A hung jury in the Tenet Healthcare trial on charges that its hospital illegally recruited physicians shows how complex and confusing the laws are and leaves hospitals uncertain about how they should go about recruiting physicans. Key points in the LA Times story:

A hung jury in the Tenet Healthcare trial on charges that its hospital illegally recruited physicians shows how complex and confusing the laws are and leaves hospitals uncertain about how they should go about recruiting physicans. Key points in the LA Times story:

At issue are physician relocation agreements between Alvarado and 99 doctors that prosecutors alleged were used to disguise $15 million in kickbacks aimed at boosting patient referrals to the hospital. The defendants charged in the case are Alvarado, its former administrator, Barry Weinbaum, and the Tenet unit that owns the hospital.

Tenet’s general counsel, E. Peter Urbanowicz, said that he was sorry the jury failed to reach a verdict and that he hoped prosecutors would drop the charges.

“The fact that the jury struggled with this case demonstrates how much confusion there is regarding the laws that govern physician relocation agreements,” Urbanowicz said. “It’s time for all of us to devote our full energies to resolving the broader issues.”

The case is being closely watched within the industry because most hospitals recruit doctors with relocation contracts similar to those that Alvarado used.

“If I were in the business, I would still be very worried about these contracts,” said Mark Kleiman, a Los Angeles-based healthcare lawyer.

If a hospital can demonstrate that certain medical specialties are in short supply in its area, state and federal laws allow it to pay some expenses to attract doctors with those skills. Prosecutors charged that Alvarado’s relocation payments were actually bribes aimed at inducing physicians to refer patients to the hospital.

One juror said some panel members doubted the testimony of Mina Nazaryan, Alvarado’s former physician relocation supervisor.

Nazaryan, originally a defendant in the case, struck a plea bargain with prosecutors midway through the trial and took the stand against her former employers.

According to one poll, the jury split 9 to 3 in favor of conviction; that included the vote of a juror who was dismissed this week because of a death in the family.