advocating against a health care system’s policies that interfered with patient care. Those policies included e.g., prohibiting referrals outside of the health system’s network, pressuring physicians to increase “productivity” (see more patients and bill more RVUs), reduced staffing, and utilization of EMR only.
 

Surgeon applied to become a participating provider in a Covered California provider network. The health plan denied the physician’s request, even though he was already in several of the plan’s other provider networks. The health plan claimed that its denial was based on the network being a “narrow network”.
 

An urgent care physician was excluded from Anthem Blue Cross Provider Network. Although Blue Cross claimed it had "no network need" for the physician, a jury awarded the physician millions of dollars in lost income damages after it found the exclusion violated the physician's legal right to "fair procedure." 
 

A psychiatrist was terminated by his employer after he failed to heed memos regarding his prescribing practices. Although the employing medical group claimed that the doctor's employment contract was not renewed for financial reasons, the jury believed that the medical group had wrongfully terminated the doctor and awarded him more than $1.6 million in damages. The jury also found that the punitive damages were appropriate.
 

A doctor with a growing urgent care practice had his Participating Provider Contract terminated by Blue Cross after he challenged the insurer's claims that he was providing services that were "not medically necessary." The case involved application of Bus.& Prof. Code Section 2056, which specifically protects physicians from retaliation when they advocate for patient care.
 

Representation of a physician who was sued in a case involving a partnership dispute.  The case involved claims for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and matters relating to business loans and distribution of profits.
 

Representation of a surgeon who was censured and placed on probation by a hospital, because of a biased peer review of his cases.
 

A physician partner/owner of a medical group wanted to open his own medical practice, but was restricted when the medical group attempted to enforce a non-compete clause in his partnership agreement. Without having to litigate the matter, an exit from the partnership and the opening of the doctor's new office was negotiated.
 

Physician who owned an urgent care practice sued a competing urgent care for unfair competition and intentional interference with business.
 

After being profiled as an "outlier" by an HMO, because his patients were older and in need of multiple preventive and curative medications and treatments, a doctor's contract with an IPA (an Independent Physicians Association) was terminated without cause.
 

A surgeon who chose not to contract with HMOs, but provided emergency care to HMO patients as part of his on-call status at a hospital, was sued after he refused to accept only partial payment from the HMO.

There are many nuances in the law that apply only to physicians, and many times physicians themselves are not aware of the laws that protect them. For example, California Bus. & Prof. Code Section 2056 applies only to physicians and surgeons and protects them from being penalized or retaliated against by their employers, medical groups, HMOs, insurers and others. Physicians are also entitled to due process before actions can be taken against them that could interfere with their medical practice and livelihood. There are also specific laws and procedures that govern peer review of physicians at hospitals as well as almost all other areas of a physician's practice (e.g., patient care, contracting with insurers, privileges at hospitals and medical facilities.)

The representation of physicians is a unique and specialized area, and many times physicians, and even the attorneys who know them, do not have the expertise or knowledge that is necessary to represent their
best interests -- Theresa Barta does.