Former CEO’s Retaliation Claim Moves Forward
The United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied a hospital’s summary judgment motion in a case in which its former CEO sued the hospital for retaliation under the False Claims Act, finding it was plausible that a jury could conclude he was terminated for reporting potential Stark law violations. Although the hospital identified several non-retaliatory reasons for the termination, such as performance issues, workplace conflicts, and alleged breaches of confidentiality, the court held that these explanations could be viewed as pretextual. Since material factual disputes remained regarding the hospital’s motivation, the court denied summary judgment and allowed the retaliation claim to proceed to trial. Kirk v. Norton Cty. Hosp.
Hospital Under No Obligation to Disclose “Visitation Fee” Prior to ED Treatment
The Court of Appeals of Washington affirmed a lower court’s summary judgment ruling for a hospital in a case where a patient sued the hospital for the lack of disclosure of a “visitation fee” which was billed to him for overhead and operational costs during an ED visit. The appeals court examined whether a hospital had a legal duty to disclose the fee to patients before providing treatment. It found that federal and state regulations carefully balance price transparency with the need to avoid deterring patients from seeking emergency care, and that hospitals are required to publicly maintain uniform price lists for services but are not required to discuss specific emergency department charges with patients before treatment. Bradford v. Kadlec Reg’l Med. Ctr.