Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
84 results for '* topic:"Health Care Law"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2022-02-15
Practice Area: Health Care Law
Industry: Federal Government | Health Care
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Shwartz
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: D69715
Kickback claims failed as a matter of law where relator could not plausibly allege a financial connection between prescribing healthcare providers and medical equipment suppliers.
Publication Date: 2022-01-31
Practice Area: Health Care Law
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Middle
Judge: District Judge Mannion
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0099
Proposed intervenors moved to intervene in plaintiffs' action against Pennsylvania Department of Human Services to ensure the settlement in their prior litigation was not disturbed or undermined by this action and also asserted claim preclusion as a bar against collateral attacks on that settlement and court denied intervention as of right because intervenors did not and could not show that their settlement would be negatively affected as a practical matter by a judgment in plaintiff's favor and court also denied permissive interventi
Publication Date: 2022-01-10
Practice Area: Health Care Law
Industry: Health Care | Transportation
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Motto
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-1429
Plaintiff had no private right of action under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act for defendants' alleged disclosure of her private medical information, and she could not circumvent the mechanics of that act by pursuing claims for negligence per se relating to defendants' alleged violations of HIPAA. The court sustained defendants' preliminary objection in part.
Publication Date: 2021-11-01
Practice Area: Health Care Law
Industry: Health Care | State and Local Government
Court: Commonwealth Court
Judge: Judge Leavitt
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-1265
Providers appealed department's holding that CMS's revision to the codes for physical therapy evaluations constituted "new codes" within the meaning of 34 Pa. Code §127.153(c) and court found the "new codes" were modifications or adjustments and should have been incorporated into department's existing fee schedule. Reversed and remanded.
Publication Date: 2021-08-30
Practice Area: Health Care Law
Industry: Health Care
Court: Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Saylor
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-0995
Plaintiffs challenged hospital's withholding of credential committee documents as privileged and court found a hospital credential committee qualified as a "review committee" for purposes of the Peer Review Protection Act, to the extent it undertook peer review, and the Health Care Quality Improvement Act protected from disclosure the responses given by the National Practitioner Data Bank to queries submitted to it. Reversed and vacated.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors:
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2021-07-05
Practice Area: Health Care Law
Industry: Federal Government | Health Care
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Phipps
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-0772
District court awarded judgment to agency officials in appellant hospital's suit challenging its reclassification into a core based statistical area and court found the complaint should have been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because appellant failed to present its claims for administrative adjudication. Vacated and remanded.
Publication Date: 2021-06-21
Practice Area: Health Care Law
Industry: Health Care
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
Judge: District Judge Savage
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-0713
Defendant employer moved for summary judgment on plaintiff's Families First Coronavirus Relief Act and ADA claims over his termination and court denied summary judgment on his FFCRA interference claim because plaintiff was not a "health care provider" excluded from coverage and there was a question of material fact as to whether he was fired or quit but his FFCRA retaliation and ADA claims failed because the decision to replace him was made prior to his COVID-19 symptoms. Motion granted in part and denied in part.
Publication Date: 2021-06-14
Practice Area: Health Care Law
Industry: Health Care | State and Local Government
Court: Commonwealth Court
Judge: Judge Covey
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-0682
The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections filed preliminary objections to inmate's petition seeking to compel DOC to provide him with his mental health treatment records under the Medical Records Act and the Mental Health Procedures Act and court granted DOC's preliminary objections to inmate's claim under the MHPA but found it could not declare with certainty that the law would not permit inmate to succeed in his mandamus challenge under the MRA. Preliminary objections overruled and sustained.
Publication Date: 2021-06-07
Practice Area: Health Care Law
Industry: Health Care | State and Local Government
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
Judge: District Judge Pratter
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-0646
Plaintiff's nursing care-related claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983 survived a motion to dismiss because binding precedent holds that the Federal Nursing Home Reform Amendments confers individual rights that are enforceable through 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the complaint sufficiently alleged "deliberate indifference" to support such a claim. The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss in part.
Publication Date: 2021-05-31
Practice Area: Health Care Law
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Mundy
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-0592
The superior court properly found that §301 of the Mental Health Procedures Act requires a showing of a threat and an act in furtherance of that threat to warrant involuntary treatment based upon a clear and present danger; however, the court erred in ordering the expungement of petitioner's treatment records because the evidence at bar did in fact satisfy that standard. The high court reversed.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read