By Erin Fuse Brown[Cross-posted from Center for Law, Health and Society Blog] Commentators have been weighing in since the Supreme Court decided it would hear King v. Burwell, the case challenging the ability of millions of Americans to receive subsidies to purchase health insurance on federally operated Exchanges under the ACA. Debate swirls over whether a decision striking down…
By Rachel Sachs Who has standing to challenge a patent’s validity? And under what circumstances can Congress define an injury for the purpose of creating Article III standing? Those questions underlie a new petition for certiorari filed by Consumer Watchdog, who is asking the Supreme Court to reverse a Federal Circuit opinion holding that Consumer…
By Rachel Sachs For all those who have been following the ongoing fight between pharmaceutical companies and HHS over the 340B Program’s coverage of orphan drugs (I know you’re out there), last week PhRMA filed a new complaint challenging HRSA’s interpretive rule on the subject under the APA. For all those who are not (but…
By Wendy Parmet [Cross-posted from HealthLawProf Blog.] Last week’s decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in King v. Governor of the State of New Jersey, provides an insightful addition to the growing body of case law examining the clash between the state’s power to regulate clinical practice andfree speech. Although the…
By Alex Stein Malpractice suits filed in connection with reproductive-choice procedures often present unique problems. The suit filed by Jami Conner against her former gynecologist, Dr. Bryan Hodges, is a case in point. The plaintiff, a mother of two children, decided that she did not want to have more children. To avoid future pregnancy, she asked…
By Jonathan F. Will In the wake of the Hobby Lobby decision, the US Department of Health and Human Services announced on Friday proposed rules regarding exemptions for those objecting to the contraceptive mandate. Whenever I read about conscientious objections to health care services made by providers, patients, or indeed, employers, I am reminded that…
By The Petrie-Flom Center Much attention has been paid recently to the contradicting decisions issued on the Halbig and King cases, which challenged the Obamacare subsidies offered to individuals purchasing insurance on federal exchanges. In a piece for Politico Magazine, Abbe R. Gluck finds a weakness in the Halbig plaintiffs’ arguments, in their own words. As Gluck writes: What’s less known,…
By Alex Stein As I wrote in my book with Ariel Porat, Tort Liability Under Uncertainty, our torts system must develop systematic remedy for wrongful inflictions of evidentiary harm. The Florida Supreme Court’s recent decision, Saunders v. Dickens, — So.3d —- (Fla. 2014), is a case in point.
By Alex Stein Yes, those damages are now available. The Connecticut Supreme Court decision that affirmed their availability, Mueller v. Tepler, — A.3d —- (Conn. 2014), was widely anticipated.
[Ed. Note: Cross-posted from Reproductive Rights Prof Blog] By Caitlin E. Borgmann Today, U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson issued a decision – following a 10-day bench trial – declaring unconstitutional Alabama’s admitting privileges requirement for abortion providers. The decision is remarkable in at least two respects. First, Judge Thompson employs a brilliant interpretation of Planned Parenthood v. Casey that is…
