Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Let's not be overly critical of the Amended FTC Disclosure Rule, which was promulgated in January 2007 after being 10 years in the development stage. As Stephen Toporoff of the Federal Trade Commission ('FTC') has convinced me in recent discussions, amending a federal regulation is an arduous task. In this instance, it required an extensive amount of background research on the history of the original Disclosure Rule, several hearings, careful review of the hundreds of comments, careful examination of the UFOC Guidelines and their origins and assumptions, comparing them with the original Disclosure Rule's format, and testing in many cases the care and thought that went behind the original language of the UFOC Guidelines. The Amended Disclosure Rule was no shot from the hip. In light of this background information, and considering simply the politics of federal agencies, it is not very surprising that it took a decade for the FTC to issue the Amended Disclosure Rule.
No one in the federal government is more closely associated with the New Franchise Rule ('New Rule' or 'amended Rule') than Steven Toporoff, franchise program coordinator, Federal Trade Commission ('FTC'). Since the review process began more than a decade ago, Toporoff has fielded comments about how the Commission can improve franchising regulations for the benefit of franchisors, franchisees, and prospective franchisees. Now, with the New Rule released in final form, Toporoff has the dual challenges of educating the franchise industry and consumers about the new provisions, while also ensuring compliance with its standards. In this Q&A, FBLA speaks with Toporoff about what the New Rule contains (and does not contain), and how the FTC is reaching out to the franchise industry to ensure a smooth transition over the next 16 months.
On Jan. 22, 2007, after more than a decade of study, the FTC released its long-anticipated new Federal Trade Commission Rule on Franchising (the 'New Rule'). The New Rule comes into effect on a voluntary basis on July 1, 2007, with compliance becoming mandatory on July 1, 2008. Additional compliance guides are expected by July 1, 2007. Franchisors will have to make significant changes to their existing disclosure documents and follow new rules for how and when they are delivered to prospective franchisees.
In a decision that could influence discovery in federal medical-device products liability litigation, a Magistrate Judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York has held that a state-law provision designed to encourage hospitals to maintain quality assurance and infection control programs without fear of litigation can be invoked to block disclosure of hospital records even where there is, at most, an indirect threat of a malpractice suit and where the…
It is said that 'doctors bury their mistakes.' At one time that may have been more true than in modern times, and when the original peer-review privileges case came out, it seemed as if it may have been more possible to bury culpable behavior in peer-review. That is not the case in 2007.
The author, Tim O'Brien, was appointed Lead Counsel by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in MDL No. 1789, <i>In re Fosomax Products Liability Litigation</i>. The opinions expressed herein are Mr. O'Brien's and represent some of the arguments the plaintiffs are or will be making in the litigation.
Documentation is an important part of medical care. Consultation notes, test results, physician orders and nursing observations all assist in ensuring continuity of care. In litigation, however, the significance of the written chart is often elevated from a tool for patient care to historical written account of past events. In this latter context, many in the medical community have advocated that if an event (an order, a consultation, a phone call, etc.) was not documented in the official patient record, it did not happen. Over time, this 'negative evidence' has been used to prove negligent omissions on the part of various care providers by showing that they failed to do something that they should have done, because if it had been done it would have been charted. The same 'lack of entry' evidence is also used to disprove (or create doubt) that an event testified to by a witness on the stand did not occur.
