Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
When medical malpractice defense counsel first heard of the new privacy regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (the HIPAA privacy regulations), most probably thought that these detailed and complicated laws would affect only their regulatory health care colleagues. How great an impact the HIPAA privacy regulations will have on medical malpractice litigation, in general, is yet to be seen, but it is clear that these regulations have immediately affected discovery of medical records in med-mal cases.
According to the statutory or common law of most states, when a plaintiff files a suit that puts his or her medical or health condition at issue, the plaintiff waives the right to privacy, to at least some extent, in his or her medical records. Under the HIPAA privacy regulations that became enforceable April 14, 2003, this is not necessarily the case. Because HIPAA provides strict privacy protection for a patient's medical information – even if the patient filed a lawsuit with his or her health at issue – discovery of the patient's medical records now requires medical malpractice defense counsel to “jump through additional hoops.” However, this should not prevent the efficient discovery of information needed to defend a medical malpractice suit. Counsel must be ever vigilant and proactive to ensure that these new requirements do not impede a solid, effective defense of these cases.
HIPAA in the Litigation Context
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.