Most recently, Ms. Barta has published Greed on Trial, a book exposing the truth behind today's medical landscape.
Greed on Trial brings Theresa Barta’s work to life, following three actual cases from her files. In each case sits a doctor who was wrongfully terminated after rebelling against insurance policies in order to provide appropriate medical care to a patient.
And in each story, we watch Ms. Barta assemble her evidence, plan a strategy, and take the case to trial.
Through her page-turning narrative, Barta pulls back the curtain on the complex world of doctors who struggle to care for their patients while being told to comply with company regulations.
ABOUT BARTA LAW
Barta Law specializes in the representation of physicians and other health care providers in matters arising out of employment, contractual or other relationships with Medical Groups, Hospitals, HMOs, and Insurance Companies.
The firm's principal, Theresa J. Barta, has a particular expertise in representing physicians in actions under
California's anti-retaliation statute, and is an aggressive litigator with twenty years of experience.
Generally speaking, the firm handles matters that arise out of physician’s employment, contractual,
or other business relationships with medical groups, hospitals, HMOs or insurance companies.
Representing both businesses and individuals alike, the firm handles matters
throughout California and litigates in both state and federal courts.
Admitted: 1990, California; United States Supreme Court, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits; U.S. District Court, Northern, Eastern, Southern and Central Districts of California
Law School: Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, J.D.
Member: State Bar of California; Consumer Attorneys of California; Association of Trial Lawyers of America; Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles County; Orange County Trial Lawyers Association; Orange County Women Trial Lawyers Association.
Biography: Order of the Coif. Morrison & Foerster, Irvine, California; Shernoff, Bidart & Darras, Claremont, California.
Top Gun Trial Lawyer of the Year (2013)
Theresa J. Barta founded Barta Law in 1998, and she has since focused her practice on the representation of Physicians in a variety of matters unique to physicians and their rights. Ms. Barta's dedication, expertise and relentless advocacy have led to successful multi-million dollar verdicts and settlements for her clients. Her litigation record is distinguished by impressive victories including, a $4.5 million jury verdict against Anthem Blue Cross, a unanimous $3.4 million verdict in federal court in a case involving fraud, a $1.6 million verdict and multiple findings that her physician client was entitled to punitive damages in one of the first cases tried in California under the anti-retaliation statute, an award of $1.4 million in attorneys fees, and multitude of cases resulting in multi-million dollar settlements.
Ms. Barta began her career with the law firm of Morrison & Foerster in Orange County, California, where she specialized in general business litigation. She then went to work for the preeminent law firm of Shernoff, Bidart & Darras in Claremont, California where she handled a variety of cases in the firm's health insurance practice; in particular, she successfully prosecuted bad faith disputes against
health insurers and HMOs.
Ms. Barta was recently named "Top Gun: Trial Lawyer of the Year"
in business litigation for 2013.
Ms. Barta is admitted to practice in all the state and federal courts in California; and she is also admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for each of the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits. She obtained her Juris Doctorate degree from Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, California, where she graduated Cum Laude and as a member of the Order of the Coif, and was ranked in the top 5% of her class. Ms. Barta was also a member of the St. Thomas More Law Honor Society and received numerous
American Jurisprudence Awards.
Medical Staff Credentialing
Partnership or Other Contractual Disputes
Covenants not to Compete
Interference with Business Interests
Unfair Business Practices
Infringement on the Right
to Practice Medicine
Patient - Physician Relationships
Health Care Contracts
Health Care Fraud
Managed Care Contracts
Medical Staff Credentialing
Unfair Insurance Practices
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 after it found the exclusion violated the physician's legal right to "fair procedure."
A phychiatrist 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 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 service that were "not medically necessary." The case involved application of Bus.& Prof. Code Section 2956, which specifically protects physicians from retaliation when they advocate for better patient care.
Representation of a physician who was sued in a case involving a partnership dispute. Specifically, the case involved claims for breach of fiduciary duty, matters relating to business loans and distribution of profits, and fraud.
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 owed 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.
Theresa Barta's dedication, expertise and relentless advocacy have
resulted in many successful and multi-million dollar verdicts and
settlements for her clients. The following are a few of the
verdicts and settlements she has achieved for her clients:
Doe v. Doe Insur. Co.: $10 Million Settlement
A civil case in state court involved claims for on-going medical care, as well as damages, for twins that suffered from life-threatening medical condition. The case was settled prior to trial with an agreement by the insurance company to provide the necessary medical care and pay an additional sum as damages to the plaintiffs.
Nordella, M.D. v. Anthem Blue Cross: $4.5 Million
Jury Verdict and Confidential Settlement
A jury trial for violation of "fair procedure" (that involved claims that the physician was wrongfully excluded from Blue Cross' PPO Network) resulted in a $4.5 million verdict and a finding that the doctor was entitled to punitive damages. A confidential settlement was reached prior to the punitive damages phase of the trial.
Doe v. Doe Health Ins.: $5 Million Settlement
A federal civil case that involved claims for payment of necessary medical care for a child with multiple life-threatening illnesses and medical conditions resulted in a settlement prior to trial.
Fontana v. Spartech: $3.4 Million Jury Verdict
Unanimous jury verdict in a case involving fraud and breach of contract. The case was tried in federal court and the verdict was upheld on appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Doe, M.D. v. Doe Med. Group: $2.5 Million Settlement
A jury trial for retaliatory termination and intentional interference with prospective business resulted in a $1.6 million jury verdict as well as multiple findings that the doctor was entitled to punitive damages. The case was settled prior to completion of the punitive damages phase for $2.5 million.
Doe Co. v. Does: $2 Million Settlement
In a federal case, claims were brought against multiple corporate insiders (including individuals and businesses) for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and conversion. The case resulted in multiple settlements, including one for $2 million.
Fontana Prod. v. Spartech: $1.4 Million Award of Attorneys Fees
After a successful jury verdict of over $3.4 million, the federal court awarded an additional $1.4 million in attorneys fees. The attorneys fees award was upheld on appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Doe, M.D. v. Does: $1 Million Settlement
Case involved claims of unfair competition, defamation and business interference between competing medical practices. Case was settled prior to trial.
*Note: The results in the cases portrayed on this website were dependent on the facts of the individual case, and the results in any case will differ because
they are based on different facts or law.