This post is the first in a series from Epstein Becker Green on the growing area of enforcement of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSP). There has been a recent growth in enforcement actions and regulatory interest that may not have yet attracted the attention of many providers and traditional and non-traditional payers. Noncompliance with the MSP can result in monetary penalties and government enforcement action. In particular, the MSP is garnering attention as an enforcement tool under the False Claims Act (FCA). This series of blogs provides a general overview of the MSP, discusses requirements for compliance for differing entities, describes recent MSP enforcement actions under the False Claims Act (FCA), and sets forth key takeaways to potentially reduce liability.
Chicago, Illinois, February 14, 2018: Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC is pleased to announce that seventeen of our attorneys have been named to Illinois Super Lawyers® and Illinois Rising Stars 2018. Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys. Only five percent of the attorneys in Illinois were named to the Super Lawyers list and two and one half percent to Rising Stars.
February 13, 2018 — The latest edition of the Journal du Barreau, the monthly magazine of the Quebec Bar, features on pages 26 and following a paper on the upcoming reform of the Highway Safety Code, announced in December. The text is highlighted with comments by Normand Laurendeau, an expert on transportation law.
Labor Issues in the Gig Economy: Federal Court Concludes That GrubHub Delivery Drivers are Independent Contractors under California Law Continue Reading…
Recently, a number of proposed class and collective action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of so-called “gig economy” workers, alleging that such workers have been misclassified as independent contractors. How these workers are classified is critical not only for workers seeking wage, injury and discrimination protections only available to employees, but also to employers desiring to avoid legal risks and costs conferred by employee status. While a number of cases have been tried regarding other types of independent contractor arrangements (e.g., taxi drivers, insurance agents, etc.), few, if any, of these types of cases have made it through a trial on the merits – until now.
Consider the following scenario: your organization holds an annual meeting with all Research & Development employees for the purpose of having an open discussion between thought leaders and R&D regarding product-development capabilities. This year’s meeting is scheduled outside the United States and next year’s will be within the U.S. with all non-U.S. R&D employees traveling into the U.S. to attend. For each meeting, your employees may be subject to a search of their electronic devices, including any laptop that may contain your company’s trade secrets. Pursuant to a new directive issued in January 2018 by the U.S. Custom and Border Protection (“CBP”), the electronic devices of all individuals, including U.S. citizens and U.S. residents, may be subject to search upon entry into (or leaving) the U.S. by the CBP. CBP Directive No. 3340-049A (Jan. 4, 2018).
Shutts & Bowen LLP named five new partners during its annual meeting.
“We are proud of the exceptional attorneys who we promoted to partners this year,” said Managing Partner Micky Grindstaff. “This diverse group of individuals has made extraordinary contributions to the firm. We welcome their fresh perspectives and varied backgrounds and look forward to their continued success.”
Of the various types of post-employment restrictions imposed on employees, a restriction on the recruitment of former co-workers (sometimes referred to as a “no-poach” or “anti-raiding” clause) is the type most likely to be enforced by a court. As a result, this is one type of post-employment restriction that is frequently drafted without the careful thought generally put in to traditional non-competes and client non-solicitation clauses. But in what could be a foreshadowing of closer judicial scrutiny of co-worker non-solicitation clauses nationwide, the Wisconsin Supreme Court recently held that the Wisconsin non-compete statute applies to such clauses, and that the particular clause in question was unenforceable because it was not “reasonably necessary for the protection of the employer.”
Several states in recent years have enacted laws that have been designed, in varying degrees, to limit non-competes, including California, Illinois, and Nevada. Which states and cities are most likely to do the same in 2018?
The New Hampshire and New York City legislatures have introduced bills that seek to prohibit the use of non-compete agreements with regard to low-wage employees. Under New Hampshire’s Bill (SB 423), a “low-wage employee” is defined as one who earns $15.00 per hour or less. The New Hampshire Bill was introduced on January 24, 2018 and is scheduled for a hearing in February.
A recent statutory instrument came into effect on the 21st November 2017, which alters the way single farm entitlements are distributed in wills.
Previously, single farm entitlements could be directly passed onto specific beneficiaries in a will. If the will was silent on the issue, then the single farm entitlements fell into the residuary estate and passed to the residuary beneficiaries in the will.