Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Over the past year, with the medical malpractice crisis growing to encompass an ever-increasing number of states, physicians have wanted to implement strategies to force the issues out in the open and stimulate reforms. One strategy, which many physicians considered and far fewer implemented, was conducting some form of work stoppage. The concept of a work stoppage has generated a great deal of debate among physicians, medical societies, attorneys, law enforcement officials and legislators, both on legal and ethical grounds. What is the effect of antitrust law on these movements, and how can the outcomes of prior antitrust cases help to frame the legal debate concerning a physician work stoppage? If you have physician clients who are contemplating such actions as part of their efforts toward tort reform, what should you advise them?
In last month's newsletter, we noted the dearth of significant case law with respect to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, Pub. L. No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936 (1996) (HIPAA), save for three cases. In the first installment of this article, we looked at the case of <i>Northwestern Memorial Hospital v. Ashcroft</i>, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 5724 (7th Cir. 2004), in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected the notion that HIPAA created a new federal privilege regarding abortion medical records. That court ultimately quashed the subpoena that would have required the hospital to turn over to the U.S. government the abortion records sought, but on different grounds.
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
President Bush's recess appointment of William H. Pryor Jr. to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals outraged senators who objected to Pryor's record on issues such as gay rights, abortion and federalism. Although the Democrats managed to block a vote on his nomination, the President's appointment will allow Pryor to remain on the bench through 2005.
Matrimonial attorneys need to be aware that a shift in prevailing winds is occurring within the business appraisal profession concerning valuation of interests in "pass-through entities" (PTEs) such as S-Corporations and various forms of limited liability entities. Calculation of the fair market value of a closely held marital business interest could vary by as much as 67% if income taxes are considered or not considered under various methods. While the choice of methods and procedural analysis is the domain of your appraisal expert, knowledge of valuation alternatives will help you ensure that an appropriate analysis for your client is performed, and will assist you in impugning a less alert opposing expert during cross-examination. Be careful, however, because these "new analytics" are fact-sensitive and not universally applied (or misapplied) by business appraisers.
Features
In a case of first impression in Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court, the highest appellate court in the state, granted allocatur to consider whether a trial court may order a parent with primary custody of a child to pay child support to the non-custodial parent. Finding that in certain circumstances they may do so, the court has now ordered a custodial father to pay child support to the mother of his children, despite the fact they he has custody of them 73% of the time.
Features
Can a parent's vegetarianism be a factor in custody disputes? Even if the diet is safe, is one parent bound by the other parent's decision to raise a child as a vegetarian? Could Dad be forced to cook "notdogs" during his weekends with the kids? Might Mom be forced to bake a "tofurkey" for Thanksgiving dinner on her alternate custody years? There have only been a handful of cases to address these issues, but with the swell of vegetarians in recent years, and particularly with the rise of vegetarianism among children and teenagers, the courts will soon be grappling with this issue.
Features
National rulings of interest to you and your practice.
If you have practiced employment law for more than a decade, you probably assume that Title VII does not cover transsexuals, transvestites or other transgendered individuals. It's simple: A lot of cases have held that "sex" discrimination does not extend beyond traditional notions of "male" and "female." Besides, an individual's sexual orientation is not protected under Title VII, so why should the transgendered be protected? Such an assumption is no longer necessarily valid. There appears to be a growing trend toward recognizing a cause of action for sex discrimination under Title VII when a transgendered employee suffers an adverse employment action.
Features
Recent rulings you need to know.
