Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Peer Review Proceedings Are Not Always Confidential
The peer review process is indispensable to promotion of quality in medical facilities. A major component of the process is honesty; without open investigation and discussion of adverse events and their causes, meaningful reforms for avoiding the same occurrences again are less likely to be made. To ensure open discourse, nearly every state has enacted laws protecting the confidentiality of peer review proceedings. However, federal law may not always be so deferent to the privacy concerns of the peer review committee. In certain circumstances, what most participants thought would be a closed record under state law might be opened by competing federal law enacted to protect the disabled.
Federal vs. State Law: A Case In Connecticut
Following public outcry over reports that disabled persons were being abused and maltreated in care facilities, Congress enacted the Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act of 1986 (PAMII), Pub. L. No. 99-319, 100 Stat. 478 (May 23, 1986) (amended in 1991 and again in 2000, when it was retitled the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act or 'PAMII.' See Pub. L. No. 106-310, 114 Stat. 1101, 1193-94 (Oct. 17, 2000), codified at 42 U.S.C. ” 10801-10851.) PAMII provides federal funds for states that have qualifying protection and advocacy (P & A) systems that monitor the care given to those with disabilities and mental illness in care and treatment centers. PAMII came into apparent conflict with Connecticut law protecting the confidentiality of peer review proceedings in a recent case in Connecticut, Protection & Advocacy for Persons With Disabilities v. Mental Health & Addiction Services, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 11379 (2d Cir. 5/6/06).
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.