A conflict between Albany, Ga.'s Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital and a physician practice has grown in size and scope that it now is being heard in the U.S. Supreme Court, with arguments centering around whether police investigators have immunity from being sued for giving false testimony before a grand jury, according to an NPR report.
In 2003, a general surgery practice with six physicians wanted to open an outpatient center in Albany. The idea was strongly opposed by Phoebe Putney and its political allies. Charles Rehberg, business manager for the physician practice, investigated the hospital's public IRS form. He learned that, in 2002, the CEO was paid nearly $750,000 per year and that the hospital had a bank account in the Cayman Islands, among other findings.
Mr. Rehberg and a surgeon from the practice, John Bagnato, MD, began to send anonymous faxes to local businesses sharing the findings from their informal investigation. They called the faxes "Phoebe Factoids," according to the report.
The hospital complained to District Attorney Ken Hodges and requested he identify the faxers. The hospital also hired private investigators, who later approached Mr. Rehberg and Dr. Bagnato to tell them they were subjects of an investigation and would soon face a large lawsuit.
The hospital filed a $66 million suit against Phoebe Factoids' faxers. When Mr. Rehberg and Dr. Bagnato did not settle, they were indicted on charges of telephone harassment, aggravated assault and burglary. Evidence leading to that indictment was presented to the grand jury by the DA's chief investigator, James Paulk.
Later, prosecutors would concede that there was no burglary, no assault and no investigation conducted by Mr. Paulk. Mr. Paulk claims his testimony was based on what he was told by the DA. Now, Mr. Rehberg has brought suit against the DA and Mr. Paulk, seeking damages for abuse of power.
The original suit was tossed out by a federal appeals court in Atlanta. The current Supreme Court argument is an appeal of that decision, insofar as it applies to investigator Paulk.
The case now centers around whether or not prosecutors are totally immune from damage suits for trial-related actions. Since investigative actions are not as highly-protected as trial-related actions, the question of the case is whether a grand jury proceeding is a trial or an investigative proceeding.
Judge Dismisses Suit Claiming Attorney Covered up Fraud at California Hospital
West Penn Drops Highmark from Lawsuit; Details of Acquisition Revealed
In 2003, a general surgery practice with six physicians wanted to open an outpatient center in Albany. The idea was strongly opposed by Phoebe Putney and its political allies. Charles Rehberg, business manager for the physician practice, investigated the hospital's public IRS form. He learned that, in 2002, the CEO was paid nearly $750,000 per year and that the hospital had a bank account in the Cayman Islands, among other findings.
Mr. Rehberg and a surgeon from the practice, John Bagnato, MD, began to send anonymous faxes to local businesses sharing the findings from their informal investigation. They called the faxes "Phoebe Factoids," according to the report.
The hospital complained to District Attorney Ken Hodges and requested he identify the faxers. The hospital also hired private investigators, who later approached Mr. Rehberg and Dr. Bagnato to tell them they were subjects of an investigation and would soon face a large lawsuit.
The hospital filed a $66 million suit against Phoebe Factoids' faxers. When Mr. Rehberg and Dr. Bagnato did not settle, they were indicted on charges of telephone harassment, aggravated assault and burglary. Evidence leading to that indictment was presented to the grand jury by the DA's chief investigator, James Paulk.
Later, prosecutors would concede that there was no burglary, no assault and no investigation conducted by Mr. Paulk. Mr. Paulk claims his testimony was based on what he was told by the DA. Now, Mr. Rehberg has brought suit against the DA and Mr. Paulk, seeking damages for abuse of power.
The original suit was tossed out by a federal appeals court in Atlanta. The current Supreme Court argument is an appeal of that decision, insofar as it applies to investigator Paulk.
The case now centers around whether or not prosecutors are totally immune from damage suits for trial-related actions. Since investigative actions are not as highly-protected as trial-related actions, the question of the case is whether a grand jury proceeding is a trial or an investigative proceeding.
Related Articles on Hospital Lawsuits:
Indiana Hospital's President, Physician Owners Sued by Former OperatorJudge Dismisses Suit Claiming Attorney Covered up Fraud at California Hospital
West Penn Drops Highmark from Lawsuit; Details of Acquisition Revealed