Nurse awarded $3 million after Blowing the Whistle on Medical Center's Unjust Policies

In a world where health is the pinnacle of our well-being we place our lives in the hands of highly educated doctors and nurses in hopes that they have the best in mind for us as patients. We as humans spend a lot of time receiving check-ups, vaccinations, and other miscellaneous treatment from medical professionals so that we may maintain a clean bill of health.

Patients who put their trust in Legacy Good Samaritan Medical Center, believed they were receiving the same proper treatment that everyone else was receiving. This medical center did live up to, nor operate at the level of standards that is expected of such an institution.

Often times hospitals confuse themselves as a business, where the only goal is to see as many patients as possible. It is in this confusion that Medical Centers lose sight of the actual reason for their existence, which is to serve the rights of the people that are seeking their service. When these blurred lines occur patients are often overlooked and people begin to slip through the cracks of the health care system.

A nurse by the name of Linda Boly began to notice this change of outlook by her management as they urged her to only spend a certain amount of time with each patient. Ms. Boly was written up three times because she failed to follow Legacy Good Samaritan’s patient quota policy.

Ms. Boly believed it was her duty to her patients to provide the upmost quality of care possible. This expected level of care put Linda Boly in a tough position, as she had to choose between the people signing her paycheck or the people putting their lives in her hands. Ms. Boly withstood the pressure from her employers and chose the latter of the two.

Unfortunately, Ms. Boly an employee at Legacy Good Samaritan for 34 years paid the price for her decision as she was terminated for complaining about the Medical Center’s care policies.

Linda Boly did the best to fight for the rights of her patients, but now she was left to fight a battle of her own against the ones responsible for her termination. Michael Seidl represented Ms. Boly throughout the case, and together their collective efforts to right the wrongs done by Legacy Good Samaritan did not go unnoticed.

The jury-trial for this case lasted just over two weeks. Rightfully, Linda Boly was awarded just over $3 million by a jury verdict.

Linda Boly was the only one to stand up for what she believed was right. She sought to perform her duties as a nurse to best of her abilities and because of this she was terminated, but she did not stop fighting.

Have you been fired for standing up against your employer for what you believed was right and just? Do you wish to seek compensation because you blew the whistle? Don’t be intimidated by your employer, you can stand up to them and make a difference. Please click here if you believed you were wronged for doing the right thing.

 Do you have a few questions for an attorney click here to have them answered immediately!

Contact the Law Offices of Terry K. Davis if you find yourself in a similar situation. 

Call: (800) 783-9360

Roscoe's Employee Awarded $1.6 after being Fired for Reporting Discrimination in the Workplace

Roscoe’s House of Chicken and Waffles is a restaurant known for its famous home-style cooking of chicken and waffles. Roscoe's has maintained a respectable reputation since it was founded by Herb Hudson from Harlem, in 1975.

This reputation was put to question when a Southern California jury awarded a former African American employee, by the name of Daniel Beasley, about $1.6 million in punitive damages on the basis of discrimination in the workplace.

This may come as surprise to many as the owner of Roscoe’s House of Chicken and Waffles is same the ethnicity as employee Daniel Beasley. Mr. Beasley stated that he expressed his complaints to the human resources department, as well as to the company’s owner, yet nothing was done to resolve the matter.

The ethnicity of the management of this particular Roscoe’s branch was Hispanic. Mr. Beasley reported he received racial discrimination in the workplace, through harassment and taking a backseat to other employees’ schedules.

Mr. Beasley believed he was doing the right thing by bringing these injustices to his employer, but instead he was fired. The termination of Daniel Beasley’s employment left him homeless and helpless because he tried to make right of his situation.

Mr. Beasley was represented by plaintiff attorney Scott Cummings who spearheaded this wrongful termination case and did not stop until he saw results. Daniel Beasley and Scott Cummings made big headway in terms of standing up to discrimination in the face of a big restaurant chain like Roscoe’s. The amount of money awarded by the jury should be a reminder to those that think that racism or discrimination has any place in this world.

Have you had a similar situation to that of Mr. Beasley? Did you try to report discrimination taking place in your workplace that was happening to yourself or an employee? Were you fired because you tried to take a stand? If you have answered yes to any of these questions please click here immediately. 

Whistleblower Pharmacist Awarded $1.1M After Being Fired by Walgreens for Reporting Medicare Fraud

It's not the first time Walgreens has been sued for fraudulent Medicaid billing for prescription charges. In 1999, a $9.9 Million dollar settlement occurred in Minnesota for the same billing structure that Walgreens has just been in court for in 2010 right here in California. 

A $1.1 million dollar punitive damage award was reinstated against Walgreens for firing pharmacist Sami Mitri, who reported the Medicare billing fraud practices occurring in 12 out of 30 stores investigated, according to court documents.

Mitri was a Walgreens Pharmacist for over 10 years.  After making several complaints regarding the Medicare fraud to Walgreens managers, the  Department of Health and Human Services and the California Department of Healthcare, he was fired in January, 2010, for "violating" a final written notice that was issued several months prior to his termination.

Mitri aggressively took action for his wrongful termination as a whistleblower, and in 2011, according to the court verdict, a jury awarded him $88,000 in economic damages and $1.1 million in punitive damages.

Pre-Reasoning for Termination

In 2008, 1 year prior to his initial complaint, Walgreens attempted to reduce expenses by limiting overtime hours for employees.  In that time frame, according to court documents, the Walgreens district manager had “spoken to Mitri on several occasions” about keeping to his scheduled shifts.

May 2009, Mitri was issued a final written warning for working over his scheduled shifts because he was called into a mandatory staff teleconference, while on vacation. According to court documents, the final warning did not follow the discipline policy Walgreens has, which stated that employees are first issued a verbal warning, then a written warning, and next a final written warning, suspension or discharge..

Disciplinary action in awake of reporting fraud

Mitri found instances of Walgreens pharmacy employees billing Medicare for 30 days’ worth of patients prescriptions, but only providing 10 days’ worth of the prescription to patients, along with an IOU receipt for the remainder, essentially allowing the pharmacy to bill Medicare for the cost of a 30-day supply each time they only provided a 10-day supply in the summer of 2009.  Walgreens managers yielded that they were aware of these grievances previous to issuing a final written warning, as showed by court reports.

Mitri continued to find IOU receipts for Medicare patients and raised his concerns a second time only months after his initial complaint.  A loss prevention manager detained the IOU receipts Mitri found and told him that it was not his "job to report an example of fraudulent billing...to the government." Mitris attorney, Andrew Jones, stated to The Fresno Bee, that Mitri was standing "up for taxpayers."

Not even 7 days from the time of producing additional IOU labels, Walgreens managers conducted a single search of Mitri’s shift records and fired him on January 8, 2010, for violating the written warning by working 10 minutes before or after his scheduled shift. The 20 occasions found of Mitri’s working over his shift totaled 248 minutes, which totaled $450 of overtime pay.

Discrimination, speak up and you will be heard.

DISCRIMINATION

Looking for a Discrimination Lawyer in California? 

Call California Employment Lawyers!

(800) 783-9360

To discriminate against an individual is to treat somebody in a different way because of their age, race, sexual orientation, religion, disabilities or skin color. Government law precludes segregation by employers against anyone who has fallen victim to discrimination in those fields. A few states have passed laws restricting segregation on the premise of sexual introduction, weight and different qualities. This area covers the different sorts of discrimination banned by government law; the offices that uphold every law and how to document a case; top to bottom data about particular situations including discrimination.

Racial Discrimination at the Workplace
Racial or ethnic discrimination in the work workplace can back its monstrous head in an assortment of structures, some of which can be clear or self-evident. Anyway, racial discrimination can regularly be unobtrusive and more difficult to catch, for example, an executive's disappointment to contract or advance a single person because of their race. Whichever structure it takes, then again, racial discrimination in the work environment is strictly restricted by various government and state laws.

Distinguishing Workplace Racial Discrimination

One of the more troublesome parts of racial discrimination at work, is that it can regularly occur totally undetected. When its all said and done, unless a boss particularly concedes overall, who can say beyond any doubt why they settled on a specific choice to contract a particular individual or gave an alternate an advancement? That said, there are a few cases where a business may show some negative purposes.

For instance, in the matter of questioning, employers regularly ought not to make inquiries around a prospective representative's race, ethnic background, age, gender, sexual orientation, or disability. In the event that a business does this, and chooses not to contract this worker, it may serve as confirmation that a form of discrimination has a part in the decision of employment. Such circumstances are uncommon, in any case, and it ought to additionally be noted that employers might admissibly get some information about race, age, gender, orientation, disability or  in the setting of structures and governmental policy regarding minorities in society programs, so long as they have influence in the choice making reasoning.

All the more frequently, discrimination is much more unobtrusive, and an individual will have no assurance with reference to why they weren't employed. Asking the business is a choice, yet managements could offer any reasonable reason that is not focused around discrimination. Be that as it may, it might be conceivable to utilize procuring patterns as confirmation of the areas of discrimination. On the other hand, if a lesser-qualified individual is enlisted or elevated to a position than a representative or candidate of an alternate race, age, orientation, disability or gender this could likewise be utilized as confirmation of discrimination.

Ultimately, businesses may or may not by any means understand it! A few employer organization have practices, tests, or work environment strategies that set aside and out or have a more noteworthy impact on specific races, ages, genders, orientations and disabilities. If not accomplished for a honest to goodness business reason or appropriately approved, such practices could be viewed as discriminatory and a case may be raised.

Government Anti-Discrimination Laws

The essential government laws that address racial discrimination in the work environment fall under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In extensive part, the area frequently alluded to just as "Title VII" disallows employers from:

Declining to contract a representative focused around their race;

Terminating or teaching a representative in light of their race;

Paying a worker less or giving them less profits by virtue of their race;

Neglecting to give profits, advancements, or opportunities, to a worker due to their race; and

Dishonorably characterizing or isolating employees or candidates by race.

Similarly, work orders can't settle on choices on referrals or work assignments focused around an employees race. Candidates and Employees can't reject enrollment or oust people in view of their race.

State Anti-Discrimination Laws 


States don't remain on the sidelines concerning discrimination in a working environment. State enactment covering working environment discrimination is genuinely broad, and for the most part mirrors government law in precluding discrimination focused around race. The essential contrasts are in the strategies utilized and organizations reached to make a case.

At both the government and state level, due dates are a key thought. There are frequently strict courses of events for reporting and documenting cases of racial discrimination, so in the event that you feel you have been victimized, don't hesitate to contact a Discrimination Lawyer who may be able to get you the justice you may be entitled to.

 




  

Are California paycheck wage reductions legal or illegal?

Need Legal Advice? Call: 800.783.9360

Something you may have heard is that as a worker, your supervisor has the right to deduct from your wages. What you didn't know is that there are just few reasons why they can legitimately make a reasoning of wages from your paycheck. 

When can my supervisor deduct from my paycheck compensation? 

• When obliged to do so by state or government law 
• When induction is expressly endorsed in making by the employee to cover insurance premiums, benefit plan responsibilities or distinctive thinking not signifying a discount on the laborer's wages. 
• When a deduction to cover prosperity, welfare, or annuity duties is unequivocally sanction by a payment aggregate dealing understanding.