Husch Blackwell attorneys Ed Barker and Joe Geraci discussed hospital legal issues related to a recent Ebola patient with the Texas Lawyer publication. The two-day period between the recent Dallas, Texas, Ebola patient’s first visit and isolation is the key to potential legal issues for the hospital, according to Barker and Geraci.
The Ebola patient…
Join our attorneys for an in-depth look at healthcare compliance and gain practical information about effectively navigating an audit or investigation. The Oct. 1 webinar “Getting Real: Real-Life Compliance issues” is part of the Husch Blackwell Healthcare Horizons webinar series.
What You Will Learn
Dietary supplements represent a huge sector of the consumer market and changes in both intellectual property law and the regulations governing the market entry and advertising of these products is changing.
The new America Invents Act allows anyone to challenge the validity of patents under the inter partes review (IPR) process. In a Sept. 9 webinar, Husch Blackwell Partner Joseph Cwik, who recently won the first pharmaceutical IPR case, will provide an overview of this new process and explain how it is more cost-effective, efficient and successful than the traditional litigation.
The Kentucky Supreme Court issued an opinion Aug. 21, 2014, (Tibbs v. Bunnell, Ky., No. 2012-SC-000603-MR) in which it held that the incident report developed by the University of Kentucky Hospital (“hospital”), through the hospital’s Patient Safety Evaluation System (“PSES”), following the death of a patient, was not protected as patient safety work product (“PSWP”) under the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 (the “Act”).
Husch Blackwell was highly recognized as Best Lawyers, a well-respected peer review publication, released its new rankings for 2015. This year, 19 of our Healthcare, Life Sciences & Pharmaceuticals industry group attorneys were selected as leaders in their respective fields.
First published in 1983, Best Lawyers is based on a national survey involving more than 5.5 million detailed evaluations of lawyers by other lawyers.
The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (“HHS”) issued final regulations in January 2013 modifying the privacy, security and enforcement provisions under the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”). Covered entities and business associates were generally required to comply with the final regulations by Sept. 23, 2013. To reduce administrative burden and costs of renegotiating existing business associate agreements, HHS provided a transition period. Business associate agreements in place as of Jan. 25, 2013, and not modified or renewed between March 26, 2013, and Sept. 23, 2013, were deemed to comply with the new regulations for up to 12 months. All relevant entities should note that the deemed compliance period ends Sept. 22, 2014.
On July 11, 2014, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) released a Technical Advice Memorandum (“TAM”) dated March 7, 2008, which concluded that, contrary to the general rule set forth in Revenue Ruling 85-110 (“Rev. Ruling 85-110”), a tax-exempt hospital’s income from laboratory testing services to patients of private physicians is not subject to the unrelated business income tax.
In 2012, several American Health Lawyers Association (AHLA) members and leaders expressed interest in developing informal networking and professional development opportunities for women members and program attendees. After receiving feedback from informal in-person networking events held at the 2012 Annual Meeting and the 2012 Fraud and Compliance Forum, an AHLA Women’s Network took shape and in January 2014, the Women’s Leadership Council formalized the operation of the Network.
This year’s quarterly series of interviews with some of AHLA’s women members was designed with the intent to give young professional members an opportunity to profile some of our more experienced or uniquely situated AHLA members and leaders, to learn more about their path to success, and challenges they have faced along the way.
Recently, the Federal Circuit provided some insight about the “error” upon which a reissue patent application can be based under 35 U.S.C. § 251. See In re Dinsmore, No. 2013-1637, 2004 WL 2337372 (Fed. Cir. June 10, 2014).
The current section 251 states:
Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more of less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. 35 U.S.C. § 251 (2012). (The previous version of this statute, which was in effect at the relevant time for the case, included the phrase: “without any deceptive intention.” This change was made Sept. 16, 2012.)
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) has always faced tremendous challenges due to the sheer magnitude of both the changes it authorized and the people it will impact. Now two different Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal have made the law’s implementation even more difficult by issuing conflicting rulings on the same day.
