In response to highly publicised failings of franchisors, the Senate has resolved to commence a Parliamentary inquiry into the Australian franchising sector.
A New Remedy for an Old Problem: Fifth Circuit Rules That Providers May Seek Injunctive Relief While Waiting For a Delayed Medicare Hearing
The long-running saga of the Medicare appeals backlog added a new chapter that may give frustrated stakeholders a new remedy. On March 27, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that a home health agency may pursue a claim against the Secretary of HHS for failing to provide a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge within a reasonable time. Family Rehabilitation, Incorporated v. Azar, No. 17-11337 (5th Cir., Mar. 27, 2018).
Faced with the inability to repeal the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) outright, the Trump Administration and Congress have taken actions to provide more health insurance options for Americans. Thus far, the Administration announced that they would no longer make cost sharing reduction (“CSR”) payments to insurers on the Exchanges and extended the time period in which short-term, limited-duration insurance (“STLDI”) plans could be offered. Meanwhile, Congress removed the individual mandate in the 2017 tax bill. The Administration asserts that these efforts are all solutions geared toward helping more Americans receive care as premiums are rising. A March 28, 2018 Gallup poll showing that health care costs are a higher concern for Americans, over the economy supports the Administration’s asserted justification. However, some states have recently taken their own steps to provide more health coverage options for their citizens while discounting the ACA, possibly reflecting a sense of dissatisfaction with the seemingly dragging feet of the Federal Government.
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently ordered that an action be stayed (Handley Estate v. DTE Industries Limited, 2018 ONCA 324) on the basis that certain parties had failed to comply with their obligation to immediately disclose a “Mary Carter” agreement. The Court held that by originally denying the motion for a stay, the motion judge had erred in principle by failing to apply the remedy for non-disclosure of these types of agreements as specified in a previous Court of Appeal decision called Aecon Buildings v. Stephenson Engineering Limited (“Aecon”).
Investments in Australia by foreign persons must be notified to the Foreign Investments Review Board (FIRB) where the proposal meets the relevant thresholds.
CMS Finalizes Policy and Technical Changes to the Medicare Advantage and Part D Programs for CY 2019
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) issued on April 2, 2018, an advanced copy of the final rule title “Medicare Program; Contract Year 2019 Policy and Technical Changes to the Medicare Advantage, Medicare Cost Plan, Medicare Fee-for-Service, the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Programs, and the PACE Program” (“Final Rule”). This Final Rule will be published in the April 16, 2018 issue of the Federal Register.
The Supreme Court Rejects Narrow Construction for FLSA Overtime Exemptions – Employment Law This Week Continue Reading…
Featured on Employment Law This Week: The Ninth Circuit held that certain auto service advisors were not exempt because their position is not specifically listed in the FLSA auto dealership exemption.
Fladgate LLP has advised on the sale of the extensive Wembley Point site in Brent on behalf of off-shore clients of Bravo Investment House to Canada Israel Group.
The day has finally come. Every state in the U.S. now has a breach notification law, despite constant pressure for one uniform national law. Alabama and South Dakota have joined the 48 other states and the District of Columbia in enacting data breach notification statutes days apart, with South Dakota’s statute enacted on March 21, 2018, and Alabama’s statute enacted on March 28, 2018.
Today, we’re bringing you a special guest post from the folks at Legal Gateway, who have identified the top eight mistakes that in-house counsel make when implementing legal technology that prevents it from being successful. In-house lawyers: this one’s for you, and for our outside counsel readers, consider sharing this with your clients and discussing their technology needs, solutions, and strategies with them, and how you may be able to partner with them. This was originally published on Plexus.