Features
The Collateral Source Rule and State-Provided Services
As discussed last month, most states adhere to the collateral source rule to preclude defendants in med mal suits from presenting the jury with evidence that public benefits, such as state-provided special education and therapy, may be available to the plaintiff. Not all states have fallen in line with this general rule, however.
HIPAA Update
In 2012, OCR has entered into four settlement agreements with Corrective Action Plans (CAPs), more than in any year since HITECH went into effect; three of these arose from breach notifications, which had not happened before.
Drug Compounding: Many Considerations
The tug-of-war pitting patients against pharmaceutical companies against pharmacists selling competing compound drug mixtures to the public has lately gained greater urgency.
Features
Should a Custodial Parent Need Court Approval to Move?
Though each case involving relocation must be viewed individually, with the best interest of the children remaining the primary concern of parents and the courts, serious work must be done to meet the challenges of our changing society.
Custody Determinations: Childhood Obesity and the Law
Childhood obesity is only one element a court must consider when deciding whether parents are unfit to care for their child, and is often only part of a larger issue. That having been said, it cannot be ignored as a significant factor affecting a child's health and well-being.
Business Crimes Hotline
Tyco Resolves DOJ and SEC FCPA Enforcement Action On Sept. 24, Tyco International Ltd. (Tyco) resolved enforcement actions by the DOJ and the SEC for alleged violations of the FCPA. Fines and penalties totaled over $26 million ($13.68 in the DOJ enforcement action and over $13 million in the SEC enforcement action). As part of the resolution, Tyco Valves & Controls Middle East Inc. (TVC ME), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Tyco, plead guilty before…
Need Help?
- Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
- Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.
MOST POPULAR STORIES
- The Article 8 Opt InThe Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.Read More ›
- Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult CoinWith each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.Read More ›
- Online Interviewing for Use in Lanham Act LitigationInternet interviewing will undoubtedly become the norm over the next decade. Being familiar with the ways to enhance its reliability and validity will be necessary to create scientifically valid, controlled, and reliable studies that can be used in Lanham Act litigation.Read More ›
- Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright LawsThis article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.Read More ›
- Foreseeability as a Bar to Proof of Patent InfringementThe doctrine of equivalents is a rule of equity adopted more than 150 years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. Prosecution history estoppel is a rule of equity that controls access to the doctrine. In May 2002, the Court was called upon to revisit the doctrine and the estoppel rule in <i>Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. Ltd.</i> Ultimately the Court reaffirmed the doctrine and expanded the estoppel rule, but not without inciting heated debate over the Court's rationale — especially since it included a new and controversial foreseeability test in its analysis for estoppel.Read More ›