birdog1960 Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 forest pharmaceuticals. no one will be surprised by my take on this. i'm wondering if i will be surprised by others opinions, however. thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 forest pharmaceuticals. no one will be surprised by my take on this. i'm wondering if i will be surprised by others opinions, however. thoughts? Now, on top of fines paid by a company, senior executives can face criminal charges even if they weren't involved in the scheme but could have stopped it had they known. Did the concept of mens rea just up and disappear over the weekend? That's complete bull ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 (edited) Did the concept of mens rea just up and disappear over the weekend? That's complete bull ****. Just guessing here, but that could just be a poorly phrased way of saying "If it turns out some other execs (not actively participating) knew and failed to stop it, they could face charges too...". At least that's my hope. edit; Although the article seems to imply the Feds can crack down on those who didn't know, that seems to not actually be cited as fact, just speculation. edit 2; You're right. That's Whacked. And apparently I can't read. Edited May 31, 2011 by yall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 forest pharmaceuticals. no one will be surprised by my take on this. i'm wondering if i will be surprised by others opinions, however. thoughts? Would be great if it was real, but it's probably just extortion and will go away when they cross the right palms with silver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Just guessing here, but that could just be a poorly phrased way of saying "If it turns out some other execs (not actively participating) knew and failed to stop it, they could face charges too...". At least that's my hope. edit; Although the article seems to imply the Feds can crack down on those who didn't know, that seems to not actually be cited as fact, just speculation. The article clearly states "didn't know, but could have stopped it had they". Of course, the article could be nonsense. But given that it's a regulatory decision, not a legislative one...they can do whatever they want, basically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 31, 2011 Author Share Posted May 31, 2011 "don't know but could have stopped it" is grounds for malpractice in medicine. ever heard of failure to diagnose. if a patient has a positive mammogram and somehow i miss seeing the report and fail to act, i'm potentially liable. why shouldn't the guys wearing armani suits and liberty of london ties be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 "don't know but could have stopped it" is grounds for malpractice in medicine. ever heard of failure to diagnose. if a patient has a positive mammogram and somehow i miss seeing the report and fail to act, i'm potentially liable. why shouldn't the guys wearing armani suits and liberty of london ties be? Yep. I have no problem with this. Especially since repeat offenders otherwise wouldn't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 "don't know but could have stopped it" is grounds for malpractice in medicine. ever heard of failure to diagnose. if a patient has a positive mammogram and somehow i miss seeing the report and fail to act, i'm potentially liable. why shouldn't the guys wearing armani suits and liberty of london ties be? Except it's "fraud" and not "malpractice" they're targeting. And it's criminal charges against people for other people's fraud they're talking about pursuing. So a better analogy would be if you were charged with - let's say criminally negligent homocide - because another doctor in your practice misread a mammogram and the patient died, when you could have reasonably been expected to catch the positive mammogram if you had known about it. You're okay with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 31, 2011 Author Share Posted May 31, 2011 (edited) Except it's "fraud" and not "malpractice" they're targeting. And it's criminal charges against people for other people's fraud they're talking about pursuing. So a better analogy would be if you were charged with - let's say criminally negligent homocide - because another doctor in your practice misread a mammogram and the patient died, when you could have reasonably been expected to catch the positive mammogram if you had known about it. You're okay with that? you can lose your ability to practice if you're found negligent repeatedly. you can be charged with a felony for malpractice... and i think appropriately so. but here's a better analogy. lets say i don't want to read through medical equipment requests from vendors (stuff like lift chairs, canes, erectile pumps, ostomy supplies etc) and i task it to a clerk and he/she gets a kickback for approving everything or it's just easier to approve everything...and it gets caught. should i be liable? should i be threatened with losing the ability to see medicare pt's? i think the answer is "yes" (and i'm pretty sure it is, in fact, legally "yes"). it's my responsibility just as it's the exec's to make sure that his corporate culture disallows illegal practices and fraud. btw, i don't task this to clerks or anybody else. Edited May 31, 2011 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 you can lose your ability to practice if you're found negligent repeatedly. you can be charged with a felony for malpractice... and i think appropriately so. Still not the same, since it's still personal penalties for your personal actions. but here's a better analogy. lets say i don't want to read through medical equipment requests from vendors (stuff like lift chairs, canes, erectile pumps, ostomy supplies etc) and i task it to a clerk and he/she gets a kickback for approving everything or it's just easier to approve everything...and it gets caught. should i be liable? should i be threatened with losing the ability to see medicare pt's? i think the answer is "yes" (and i'm pretty sure it is, in fact, legally "yes"). it's my responsibility just as it's the exec's to make sure that his corporate culture disallows illegal practices and fraud. btw, i don't task this to clerks or anybody else. I agree...because you, as the director of your practice, tasked someone as an agent of your practice to do something, for which they accepted kickbacks, for which the practice should rightly be penalized. But should you personally face criminal charges for your employee accepting kickbacks? That's the specific issue I took issue with in the article. That's less regulation, and more a RICO charge. Which is nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 That's the specific issue I took issue with in the article. That's less regulation, and more a RICO charge. Which is nuts. Don't look at it as "nuts." Look at is as an opportunity to practice being afraid. Making people fearful of criminal charges simply because they may unknowingly work at a place that is doing something criminal is a good exercise. It motivates employees while providing advanced team-building skills. Think Tony Robbins. In an Al Capone sort of way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Don't look at it as "nuts." Look at is as an opportunity to practice being afraid. Making people fearful of criminal charges simply because they may unknowingly work at a place that is doing something criminal is a good exercise. It motivates employees while providing advanced team-building skills. Think Tony Robbins. In an Al Capone sort of way. Not employees. Managers. Which in a way isn't unacceptable - leaders being responsible for the actions of those they lead, even the malfeasance, and even those they're ignorant of is a "principle" of leadership (to speak loosely). Usually, though, not to the level of criminal prosecution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts