Issue link: http://viewer.e-digitaledition.com/i/727041
IT IS NOT UNUSUAL for directorship or professional service contracts between physicians and hospitals to include a requirement for physicians to submit documentation of their time and services performed as a condition to their being paid. Inclusion of such a requirement is necessary to comply with the Anti- Kickback Statute a nd Sta rk Laws, which a f fect physicians and hospitals alike. The Court of Appeals for Lucas County recently upheld a physician's contractual obligation to provide timely documentation (and the consequences of fail- ing to do so). The physician involved is a radiologist with a professional services agreement to provide interventional radiolog y coverage at a Toledo area hospital for which he received a salary. In addition, the physician provided limited on-site diagnostic radiology services and "overtime" services for which he was paid flat rates at fair market value. The agreement specified a term of five years, but was terminable by either party at any time, with or without cause, upon 90 days' notice. The hospital terminated the agreement, without cause, and declined to use the physician's services during that 90-day notice period. Instead, it paid him a six-f ig ure lump sum based on his average sa lary and additiona l documented compensation for diagnostic reads and "overtime" during the three months prior to termination. In his complaint, the physician alleged that the hos- pital breached its agreement by failing to compensate him for reading diagnostic CT scans and for overtime. The hospital responded, stating that the physician failed to submit timely documentation requesting payment for CT reads and for "overtime" performed. The agreement expressly required the physician to provide documentation on a monthly basis for CT scan reads and for "overtime" services performed as a condition for his being paid. It further required documentation to be submitted by or before the 10th day of each month, warning "No compensation for services will be made by [the hospital] for time logs submitted more than 60 days after the end of the month in which the services were rendered." For the first seven months after entering into the agreement, the physician submitted monthly time sheets and was paid. Then, he stopped and failed to submit any further documentation to the hospital. He also could not provide documentation as evidence in support of his claim that the hospital breached its agreement by failing to compensate him for CT reads and "overtime" services he performed. The trial court dismissed the physician's breach of contract action, stating: "There is no documentation submitted by [the physician] as to the overtime hours worked or CT scans read that could allow [the hospital] to factor that time into their payment calculation." The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision. This case ser ves as a reminder to physicia ns of the need to remain vigilant by reg ularly submitting proper documentation for the time spent performing duties a nd rendering ser vices. Jo e Felt e s i s a n at t o r n e y w ith B u ck in gh a m , Doolittle & Burroughs in Canton and a member of its Health & Medicine Practice G roup. He is also the managing partner of Buckingham Canton. For more information about the law firm, go to www.bdblaw.com or email Mr. Feltes at JFeltes@BDBLAW.com. ■ Affirms Need for Doctors to Submit Documentation to be Paid BY JOSEPH J. FELTES, JD Ohio Court 2 4 2 4B U S I N E S S S E C T I O N