Features

Medical monitoring is often pursued as a claim in class actions against corporate defendants based on exposures to environmental pollutants or products that allegedly have the potential to cause future health problems. Because medical monitoring is an exception to the general requirement that the plaintiff must have a present injury in order to pursue a claim, many jurisdictions have adopted strict elements that a plaintiff must satisfy in order to succeed on a medical monitoring claim. These elements often require the court to consider issues specific to individual plaintiffs, particularly aspects of each plaintiff's medical history that have an impact on the need for or the extent of the proposed medical monitoring. As a result of these individual medical issues, many courts in recent years have refused to certify medical monitoring class actions. <i>See, e.g., Ball v. Union Carbide Corp.</i>, 385 F.3d 713, 727-28 (6th Cir. 2004); <i>Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc.</i>, 253 F. 3d 1180, 1195-96, <i>amended,</i> 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001); <i>Barnes v. Am. Tobacco Co.</i>, 161 F.3d 127, 143 (3d Cir. 1998); <i>Boughton v. Cotter Corp.</i>, 65 F.3d 823, 827 (10th Cir. 1995).

Armed with a 'blue sky' law passed in 2002, new Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations and a general shareholder mood of discontent that is turning into activism, artists have an unprecedented opportunity to seek meaningful corporate reform and oversight of the music industry through the corporate boardroom. What they couldn't accomplish as disgruntled artists, they may be able to accomplish as disgruntled shareholders.

Features

Automakers have implemented an incredible amount of safety features into vehicles over the past century. For as long as automakers have been implementing those features into vehicles, however, they have had to defend themselves against critics and purported safety advocates wanting to know why a particular safety innovation was not implemented sooner and why it was not more effective, as consumers 'expected.' On their face, many safety-related criticisms appear valid, given that in 2005 alone, more than 2.7 million people were killed or injured in more than six million police-reported traffic accidents. <i>See</i> NHTSA's National Center for Statistics &amp; Analysis, <i>Motor Vehicle Traffic Crash Fatalities and Injuries &mdash; 2005 Projections</i>, DOT HS-810-583 (2006), available at <i>www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/ pdf/nrd30/NCSA/PPT/2006/810583.pdf.</i>

Recent rulings of importance to your practice.

Features

Employers go to great lengths and expense to reduce their potential exposure to employment-related claims. Most employers implement policies to address the myriad and growing federal, state, and local employment laws; regularly conduct employee EEO training; hire qualified human resources professionals and in-house attorneys with expertise in employment law; and regularly seek advice and assistance from outside counsel concerning these prophylactic measures. The purpose of this article is to apprise readers of a fast, simple, and inexpensive way to reduce their exposure to certain types of employment-related claims through the inclusion of an express waiver ('Waiver') in an employment application or other document signed by applicants or employees. The Waiver contractually reduces to six (6) months the time period within which certain types of employment-related claims must be filed and waives any statute of limitations to the contrary, thereby significantly reducing the number of timely-filed claims and, consequently, the employer's potential exposure.

Features

As many of you know, there are various insurance policies available to protect against employment-related claims. Although some policies, such as employment practices liability (EPL) policies, cover a variety of claims, many cover only specific claims to the exclusion of all others. A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit highlights some of the interesting issues that can arise in resolving employment claims covered by an insurance policy.

Employers that have a lot of tipped employees often face a host of employment law challenges, including payroll. Under the Internal Revenue Code ('Code'), tips are income subject to income tax withholding and usually subject to Social Security and Medicare taxes as well. Problems often arise when the employer does not know exactly how much tip income an employee receives, either because they are in cash, or because the employees, such as hosts or busers, are indirectly tipped by other employees, such as waiters. This article offers employers a short guide for dealing with the federal taxation of tipped employees and the IRS' compliance programs.

Features

On Sept. 29, 2006, the Food and Drug Administration ('FDA') issued a final guidance on quality systems for pharmaceutical companies: formalized business practices that define management responsibilities for organizational structure, processes, procedures, and resources needed to fulfill product and service requirements, improve customer satisfaction, and ensure continual improvement. The 'Quality Systems Approaches to Pharmaceutical Current Good Manu-facturing Practice Regulations' (the 'Guidance Document') is intended to help companies comply with the FDA's current Good Manufacturing Practices ('cGMP') regulations. The Guidance Document is part of the FDA's Pharmaceutical cGMPs for the 21st Century Initiative, a program that seeks to integrate quality systems and risk management approaches into existing manufacturing programs with the goal of encouraging industry to adopt modern and innovative manufacturing technologies.