Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In 1999, the California legislature enacted the California Mental Health Parity Act (“Parity Act”) to remedy what it perceived to be a deficiency in coverage for mental illness on the part of private health insurance policies. Within the broad realm of mental illness, tens of millions of Americans suffer from eating disorders, most notably anorexia nervosa (“anorexia”) and bulimia nervosa (“bulimia”). Recently, insureds prevailed in two decisions regarding health insurance coverage for such eating disorders. In Harlick v. Blue Shield of California, 686 F.3d 699 (9th Cir. 2012), and Rea v. Blue Shield of California, 2014 WL 2584433 (Cal. Ct. App. June 10, 2014), courts found that the Parity Act requires health insurance providers to cover certain services used to treat eating disorders that were excluded from coverage in the insureds' policies. This article summarizes these decisions and discusses the implications for health insurance providers.
The Parity Act
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.