Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Confidential physician peer reviews may be disclosed to plaintiffs in federal discrimination and antitrust cases in three federal circuits, even though all 50 states and the District of Columbia recognize a privilege against disclosure of the performance ratings. This growing federal-state divergence will make federal courts more attractive to plaintiffs filing civil rights suits involving doctors, attorneys say. At the same time, it may have a chilling effect on peer review participant candor and on the ability of health care facilities to recruit peer review team members.
When a patient receives substandard care from a health care provider practicing telemedicine from a different state, the question is presented: Which state has jurisdiction over the transactions? The answer to this will depend on the two (or more) states involved and the circumstances of the case, but in the civil context it will generally come down to the usual questions of 'minimum contacts,' the parties' expectations, etc. What happens, though, when local prosecutors wants to hold a practitioner in another state criminally liable for practicing medicine within their state?
Features
Highlights of the latest franchising news from around the country.
Features
Life insurance is a common issue addressed in a substantial proportion of divorces. For many clients, especially those of greater economic means, existing insurance coverage is owned by irrevocable life insurance trusts ('ILIT'). Existing ILIT arrangements too often receive inadequate attention during the course of a divorce as a result of the focus on other more significant issues, or the presumption that since the ILIT is 'irrevocable,' it cannot be tailored to address the post-divorce insurance needs. This can be a considerable mistake. In many cases, because it is assumed that an existing ILIT cannot be changed, the insurance requirements resulting from the divorce are separately addressed in a property settlement agreement ('PSA').
Features
In a recent decision, the Ninth Circuit revisited the thorny issues involving the doctrine of unconscionability and its application to arbitration agreements. In <i>Davis v. O'Melveny & Myers</i>, 485 F.3d 1066 (9th. Cir. 2007), the court relied on a number of relatively recent, and by now well-known, cases in finding that a mandatory arbitration provision in O'Melveny's employee dispute resolution materials was unconscionable and, therefore, unenforceable.
In a three-part series in The Matrimonial Strategist (appearing in March, 2006, June, 2006, and March, 2007), Curtis Romanowski, a member of this newsletter's Board of Editors, described and promoted parenting coordination 'as a means for dealing with high conflict families involved in domestic relations proceedings before courts.' I applaud the efforts of those who have devoted significant time, energy, and, in some cases, funds, to trying to find ways in which to assist families in the difficult process of post-divorce adjustment, but parenting coordination has drawbacks that must be constructively addressed.
Every divorce lawyer has been in this situation: You are taking a deposition or examining a witness on the stand. You begin to get into sensitive subject matter, such as adultery, failure to report income, wiretapping or other miscellaneous criminal activities. The other lawyer objects. We all know that the privilege against self-incrimination applies even in civil cases such as divorce. So, you are not going to get an admission into evidence. Many practitioners do not realize, however, that they have some recourse.