Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Board-Certified OB/GYNs May Treat Men After All
In response to reactions to its September, 2013 pronouncement that OB/GYN specialists certified by it were not permitted to treat male patients and could lose their certifications if they did so, the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ABOG) recently reversed itself. In a Jan. 30 release describing ABOG's changed stance, the organization explained that the new definition of an obstetrician and gynecologist “eliminate[s] the requirement that ABOG-certified Diplomates treat only women and that they devote at least 75 percent of their practice to Obstetrics and Gynecology. Under the revised policy, Diplomates 'must devote the majority of their practice to the specialty of Obstetrics and Gynecology.'” Many had protested last year's new restrictions on their practices, noting that they sometimes were called upon to treat the male partners of women in their care, and that certain research studies involving both male and female participants appeared to be off-limits to Board-certified OB/GYNs.
ABOG's executive director, Dr. Larry Gilstrap, explained the reason for ABOG's about-face when he stated in the Board's Jan. 30 release that the issue of limiting members' practices to the treatment of women only “became a distraction to our mission to ensure that women receive high-quality and safe health care from certified obstetricians and gynecologists.”
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.