California Professional Forums - Ricoh Act

HOME PAGE

GO to Injured Worker Forum

Navigation:

login

ALL FORUM'S TOPICS OR LEGAL TOPICS

Thread Title: Ricoh Act
Created On Thursday February 19, 2009 7:12 AM

spreare
Member

Posts: 91
Joined: Mar 2006

Thursday February 19, 2009 7:12 AM

User is offline

View thread in raw text format

Just curious is anyone has read today's WC news article on Repackaged Drug Co. Accuses Berkshire Hathaway of Racketeering?

I have read this article and I am wondering why this drug co. is prevented from filing their individual liens at the board with DOR, lien conferences, etc? thanks,

gaiassoul1@yahoo.com
Senior Member

Posts: 1275
Joined: Feb 2004

Thursday February 19, 2009 10:28 AM

User is offline

View thread in raw text format

why should they have to incur the cost of filing the liens and sending reps to court when there is a fee schedule and unless the repackaged drug was properly UR'd and denied, it should be paid for in all accepted claims?

steelmanlaw
Junior Member

Posts: 14
Joined: Jun 2002

Thursday February 19, 2009 11:03 AM

User is offline

View thread in raw text format

and what of Zenith's petition to consolidate?? You know, the rest of the article?

steve appell
Senior Member

Posts: 1017
Joined: Feb 2005

Thursday February 19, 2009 3:58 PM

User is offline

View thread in raw text format

FYI:
The zenith consolidation claims .........

1: unlawful operation as a pharmacy wholesaler
2: violations of LC 139.3
3: violation of B&P Code 650.1
4: unlawfully dispensing medication
5: unlawful inducements and/or reciprocal referrals
6: providing false documentation

-------------------------
Steve

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

steelmanlaw
Junior Member

Posts: 14
Joined: Jun 2002

Thursday February 26, 2009 3:32 PM

User is offline

View thread in raw text format

actually, it's the RICO Act, 1970. (18 USC 1961, et seq.) if BH committed that same criminal or wrongful civil act (either characterized as "racketeering") on two three different occasions times within a ten year period, then a prima facie case could be made. however, the proof is in the underlying conduct, which if innocent cannot be the basis for a RICO action. a private right of action can be taken in certain circumstances for civil damages, as well as a criminal action brought by the U.S. Atty, but the basic elements (above 2 act X 10 years) remain the same.

However, given RDC's apparently tenuous qualification as "victim" (see Steve Appell's comments), I wouldn't get too excited over the prospect of a RICO winner. it will be a jury trial, and if RDC was not legally entitled to disburse the meds in the first place, then no action will pertain aga. BH that a jury will buy. in fact, the case might not even survive demurrer or motion for summary judgment and the jury will never see it.

steelmanlaw
Junior Member

Posts: 14
Joined: Jun 2002

Thursday February 26, 2009 3:33 PM

User is offline

View thread in raw text format

edit: change "two three" to "two".

ymcgavin@socal.rr.com
Senior Member

Posts: 1351
Joined: Jun 2002

Thursday February 26, 2009 6:36 PM

User is offline

View thread in raw text format

Hi Steelman,

You might want to review the Vacanti decision from the Supremes. I will attach a copy below, as it is great night time reading material.

Interestingly enough, all named defendants in the Vacanti case chose to settle, rather than have their dirty laundry aired in public. Having read the complaint against BH, I see an actionable treble damages tort --- despite the defenses posted by Steve.

Different players, same warriors, in this never-ending battle between insurers and providers.

York McGavin
ymcgavin@socal.rr.com

VACANTI.pdf (75 KB)

FORUMS > LEGAL

FuseTalk 3.0 - Copyright © 1999-2002 e-Zone Media Inc. All rights reserved.

© 2013 WorkCompCentral Workers Compensation Forums