No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Select Recent Court Decisions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 February 2021
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Recent Developments in Health Law
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics and Boston University 2020
References
1 No. 99-2725, 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 26880 (7th Cir., Oct. 25, 2000).
2 See id.at *1.
3 See id. at *3.
4 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A) (1994) (emphasis added).
5 See Lexis 26880 at *15.
6 See id.
7 See id. at *19.
8 See id.
9 42U.S.C . § 12111(8).
10 See id. § 12112(b)(5)(A).
11 See Lexis 26880 at *22.
1 100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 627 (Cal. App. 3d 2000).
2 See id. at 632.
3 See CAL. Bus. & PROF. CODE § 2056 (West 1995).
4 Id.
5 See 100 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 636, citing CAL. Bus. & PROF. CODE §2056(b) ("For purposes of this section, 'to advocate for medically appropriate health care' means to appeal a payor's decision to deny payment for a service pursuant to the reasonable grievance or appeal procedure established by a medical group .. . or payor, or to protest a decision, policy, or practice. . . .").
6 See id.
7 See id.
8 See id. at 639.
9 See id., citing Sen. Comm. On Business and Professions, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1676 (1993-1994 Reg. Sess.) (noting that the statute was intended "to provide an express statutory public policy in favor of physicians' advocacy for appropriate health care . . . and against termination .. . of physicians for such advocacy").
10 ° See 100 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 642.
11 See id.
12 See id.
13 See id.
14 See id. at 643.
15 See id.
16 See id. (noting that such an interpretation of "penalty" would "distort the meaning of penalty, and create the unanticipated anomaly that a statute meant to protect physicians from retaliation for their advocacy of medically appropriate health care could itself be used to retaliate against those very physicians who express their views concerning medically appropriate health care in the from of complaints or testimony against another physician").
17 See id., citing Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia, Ltd., 7 Cal. 4th 503, 511 ("[B]y its nature, tort liability arising from conspiracy presupposes that the coconspirator is legally capable of committing the tort").
18 See 100 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 643.
19 See id. at 644.
20 See id.
21 See id. at 645.
22 See id.
23 See id., citing CAL. LAB. CODE § 2924 (West 1995).
24 See 100 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 645.
25 See id. at 646.
26 See id.
27 Id. at 647.
28 See id.
29 Id. at 648.
1 227 F.3d 578 (6th Cir 2000).
2 See id. at 579.
3 See 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1) (1994). Section 115(a)(1) provides: "Whoever threatens to assault, kidnap, or murder, a United States official . . . with intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with such official . . . while engaged in the performance of official duties, or with intent to retaliate against such official... on account of the performance of official duties, shall be punished."
4 See 227 F.3d at 579.
5 See id.
6 518 U.S. 1 (1996).
7 Id. at 15.
8 See id. at 18n.l9
9 133 F.3d 1356 (10th Cir. 1998).
10 Seeid. at 1359.
11 See 227 F.3d at 584.
12 Id. at 583.
13 See id. at 584.
14 See id. at 585.
15 See id. at 584.
16 See id.
17 See id. at 585.
18 See id.
19 24F.3d799(6thCir. 1994).
20 See 227 F.3d at 585.
21 See id. at 586.
22 See id.
1 221 F.3d 472 (3d Cir. 2000).
2 18 U.S.C. §etseq. (1996).
3 See 221 F.3dat483.
4 See id. at 488.
5 See id.
6 See id.
7 See id. at 495.
8 120 S. Ct. 2143 (2000).
9 See 221 F.3dat497.
10 See id. at 499.
11 See Plaintiffs Have No Claim Under RICO Statute, Third Circuit Rules, 8 No.2 Andrews Health L. Lit. Rep. 7 (Sept. 2000).
12 See id.
13 See id.
1 107 F. Supp.2d61 (2000).
2 See 42 U.S.C.A. § 1396a(a)(8) (1994) (requiring that a state plan must provide all individuals wishing to make an application for medical assistance an opportunity to do so and such assistance shall be furnished with reasonable promptness).
3 See 107 F. Supp.2d at 83.
4 Id. at 63, 69 The plaintiffs were eventually certified by the Court as a class action including mentally retarded or developmentally disabled adults in Massachusetts who are eligible to receive Medicaid services under the plan's cap and who are currently on a waiting list for such services. See id. at 69.
5 See id. at 74-75.
6 See id. at 69. The plaintiffs were eventually certified by the Court as a class action including mentally retarded or developmentally disabled adults in Massachusetts who are eligible to receive Medicaid services under the plan's cap and who are currently on a waiting list for such services. See id. at 69.
7 See id.See id. at 74-75.
8 See id. at 80.
9 See id.
10 See id. at 79-80.
1 2000 PLR LEXIS 1450 (Aug. 3, 2000).
2 See id. at 29-30.
3 See id. at 4.
4 See id.
5 See id.
6 See id.
7 See id. at 5.
8 See id. at 28.
9 Id. at 24.
10 °See id.
11 See id. at 29.
12 Id. at 27.
13 See id. at 28.
14 See id. at 27-28. See also Helvering v. LeGierse, 312 U.S. 531, 539 (1941) (holding that risk-shifting and risk-distributing are essential components of insurance contracts).
15 2000 PLR LEXIS 1450 at 28.
16 Id. at 26.
17 See id.