FOURTEEN HEALTHCARE WORKERS INDICTED IN CHICAGO

Fourteen healthcare workers – mostly members of the healthcare immigrant community – have been indicted in Chicago on healthcare fraud violations. Nine of the defendants work in home healthcare. While the immigration status of the individuals is not known, it is known that most are members of the immigrant community.

If these allegations are true, the immigrant status of these individuals could be impacted, including removal from the United States. MU applauds the DOJ for its work on combating fraud in the healthcare industry.

B1/B2 visa issues at Manila Embassy

MU has had several clients inform us that the Manila Embassy has been denying B1/B2 visas to applicants who need the B1/B2 visa in order to come to the US and sit for the National Physical Therapist Exam (NPTE). MU is working with the Department of State in order to try and solve the problem. The problem stems from the Embassy's misinterpretation of the recent Georgia decision and the need for an NPTE in advance of licensure.

If you have had your B1/B2 denied at the Consulate because the officer mistakenly believes that the NPTE is not required for PT licensure please either add your comment to the MU Healthcare Immigration Law blog, our Facebook page, or email Chris Musillo or Cindy Unkenholt.

March 2011 Visa Bulletin

The Department of State has just released the March 2011 Visa Bulletin, which is the sixth Visa Bulletin for US Fiscal Year 2011. This Visa Bulletin had very small progress in several classifications.

March 2011 Visa Bulletin
	All Other Countries	China	India	Mexico
EB-2	Current	08JUL06	08MAY06	Current
EB-3	01JUL05	22JAN04	15MAR02	08Jan04

FSBPT’S POLICY RULED INVALID AND UNENFORCEABLE IN GEORGIA

by Chris Musillo and Cindy Unkenholt

As readers of this blog certainly are aware, last summer the FSBPT took the unprecedented action of barring graduates from schools located in Egypt, India, Pakistan and the Philippines from taking the National Physical Therapy Examination (NPTE).

On February 9, a Georgia court ruled that the FSBPT’s policy is illegal in Georgia. Barring any last minute legal maneuvers by the FSBPT and/or the Georgia State Board of Physical Therapy, impacted applicants for licensure in Georgia should soon be able to both apply for licensure and have the same availability to take the NPTE as every other applicant. If the Georgia State Board fails to offer a test, it will be in contempt of the court order.

This leads MU to predict an increase in applications for licensure through Georgia until other State Boards insist that the FSBPT allow their candidates unrestricted access to the NPTE or are forced to do so through similar litigation.

MU, through our association with the AAIHR, worked hard on the legal effort. We are very pleased to see that the Georgia court has found in favor of the Physical Therapists and did not allow an illegal policy to continue

The Decision presently is limited to applicants to Georgia. Other states are free to adopt the Georgia court’s ruling. MU is working through our association with the AAIHR to see that the logic behind the Georgia decision is applied to other states. It is now incumbent on other state boards of Physical Therapy immediately to:

1) resume processing of all qualified applications for Physical Therapy licensure;
2) obtain immediate authorization (through an emergency Board Meeting if necessary) to declare the actions of the FSBPT impermissible; and
3) notify the FSBPT that each State Board mandates that all candidates who are deemed eligible and authorized to take the NPTE be immediately accommodated without respect to country of education.

Any readers to this Blog are encouraged to call their state boards. The FSBPT must be encouraged to rescind this policy on a national basis. It is only with pressure on the State Boards that the policy will be nationally rescinded.

Unquestionably, the integrity of the NPTE must be maintained. However, it must be maintained in a nondiscriminatory and legal manner that does not penalize innocent individuals.

Specifically, the court has agreed that the policy of the FSBPT which barred access to the NPTE to certain Physical Therapists based upon the country of education was impermissible and has entered Declaratory Judgment and a Permanent Injunction against the FSBPT and the Georgia State Board. The Court specially barred the Georgia Board and the FSBPT from:

a. enforcing the Testing Prohibition, in whole or in part, in the Georgia;
b. taking any action which would prohibit candidates eligible for physical therapy licensure under Georgia law from registering for and taking the NPTE;
c. engaging in any action that would subject candidates eligible for physical therapy licensure under Georgia law who graduated from physical therapy programs in Egypt, India, Pakistan, or the Philippines to any testing requirements, measures, conditions, terms, or circumstances different than those imposed on all other candidates eligible for physical therapy licensure in Georgia;
d. permitting any individual or entity to impose testing requirements, measures, conditions, terms, or circumstances inconsistent with Georgia law upon any candidate eligible for physical therapy licensure in Georgia.

If you have any questions or would like any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Chris Musillo or Cindy Unkenholt.

NEXT VERSE, SAME AS THE FIRST?

Politico says that the new Senate apparently is seeking to do what several prior Senates have been unable to do: craft meaningful immigration legislation. In the five years of this blog, we have posted dozens of stories in which comprehensive immigration legislation has been considered.

This latest effort has all the usual suspects saying all the usual things.

Chuck Schumer: "We realize it is a tough thing to do, but it is very important, and it’s worth a shot. We've been getting interesting, positive responses — from places you wouldn’t expect it."

Lindsey Graham: "It's in the infant stage; I don’t know what the political appetite is to do something."

It remains to be seen if this is more of the same. The bright spot is that no law can be changed unless politicians are at least considering it.

No word on the viability of including immigration reform for healthcare occupations. However, the inclusion of the US Chamber of Commerce and Sen. Schumer likely mean that immigration for healthcare occupations will be on the table.

FOLLOWING UP ON THE EMPLOYER REFERRAL NOTICE REQUIREMENT

In the comments to a recent posting on this Blog posting, a reader, “Michael,” raised an interesting point. Because of the lengthy nature of my reply, I’ve decided to re-post the exchange as its own Blog posting.

Michael said...

This does bring about an interesting point regarding the importance of internal media posting. The notice of filing alone does not satisfy the requirement of documentation awareness.

"In addition, the employer MUST publish the notice in any and all in-house media..." (emphasis added) §656.10(d)(ii)

Why did BALCA not specify that both (a) and (b) need exist together?

As with a lot of these PERM recruitment requirements, it is difficult to understand precisely what the DOL was aiming for in (d)(ii).

I read (d)(ii) to mean that other in-house media is only required if that in-house media is used to recruit for similar positions. There are four scenarios I can envision in which this is relevant:

1. An employer has a company-wide newsletter in which it normally posts job openings. In this instance the employer must specifically post the PERM position.
2. An employer has a company-wide newsletter in which it does not normally post job openings. In this instance, the PERM position would not need to be posted.
3. An employer has a newsletter in which it normally posts job openings. In this instance the employer must specifically post the PERM position. Additionally, if the employer includes notice of an incentive component to the referral program, this Notice likely can meet the employer referral program standard that was the subject of the Sanmina-Sci decision.
4. An employer has a company-wide newsletter in which it does not normally post job openings. In this instance, the PERM position would not need to be posted. However, if the employer elects to post the notice in the newsletter and the employer includes notice of an incentive component to the referral program, this Notice likely can meet the employer referral program standard that was the subject of the Sanmina-Sci decision.

Obviously much of these scenarios are very fact specific. Thanks for the question/comment, Michael. It was a good one.