APPORTIONMENT BILL VETOED
Gov. Newsom vetoed SB 788 which would have prohibited apportionment based upon race, religious creed, color, national origin, gender, marital status, sex, sexual identity and orientation.
In the veto message, Newsom noted the bill is repetitive of existing law, would cause confusion, and increase litigation.
[COMMENT: This bill mustered support only after "age" was deleted because the term "age" was seen as an attempt to eliminate apportionment of most pre-existing degenerative conditions and being duplicative of other age-related laws. Similar bills were vetoed four (4) times under former CA Governors Schwarzenegger and Brown.]
LC 139.3 VIOLATIONS CLARIFIED
LC 139.3 prohibits in-house referrals where there is a financial interest, but with LC 139.31 allowing for numerous exceptions.
In Banerjee v. Superior Court (10/7/2021) the Court of Appeal has attempted to clarify that as long as an in-house medical referral is within the same office or medical group, the referral is legal because the patient is presumed to understand there may be a financial conflict when the referral is in-house.
[COMMENT: This rationale conflicts with the purpose of the statutes to deter unnecessary referrals solely for financial gain. Of note, Dr, Banerjee still faces fraud charges that he allegedly used his different medical entities to issue duplicative patient bills.]