This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The US Supreme Courtruled Thursday in Dubin v. United States that in order to constitute aggravated identity theft, the use of a person’s identity must be at the “crux” of what makes the conduct criminal, reversing a lower court decision.
The Inspector General said that the program would violate the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS), a law meant to prevent fraud and abuse in connection with Medicare and Medicaid. A district court in New York upheld the DHHS’s interpretation of the AKS.
While the Agreement was ‘optional,’ it was bound up in the context of a healthcare decision[.] …The We conclude that…[the daughter’s] signing the Agreement on Decedent’s behalf was part and parcel of a healthcare decision. The POA did not provide or even contemplate healthcare decision-making power for [daughter]. …The
When the brother was admitted, plaintiff filled out admission paperwork, including an arbitration agreement, as plaintiff had a durable power of attorney for healthcare executed by the brother and naming plaintiff as the attorney-in-fact. National Health Corp. , 3d 876 (Tenn. internal citation omitted). Code Ann. §
the Supreme Court today upholds the dismissal without trial of negligence, wrongful death, and elder abuse claims against a Medicare Advantage HMO and plan administrator for the alleged premature discharge of an 85-year-old man from a skilled nursing facility. A federal Medicare statute preempts those claims, the court concludes.
Bradley Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center , No. The Court noted that this interpretation “comports with the purpose of the certificate of good faith—weeding out frivolous lawsuits.”. Applying this reasoning to the case at hand, the Courtruled that Exhibit 7 did not satisfy the certificate of good faith requirements.
Accord Healthcare, Inc., The patentee in the case argues that inherency is too strict a standard and that it goes beyond what is required by the statute and prior precedent. by Dennis Crouch. The Federal Circuit is now considering a pending en banc petition in Novartis Pharm. 21-1070; petition from 38 F.4th 4th 1013 (U.S.
The Court pointed out that the motion in Martin was a motion for summary judgment, which is why the Court therein cited Rule 56, but that the Martin opinion held that “a Rule 12.02(6) 6) motion is the correct vehicle to challenge compliance with the requirement of pre-suit notice in a healthcare liability action.”
Maricopa County Superior Court of Arizona ruled Wednesday that Arizona’s abortion ban after 15 weeks of pregnancy was unconstitutional and permanently enjoined Arizona employees from enforcing the abortion ban. This also causes a great risk of serious psychological and dignitary harm.
The article also states, “It is critically important to understand the labyrinth of potentially applicable ethics rules that intertwine with certain courtrules on retirement.”. According to Law.com , attorney retirement in New York is “remarkably complex” with “variations of ‘retire’… used in different contexts.”
The appellate courtruled that the mandate is not unconstitutional, as was argued in the initial lawsuit filed in 2020 by healthcare provider Women’s Med Group and three of its patients. People who undergo abortions can choose to take custody of the remains and dispose of them on their own accord.
The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has upheld Ohio’s HB 214 law that prohibits doctors from performing an abortion with the knowledge that a women’s reason for terminating the pregnancy is a fetal Down syndrome diagnosis. Rather, the validity of HB 214 should be decided using the “undue burden test.”
The Texas Supreme Courtruled on Monday against a pregnant woman who challenged the state’s abortion restrictions. A lower court had previously granted the woman, Kate Cox, permission to receive an abortion due to pregnancy complications, despite the state’s strict abortion ban. Her health is on the line.
The first “ six-week ban ,” under the state’s statute section 311.7706, prohibits doctors from terminating pregnancy if there is a detectable fetal heartbeat unless it is necessary to prevent the mother’s death or substantial and irreversible impairment. The case concerns two different abortion bans. Wade in June 2022.
In 2019, the Kansas Supreme Courtruled in Hodes & Nauser v Schmidt that the Kansas Constitution protects a fundamental right to personal autonomy, which includes the right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy. The court imposed a permanent injunction which prevented the law from being enforced. Physicians Herbert C.
Share With COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations reaching a new record high as a result of the Omicron variant, the Supreme Court on Thursday put the Biden administration’s vaccine-or-test mandate for large employers on hold, while litigation over its legality continues in the lower courts.
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration , the Court held that the vaccine-or-testing rule established by the U.S. Missouri , the Courtruled that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) rule should be allowed to take effect nationwide as the lower courts consider legal challenges.
In 2016, Catholic Charities sought an exemption from having to pay a Wisconsin unemployment tax for its employees, arguing that they fall within a provision of the statute that carves out from the definition of employment anyone who works for (as relevant here) an organization operated primarily for religious purposes.
The National Advocates for Pregnant Women, a legal advocacy group, says Wisconsin’s fetal protection law is the most “egregious” of the civil statutes in the country. Loertscher’s legal team — which included now-Attorney General Josh Kaul — was most successful, securing a federal courtruling that deemed the law unconstitutional.
A federal district court in Missouri put the rule on hold for 10 states, while a federal district court in Louisiana did the same for 14 other states. The states argue that the provision on which the government relies is a “housekeeping statute” that does not give HHS the broad power that the government claims.
Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit affirmed , holding that because a federal agency now has the final say over how the private horse-racing authority implements the federal statute, the amended law did not impermissibly delegate authority to a private entity. In a one-paragraph order, the justices granted the authoritys request.
United States , the Supreme Courtruled that former President Donald J. The justices remanded the case to the lower courts for further analysis, indicating that the president may be prosecuted for private conduct but not for official acts. Here are some of the most buzzworthy decisions and their far-reaching effects.
In their petition, the challengers argue that the Federal Circuit’s decision contradicts a prior Supreme Court decision that held that Section 232 is not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the executive branch because the statute establishes clear preconditions that the president must follow.
Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit to lift those orders while they appealed. The court of appeals refused, instead expediting argument. By a split vote, the 6th Circuit then reversed the lower courts’ rulings , concluding that the states were likely to win their appeals. The court thus allowed the laws go into effect.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content