Written By: Janie Ratliff-Sweeney

True Story:  I recently met with a client who had a disgruntled ex-employee file a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights (the enforcement arm of the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules) alleging violations of the HIPAA Privacy Rules by the client.  The client had experienced an inadvertent disclosure of protected health information (PHI) more than a year prior to the ex-employee’s filing of the OCR complaint.  The specific facts about the inadvertent disclosure of the PHI are not particularly unusual or sexy – an email containing the PHI of several patients was sent in error to the wrong email address.  These types of inadvertent disclosures are bound to happen.  Once the client learned of the email incident, it took what it considered appropriate action at the time and then filed away the incident to gather dust.  Unfortunately, the ex-employee too had filed away the incident – only to blow off the dust and resurrect it in a complaint filed with the OCR.  According to the OCR inquiry letter received by the client, the ex-employee alleged the client had not acted in compliance with HIPAA in its response to the email incident.  The OCR inquiry letter also contained the usual “data request” portion which required the client to submit to the OCR copies of its written policies and procedures related to safeguarding PHI, breaches, notifications of breaches, and the like.  So, the client not only faced defending its actions arising out of an incident from more than a year prior; the client had to also provide copies of its written policies and procedures.  After filing its response to the OCR, the client now sits and waits for its actions and documents to be judged by the OCR.  If the OCR judges the actions and/or documents of the client are not adequate or violated HIPAA, on to the next step:  the levying of fines.  But, regardless as to whether the client’s actions were HIPAA compliant, the client expended valuable resources (time and money) in drafting a response to the OCR and in gathering its documents.

Fines: “Fines schmines!” you say.  “Cost of doing business!” you say.  Right?  Wrong.

Have you paid attention to the fines the OCR has doled out recently?  Ranging from hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions of dollars.  During March of 2016, the OCR levied more than $5 million dollars in one week!  Levied for things ranging from lost laptops to IT system hacks.  Depending on the facts and circumstances of the violation, fines can climb upwards of nearly $56,000 per violation.  Do you want to be the physician or practice/facility administrator trying to split hairs with the OCR as to what constitutes “one” violation when an email is inadvertently sent to the wrong addressee and the email contains the PHI of 100 patients?  If that’s “one” violation (and depending on the facts and circumstances), that may be a check for $56,000.  Phew!  If it’s 100 violations… well… you do the math.

That check to the OCR contains hard earned dollars that will not otherwise be available for distribution to the owners or employees of your practice or facility, or to pay any of your practice’s or facility’s anticipated expenses.  Of course, that amount does not include the cost of hiring a health care attorney conversant in the HIPAA Privacy Rules.  Such expertise is vital in any dealings with the OCR or when viewing your practice’s or facility’s compliance with HIPAA.

Let’s Test your HIPAA IQ – Query me the following:  Would you know what steps are required to be taken upon the discovery of an inadvertent disclosure of PHI?  Do you know what is involved with a HIPAA-complaint “risk assessment”?  Do you know whether notices must be sent to patients following an inadvertent disclosure of PHI?  If so, do you know what the requirements are as to the form and substance of such notices?  Do you know the time frame in which a practice must investigate and take action following its knowledge of an inadvertent disclosure of PHI?  When was the last time your employees received HIPAA initial training or re-fresher training?

If your answer to any of the above is “no” or “I don’t know”, you are subjecting your practice or facility to large fines – sticking your head in the sand will not solve the problem.  Taking on the “it won’t happen to me” attitude will also not solve the problem.  The reality is that OCR is ramping up enforcement actions and it is levying fines at will.

STUFF Happens – Humans are Human:  Human error.  It is rampant.  No matter how much training you conduct and no matter how many policies and procedures you have in place – stuff happens.  People make mistakes.

As such, it is prudent to understand what you need to do when a staff member in your practice or facility makes a mistake and sends that email to the wrong person.  It is prudent to have in place appropriate safeguards to prevent human error – but the fact of the matter is that it is impossible to wave a wand and suddenly make every single employee perfect and without error.

Stuff happens.

Be prepared.

Educate yourself.

Know what you are obligated to do when the PHI is inadvertently disclosed.  Know whether a breach has occurred.  Know what you have to do if a breach has occurred.  Know what a patient notification letter is required to contain.  Know the time frame within which a patient notice must be sent.  Know whether you have to notify the OCR immediately or at the end of the year.  Know whether you must notify the media.

As the FRAM man once said – “you can pay me now or pay me later”.  When it comes to HIPAA compliance, a little prevention on the front end will certainly minimize or eliminate fines on the back end.

Janie M. Ratliff-Sweeney is a health care lawyer.  You can reach Ms. Ratliff-Sweeney at (859) 344-1188 or [email protected].

 

If you are purchasing a home in a county with a countywide water system (e.g. Butler County), you should be aware of a little known wrinkle in the law that could leave you on the hook for your seller’s water bill.

R.C. 6103.02(G) gives a county water works three options to collect unpaid water bills: create a lien against the property; collect against the owner or tenant; or even terminate the water service until the outstanding bill is paid.

These methods of collection apply not only to the tenant or owner who incurred the water bill, but subsequent purchasers as well.

This has become an issue in recent years as Butler County Ohio has become aggressive in its collection efforts, often ensnaring unwitting homebuyers.

Protect Yourself

One thing every homebuyer can do is simply ask the question: Are there any outstanding water bills?

State law gives buyers another option, R.C. 6103.02(G) allows a buyer, or her agent, to request that the county have the meter read and to provide a final bill for the property before the closing. Such request must be made at least fourteen days prior to the closing date, and the county has ten days to read the meter and provide the final bill.

Make sure any unpaid balance is paid prior to closing.

Those steps will help you avoid an unpleasant water bill as you settle into your new home.

Learn more about important questions to ask when you buy a home here.

A recent change to Ohio Revised Code Section 5717.04 will remove the option to file an appeal from a Board of Tax Appeals decision directly to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Starting September 29, 2017, Ohioan’s unhappy with a Board of Tax Appeals decision will now have to file their appeal with the local Court of Appeals. Under the previous law, appellants had the choice of filing directly with the Ohio Supreme Court.

However,  a party to the appeal can file a petition with the Ohio Supreme Court requesting that the Court take jurisdiction over the appeal. The Supreme Court may do so if the appeal involves a substantial constitutional question or a question of great general or public interest. In order to attempt to bypass the Court of Appeals, one must still first file the appeal with the Court of Appeals and then file a petition with the Supreme Court within thirty days after the appeal is filed with the Court of Appeals.

Passed as part of the state budget, this change will add additional litigation, time, and expense to obtaining finality in tax disputes.

Finney Law Firm practices extensively before the Board of Tax Appeals in property valuation measures. Click here to learn how we can help you navigate through the property valuation process.

Finney Law Firm Property TaxEvery parcel of real property in Ohio undergoes a major “reappraisal” by the County Auditor’s office every six years and then a minor “update” in the three years in the middle of that six-year cycle.  Different counties in Ohio are on a different six year and three year cycle.

Below is a list of the counties going through either a major “Reappraisal” or a minor “update” this year. These values will appear on your January 2018 tax bill.

In Southwest Ohio, Hamilton County is undergoing a full reappraisal this year. Butler and Clermont Counties are update counties.

It is important to note that because these counties will be starting new triennials, property owners may bring a complaint before the Board of Revision regardless of whether a prior challenge has been brought. Every property owner has a right to challenge her property assessment before the Board of Revision in the new triennial.

While property owners in Hamilton and Clermont Counties have already received notices of the tentative values for the new triennial, the official notice of the 2017 value will come with your January 2018 tax bill. Remember you will have until the end of March 2018 to challenge the 2017 valuation.

Finney Law Firm will be giving presentations on the Board of Revision process later this year. If you are interested in attending  a presentation, contact us here. Learn more about Finney Law Firm’s property tax practice here.

The schedule of counties starting a new triennial this year follows:

Reappraisal Counties
Auglaize
Clinton
Darke
Defiance
Delaware
Franklin
Gallia
Geauga
Hamilton
Hardin
Harrison
Henry
Jackson
Licking
Mahoning
Mercer
Morrow
Perry
Pickaway
Pike
Preble
Putnam
Richland
Seneca
Shelby
Trumbull
Vanwert
Wood

Update Counties
Ashland
Ashtabula
Athens
Butler
Clermont
Fulton
Greene
Knox
Madison
Montgomery
Noble
Summit
Wayne

In a widely anticipated decision that will have major implications for Ohio businesses, the Ohio Supreme Court today ruled that, for purposes of property tax valuation, sale-leaseback transactions are not “arm’s-length.” Meaning that county auditors and boards of revision should not simply adopt the sale price in such transactions as the “true value” when valuing real estate.

Writing separately, but concurring in the judgment, Justice Pat DeWine wrote to clarify that this  same reasoning should apply when a third party purchases a property that was subject to an earlier sale-leaseback transaction, “if the initial sale does not reflect the true value of the property because for the leaseback arrangement, then neither should a subsequent sale of the same property subject to the same lease.” The majority opinion leaves some question on that issue.

Today’s ruling in Columbus City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-7578, follows the ruling in Terraza 8, L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2017-Ohio-4415, ___ N.E.3d ___., clarifying that indeed, the legislature meant what it said when it amended R.C. 5713.03.

Click here to read about the Terraza 8 decision.

For more information on sale and leaseback transactions generally, click here.

 

The Cleveland Park District has a policy requiring people obtain permission before engaging in any “First Amendment Activity” within Cleveland parks. And, once granted permission,  one must  remain within a specific (often remote) designated First Amendment zone.

During a recent Edgewater Live concert (think the old Party in the Park), our client, Alison Abdul-Kareem, attempted to circulate petitions in support of an initiative to place an issue decriminalizing misdemeanor amounts of marijuana on Cleveland’s ballot this November.

Ms. Abdul-Kazeem refused to either apply for a permit, or limit herself to the free speech zone (a 15 minute walk from the area of the park hosting the concert series). Thus, park rangers, enforcing the Park District’s policy proceeded to harass our client, including at one point surrounding her standing only a few feet away from her, thus frightening off any would be petition signers. Our suit, styled Alison Abdul-Kazeem v. Board of Commissioners of the Cleveland Metropolitan Park District, et al. 17-cv-01613, seeks to vindicate the right of Abdul-Kazeem, and others, to exercise their First Amendment rights throughout the public areas of public parks, without the threat of official harassment.

As first year law students learn, because initiative petitioning goes to the essence of self-government and constitutes and implicates core political speech and associational rights, “First Amendment protection for such interaction…is ‘at its zenith.’” (Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., 525 U.S. 182, 183 (1999), quoting Meyer v. Grant, 486 U. S. 414, 425 (1988)).

A Finney  Law Firm attorney filed the complaint and motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on Tuesday  in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, and Judge Dan A. Polster has ordered the Park District to respond by noon on Wednesday and will hold conference on the motion at 3 p.m. on Wednesday. We are pleased to see the Court acting with such speed in this matter; and are hopeful that the Court will issue the injunction, allowing our client and other petition circulators free access to Edgewater Park in time for the next concert on Thursday – the last such event before petitioning ends for this year (petitions must be turned in by next Wednesday in order to qualify for the November 2017 ballot).

A copy of the complaint and motion are available here and here.

Cleveland.com has an article on the lawsuit here.

In a major ruling in favor of religious freedom, the Supreme Court struck down a provision in the Missouri State Constitution prohibiting churches and other religious organizations from receiving any public funds. In Trinity Church v. Comer, the Supreme Court found that the state’s “Blaine Amendment” violates the First Amendment. The Court’s 7-2 ruling (Justices Sotomayor and Ginsberg dissented), continues a recent trend in support of the First Amendment protections for religious liberty and free speech. You can read the opinion here.

Missouri funds a grant to help charities pay to replace playground equipment using recycled tires. Trinity Lutheran Church, which runs a day care program, applied for a grant. Despite being otherwise eligible for the grant, the state refused to allow the church to participate citing the state constitution’s prohibition:

That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion, or in aid of any priest, preacher, minister or teacher thereof, as such; and that no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship.

Similar provisions exist in approximately thirty states. Named after 19th Century Senator from Maine, James G. Blaine, the Amendments were aimed at preventing public funding of parochial schools.

In issuing its ruling, the Supreme Court distinguished a previous case in which a state prohibition against providing a scholarship to a student who wished to study to become a minister was upheld (Locke v. Davey). “Davey was not denied a scholarship because of who he was; he was denied a scholarship because of what he proposed to do—use the funds to prepare for the ministry. Here there is no question that Trinity Lutheran was denied a grant simply because of what it is—a church.”

“The Free Exercise Clause ‘protect[s] religious observers against unequal treatment’ and subjects to the strictest scrutiny laws that target the religious for ‘special disabilities’ based on their ‘religious status.’” This ruling makes clear that blanket prohibition against any religious based organization from qualifying for a state benefit will not pass constitutional muster.

Ohio Supreme Court Justice Pat Fischer

In a case that was previously discussed here,  the Ohio Supreme Court issued an important ruling in a real estate valuation case, Terraza 8, LLC v. Franklin County Board of Revision, 2015-2063, yesterday.

R.C. 5713.03 was amended in 2012 – allowing that the auditor may consider a recent sale price as the true value of real estate rather than shall, and requiring that the property be valued “as if unencumbered.”

Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Fischer agreed with the property owner that recent changes to R.C. 5713.03 mean that County Auditors are no longer required to adopt a recent sale price as the true value of real estate, and that the purchase price in sale and lease back transactions can be rebutted by a showing that the sale price does not reflect the value of unencumbered fee-simple estate. The decision is available online here.

The attorneys of Finney Law Firm have a long history of fighting for transparency in government. From presenting at workshops on open government to litigating cases seeking redress for violations of Ohio’s Sunshine Laws, we are proud of the work we have done to ensure that Ohioans have every opportunity to know what is being done in their names.

Our recent settlement of a case with the City of Milford is just the latest example of our work to protect the public interest. Our client, Rachel Richardson became aware of several serial violations of  Ohio’s Open Meetings Act, and sought our help in opening Milford’s government up to the people.

Ms. Richardson has an op-ed in the Enquirer about the case here. We are proud to have represented Ms. Richardson and we hope you will take a moment to read her story.

If you or your organization would like to learn more about Ohio’s Sunshine Laws and the public’s right to public records, contact attorney Christopher P. Finney at (513) 943-6655 to schedule an appointment or arrange a presentation.

Finney Law Firm is a growing firm that strives to make a difference in the greater Cincinnati area through their personal and professional work.  Members of this firm have extensive experience in a broad range of legal services including business formation and development, litigation, real estate, estate planning and administration, commercial dispute resolution, criminal defense, bankruptcy, and public interest law.  The desire is to represent clients, hire employees, and work with vendors who share in the Firm’s key standards of Integrity, Accountability, Communication, and Excellence.

Job Overview

As a growing company with offices in Eastgate and Mt. Adams, Finney Law Firm seeks to hire an Assistant Bookkeeper to contribute to the success of the Firm.  The primary functions of this position will be to assist and support the accounting and bookkeeping efforts for the Company.  A desirable candidate will be able to successfully:

  • Enter and record accurate financial information
  • Process the Firm expenses with a detailed accounting trail
  • Oversee and maintain the credits and debits of various accounts
  • Manage the day to day financial transactions for multiple accounts
  • Assist in managing the billing cycle by processing, reviewing, and sending out monthly invoices
  • Communicate and coordinate with staff, clients, and other points of contact
  • Perform additional responsibilities to assist the Bookkeeper with day to day operational needs

Required Skills and Abilities

  • Strong emphasis on being detail oriented
  • Ability to multi-task and work in a fast paced environment
  • Willing to work individually and as part of a team
  • Experience with QuickBooks and advanced Excel skills preferred
  • College degree or accounting/bookkeeping experience required

How to Apply and Additional Information

Interested candidates should email a cover letter, resume, and professional references to Katherine Fox at [email protected].  A review of applications will begin immediately.  This position is full time and benefits are available.