Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Doctors' Corporations Given FTCA Coverage
Earlier this year, the federal government lost an attempt to deny insurance coverage to doctors who — in their capacity as sole owners of their own corporations — signed contracts with the United States to provide health care to patients at a non-profit clinic. When the government attempted to tell the doctors — after the doctors had been sued for malpractice — that they were not eligible for coverage, the doctors fought back in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
In their suit, El Rio Santa Cruz Neighborhood Health Center Inc. v. Department of Health and Human Services, Civil Action No. 03-1753 (ESH), 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 465 (1/15/04), the plaintiff doctors sought review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. ' 701, et seq., of a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) determination that they were ineligible for medical malpractice liability coverage from the federal government under the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistant Act (FSHCAA) 42 U.S.C. ' 233(g).
The plaintiff physicians provided obstetric and gynecological services in Arizona for patients of El Rio Santa Cruz Neighborhood Health Center Inc. (El Rio) through contracts established between El Rio and each physician's individually owned, eponymous corporation. As a non-profit clinic that receives federal funds for the provision of medical care to low-income patients, El Rio receives professional liability coverage from the federal government pursuant to the FSHCAA. This act makes federally funded community health centers and their employees, officers, and individual contractors eligible for medical malpractice coverage under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. '' 1346, 2671, to the same extent as federal employees of the Public Health Service.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
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?