June 26, 2011
Medicare Reimbursement for Beneficiaries with Permanent Pacemakers
By: Elizabeth Sullivan
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) have proposed modifying the current National Coverage Determination Manual to cover reimbursement for MRIs performed on Medicare beneficiaries with permanent pacemakers.
In its Proposed Decision Memo for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) (CAG – 00399R3) (“Memorandum”), CMS issued the statement that “evidence is adequate to conclude that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) improves health outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries with implanted permanent pacemakers when . . . used according to the FDA-approved labeling for use in an MRI environment.”
June 23, 2011
Over the past decade, employers have been subjected to an onslaught of class action claims on behalf of employees alleging wage-hour violations, unlawful discrimination and other wrongful conduct. Given the complexities of the legal principles governing class claims and the absence of hard-and-fast rules, many lower courts have approved class treatment of claims that are, at their heart, unique to each class member. These facts, coupled with an aggressive plaintiffs’ bar, has left employers with little recourse but to settle class claims that would likely be defensible if pursued on an individual basis or to incur mounting legal fees in their effort to push back against the tide.
Fortunately, on June 20, 2011, the United States Supreme Court signaled a changing tide. It put the brakes on a class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart that encompassed 1.5 million past and present female employees of the retail giant. In so doing, the Court clarified the requirements for pursuing class claims and provided employers with a measure of legal respite from the claims of overly broad, tenuously affiliated classes of employees.
June 22, 2011
Indian Economy: the Investor’s paradise
India is a booming economy which has seeing an exceptional growth in its aviation segment in last couple of decades. Counter to demands of aviation segment in the country the existing aviation infrastructure and the carrier’s technology needs serious up gradation. As there are ample of opportunities for growth of this sector therefore, venous domestic and international aviations giants are seeing India as paradise for investment in the Aerospace technology and development.
To see the full article, please click on the following link, Investment opp 220611 for the PDF.
June 22, 2011
So you’ve lost your job… What next?
Seek counseling. Talk it out! Don’tincubate. You have been cut loseand naturally, it hurts. You probablyhave a million things swirlingin your mind. Right now, all thatyou can think about are all thoseyears and tears that you sacrificedat the altar of employment only tobe cut loose at the whim of someoneelse’s discretion! This may be adifficult proposition, but do not takedramatic or hasty action. Talk tosomeone you trust; maybe a pastor, a parent, a close friend, arepresentative from Social Services or other Counselor. In fact,many companies have an Employee Assistance Program designedto assist recently terminated employees with coming togrips to life’s challenges. There is even DIAL A PRAYER!The important thing is just to find someone to talk to.
To see the full Bulletin, please click the following link, HC’s Bulletin- Employment 101 – June 2011 for the PDF.
June 21, 2011
The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) held an open meeting on June 8, 2011 on the appropriate use of disability leave as a reasonable accommodation at its headquarters in Washington, D.C. The open meeting is just the latest step in the EEOC’s on-going effort to move the marketplace towards its enforcement position that employers may not implement one-size-fits-all leave periods for disabled employees (i.e., disabled employees have x number of days to return to work or face termination) – a lesson that Sears Roebuck learned in 2009 at the decidedly burdensome price of $6.2 Million.
June 21, 2011
We kicked off the Saturday morning session with a presentation from Mr. Norman Zivin of one of the ILN’s member firms in New York, Cooper & Dunham, who reported on their recent involvement in a Supreme Court case and the implications for ILN member firms, both in the US and abroad.
Norman said that the case involved a deep fryer, a product made by their client, SEB, a French company in Lyon. A number of years ago, they brought a lawsuit against a company in Hong Kong for infringement of the patent. The opposing side defended on the grounds that they couldn’t have infringed the patent because the products were made and sold in China. They said that therefore, they don’t do any business in the United States and couldn’t have induced anyone to infringe, because they didn’t even know that SEB had a patent.
June 21, 2011
PROPOSED VOLUNTARY GUIDELINES ON FOOD MARKETING TO CHILDREN
In an effort to combat childhood obesity, former Senator Sam Brownback and Senator Tom Harkin directed the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP) and the Department of Agriculture (USDA), to establish an Interagency Working Group (IWG) consisting of nutrition, health and marketing experts to develop recommendations for the nutritional quality of foods marketed to children, ages 2-17.
In response to that directive, the IWG developed the following nutrition principles and marketing criteria for implementation by the year 2016.
Click here to read the full alert >>
June 20, 2011
In an eagerly anticipated opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes today. The Court held that insufficient proof existed to allow certification of a class of more than one million women in a sex discrimination suit against Wal-Mart. The Court ruled only on the procedural issue of whether a class should be certified and not on the merits of the plaintiffs’ discrimination claims.
In Wal-Mart, the plaintiffs sought certification of a class of over one million women claiming that Wal-Mart had a companywide policy of discriminating against women in pay and promotion. The plaintiffs initially sought to include women who were not even employed by Wal-Mart when the lawsuit was filed in 2001. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit allowed certification of a narrowed class of women who worked at the company at the time of the 2001 suit. Wal-Mart appealed that decision arguing that the plaintiffs could not show that the claims of the over one million women were sufficiently similar to support certification as a class.