There was an interesting article in The Telegraph last week about a work called Bombay Mix, by Damien Hirst, and the dispute between his certification company, Science Ltd, and a Mr and Mrs Simpson who possess the work.
As if traffic in California was not bad enough by itself, employers in the trucking industry have one more thing to worry about – whether they are complying with California’s meal and rest break laws. In Dilts v. Penske Logistics, LLC, the plaintiffs represent a class of delivery drivers and installers. Defendants had hoped to avoid the claim that they had violated California’s meal and rest break laws by arguing that as “motor carriers” the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (“FAAAA”) preempts California’s meal and rest break laws. The trial court agreed and granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. However, the Ninth Circuit reversed finding that California’s meal and rest break laws are not the type of laws related to prices, routes, or services that Congress intended to preempt.
Stock option plans are a familiar and valued part of the remuneration package of senior executives. When carefully drafted, they incentivize key employees to identify personally with the Company’s success and development, and maintain loyalty and discourage turnover. The Quebec Court of Appeal, in IBM Canada Ltée c. D.C., a decision released on July 7, 2014, has clarified the circumstances when they are (and are not) to be taken account of in calculating what is owed to the departing executive terminated without cause.
Epstein Becker Green and The ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC) have released a new issue of the Benefits Litigation Update.
Featured articles include:
Recent Supreme Court Decisions Revise Rules for Stock Drop Cases
By: Debra Davis, The ERISA Industry Committee
Hobby Lobby and the Questions Left Unanswered
By: John Houston Pope
Post-Amara Landscape Continues to Evolve
By: Scott J. Macey, The ERISA Industry Committee
Supreme Court to Decide Whether A Failed Class Action May Extend
Deadline to Bring Follow-on Claims By Individual Plaintiffs
By: John Houston Pope and Debra Davis
Supreme Court Indicates That It Will Review “Tibble”
By: Kenneth J. Kelly
Challenges Could Threaten Individual Subsidies and Employer
Mandate Penalties in States with Federal Exchanges
By: Adam C. Solander
The Washington Certificate of Need (“CN”) Program recently announced a temporary change in the CN requirements for acute care hospitals to change the use of existing licensed beds to psychiatric care beds. Acute care hospitals choosing to convert some of their acute care beds to psychiatric beds will not have to undergo the CN review process. […]
The post WA Certificate of Need Waiver for Psych Beds appeared first on OMW Health Law.
For more information please visit www.omwhealthlaw.com or click on the headline above.
In Morton v Christian, 2014 BCSC 1303, the British Columbia Supreme Court (the “Court”) grappled with the issue of proper revocation of a Will. It was determined that the destruction of a true copy of a Will does not satisfy the requirements for revocation when the original is known to be safely kept elsewhere.
In 1989, Mr. Christian and Ms. Morton became romantically involved. The couple married in Quebec sometime before 1991 and moved to British Columbia, where they lived together until separating in 2009. Before leaving Quebec, Mr. Christian executed a notarial Will naming Ms. Morton as the sole beneficiary and executrix.
Healthcare Alert: Deadline is fast approaching for business associate agreements to comply with HIPAA’s Omnibus Rule
Many organizations, whether business associates, covered entities, or contractors/vendors of business associates, have updated their business associate agreements to comply with the Omnibus Rule. However, many others have not. All business associate agreements must be brought into compliance with the Omnibus Rule by Sept. 23, 2014.
Whether you are a covered entity who deals with business associates or a business associate who provides services to covered entities, you should review all of your business associate arrangements to confirm that you have written business associate agreements in place that comply with the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules as updated by the Omnibus Rule. Start this process by identifying all of your business associate and contractor/vendor relationships.
The Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) recently issued findings from its study, “Questionable Billing for Medicare Part B Clinical Laboratory Services,” which provides recommendations for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to prevent fraudulent billing practices.
The purpose of the study was to look into questionable billing patterns for laboratory testing because Medicare payments for Part B laboratory services were $8.2 billion in 2010. Part B laboratory services are performed by independent laboratories, laboratories in physician offices, hospital reference laboratories for outpatient services, or other institutional laboratories. In order to be “reasonable or necessary” for purposes of billing Medicare, the laboratory services must be ordered by the treating physician or qualified practitioner.
Last week, President Obama asked for $3.7 billion to deal with the current border crisis. This week, House Republicans made it clear that they were not going to give the president what he asked for, and were readying their own plan for how to deal with the current situation.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) established a working group to come up with a series of policy proposals aimed at alleviating the crisis on our southern border. While still not finalized, the GOP plan will include a recommendation to dispatch the National Guard to south Texas as well as changes in U.S. law that would expedite the return of unaccompanied children who illegally cross the border.
Business Restructuring and Bankruptcy: Defending a preference action: the Ordinary Course of Business defense
What is the “ordinary course of business” defense?
The answer is not as simple as it may seem. Creditors usually believe that nothing they have done falls outside of the ordinary course of business, and the necessary question is simply whether your business dealings with the debtor changed during the 90 days prior to the debtor’s bankruptcy filing. Not surprisingly, the U.S. Bankruptcy Code requires a more complicated analysis with respect to the applicability of the ordinary course of business defense.