half of physicians. In Aldridge v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission, both organizations gave Milissa Aldridge, MD, a financial grant to offset her legal expenses.
The case examined whether the
Texas Health and Human Services Com- mission (HHSC) wrongfully excluded Dr. Aldridge from the Medicaid pro- gram, causing her to lose her job with a San Antonio radiology practice. Dr. Al- dridge’s San Antonio pediatric radiology practice halted suddenly in 2009 when she learned she was a target of the Of- fice of Inspector General (OIG). (See “Dr. Aldridge’s Nightmare,” July 2009 Texas Medicine, pages 29–32.)
OIG told her an administrative sanc- tion she’d received 15 years earlier when she gave up her career as a pharmacist to become a physician had made her ineligible to participate in Medicaid all those years. The agency demanded that she repay more than $800,000 in Medic- aid claims. The sanction stemmed from inadvertently reporting that she met pharmacy continuing education require- ments in renewing her pharmacy license while she was in medical school. Dr. Al- dridge ultimately settled the case with the state pharmacy board and allowed her pharmacy license to become inactive. She says she never was notified she’d been excluded from Medicaid. Kicked out of Medicaid and unable to find work in the United States, Dr. Aldridge spent 2010 as a radiologist in New Zealand under a government contract. Dr. Aldridge settled her case against HHSC and is awaiting a new Tex- as provider identifier number while look- ing for a new job in Texas. She says TMA and the AMA Litigation Center gave her much-needed support when her spirit was crushed. “It was comforting to know I wasn’t alone in this process. Someone actually had a clue what was going on and was willing to help me. I had someone on my side who understood what I was going through.”
Besides providing legal assistance on behalf of individual physicians, the AMA Litigation Center has intervened to help TMA in its scope-of-practice cases. Texas Medical Association v. Texas
October 2011 TEXAS MEDICINE 49
Board of Chiropractic Examiners dealt with the Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners’ attempt to expand chiro- practors’ scope of practice to include needle electromyography (EMG) tests, manipulation under anesthesia (MUA), and diagnosis. The Litigation Center has contributed to TMA’s legal expenses in the case.
TMA sued the chiropractic board in 2006 to block its rules on MUA, EMG, and diagnosis because, the association said, they constitute the clinical and le- gal practice of medicine. In 2010, Austin State District Judge Stephen Yelenosky declared the rules invalid. The Chiro- practic Board and the Texas Chiroprac- tic Association appealed. The Court of Appeals set oral arguments in the case for Sept. 14. TMA maintains that only the Texas
Legislature may expand chiropractors’ scope of practice.
The AMA Litigation Center contrib-
uted to the Texas Orthopaedic Associa- tion’s (TOA’s) legal expenses in Texas Or- thopaedic Association v. Texas State Board of Podiatric Medicine. The center also filed amicus curiae briefs, along with the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and the Texas chapters of sev- eral specialty medical societies, to sup- port TOA and TMA in the Texas Court of Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court. In 2010, TMA and TOA prevailed in
an eight-year legal battle stemming from podiatrists’ definition of the foot. (See
“Foot Fight,” October 2010 Texas Medi- cine, pages 20–24.)
The case examined whether the Texas State Board of Podiatric Medical Exam- iners could define the foot as including the ankle and various soft tissue. The case concluded when the Texas
Supreme Court decided not to review a lower court ruling that rejected the po- diatry board’s rule allowing podiatrists to treat ankle injuries and conditions.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68