.jpg)
include patient list on Schedule F for doctor case?
This is a no asset case---medical corp. with $0 liquidation value (debts
exceed assets), no real estate, non-retirement personal assets under $25K.
Struggling practice with doctor clearing less than $3k/month.
Clifford Bordeaux
Bordeaux Law, P.C.
790 E. Colorado Boulevard, 9th Floor
Pasadena, CA 91101
T: 626-405-2345 / F: 626-628-1820 E: cliff@bordeauxlaw.com
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Dennis McG wrote:
>
>
> Cliff:
>
> Beezley only applies if there are no assets to be distributed. Is the
> doctor's total a/r below the grubstake/wildcard exemption? Does the Doctor
> have no home, or no equity in home so that he can use the grubstake?
>
> d
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:32 AM, wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I am nearly ready to file a Ch 7 case for an OBGYN. Doctor has lots of
>> debts, but is filing, in part, because malpractice premiums have
>> skyrocketed. Doctor is not being sued by anyone and is not aware of any
>> potential lawsuits brewing, but wants to be sure that any potential claims
>> would be discharged. Doctor was told (by another Doctor) that receipt of a
>> Chapter 7 discharge would greatly reduce future malpractice insurance
>> premiums.
>>
>> Is it necessary (or a best practice) to list everyone on the doctor's
>> patient list (there are hundreds), even though doctor is unaware of any
>> specific claims? Or is it sufficient, since doctor is not aware of any
>> actual claims, to just rely on Beazley if any former patients later try to
>> assert a claim?
>>
>>
>
>
This is a no asset case---medical corp. with $0 liquidation value (debts exceed assets), no real estate, non-retirement personal assets under $25K. Struggling practice with doctor clearing less than $3k/month.
Clifford BordeauxBordeaux Law, P.C.790 E. Colorado Boulevard, 9th FloorPasadena, CA 91101T: 626-405-2345 / F: 626-628-1820 E: cliff@bordeauxlaw.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Cliff:
Beezley only applies if there are no assets to be distributed. Is the
doctor's total a/r below the grubstake/wildcard exemption? Does the Doctor
have no home, or no equity in home so that he can use the grubstake?
d
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:32 AM, wrote:
>
>
> I am nearly ready to file a Ch 7 case for an OBGYN. Doctor has lots of
> debts, but is filing, in part, because malpractice premiums have
> skyrocketed. Doctor is not being sued by anyone and is not aware of any
> potential lawsuits brewing, but wants to be sure that any potential claims
> would be discharged. Doctor was told (by another Doctor) that receipt of a
> Chapter 7 discharge would greatly reduce future malpractice insurance
> premiums.
>
> Is it necessary (or a best practice) to list everyone on the doctor's
> patient list (there are hundreds), even though doctor is unaware of any
> specific claims? Or is it sufficient, since doctor is not aware of any
> actual claims, to just rely on Beazley if any former patients later try to
> assert a claim?
>
>
>
Cliff:Beezley only applies if there are no assets to be distributed. Is the doctor's total a/r below the grubstake/wildcard exemption? Does the Doctor have no home, or no equity in home so that he can use the grubstake?
dOn Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:32 AM, <cliff@bordeauxlaw.com> wrote:
I am nearly ready to file a Ch 7 case for an OBGYN. Doctor has lots of debts, but is filing, in part, because malpractice premiums have skyrocketed. Doctor is not being sued by anyone and is not aware of any potential lawsuits brewing, but wants to be sure that any potential claims would be discharged. Doctor was told (by another Doctor) that receipt of a Chapter 7 discharge would greatly reduce future malpractice insurance premiums.
Is it necessary (or a best practice) to list everyone on the doctor's patient list (there are hundreds), even though doctor is unaware of any specific claims? Or is it sufficient, since doctor is not aware of any actual claims, to just rely on Beazley if any former patients later try to assert a claim?
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Hi Cliff: I know there are some issues with patient lists regarding HIPPA
violations. You may not list the patient names.
If you have any questions or should you need any additional assistance, I
am here to help. Have a fantastic day!
R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.
OFF: (818) 734-7223
CEL: (818) 554-9922
NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept notice for *Ex
Parte* Applications via voicemail or by email. You must comply with
California Law and give notice to a person in my office during regular
business hours.
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message contains privileged and
confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If
you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute,
store, print, copy or deliver this message. Please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and
delete this e-mail from your system.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To comply with requirements imposed by the
Department of the Treasury, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
intended or written by the practitioner to be used, and that it cannot be
used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties
that may be imposed on the taxpayer, and (ii) supporting the
promotion or marketing of any transactions or matters addressed herein.
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:32 AM, wrote:
>
>
> I am nearly ready to file a Ch 7 case for an OBGYN. Doctor has lots of
> debts, but is filing, in part, because malpractice premiums have
> skyrocketed. Doctor is not being sued by anyone and is not aware of any
> potential lawsuits brewing, but wants to be sure that any potential claims
> would be discharged. Doctor was told (by another Doctor) that receipt of a
> Chapter 7 discharge would greatly reduce future malpractice insurance
> premiums.
>
> Is it necessary (or a best practice) to list everyone on the doctor's
> patient list (there are hundreds), even though doctor is unaware of any
> specific claims? Or is it sufficient, since doctor is not aware of any
> actual claims, to just rely on Beazley if any former patients later try to
> assert a claim?
>
>
>
Hi Cliff: I know there are some issues with patient lists regarding HIPPA violations. You may not list the patient names.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Thanks for spotting that issue--I had not thought of it. I don't know the
answer to the question, but it seems like a good reason not to list the
patients. Maybe this is one of the rare situations where more disclosure is
not necessarily better.
On Monday, January 27, 2014, John Faucher wrote:
>
>
> Is he even allowed to list former patients who haven't sued without
> violating HIPAA or other confidentiality laws?
> - John D. Faucher
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* "cliff@bordeauxlaw.com 'cliff@bordeauxlaw.com');>" >
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com 'cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com');>
> *Sent:* Monday, January 27, 2014 10:32 AM
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] include patient list on Schedule F for doctor case?
>
>
> I am nearly ready to file a Ch 7 case for an OBGYN. Doctor has lots of
> debts, but is filing, in part, because malpractice premiums have
> skyrocketed. Doctor is not being sued by anyone and is not aware of any
> potential lawsuits brewing, but wants to be sure that any potential claims
> would be discharged. Doctor was told (by another Doctor) that receipt of a
> Chapter 7 discharge would greatly reduce future malpractice insurance
> premiums.
>
> Is it necessary (or a best practice) to list everyone on the doctor's
> patient list (there are hundreds), even though doctor is unaware of any
> specific claims? Or is it sufficient, since doctor is not aware of any
> actual claims, to just rely on Beazley if any former patients later try to
> assert a claim?
>
>
>
>
Clifford Bordeaux
Bordeaux Law, P.C.
790 E. Colorado Boulevard, 9th Floor
Pasadena, CA 91101
T: 626-405-2345 / F: 626-628-1820 E: cliff@bordeauxlaw.com
Thanks for spotting that issue--I had not thought of it. I don't know the answer to the question, but it seems likea good reasonnot to list the patients. Maybe this is one of the rare situations where more disclosure is not necessarily better.
On Monday, January 27, 2014, John Faucher <j.d.faucher@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Is he even allowed to list former patients who haven't sued without violating HIPAA or other confidentiality laws?
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Is he even allowed to list former patients who haven't sued without violating HIPAA or other confidentiality laws?
- John D. Faucher
________________________________
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 10:32 AM
Subject: [cdcbaa] include patient list on Schedule F for doctor case?
I am nearly ready to file a Ch 7 case for an OBGYN. Doctor has lots of debts, but is filing, in part, because malpractice premiums have skyrocketed. Doctor is not being sued by anyone and is not aware of any potential lawsuits brewing, but wants to be sure that any potential claims would be discharged. Doctor was told (by another Doctor) that receipt of a Chapter 7 discharge would greatly reduce future malpractice insurance premiums.
Is it necessary (or a best practice) to list everyone on the doctor's patient list (there are hundreds), even though doctor is unaware of any specific claims? Or is it sufficient, since doctor is not aware of any actual claims, to just rely on Beazley if any former patients later try to assert a claim?
The post was migrated from Yahoo.