Emerging Litigation Podcast
Government Involvement in Medical Decisions During Outbreaks with Bryce McColskey and Sandra Cianflone
Government Involvement in Medical Decisions During Outbreaks It's apparently (and hopefully) on its last legs. The Covid-19 pandemic was the most recent health issue to raise questions around government’s involvement (or interference) in an individual’s control over their own medical treatment. In their article – Government Involvement in Medical Care Decisions During Outbreaks of Disease: How Far is Too Far? – our guests wrote about the intersection of law and medicine. They reviewed medical mandates, implications brought about by the impact of advances in science and medicine, and where role of government to protect public health intersects (or collides) with personal healthcare choices. They focused is on governmental responses to the pandemic, that is, what the government can mandate in the spirit of public health, and not on the separate issue of abortion, which is a “choice” subject for another day. How much authority do government agencies or even the courts have over a person’s healthcare decisions? People often assume the practice of medicine and the enactment and enforcement of laws are separate and independent enterprises; that they remain fixed in their respective corners. However, they wrote, after a deeper dive into history and precedent, it’s evident that the tension between individual rights and health-related mandates has existed for some time. Listen to my interview with the authors, Bryce McCloskey and Sandra M. Cianflone with Hall Booth Smith, P.C. Bryce is based in Jacksonville, Fla., where he focuses on medical malpractice and professional liability law. Sandie is a partner in the firm’s Atlanta office where she concentrates on a variety of aspects of healthcare defense She chairs the firm’s Coronavirus Task Force and is a member of the firm's National Trial Counsel team. She is also a valued member of the Editorial Board of Advisors of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. *********** This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on [...]
The Cannabis Employment Law Patchwork with Keya Denner
The Cannabis Employment Law Patchwork with Keya Denner Maryland and Missouri are the latest states to legalize recreational cannabis for people 21 and older. Voters came out in favor of legalization in the November 2022 midterms, bringing the total recreational jurisdictions to 22 states and the District of Columbia. Voters in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Arkansas, however, decided against recreational marijuana. It remains legal for medical reasons in all five states. In the employment context, both recreational and medicinal uses raise questions about protections for employees who use the drug legally. Which states are enacting those protections? What do multi-state employers need to do? What about drug testing? As a requirement to get a job and as a requirement to keep your job? What about this: who is going to say whether a worker is impaired? Will there really be hall monitors trained in spotting your high? For answers to these questions and more, listen to my interview with Keya Denner, a partner at Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP. Keya is an experienced litigator who has been practicing labor and employment law for almost 20 years. Few attorneys nationwide match Keya’s expertise in the area of legal cannabis and its impact on the workplace. He has counseled Fortune 500 companies in the retail, hospitality, and global logistics spaces to create compliant policies and better understand the ever-changing legal landscape brought about by the legalization of cannabis across the United States. Most recently, Keya was named co-chair along with this colleague Ashley Orler of the firm’s new practice group focused on cannabis and employee substance abuse law. Keya received his J.D., cum laude, from Seton Hall University School of Law, J.D., cum laude, and his B.A., also cum laude, from Boston University. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is [...]
The New European Unified Patent Court with Marianne Schaffner and Thierry Lautier
What's the new European patent court mean to global innovators? The European Union’s new Unified Patent Court is an international body set up by participating EU Member States to deal with the infringement and validity of both Unitary Patents and European patents. The court's objective is “putting an end to costly parallel litigation and enhancing legal certainty.” Unitary patents are intended to make it possible to get patent protection in up to 25 EU Member States by submitting a single request to the European Patent Office, making the procedure simpler and more cost effective for applicants. The new system goes live on June 1, 2023. What must U.S. and multi-national U.S.-based companies understand about the court? Why should inventors and their organizations factor it in to any existing or new patent strategy they may be developing? For answers to these questions and more listen to my interview with attorneys Marianne Schaffner and Thierry Lautier who practice out of the Paris office of Reed Smith. Marianne heads the intellectual Property team in Paris and the patent practice in Europe. She manages complex national and transnational patent, trade secrets and trademark disputes in the healthcare, chemistry, technology and telecommunications sectors. Thierry is part of the firm’s global Intellectual Property Group. With a dual legal and engineering/scientific background, Thierry uses his understanding, knowledge, and experience to provide clients with creative, technically robust, and business-oriented patent strategies. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. (actual size) Tom Hagy Litigation Enthusiast and Host of the Emerging Litigation [...]
A Shameless Plug for Our Content Services
Your content marketing is everything you’ve ever dreamed of. Right?
Sara is marketing director at a boutique law firm. When we asked her how their blog was going, she made a sad face. But then, we made Sara smile.*
Critical Legal Content was founded by Tom Hagy, former Editor & Publisher of Mealey’s Litigation Reports and VP at LexisNexis, founder of HB, current litigation podcaster and editor-in-chief. CLC’s mission is to help smaller firms and service providers not only create content — blogs, articles, papers, webinars, podcasts (like the stuff on this site) — but also to get it out there. How? Via social media, this website, your website, and potential via our podcast and journal which we publish in collaboration with vLex Fastcase and Law Street Media. The goal is to attract readers and dizzy them with your brilliance.
*Inspired by actual events.
Create content like a real legal publisher.
Emerging Litigation Journal
Procedural Challenges to the IRS’s Compliance With the APA and Its Impact on Tax Litigation
The Author Jeffrey S. Luechtefeld (jeff.luechtefeld@chamberlainlaw.com) is a tax controversy and litigation attorney with Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams, and Aughtry (Atlanta, Georgia) where he focuses his practice on resolving tax disputes with the Internal Revenue Service, administratively or through litigation. Jeff previously was a Special Trial Attorney for the IRS Office of Chief Counsel as well as a director in the tax controversy practice of a big four accounting firm. Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world. Procedural Challenges to IRS Compliance With the APA and Its Impact on Tax Litigation Abstract: The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) places specific requirements on agencies of the federal government when engaged in a “rule making” that has the force and effect of law. Recently, the APA has become a focal point in tax litigation, due in large part to the IRS’s history of refusing to comply with the process mandated by the APA. This article focuses on procedural challenges to the IRS’s compliance with the APA based on the IRS’s history of non-compliance with the APA’s notice-and-comment requirement. It highlights recent trends in tax litigation and considers the future of APA challenges in this area. "IRS’s level of APA non-compliance matters significantly ... "APA challenges predicated on the IRS’s failure to adequately follow the APA’s notice-and-comment process are inherently fact-intensive endeavors ... "The challenging party should gauge the usefulness of the relief requested and balance that against the cost required to prevail ... "Ultimately, APA challenges are important, and may be necessary for a taxpayer to get to argue the merits of their case, but they do not often end the dispute with the IRS." Download the article now!
Ohio Supreme Court Ruling Sends Important Reminder: Long-Standing, Fundamental Principles of Insurance Policy Construction and Law Are Applicable to Cyber Claims GalleryOhio Supreme Court Ruling Sends Important Reminder: Long-Standing, Fundamental Principles of Insurance Policy Construction and Law Are Applicable to Cyber Claims
Ohio Supreme Court Ruling Sends Important Reminder: Long-Standing, Fundamental Principles of Insurance Policy Construction and Law Are Applicable to Cyber Claims
The Authors Judy Selby (judy.selby@kennedyslaw.com) is a Partner at Kennedys (New York) where she focuses her practice primarily on insurance coverage matters with a concentration in coverage for exposures arising out of emerging technology, digital, and compliance risks. Tracey M.Kline (tracey.kline@kennedyslaw.com) is an Associate at Kennedys (Philadelphia) where she focuses her practice primarily on insurance coverage litigation and cyber matters. Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world. Ohio Supreme Court Ruling Sends Important Reminder: Long-Standing, Fundamental Principles of Insurance Policy Construction and Law Are Applicable to Cyber Claims Abstract: On December 27, 2022, the Ohio Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a business owner’s property insurance policy issued by Owners Insurance Co. to EMOI Services, LLC did not afford coverage for losses sustained in a ransomware attack because computer software is “entirely intangible” and “cannot experience ‘direct physical loss or physical damage.’” EMOI Servs., LLC. v. Owners Ins. Co., 2022-Ohio-4649 (Ohio 2022). In doing so, the court reversed an attention-getting split decision by the lower appellate court. This article takes an in-depth look at the case and discusses its significant implications. The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision was based on its commonsense conclusions that software (as intangible property) cannot suffer physical damage, and that coverage for restoration of information under the Electronic Equipment Endorsement could not be triggered absent the threshold requirement of “direct physical loss or damage” to the media on which the information was stored. Although claims involving cyber events may be relatively new, this decision is an important reminder that long-standing, fundamental principles of insurance policy construction and law are applicable to cyber claims. Download the article now!
Unarmed or Unwell: How Federal Law Infringes Medical Marijuana Users’ Second Amendment Rights
The Author Griffen Thorne (griffen@harrisbricken.com) is an attorney in the Los Angeles office of Harris Bricken Sliwoski LLP, an international emerging markets law firm. He represents clients in highly regulated emerging industries, such as cannabis, in corporate and commercial transactions. Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world. Unarmed or Unwell: How Federal Law Infringes Medical Marijuana Users’ Second Amendment Rights As Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted while on the Seventh Circuit, “legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns. But that power extends only to people who are dangerous.” In the coming years, the government’s ability to write off all medical marijuana users as dangerous is likely to be curtailed, even if the Controlled Substances Act continues to make marijuana use a federal crime. Abstract: In the wake of the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, federal courts have reached opposite outcomes on whether federal prohibitions on marijuana users’ rights to own or possess firearms are constitutional. As a result, there is a high likelihood of a circuit split that results in the overturning of those federal laws. The author discusses Bruen and several other cases at the intersection of drug laws and gun laws. Download the article now!
HB Webinars on CeriFi LegalEdge
Content Partners
