Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Update: Courts Still Split on HIPAA and Ex Parte Physician Interviews
As medical malpractice attorneys universally acknowledge, treating physicians often play an important role in the life of a medical malpractice lawsuit. Their testimony is often vital to the success or failure of medical malpractice claims.
Early last year, we discussed in this publication three decisions from lower courts that had the potential to greatly impact and shape the emerging landscape of the HIPAA ex parte interview debate. “Dissecting the Latest Pronouncements on Ex Parte Physician Interviews,” Moncus, J., Medical Malpractice Law & Strategy, April 2010. As of fall 2010, two states' high courts had weighed in on the issue; moreover, the ex parte interview issue was the only issue on appeal in both decisions. (The other case we reported last year, the federal district court decision out of Kansas, Pratt v. Petelin, 2010 WL 446474 (D. Kan. Feb. 4, 2010), was not appealed and is thus not further discussed herein.) While these two state supreme court decisions are widely disparate in their conclusions, together they have significantly narrowed the field of inquiry by focusing on a few key aspects of HIPAA. This article explores both the underpinnings and potential impact of these important rulings.
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
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.