OCA (9)
Question
by: tanqueray_tonic 08/31/05 01:26 pm
Msg: 37548 of 37781
>>The case vs. Hobson is ended.
No, it is not. Perhaps you need to keep abreast of it.
>>The States in which judges have ruled OCA's
>>agreements ilegal are very very few.
Yeah, only two of the three largest states in the union. (Oh yeah, Oregon as well.....) I take it you are a "size does not matter" type of guy....
>>And as the lawsuits settled in May 2005, you
>>will probably not hear too many more.
Again wrong. Granted that the Texas suit settled, but other groups are seeking the same (already decided) finding. Once that finding is (re)done, then OCA CANNOT operate in Texas as a matter of law. (I guess that is one reason why not many others would be filed, but you neglect that odd "nuance"....)
>>it is not OK if one cannot learn from its >>mistakes.
In Texas, one affiliate's contract was deemed illegal, and a finding of illegality was indicated for the core OCA contract. Yet, OCA continues to bully the doctors in TX. Is this an example of "not learning" that you talk about?
>>but it has corrected these problems.
Again, wrong. See above. Also refer to the Jone Day case where OCA has trouble not running afoul of legal sanctions by yhe court. My best guess is that OCA is one or two horseshit moves away from getting its pleading struck. (Does that fit into your "cannot learn" slot as well?)
My opinion, is that you fail to appreciate the legal ramifications of the cases, and you broad brush OCA's ham handed litigation stance as being productive.
Response
by: chfriend03 08/31/05 02:12 pm
Msg: 37553 of 37781
The Hobson case was ruled in Hobson's favor to get reimbursed for his attorney fees since OCA refused the doctor's offer to pay back OCA hundreds of thousands of dollars to OCA to exit OCA. There was also this corporate expense "overcharge" issue we have discussed more than enough.
It was a loss (in terms of attorney fee compensation) for OCA. Period. End of story as far as I am concerned. Well, OCA certainly could appeal, but as a conservative investor, I take it as a final verdict.
In California, the ruling was not exactly what you characterized. Besides, OCA does not have a big number of lawsuits in California.
OCA's operations did not stop in Texas after it settled the case (in which the judge made an unfavourable ruling). As for the other innactive practices, OCA could settle with the doctors. Again, there is no reason for the doctors not to return the cash they received from OCA. I have not read any case in which the doctors can refuse to repay back OCA's loan and cash received.
At the May 2005 settlement with 60 innactive affiliates, the loss to OCA's balance sheet was $6.1 million in "noncash charge" (charge to write off "intangible" etc.). However, the dollar amount of assets for (100 or so) innactive practices (as presented in OCA's balance sheet) was 30.+ millions as of Sept 30, 2004.
Say the assets of these 60 innactive practices have a value of $18 million (60% of 30.+ million) in OCA's balance sheet (rough estimates). As result of the settlement, OCA lost $6.1 million of this asset, but recovered the rest.
That means, OCA should have received some compensation (that could be future installment payments, or like, instead of upfront cash payment ---- very few people, even doctors, are expected to have that much cash upfront).
by: tanqueray_tonic 08/31/05 01:26 pm
Msg: 37548 of 37781
>>The case vs. Hobson is ended.
No, it is not. Perhaps you need to keep abreast of it.
>>The States in which judges have ruled OCA's
>>agreements ilegal are very very few.
Yeah, only two of the three largest states in the union. (Oh yeah, Oregon as well.....) I take it you are a "size does not matter" type of guy....
>>And as the lawsuits settled in May 2005, you
>>will probably not hear too many more.
Again wrong. Granted that the Texas suit settled, but other groups are seeking the same (already decided) finding. Once that finding is (re)done, then OCA CANNOT operate in Texas as a matter of law. (I guess that is one reason why not many others would be filed, but you neglect that odd "nuance"....)
>>it is not OK if one cannot learn from its >>mistakes.
In Texas, one affiliate's contract was deemed illegal, and a finding of illegality was indicated for the core OCA contract. Yet, OCA continues to bully the doctors in TX. Is this an example of "not learning" that you talk about?
>>but it has corrected these problems.
Again, wrong. See above. Also refer to the Jone Day case where OCA has trouble not running afoul of legal sanctions by yhe court. My best guess is that OCA is one or two horseshit moves away from getting its pleading struck. (Does that fit into your "cannot learn" slot as well?)
My opinion, is that you fail to appreciate the legal ramifications of the cases, and you broad brush OCA's ham handed litigation stance as being productive.
Response
by: chfriend03 08/31/05 02:12 pm
Msg: 37553 of 37781
The Hobson case was ruled in Hobson's favor to get reimbursed for his attorney fees since OCA refused the doctor's offer to pay back OCA hundreds of thousands of dollars to OCA to exit OCA. There was also this corporate expense "overcharge" issue we have discussed more than enough.
It was a loss (in terms of attorney fee compensation) for OCA. Period. End of story as far as I am concerned. Well, OCA certainly could appeal, but as a conservative investor, I take it as a final verdict.
In California, the ruling was not exactly what you characterized. Besides, OCA does not have a big number of lawsuits in California.
OCA's operations did not stop in Texas after it settled the case (in which the judge made an unfavourable ruling). As for the other innactive practices, OCA could settle with the doctors. Again, there is no reason for the doctors not to return the cash they received from OCA. I have not read any case in which the doctors can refuse to repay back OCA's loan and cash received.
At the May 2005 settlement with 60 innactive affiliates, the loss to OCA's balance sheet was $6.1 million in "noncash charge" (charge to write off "intangible" etc.). However, the dollar amount of assets for (100 or so) innactive practices (as presented in OCA's balance sheet) was 30.+ millions as of Sept 30, 2004.
Say the assets of these 60 innactive practices have a value of $18 million (60% of 30.+ million) in OCA's balance sheet (rough estimates). As result of the settlement, OCA lost $6.1 million of this asset, but recovered the rest.
That means, OCA should have received some compensation (that could be future installment payments, or like, instead of upfront cash payment ---- very few people, even doctors, are expected to have that much cash upfront).
posted by jajabin at 3:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home