Rules, Tools, and Fools: “Hot Buttons” in Physician Compensation Planning Series – Part V: Requesting, Reviewing, Using, and Discarding FMV Opinions
David E. Matyas, a Member of the Firm in the Health Care and Life Sciences practice, in the firm's Washington, DC, office, will co-present “Rules, Tools, and Fools: “Hot Buttons” in Physician Compensation Planning Series - Part V: Requesting, Reviewing, Using, and Discarding FMV Opinions,” an American Health Lawyers Association webinar.
Outcomes in some recent qui tam actions suggest that valuation reports are not always helpful in the event of a government investigation, and that some reports may be damaging to a client if they do not appropriately document the specific facts and circumstances, do not reflect valuation approaches that are defensible under the circumstances, or substantially contradict other opinions of value. For this reason, counsel may feel an obligation to scrutinize valuation reports prepared for their clients, and/or to request reconsideration or revision of a valuation report in the event that something does not seem right. However, the helpfulness of a valuation report in the event of a government investigation may be undermined by the appearance that a client or other party (including counsel) has unduly influenced the valuator’s opinion through requests or demands for certain changes, or through actions that suggest “opinion shopping.” This program will explore the practical issues for counsel to consider when balancing the arguments for scrutinizing valuation reports with the arguments for ensuring valuator independence.