Twitter Google +1 Facebook LinkedIn Share this page RSS

Issues in healthcare have become increasingly complex, touching on almost every area of the law and BSCR’s practice. Our attorneys bring a broad-based understanding of the legal, medical and financial issues underpinning multiple aspects of the industry. Individual practice teams bring fine-tuned skills to each type of matter.

With a wealth of knowledge about Evidence-based medicine, our attorneys have successfully represented individual medical professionals and health-care institutions in state and federal courts. BSCR also represents medical professionals before state licensing agencies, and handles privilege-to-practice issues before state hospital boards in medical malpractice and professional liability cases. Other clients we represent in this area include doctors, nurses, pharmacists, laboratories and lab technicians, allied healthcare professionals, and others involved with providing care.

Our nationally recognized product liability team has successfully represented major manufacturers of pharmaceuticals and medical devices in complex class action, multi-district litigation, and mass tort cases. Our clients include Fortune 500 companies and other business entities involved in the manufacturing, marketing, and distributing of medications, medical devices, and medical supplies.

BSCR handles issues related to the formation and dissolution of practice groups, litigation that may arise from those transactions, and represents healthcare companies in commercial and employment law matters.

Industry clients we represent include:

  • Doctors, nurses, allied healthcare professionals, and physicians groups
  • Pharmacists and pharmacies
  • Hospitals
  • Nursing homes
  • Medical laboratories and lab technicians
  • Manufacturers and distributors of pharmaceutical and medical devices

Our attorneys are frequently invited to speak and give presentations to medical students, hospital staff, lawyers, and other private sector groups.

For more information about the services we provide to the Healthcare industry contact Hal Meltzer or Catherine Stevens in Kansas City at 816.471.2121 or Caroline Tinsley in St. Louis at 314.231.2925

News & Events

Hendricks to Speak at Healthcare Risk Managers Meeting

10.01.10 | Matthew Hendricks will speak at the October 20 meeting of The St. Louis Association of Healthcare Risk Managers. The meeting will take place from 7:30-9:30 am at Sisters of Mercy in Chesterfield. . .


BSCR scores U.S. Supreme Court win in preemption case

BSCR’s health insurer client was sued in Missouri state court in 2011, by a plaintiff who suffered injuries in a car accident. Plaintiff was a federal government employee, whose insurance program fell under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act (FEHBA), a statute with

BSCR scores win in $200M antitrust suit involving medical and surgical supplies for acute care providers

BSCR’s health care services company client and another defendant were sued in Kansas Federal Court in 2012 by a competitor alleging antitrust tying and exclusive dealing.

Judgment attained for attending obstetrician in birth injury case.

BSCR obtained a jury verdict in favor of our client, The Doctors Company, after a week-long trial. The case had been filed and dismissed on two prior occasions when BSCR attorneys were able to negate or nullify the expert testimony of plaintiffs. On the third attempt. . .

Blog Posts

Gender Stereotypes Now Serve as a Basis for Sex Discrimination Claim under the MHRA

12.18.17 | Despite an uptick in advocacy, support, and inclusion of the LGTBQ community over the past several decades, as of today, discrimination based on sexual orientation remains an invalid claim under the Missouri Human Rights Act (“MHRA”). However, in a recent decision by the Western District of the Missouri Court of Appeals...

Court of Appeals Affirms that At-Will Employment Is Not Sufficient Consideration for an Arbitration Agreement, Refuses to Change Law

12.14.17 | The Missouri Court of Appeals for the Southern District upholds denial of an employer’s motion to compel arbitration ruling that at-will employment is insufficient consideration to support an arbitration agreement and denying employer’s request to find that, in accordance with federal policy, at-will employment should be sufficient consideration for an arbitration agreement.

How Many is Too Many? Limiting Cumulative Expert Witness Testimony

11.03.17 | A Missouri trial court abused its discretion by permitting four expert witnesses to echo the defense’s theory of alternative causation without requiring that each expert witness’ opinions be limited to his area of expertise. Courts must adhere to the principles regarding legally relevant evidence, and preclude cumulative evidence in doing so.

U.S. Supreme Court Says it Again: Arbitration Agreements Should be Honored, and Not Singled Out for Negative Treatment by State Courts

08.10.17 | The U.S. Supreme Court rejects yet another creative state court end-run on arbitrability.

You've Got Mail - Service of Process by Mail is Satisfactory under the Hague Service Convention

05.30.17 | The United States Supreme Court ruled on May 22, 2017, that the Hague Convention, on the service of judicial documents abroad, permits service by mail if the receiving country has not objected to service by mail and service by mail is authorized under otherwise-applicable law.

Court Muzzles Counsel: Says Defendants Cannot Ask Plaintiffs if Their Attorneys Referred Them to Treating Physicians

04.27.17 | The Florida Supreme Court recently ruled that the attorney-client privilege protects a party from being required to disclose that her attorney referred her to treating doctors.

The Daubert Standard - Coming Soon to a Missouri Court Near You

03.31.17 | Earlier this week, Governor Eric Greitens signed Missouri HB 153 into law. HB 153, which supplants Missouri’s existing expert witness standard with that set forth in Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 703, 704 and 705, effectively submits expert testimony in most civil and criminal case to the analysis set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

Federal Judges Blow Their Stacks Over Boilerplate Objections

03.27.17 | Within a two-week period, two federal judges issued strongly worded orders denouncing the common practice of asserting boilerplate objections to written discovery.

Employees: Yes, You Can Owe Duties To Your Co-Employees

03.22.17 | The Missouri Court of Appeals rules that a worker may owe an independent duty of care to a co-worker, which is separate and distinct from her employer’s non-delegable duties.

Mere Designation of an Expert Witness Does Not Waive the Work Product Doctrine Protections

11.02.16 | A Missouri plaintiff did not irrevocably waive the protections of the work product doctrine simply by designating an expert witness and then withdrawing the designation without disclosing the expert’s analysis or conclusions.

Constructive Discharge Claims: When Does the 45-Day Period for Initiating Contact with the EEOC Begin to Run?

06.08.16 | On May 23, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Green v. Brennan in order to resolve a split among the Circuits on whether, in an action for constructive discharge, the 45-day limitation period for the employee to initiate contact with the EEOC begins to run after the employer’s last discriminatory act, or at the time of the employee’s resignation.

UPDATE: Capped & Constitutional

06.08.16 | In a revised opinion issued on May 24, 2016, the Missouri Supreme Court continues to uphold the constitutionality of the $350k non-economic damages cap, pursuant to Mo.Rev.Stat. §538.210, in wrongful death cases, and to focus on the distinction between statutory and common law claims; but expands its analysis of the equal protection challenge raised by plaintiff

Capped & Constitutional

05.06.16 | The Missouri Supreme Court, in a split decision, upholds the constitutionality of the $350k non-economic damages cap, pursuant to Mo.Rev.Stat. §538.210 in wrongful death case, recognizing the distinction between statutory and common law claims.

"Excusable neglect" is a real standard requiring real evidence (Updated 01.04.2016)

01.04.16 | While a Kansas court may grant relief from a final judgment based on excusable neglect, it is an abuse of discretion to grant that relief when the party seeking that relief has failed either to explain what facts constituted excusable neglect or to provide any evidence to support that claim.

A Declined Invitation, But Does An Open Door Still Remain?

11.18.15 | In Lang v. Goldsworthy, a case decided by the Missouri Supreme Court on October 13, 2015, Plaintiffs, consisting of family members who filed a wrongful death action alleging negligent chiropractic services of a health care provider that allegedly caused the death of their relative, unsuccessfully attempted to challenge the constitutionality of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 538.225, generally known as the “health affidavit” statute.

Forget the Pitchers - The H.E.A.T. Team Brought the Real Heat in October

11.10.15 | In October, the Department of Justice’s special health care fraud prevention team announced settlements of more than $719 million. The settlements involved allegations of illegal kickbacks, unnecessary medical treatments and premature implantations of medical devices.

The Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision continues to spawn plenty of litigation

11.05.15 | In the case of Sharpe Holdings, Inc., et. al. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, which enjoined the government from...

Kicking the Can Down the Road: The U.S. Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Failure to Update Labeling Case Against Generic Drug Manufacturer

05.20.15 | Manufacturers of Generic Pharmaceuticals bask in uncertainty after the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in Pliva, Inc. v. Huck, leaving all to wonder whether or not state law “failure to update labeling” are preempted.

Missouri enacts new medical malpractice damage cap law

05.12.15 | On March 27, 2015, we informed our readers of the possibility that caps in medical malpractice damages might return to Missouri. As of May 7, 2015, caps are back in play. Recently, the House of Representatives passed the Senate damage cap bill by 125 to 27 vote, and sent it to Governor Jay Nixon for signature.

Hobby Lobby Decision continues to resonate

04.21.15 | On March 9, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari at the request of the University of Notre Dame on another matter arising from the Affordable Care Act, and remanded the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with instructions to reconsider its ruling in light of the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.

The Eighth Circuit Provides Clarity on Outside Sales Exemption and Waiver Requirements under FLSA

04.01.15 | The Eighth Circuit recently analyzed the application of the “outside sales” and “administrative” exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act in the context of promotional workers. Also, the Court was asked to decide, for the first time, what constitutes a valid waiver of an employee’s rights under the FLSA.

Are Caps Coming Back?

03.27.15 | In 2012, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled in the case of Watts v. Cox Medical Center that the previously enacted tort reform statutory cap on medical malpractice damages was unconstitutional as it violated a plaintiff’s right to trial by jury. From time to time, bills have been brought before the State bodies in an attempt to try and reinstate caps; however, no effort has been successful or serious until now.

State's "Right to Try" Legislation Hangs Drug and Device Manufacturers Out to Dry.

01.20.15 | Kansas has joined a short, but growing, list of states introducing legislation purporting to give terminally ill patients the option to try drug treatments not yet approved by the FDA, but which have passed Phase One FDA testing. However, the legislation does not incentivize any manufacturer to provide such drugs and in fact potentially exposes a manufacturer who does provide access to additional risk of lawsuits.

The Supreme Court's Jurisdictional Stretch in Resolving the Evidence Needed to Support a CAFA Removal

01.06.15 | A defendant removing a case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act need not provide evidence proving the jurisdictional amount in controversy in the notice of removal. A “short and plain statement of the grounds for removal” is sufficient.

The Missouri Supreme Court Invalidates an Employment Contract Arbitration Clause for Lack of Consideration

10.30.14 | The Missouri Supreme Court recently sustained the trial court’sdenial of an employer’s motion to compel arbitration in the case of Carla Baker v. Bristol Care, Inc. d/b/a Bristol Manor, et al., No. SC93451.

Failure-to-Update Claims Against Generic Manufacturers Remain Viable

10.16.14 | In Franzman v. Wyeth, Inc., et al., the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District recently reversed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the manufacturers of the generic form of Reglan (the “Generic Defendants”) on the portion of Franzman’s failure-to-warn claim relating to the Generic Defendants’ failure to update their warning labels to reflect the 2004 brand-name label revision.

Weeks II: Alabama bucks the trend and accepts the Innovator-Liability Theory

10.10.14 | On August 15th, the Alabama Supreme Court endorsed the theory of “innovator liability” and held for the second time in Wyeth, Inc. v. Weeks, 2014 Ala. LEXIS 109 (Ala. Aug. 15, 2014) that a plaintiff who took only the generic version of a medication could still make a claim against the brand-name manufacturers. While this position remains the minority view, the Weeks case demonstrates that the innovator-liability theory remains an important and contested issue for brand and generic drug manufacturers.

The Missouri Supreme Court Rules That Parties May Have a Duty as a Joint Employer With Its Contractors Pursuant to the Missouri Minimum Wage Law

09.19.14 | Individuals and businesses relying upon contractors to provide labor services may be exposing themselves to liability if these contractors fail to pay their employees in accordance with the Missouri Minimum Wage Law.

Frying the Frye Test and Increasing the Caps: New Amendments to Kansas Civil Actions and Civil Procedure

07.11.14 | K.S.A. 60-19a02 has been amended, increasing Kansas's long-standing cap on non-economic damages (pain and suffering) recoverable in personal injury. K.S.A. 60-456(b) has also been amended to mirror the requirements for the admissibility of expert testimony set forth in Fed. R. Evid. 702.

The Hobby Lobby decision is already being felt in other cases.

07.09.14 | The U.S. Supreme Court handed down its Hobby Lobby decision on June 30 and it is already having a ripple effect. On July 3rd, the Court issued an injunction on a case pending in the lower Federal Courts simplifying the paperwork needed to claim a religious exemption under the Hobby Lobby decision. The female members of the Court issued a dissent to the order.

ACOG and Permanent Brachial Plexus Injuries at Birth

07.07.14 | After sitting on the sidelines for years the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology has released a comprehensive medical review that deals a fatal blow to claims that permanent injuries are definitive evidence of error by the delivering physician.

The Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision - What it does and does not do

07.01.14 | Closely-held or family owned companies whose owners have strong religious beliefs may be able to exclude certain contraception-related benefits from their employee health benefit programs. The federal government has available "less restrictive" means of assuring that employees get access to such care at no additional cost, than an outright mandate that all employers provide those benefits.

In a differential etiology, experts need not rule out all possible causes

06.23.14 | Experts are not required to rule out all possible causes when performing the differential etiology analysis if the experts have properly ruled in the alleged cause.

Medical Malpractice: Strict Compliance with the Missouri Health Care Affidavit Statute is a Must

06.16.14 | Medical malpractice plaintiffs must comply with the Health Care Affidavit statute (Mo.Rev.Stat. 538.225), or face dismissal.

Punitive Damages Part 1: Don't Get Caught Flat-Footed

04.29.14 | A Kansas plaintiff may amend their pleadings to assert punitive damages up until the day of the pretrial conference.

Workers' Compensation + Retaliation = Missouri Supreme Court adopts the "contributing factor" standard

04.22.14 | A man who sued his former employer, alleging he was discharged in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim, appealed on the basis that the trial court used a jury instruction with the wrong standard. In a 5-2 decision written by Judge George W. Draper III, the Missouri Supreme Court rejected the 'exclusive causation' standard and replaced it with the "contributing factor" standard. On remand and in future cases, the jury must determine whether the plaintiff's filing of a workers' compensation claim was a "contributing factor" to his or her discharge.

Kansas abolishes assumption of the risk defense.

04.21.14 | Based on its adoption of a statutory scheme of comparative negligence, Kansas has abolished common law assumption of the risk as a bar to recovery. Simmons v. Porter, 298 Kan. 299, 312 P3d 345, 355 (Kan. 2013).

A mundane lesson from an important decision, or, the importance of presenting evidence

03.20.14 | The plaintiff has the burden of proving standing, which is a jurisdictional issue that can be raised at any time.

No Signed Settlement Necessary, Except When It Is

02.25.14 | In Kansas, the parties bind themselves to an enforceable settlement, even though the parties contemplate subsequent execution of a formal instrument. However, when the parties specifically condition a contract on it being reduced to writing and signed, there is no enforceable contract until such act is accomplished.

Kansas Supreme Court Upholds Noneconomic Damages Cap

10.29.12 | In October of 2012, the Kansas Supreme Court resolved four constitutional questions and upheld the noneconomic damages cap of $250,000 in personal injury actions contained in K.S.A. 60-19a02. In Miller v. Johnson, 289 P.3d 1098 (Kan. 2012), a patient brought a medical malpractice action against a physician who mistakenly removed patient's left ovary during a surgery intended to take the right ovary. . .

Missouri Supreme Court Decision on Non-Economic Damage Caps

10.04.12 | Supreme Court of Missouri issued an opinion in Deborah Watts as Next Friend for Naython Kayne Watts v. Lester E. Cox Medical Centers d/b/a/ Family Care Center, Lester E. Cox Medical Centers, Melissa R. Hermann, M.D., Matthew P. Green, D.O., and William S. Kelly, M.D. holding that RSMo 538.210, which caps non-economic damages, is unconstitutional, as it violates the right to trial by jury. . .