137 C Intentional Misdiagnoses Lucas v Awaad 138 was a consolidated action in

137 c intentional misdiagnoses lucas v awaad 138 was

This preview shows page 17 - 20 out of 32 pages.

137C. Intentional MisdiagnosesLucas v. Awaad138was a consolidated action in which parents ofminor children brought multiple actions against a pediatric neurologist,his professional corporation, a billing company, and a hospital allegingthatthedoctorintentionallymisdiagnosedhispatientswithepilepsy/seizure disorder in an effort to increase his billings. The court ofappeals held that the plaintiffs intentional infliction of emotional distressand fraud claims were really claims sounding in medical malpractice.139132.Id.at 441 (Cavanagh, J., concurring).133. 492 Mich. 1; 821 N.W.2d 432 (2012).134.Id.at 445.135. Id.136. Id.137. Id.138. 299 Mich. App. 345; 830 N.W.2d 141 (2013).139. Id.at 349.
1260THE WAYNE LAW REVIEW[Vol. 59:1243This is because in order to prove that those separate torts existed, theplaintiffs would have to prove the falsity of the diagnosis, which is amedical question.140The court also held that the defendant doctor didnot owe a duty to the patientsparents to disclose his alleged history offraud.141Specifically, the court provided,It is established that physicians do not have a duty to disclosetheir success rates to patients in order to obtain informed consentfor particular medical procedures. While Lucas is not suggestingthat defendants had a duty to disclose Awaad ssuccess rates,Lucas maintains that defendants had a duty to disclose Awaad salleged history of fraud related to his prior seizure disorderdiagnoses. We conclude that this is a distinction without anappreciable difference. . . .142IV. RACKETEERINFLUENCED ANDCORRUPTORGANIZATIONSACT(RICO)143InJackson v. Segwick Claims Management Services,144formeremployees of Coca-Cola Enterprises (Coca-Cola) filed a class actionlawsuit against Coca-Cola and its third party administrator alleging thatthey engaged in a fraudulent scheme involving the mail to avoid payingvalid worker s compensation benefits. Clifton Jackson, one of theplaintiffs, injured his back while at work in September 2007.145Jacksonwas treated by a back specialist who determined that the work-relatedinjury rendered him disabled.146In 2009, Segwick, Coca-Cola s thirdpartyadministratorforworker scompensationclaims,requestedasecond opinion by an expert paid for by the defendants.147On twoseparate occasions, this doctor also determined that Jackson was disabledfrom a work-related injury.148After obtaining three reports from twodifferent doctors confirming Jackson s disability, Segwick sent him tosee another doctor.149Plaintiffs allege that this third doctor was hired by140.Id.141.Id.at 365-66.142.Id.at 153 (citation omitted) (citing Wlosinski v. Cohn, 269 Mich. App. 303, 306-11; 713 N.W.2d 16 (2005)).143. 18 U.S.C.A.§§1961(1)(B), 1962(c), 1964(c) (West 2014).144. 699 F.3d 466 (6th Cir. 2012),vacated, 731 F.3d 556 (6th Cir. 2013).145.Id. at 473.146.Id.147.Id.148.Id.149.Id.
2014]TORT LAW1261Segwick to provide false medical reports so that Coca-Cola employeeswouldbedeprivedof their statutory benefits under the MichiganWorker s Disability Compensation Act (WDCA).

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture