No Dismissal of Indictment for Physician Charged with Falsifying Organ Donor Criteria
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied a transplant surgeon’s motions to dismiss and strike the charges brought against him by the federal government, which alleged that he made false statements in connection with a federal health care benefit program when he falsely modified the information concerning five of his patients on the donor-matching system, resulting in them being ineligible for organ matches/offers. This eventually resulted in three of the patients ultimately dying, the hospital suspending its organ transplant program for a year, and the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network placing the hospital in “Member Not in Good Standing” status. The surgeon argued that his adjustment of his patient’s donor criteria did not amount to a factual statement about his patients (but rather, merely anticipatorily rejects offers of organs) and, in turn, could not be proved by the government to be a statement that was true or false. The court held that additional discovery would be necessary so that a finding of fact could be made regarding whether the donor criteria were statements capable of being proven (stating that if donor criteria under UNOS standards are required to reflect patients’ medical needs, then falsely setting those criteria might make a statement false). The court also rejected the surgeon’s claims that the charges were not “in connection with” a federal health care benefit program, refusing to adopt the surgeon’s assertion that the law only covers false acts and statements that cause a claim to be paid, rather than those that cause claims not to be paid. United States v. Bynon
Injunction Denied for Physician Facing Employment Termination
The United States District Court for the Western District of New York rejected a physician’s motion seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent her university employer from referring her to the internal review body that considers revocation of tenure and termination of employment. The court concluded that the physician’s allegations did not establish irreparable harm and failed to show how traditional remedies for employment-related actions (e.g., reinstatement of employment, financial damages) were insufficient to protect her interests. Mezu-Ndubuisi v. Univ. of Rochester