Browsing by Subject "law"

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    A Metic was a Metic
    (HISTORIA-ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ALTE GESCHICHTE, 2016) Sosin, JD
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Politics and Civil Procedure Rulemaking: Reflections on Experience
    (2010) Carrington, P
    This Article is a reflection on personal experience as well as an account of what has happened to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the most recent quarter century It observes that the Supreme Court of the United States has assigned to itself a role in making procedural law inconsistent with the Rules Enabling Act of 1934 or any more-recent utterance of Congress This procedural law made by the Court is responsive to the desire of business interests to weaken the ability of citizens to enforce laws enacted to protect them from business misconduct The Article concludes with the suggestion that Congress should now act to constrain the role of the Court and restore the ability of citizens to enforce their rights in civil proceedings in federal courts
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Struck by Stereotype: Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Pregnancy Discrimination as Sex Discrimination
    (2010) Siegel, R
    It was always recognition that one thing that conspicuously distinguishes women from men is that only women become pregnant; and if you subject a woman to disadvantageous treatment on the basis of her pregnant status, which was what was happening to Captain Struck, you would be denying her equal treatment under the law.(1)
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    The Honorable Robinson O. Everett: Chief Judge
    (2010) Cox, Walter Thompson III
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Wielding the Wand without Facing the Music: Allowing Utilization Review Physicians to Trump Doctors' Orders, but Protecting them from the Legal Risk Ordinarily Attached to the Medical Degree
    (2010) Record, Katherine L
    This Note identifies a discrepancy in the law governing the decisionmaking that directs patient care. Seeking treatment that a third party will pay for, a patient needs not only a physician-prescribed course of treatment but also an insurer's verification that the cost is medically necessary or otherwise covered by the patient's plan. Both of these decisions directly impact the ultimate care delivered to the patient, but are governed by two very different liability regimes. A patient who suffers an adverse outcome may sue his physician in tort, while a patient who suffers from a lack of coverage may generally sue his insurer only under contract. In other words, when a patient suffers from inadequate care, his potential remedies vary considerably depending on whether the physician or the insurer is the defendant. This discrepancy in liability is the consequence of the federal law governing the administration of employer-sponsored health plans, and its extensive preemption of related state law. Many commentators have called for legal reform to address the distortion of managed care liability that results, arguing that managed care liability must be consistent or that wronged beneficiaries must have access to meaningful remedies. This Note argues that the federal law governing managed care organizations is problematic for a different reason and that the first step toward reform may be more elementary than previously suggested. Specifically, it suggests that the law governing insurers' coverage decisions is inconsistent with the law governing treatment recommendations. Patients suffer the same harm from error in both contexts-but because they can recover substantially more from treating physicians, doctors are named as defendants even when the insurers make errors. Further, this Note argues that simply aligning these two standards might offer a gateway to reform.