Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Battered women and men suffer not only at home, but often at their places of employment, where the stresses they are under may affect their work. These people might be prone to increased absenteeism due to emotional stress, injury or controlling domestic partners who do things like turn off the alarm clock, refuse at the last minute to watch the children or take the car when it's needed to get to the job. The abuser may also come to the workplace, or threaten to do so, requiring the employer to increase security, deal with ugly scenes, or worse. Consequently, it is not hard to see why a victim of domestic violence or emotional abuse is not going to be an employer's top choice to fill a position or get a promotion. However, even though the employment situation for victims of domestic abuse is not always optimum, there are some statutory and common-law protections available.
Features
It is not every day that a Circuit Court of Appeals sets aside as unconstitutional a federal tax statute. When the taxability of untold millions of dollars of personal injury settlements and verdicts is affected, people generally take note. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Aug. 22 struck down as unconstitutional an amendment made to Code ' 104(a)(2) (All references to the Code are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended). If the decision stands, it could be one of the most significant tax developments in decades.
Features
In September, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, a congressionally created entity dedicated to the study of policy matters pertaining to the public health, issued the results of the study of federal drug safety policy commissioned by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The resulting report, titled 'The Future of Drug Safety, Promoting and Protecting the Health of the Public' and published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, has been widely anticipated in light of recent publicity surrounding Vioxx' and other drugs that, subsequent to FDA-approval, proved more dangerous than thought.
Features
Two Supreme Court rulings, <i>Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.</i> and <i>Kumho Tire v. Carmichael</i>, have had a profound effect on the treatment of expert testimony in the courts. In 1993, the Supreme Court, in Daubert, articulated guidelines for admissibility of scientific expertise as testimony. Later, in 1999, in <i>Kumho</i>, the Court focused on the admissibility of clinical expertise as testimony. More recently there has been increasing recognition of the inconsistency of trial courts in their construction and articulation of evidentiary standards to medical testimony. One proposed remedy is that 'Physicians should respond by correcting courts' misinterpretations of medical practice and assisting in the development of legal standards that encourage thoughtful and informed consideration of medical testimony by judges and juries.'
The effect of the Supreme Court's May 2006 opinion in <i>eBay v. MercExchange</i> is already visible in the world of intellectual property litigation. A handful of subsequent district court opinions relating to damages and permanent injunctive relief for patent infringement have been handed down with outcomes substantially outside of what would have normally been expected less than even a year ago, using the <i>eBay</i> decision as precedent. Although the true and long-lasting effect of this decision on litigation remains to be seen, its directional influence is clear. However, what is unclear is the effect that <i>eBay</i> will have on real-world intellectual property management and investment. The appropriate manner in which to react to these recent changes in the litigation realm is currently an area of much discussion by corporate IP departments, patent licensing and enforcement companies (P-LECs) and financiers.
<i>'It has now been surprisingly discovered ' '</i>With these words in Purdue Pharma's U.S. Patent Nos. 5,656,295, 5,508,042 and 5,549,912, Endo Pharmaceuticals asserted a basis to challenge the enforceability of Purdue's controlled-release oxycodone formulations due to inequitable conduct. <i>Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Endo Pharms., Inc.</i>, 438 F.3d 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
On Oct. 25, New Jersey stopped short of becoming the second state in the nation to legalize same-sex marriage by judicial fiat. The state's high court, while declaring unconstitutional state laws that deny same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to married heterosexuals, held that fixing the problem is a legislative task ' and gave lawmakers 180 days in which to do it.
