November 1992
Oregon D.C.'s suit OK'd by court
by Daniel J. Gatti, Esq.
The Oregon Court of
Appeals has ruled that an Oregon chiropractor may sue the State Accident
Insurance Fund (SAIF) and Executive Director, Stan Long, for the wrongful
interference with the physician/patient relationship in a decision handed
down on September 16, 1992. The Oregon Court of Appeals has ruled that the
chiropractor's case may proceed to trial.
On March 8, 1990, Larry
Glubka, D.C. of Eugene, Oregon, was one of nine chiropractic physicians in
Oregon to be sued by SAIF for "racketeering and fraud."
The racketeering and
fraud charges filed by SAIF alleged that Dr. Glubka charged SAIF higher fees
than what he charged to the general public. Glubka countered that he could
"give away" services to indigents and others without providing give away to
SAIF. Therefore, Glubka counter sued SAIF alleging that SAIF's lawsuit was a
wrongful lawsuit and was an intentional interference with the contractual
rights between him and his patients.
Undercover
investigation
Glubka alleged that in
1989, SAIF initiated "Operation Clean Sweep," an investigation that involved
the use of undercover agents who posed as injured workers. The undercover
agents were set up with false identities and mock employers with assumed
business names of "D & S Demolition" and "AMF Janitorial."
The undercover agents
presented themselves to various chiropractic physicians, including Glubka,
and complained of injuries from which they were not suffering.
Glubka further alleged
that the SAIF employees falsified medical and insurance records concerning
the extent and cause of the feigned or pretended injuries. On the basis of
the fraudulent statements made by the SAIF undercover agents and the records
presented by those agents. Glubka provided care and treatment.
In Glubka's counter
suit for intentional interference with contractual relations, Glubka alleged
that SAIF was aware of the economic and contractual relationships between
himself and his patients. Despite this, SAIF and its Executive Director Stan
Long intended to interfere with those relationships by engaging in "improper
conduct" with "improper motives." The Oregon Court of Appeals held the
lawsuit alleged all of the essential elements necessary to justify relief
for Glubka.
Actions called
improper
Specifically, the
Oregon Court of Appeals acknowledged that, if proven, SAIF's improper
conduct could include implementing "Operation Clean Sweep," filing a lawsuit
for racketeering and fraud, knowing that such labels were wrongful and
intending to prejudice Glubka with irreparable harm; and coordination a
"media event" in which SAIF and its executive director defamed Glubka by
announcing SAIF's unfounded lawsuit against Glubka so that Glubka and other
chiropractic physicians would be held up to public contempt and ridicule.
The Oregon Court of
Appeals further acknowledged that, if proven, the improper motives allegedly
were to discredit chiropractors; enhance the reputation and image of the
attorney general; convince a special session of the Oregon legislature to
pass workers' compensation reform legislation; and protect SAIF from being
liquidated by the legislature in any upcoming session.
Since the original
suits were filed, Glubka's counter case against SAIF was dismissed by the
lower court and Glubka appealed that dismissal to the Oregon Court of
Appeals. In the meantime, SAIF's case against Glubka for "racketeering and
fraud" went to trial in Marion County Circuit Court in July of 1992.
In that case, SAIF was
suing Glubka for damages and penalties in excess of $750,000 for the alleged
racketeering and fraud and claimed more than $20,000 for reimbursement of
alleged overpayments made by SAIF to Glubka from 1989 to 1992. After the
evidence was presented, Marion County Circuit Court Judge Robert McConville
dismissed the racketeering and fraud charges against Glubka and the Marion
County jury awarded $134.80 for
alleged overpayments made by SAIF to Glubka.
No evidence of fraud
The judge ruled that
SAIF had failed to present any evidence from which a reasonable jury could
conclude that Glubka had engaged in any business practice which could
reasonable be construed as racketeering and fraud. SAIF has not appealed
that judgment order.
As a result of the
Oregon Court of Appeals' decision, Glubka can now proceed with his counter
suit against SAIF. Obtaining and reviewing all of SAIF's documents regarding
Operation Clean Sweep could take approximately one year. After that task is
completed, it is expected that the Glubka v. SAIF, et al., case will proceed
to trial.