Medicaid 101

No, No,No! Not the Fighting Irish!!! _ Is nothing sacred anymore?

Scandal at Notre Dame

Leslie C. Griffin

Justia guest columnist, UNLV law professor, and visiting UC Irvine law professor Leslie Griffin comments on the recent controversy regarding Notre Dame, of which she is an alumna. Professor Griffin comments on Notre Dame’s arguments, which include one relating to the Catholic concept of scandal, and another that postulates that whenever Notre Dame signs the form objecting to contraception, the complaint triggers the provision of free objectionable coverage to Notre Dame’s employees in a manner contrary to its beliefs. Notre Dame also argues that by signing the objection, it facilitates contraception, and, by doing so, it will lead many to think that Notre Dame condones these services, and hence undermines its role, as a Catholic educational institution, to educate others on a matter of religious and moral significance. Griffin offers strong counterarguments, both logical and legal, to Notre Dame’s contentions. Continue reading →

- See more at: http://verdict.justia.com/#sthash.Y8f57bD4.dpuf

Daily Opinion Summaries U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Buechel v. United States Docket: 13-2278 Opinion Date: March 7, 2014 Judge: Hamilton Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Health Law, Injury Law In 2006 Buechel was incarcerated at FCI-Greenville federal correctional institution, where he contracted Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus, (MRSA), a staph infection resistant to certain antibiotics. Buechel was hospitalized for more than 40 days and was left with serious and permanent damage to his heart and lungs. He sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), alleging that his injuries were caused by the prison’s negligence. The district court issued a pretrial order that limited Buechel’s negligence claim to a theory that he contracted MRSA from contact with one fellow inmate, in the prison laundry in July 2006, or more generally as a result of sloppy procedures in handling infected prison laundry. After a bench trial, the court held that Buechel had not proved that he contracted MRSA from either the inmate or the laundry procedures and entered judgment in favor of the government. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the finding that Buechel failed to prove that he contracted MRSA from the inmate or as a result of inadequate laundry procedures, but vacated and remanded for consideration of a broader theory. Buechel’s administrative claim and complaint presented a broader theory that the prison was negligent more generally in its failure to adhere to its MRSA-containment policies. http://j.st/ZZQJ View Case On: Justia  Google Scholar

United States v. Hallahan Docket: 12-3787 Opinion Date: March 7, 2014 Judge: Griesback Areas of Law: Criminal Law From 1993-1999 the Hallahans ran a fraudulent scheme that bilked investors out of more than $1,000,000. In 2000, they pled guilty to conspiracy to commit mail and bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. 371, 1341 & 1344, and conspiracy to commit money laundering, 18 U.S.C. 1956(h), in exchange for dismissal of other charges and recommendation of a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility and of a sentence at the low end of the guidelines. The plea agreements included appeal waivers. They did not appear for sentencing. They were finally arrested in 2012. They pled guilty to willfully failing to appear for sentencing, 18 U.S.C. 3146(a)(1) and argued that the court should use the version of the U.S.S.G. in effect at the time of the offenses, rather than the version in effect at the time of sentencing. The district court calculated the sentencing range using the 2012 Guidelines, arriving at an advisory range of 210 to 262 months for Nelson and 135 to 168 months for Janet. Under the 1998 Guidelines, the range would have been 121 to 151 months for Nelson and 97 to 121 months for Janet. The court imposed a sentence of 270 months on Nelson and 195 months on Janet based after consideration of the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. http://j.st/ZZQ4 View Case On: Justia  Google Scholar --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Staph infections are nothing. Over 50% of prisoners in many institutions are HIV positive or already have active AIDS. And it's exactly what they deserve - but what happens when these infectious persons are let free to enter once more into society?

Goodpaster v. City of Indianapolis - Justia Verdict

Goodpaster v. City of Indianapolis

Docket: 13-1629	Opinion Date: November 25, 2013
Judge: Kanne
Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Health Law

In 2005, Indianapolis and Marion County passed an ordinance prohibiting smoking in most buildings frequented by the general public, with exceptions for bars and taverns with liquor licenses that neither served nor employed people under the age of 18, tobacco bars, and bowling alleys. In 2012, the City-County Council expanded the ordinance by eliminating many exceptions. As amended, the ordinance included exceptions for private residences, retail tobacco stores, tobacco specialty bars, and private clubs that voted to permit smoking. Bar owners affected by the ordinance sought declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting due process, equal protection, takings and freedom of association claims under both the federal and Indiana constitutions. The district court upheld the ban. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.

http://j.st/F4p
View Case On: Justia  Google Scholar