Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Nearly one year after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a pre-emption on filing failure-to-warn actions over federally approved drugs, rulings across the nation show a clear division over the issue.
Features
Last May's U.S. Supreme Court decision in Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Ahlborn, 547 U.S. 268 (2006) ' which held that when a Medicaid benefits recipient settles with a tortfeasor, states seeking recoupment of funds for monies expended on their medical care may do so only from that part of a settlement that was designated as being for past medical expenses ' has so far led to very few reported decisions on the subject. However, two recent cases in New York have applied the teachings of the decision to find that some malpractice claimants who are also Medicaid benefits recipients and who settle with those who allegedly injured them must be allowed to keep for themselves more of the proceeds of their claims.
Features
Generally speaking, a physician is not liable for the negligent actions of hospital employees and staff who are not employed by the physician. There are, however, two key instances where a physician can be held liable for a non-employee's negligent actions: 1) when the physician discovers a non-employee's negligence during the course of ordinary care and fails to correct or otherwise prevent the ill effects of the negligent act; and 2) when the non-employee is under the physician's supervision and control such that a 'master and servant' relationship exists. Over the past several decades, the viability of this 'captain of the ship' doctrine has diminished, for several reasons.
In what may become a landmark decision on abortion rights, the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (the Act) in a 5-to-4 decision with implications extending beyond the abortion field.
Highlights of the latest franchising news from around the country.
News about lawyers and law firms in the franchising industry.
Features
Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.
Several states require a 'community of interest' between the parties to establish the requisite relationship to trigger the notice and disclosure requirements under the state's dealership or franchise laws. But ask franchise lawyers what is meant by this phrase, and what becomes clear is how unclear determining a community of interest can be. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin shed some light on the issue in its recent decision in <i>Miller-Bradford & Risberg, Inc. v. VT LeeBoy, Inc.</i>, Business Franchise Guide '13,522 (filed Jan. 26, 2007).
Features
The New Franchise Rule deletes the four exclusions in the existing Rule for employer-employees and general partnerships, cooperative organizations, testing or certification services, and single trademark licenses, since a revised definition of 'franchise' in the Rule obviates the need for these exclusions. The New Rule retains the exemption for franchise sales under $500, fractional franchises, and leased departments, while adding an exemption for petroleum marketers governed by the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, as well as for three categories of 'sophisticated investor.'