Feds probe Medical College, Froedtert
Lawsuit claims officials didn’t act after concerns raised about doctor
Federal prosecutors have begun investigating the Medical College of Wisconsin and Froedtert Hospital, where a former surgeon’s lawsuit claims administrators didn’t act against a doctor who raised ethical concerns among his peers, then retaliated against the surgeon for pressing the issue.
Robert Love’s lawsuit contends he was forced out and that colleagues defamed him as he sought a new job, all after he pointed out examples of “substandard care” and potential violations of health care regulations.
The allegations are part of a wideranging whistleblower action filed in federal court by Love in 2015. The case was kept under seal until April 2016 and didn’t draw much attention until a Journal Sentinel report about it in February.
Discovery and pleadings in the case have picked up dramatically in recent months.
On Monday, Love’s attorneys filed an emergency motion saying they had been told by an assistant U.S. attorney in Milwaukee to expect a subpoena for documents in the case.
The pleadings don’t indicate the nature or scope of prosecutors’ interest in the litigation, in which Love also suggests another Medical College surgeon engaged in Medicare fraud and that administrators were slow to act on ethical complaints because the surgeon was bringing in lots of revenue.
The government’s interest is likely civil, not criminal. Federal law enforcement agents typically do not reveal their targets so casually in a criminal matter.
U.S. Attorney Matthew Krueger declined Wednesday to discuss why his office would be seeking hospital records.
Sometimes, government lawyers take over civil fraud cases when Medicare or Medicaid is a victim, or start parallel cases based on information uncovered by private parties’ suits.
The plaintiff’s motion asks U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman to modify his order strictly limiting who can see sensitive hospital records that are part of the discovery in the case.
Love’s attorneys say they don’t want to be accused by the Medical College and Froedtert of violating Adelman’s protective order, nor do they want to be seen as interfering with a federal investigation if they do not respond to the anticipated subpoena.
As of Wednesday, no order from Adelman had been filed addressing the concern. Adelman could be waiting for any response from defense lawyers, who have a week to reply to the emergency motion.
Those attorneys did not immediately respond to emails asking how they might reply to the motions.
Michael Malone, an attorney for the Medical College, said lawyers were preparing a response to Love’s motions, but they do not object to Love’s
lawyer complying with any valid government subpoenas.
Malone said Love’s attorneys told him Wednesday they had not yet received a subpoena.
At about the same time prosecutors said they’d be seeking documents, the Medical College launched a new effort to reclaim some of the same records.
Last week, Love’s attorneys say in another emergency motion that a Michigan law firm representing the Medical College — but not as part of the Love lawsuit — sent them and Love’s former attorney letters accusing him of violating federal health care privacy laws and demanding “immediate return” of “protected health information” by the close of business April 30.
The letter characterizes Love’s use of the information as “a security incident,” which the Medical College is obligated to investigate and minimize.
In their motion to allow disclosure to the U.S. attorney’s office, Love’s lawyers say the demand letter ignores the fact that the law specifically allows a whistleblower to disclose protected information to his attorneys.
They also suggest that the Medical College is trying to get back potentially incriminating documents that it turned over to Love in the lawsuit discovery process.
“Now that MCW realized what those documents show, it is desperate to get them back,” Love’s motion reads.
“MCW’s sudden concern for patients’ privacy rights is a front,” and the college is only demanding the immediate return of documents “because it does not want them in the hands of government investigators,” the plaintiff motion reads.
The separate legal action against Love threatened by the Michigan law firm would serve mostly to halt Love’s current case against the Medical College, including previously scheduled depositions of current and former MCW employees.
Adelman has earlier denied MCW’s requests to limit Love’s discovery demands that include protected information, saying privacy concerns are addressed by the protective order.