HB Litigation News

Category: Employment

Litigating a Claim to Recover Liquidated Damages by Laura Fraher

The Author

Laura C. FraherShapiro, Lifschitz and Schram

Laura C. Fraher (fraher@slslaw.com) is a senior attorney in the trial and construction group at Shapiro, Lifschitz & Schram in Washington, D.C. She has extensive experience in civil litigation at both the trial court and appellate level. Competitive by nature, Laura played rugby for nearly 20 years. She puts this competitive spirit to work through her passion for the law and her clients.

Education: St. John’s University School of Law, J.D., 2001, magna cum laude; SUNY College at Geneseo, B.A., Political Science, 1998.

Emerging Litigation PodcastProduced by HB Litigation and Law Street Media

Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world.

Litigating a Claim to Recover Liquidated Damages:

Enforceability Depends on Evidence of Good Faith Expectations

“The tests and standards that courts apply to evaluate whether a particular liquidated damage provision is enforceable vary from state to state and it is imperative that litigants research and fully appreciate the particular standards that will be applied by the court in which they are litigating.”

Abstract: The liquidated damages provision in a contract is a useful mechanism for mitigating risk in the event one of the parties to an agreement breaches the contract, costing the aggrieved party sometimes significant difficulty and substantial expense. Unfortunately, these provisions are often challenged, allowing the party responsible for the beach to exacerbate the burdens on the other party. In this article, the author discusses concepts of enforceability, proof, and avoiding litigation over liquidated damage provisions.

A liquidated damage provision is an advance agreement of the damages that a party will be entitled to recover in the event of a future breach by the other party to a contract. These provisions can be an important tool for risk allocation and mitigation between parties when entering into a contract; both because the provision allows the parties to predict with certainty the financial ramifications of a future breach and because the liquidated damage provision should protect the aggrieved party against the difficulty and expense associated with proving actual damages in the event of a breach.

In reality, however, when a breach occurs, liquidated damage provisions are frequently challenged and become the subject of costly litigation. At the outset, it should be noted that the enforceability of a liquidated damage provision is generally considered an issue of law to be determined by the court, not an issue of fact to be presented to a fact finder. Thus, the key threshold issue of enforceability is likely to be determined on a pretrial motion rather than at trial and you should be prepared with both evidence and argument in order to sustain your claim.

If you are faced with a challenge to dismiss your claim to recover liquidated damages based on unenforceability, it is important to remember that the law is in your favor.

Liquidated damage provisions are viewed favorably by courts across the country and will generally be enforced so long as a court is satisfied that a liquidated damage provision is a stipulated agreement based on anticipated actual damages and not a penalty. A liquidated damages provision will be considered a penalty, and therefore unenforceable, if the court determines that the provision is designed to induce or secure performance by one party; conversely, a liquidated damage provision will not be viewed as a penalty, and will therefore be enforced if the court is satisfied that the provision is designed not to punish, but to provide a sum certain as compensation for a breach.

Download the article now!

August 24, 2022
The “Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021” Finally Levels the Playing Field by Kathryn Hatfield

The Author

Kathryn HatfieldHatfield | Schwartz Law Group

Kathryn V. Hatfield (khatfield@hatfieldschwartzlaw.com) is a
partner in the women-owned law firm of Hatfield Schwartz Law Group
LLC where she focuses on advising and representing management in
labor and employment law matters. Kathryn is a member of the Editorial Advisory Board for the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation.

Emerging Litigation PodcastProduced by HB Litigation and Law Street Media

Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world.

The “Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021” Finally Levels the Playing Field

“While arbitration offers privacy and confidentiality, it is for exactly these reasons that the #MeToo movement developed. Moreover, other than perhaps the differences in the speed of the two processes, the advantages of arbitration can be flipped on their head and become disadvantages.”

Abstract: The Equal Employment Opportunity Center alone receives on average approximately 7,000 sexual harassment claims a year, a figure that does not include claims filed with state and local agencies. The cost of resolving these claims logged by the EEOC averages $63 million a year based on the past four years. On average, there are nearly 464,000 victims (age 12 or older) of rape and sexual assault in the United States each year. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that nearly 1 in 5 women in America experiences a rape or attempted rape, and nearly 44 percent of women and about 25 percent of all men experience some form of sexual violence in their lifetime. A White House statement called sexual assault a “public health crisis.” But victims of sexual harassment and assault in the workplace have not had open access to the courts due to mandatory arbitration clauses in their employment agreements. In this article, an experienced labor law attorney discusses a new law that puts an end to forced arbitration, what it means to existing claims, and its impact on victims, employees, and employers.

Introduction

The Act adds a new section to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The FAA was passed in 1925 to ensure that courts enforce arbitration agreements contained in “a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce.” See 9 U.S.C. § 2. Although the FAA was intended to address maritime and commercial disputes, in a series of decisions beginning in the 1980s, the United States Supreme Court “dramatically expanded the applicability of the FAA to arbitration clauses in everyday contracts.” See House Judiciary Committee Report.

According to that Report, the Supreme Court “has upheld the enforcement of arbitration clauses even when doing so prevents an individual from vindicating a state or federal statutory right. Furthermore, by imposing arbitration on a ‘take it or leave it’ basis, large companies have largely eviscerated the congressional intent of arbitration as a voluntary process agreed to between parties of equal bargaining power.” Id. Ultimately, in 1991, the Supreme Court ruled that an employee whose employment contract contained an arbitration provision was required to arbitrate her claims, thus bringing arbitration mandates into the workplace. See Gilmer v. Interstate/ Johnson Lane, 500 U.S. 20 (1991). Twenty years later, the Supreme Court expanded its jurisprudence on forced arbitration in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011), and American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 570 U.S. 228 (2013), holding that class action waivers in mandatory arbitration agreements were broadly enforceable. The combination of this case law ensured that employers could now protect themselves from court litigation for both individual and class action claims.

Arbitration requirements are now widespread in consumer contracts and, often, consumers are unaware that they are entering into forced arbitration agreements. Most arbitration clauses are found in application forms, employment contracts, employee handbooks, privacy policies, and even monthly billing statements. The House Judiciary Report noted that these clauses are hidden in order to prevent consumers from pursuing their claims in court and gave an example highlighting the inequity of forced arbitration. In that case, Massage Envy, the largest massage chain in the country, compelled victims of sexual assault to arbitrate their claims and refused to allow women to cancel their monthly membership unless they agreed to forced arbitration …. keep reading!

Download the article now!

June 22, 2022
Antiracism and Antitrust with Eric Cramer

Our Guest

Eric L. CramerBerger | Montague

Eric Cramer is Chairman of the Firm and Co-Chair of the Firm’s antitrust department. He has a national practice in the field of complex litigation, primarily in the area of antitrust class actions. He is currently co-lead counsel in multiple significant antitrust class actions across the country in a variety of industries and is responsible for winning numerous significant settlements for his clients totaling well over $3 billion.

Mr. Cramer is also a frequent speaker at antitrust and litigation related conferences and a leader of multiple non-profit advocacy groups. He was the only Plaintiffs’ lawyer selected to serve on the American Bar Association’s Antitrust Section Transition Report Task Force delivered to the incoming Obama Administration in 2012.

Antiracism and Antitrust with Eric Cramer

Among the legal and regulatory avenues one might follow to mitigate the impact of racism, most of us would look to various manifestations of discrimination law in employment, lending, real estate, education, healthcare, voting rights, and other categories. When presented in those contexts, the anti-racism objectives are clear.

There are several federal laws and many state laws that prohibit anticompetitive behavior. At the top of the heap is the Sherman Antirust Act of 1890, which outlaws illegal monopolies and anticompetitive tactics, conspiracies to restrain trade, cartels and syndicates. But what do wages, including those paid to minorities, have to do with antitrust? What about no-poach agreements, whereby groups of companies agree not to hire employees away from each other? The answer is “quite a lot.”

Listen to my interview with Eric Cramer, Chairman of Berger Montague and co-chair of the firm’s antitrust department, a team that handles antitrust class actions across the country involving a variety of industries. Eric and the firm are responsible for winning numerous significant settlements for clients — a total value that now exceeds $3 billion. His recent focus has been representing workers who allege their employers’ anticompetitive practices suppressed their pay. Recipient of numerous accolades and awards that include terms like titan, elite, thought leader, visionary, and lawyer of the year, Eric is a summa cum laude graduate of Princeton University where he earned membership in Phi Beta Kappa, and a cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School. Listen to what he had to say about this important subject.

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast

June 20, 2022
Episode Three: Karla Gilbride Tells Her Story Behind the Unanimous Pro-Employee Win at the Supreme Court

DietaFit: Lose weight and stay fit – Page 6 | Diet, Fitness and Wellbeing | Page 6 dianabol pills gina fitness nude hentai clips

Karla Gilbride Tells Her Story Behind the Unanimous Pro-Employee Win at the Supreme Court

The Federal Arbitration Act is clear, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan wrote: “[C]ourts are not to create arbitration-specific procedural rules …. Or put conversely, it is a bar on using custom-made rules, to tilt the playing field in favor of (or against) arbitration.”

With the support of all eight of her colleagues, Justice Kagan’s opinion in Morgan v. Sundance put an end to the long-running tilt of justice toward employers in the form of judge-made rules that favor arbitration. This important holding clears the way for more workers, consumers, and other individuals harmed by corporate misconduct to pursue their rights in open court.

Karla Gilbride, Senior Attorney at Public Justice, argued the case to the high court on behalf of the plaintiff, Robyn Morgan, an hourly employee at a Taco Bell franchise owned by Sundance, Inc. It was not only Gilbride’s first Supreme Court argument, but she was the first blind attorney to do so in the court’s history.

Listen to Public Justice’s Ellen Noble — who assisted in the case — as she interviews Gilbride about her remarkable experience. This is a must listen not only for attorneys who represent workers, but for anyone interested in Supreme Court history, or the ongoing need for accommodations for the disabled, or anyone preparing for oral arguments at any level. Gilbride shares the thrill of arguing in the same spot — and directly in front of! — some of her heroes and inspirations. She also shares that, like a music fan who camps out in front of a box office to get tickets for their favorite band, a young Gilbride did just that in order to secure a seat to observe her first Supreme Court argument.

After you listen to the podcast, you can hear Gilbride’s argument and read the complete transcript of the hearing. You can also read and watch more about the case on the Public Justice Blog.

I hope you find this the episode inspiring and informative! We are all so very proud of Karla, Ellen and the whole team, and are thrilled with the important, decisive, and unanimous outcome they achieved.

Susan Gombert
Host
Justice Pod: Conversations with Public Justice Change Makers

Listen Now!

The Supreme Court has finally “put an end to the arbitration exceptionalism that many corporations have been seeking, and that many courts have been giving them.”

Karla Gilbride

June 14, 2022
Workplace Investigations: Proactive Assessments Mitigate the Risk of Costly Litigation in a Newly Remote Environment

The Author

Stefani SchwartzHatfield Schwartz Law Group

Stefani C Schwartz is Senior Managing Partner at the Hatfield Schwartz Law Group LLC. She has devoted her career to representing and advising employers in the complete spectrum of employment law, including discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination. Stefani is a member of the Editorial Advisory Board of the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation.

Emerging Litigation PodcastProduced by HB Litigation and Law Street Media

Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world.

Workplace Investigations:

Proactive Assessments Mitigate the Risk of Costly Litigation in a Newly Remote Environment

“Investigations are a straightforward, efficient, and effective way to combat the risk of litigation because they reflect the best aspects of the employer–employee relationship: understanding, respect, communication, and shared goals.”

Abstract: “Bullying, discrimination, sexual harassment and other forms of workplace misconduct can create a crisis for any company—and trying to ignore or cover it up will make a bad situation worse.” That’s the warning from a December 2021 article for Forbes, which goes on to say that in addition the damage to an employer’s reputation, a study by workplace misconduct reporting service Vault Platform found that workplace misconduct cost U.S. businesses more than $20 billion in 2021. In this article, the author discusses how proactively conducting workplace investigations can reduce an employer’s risk of winding up in court and paying the considerable tangible and intangible costs of misconduct, a risk further complicated by an increasingly home-based workforce.

Excerpt: During the past two years, the COVID-19 pandemic has introduced new factors in the ever-shifting area of employer liability: large-scale layoffs and furloughs, the introduction and/or expansion of possibilities for remote work, the drive for a safe return to the physical workplace, and the dual needs for vaccination and accommodation of religious objectors to vaccines to name a few. These issues predate the current public health crisis but have been pushed to the forefront of employer concerns as a result of the virus. Yet this new arena provides opportunities for cultural, scientific, and legal progress. Many employers may benefit from the familiarity their employees now have with remote work, and the development of successful mRNA vaccines has wide-ranging implications. The changing legal landscape, however, introduces uncertainty for employers concerned about the risks associated with any particular action.

Consider, for instance, the decisions many employers have had to make about transitioning to a remote work environment, later transitioning back to in-person operations, and possibly having t revert to remote work as the COVID-19 situation changes. Those decisions are loaded with legal questions beyond the expected skillset of a business owner: Are you liable if one of your employees catches COVID-19 at your workplace? How do you deal with employees who do not want to be vaccinated? How are employees with different family situations, commuting concerns, and medical histories going to respond to your decision?

Download the article now!

April 28, 2022
7th Circuit: Is Each Transmission of Biometric Data a BIPA Violation? | By Jennifer M. Oliver | MoginRubin LLP

7th Circuit: Is Each Transmission of Biometric Data a BIPA Violation?

By Jennifer M. Oliver

The outcome of this case will have a dramatic impact on statutory damages.

The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has certified a question to the Illinois Supreme Court over the accrual of claims under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The question, posed by the court in Cothron v. White Castle Systems, Inc., reads:

“Do section 15(b) and 15(d) claims accrue each time a private entity scans a person’s biometric identifier and each time a private entity transmits such a scan to a third party, respectively, or only upon the first scan and first transmission?”

The case was brought by an employee of the White Castle hamburger chain, which requires fingerprint scans for employees to access computer systems. The plaintiff charged that sharing her fingerprints with a third party vendor violated the law. Cothron v. White Castle Sys., No. 20-3202, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 37593 (7th Cir. Dec. 20, 2021).

An accrual rule based on each collection, opponents to such a finding argue, would pose potentially existential damages — especially in the class action context — since BIPA provides for statutory damages of $1,000 or $5,000 per violation. Parties disagree on whether BIPA damages are mandatory or discretionary, however. Should the court determine that the first scan is the only scan that starts the statute of limitations clock ticking, opponents to that interpretation say, anyone bringing a claim after five years would be out of luck, even if their private biometric data continued to be transmitted more than five years after the first occurrence.

Preceding the federal court’s certification of this question by just five days, an Illinois appellate court ruled that, yes, claims under sections 15(a) and (b) accrue with each capture and use of a plaintiff’s biometric information. Watson v. Legacy Healthcare Financial Services, LLC, et al., 2021 IL App (1st) 210279 No. 1-21-0279, Opinion filed Dec. 15, 2021.

This is an important case to watch. Illinois was the first to implement such legislation, something several states have since emulated.

Should the state Supreme Court come down in favor of an “all scans” interpretation, defendants may find themselves on the receiving end of devastating damages multipliers. Of course, the Illinois Supreme Court could determine that damage awards are at the discretion of a court, and are not mandatory under the law. Or it could rule that every scan or transmission restarts the statute of limitations clock, but that a claimant may only collect damages once for a series of transmissions of the same data, similar to how damages for defamation are not based on each publication of the same defaming remarks. Yet another possibility is that the court could determine that the clock starts to run when a claimant first learns of an alleged violation, which has precedent in litigation involving latent diseases caused by products, where individuals cannot know they were harmed until they developed a signature disease, i.e., one connected to a specific product.

The ruling in this case is especially interesting as the COVID-19 pandemic has led to skyrocketing adoption of remote access tools that can collect biometric data for learning, court appearances, and work-from-home arrangements, and a corresponding uptick in BIPA lawsuits.

Edited by Tom Hagy for MoginRubin LLP. Reposted with permission from the MoginRubin Blog. © 2022 MoginRubin LLP.

The Author

Jennifer M. OliverMoginRubin LLP

Jennifer is a partner in the San Diego offices of MoginRubin LLP, where she focuses on antitrust, complex business, and investment litigation. Her experience includes active roles in several high-profile jury trials, serving as lead counsel in complex mediations, and arguing before courts at both the trial and appellate levels. Jennifer earned her B.S. (Business Administration), M.B.A., and J.D. degrees from the University at Buffalo, each with honors, where she also served as the Vice President of the undergraduate student body and was an editor of the Buffalo Law Review and Buffalo Intellectual Property Law Journal. Jennifer is also a certified information privacy professional.

We are pleased to add that Jennifer is a member of the Board of Advisors for the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation and the Emerging Litigation Podcast.

More from Jennifer and her colleagues.

January 13, 2022
Labor Law in 2021 with Kathryn Hatfield

Labor Law in 2021 with Kathryn Hatfield

Participation in labor unions is less than half of what it was 40 years ago. It has seen an uptick in the service sector, but a sharp decline in manufacturing. According to economist Heidi Shierholz decline in union rolls is partly responsible for today’s yawning income inequality gap. Recently we’ve seen the formation of a modest union at Google and a movement among Amazon workers. We’ve also seen how the pandemic has shone a bright light on the fragility of our nation’s workforce struggling to survive at the bottom rungs of the pay scale.

Joining me to speak about these issues is Kathryn Van Deusen Hatfield, a senior managing partner at Hatfield Schwartz Law Group in New Jersey. Kathy represents private and public sector employers in all aspects of labor and employment law, with expertise in litigating state and federal cases on behalf of employers involving Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, and providing legal opinions and advice on personnel, employment and labor issues. Kathy shares her insights on recent developments in the labor movement, some of the causes of its decline, how unions get a bad rap, and how, even though she represents management, she believes unions can be a good thing for everyone — employees and companies alike.

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful and informative David and Dan are, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

I hope you enjoy the interview, and how I managed to demonstrate how little I know about sports. I feel made up for it by learning something about baseball Hall of Famer Jim Rice, who did something really cool and heroic in 1982.

July 6, 2021
Biotech, Life Sciences, Food & Drug News from NLR

Biotech,
Life Sciences,
Food & Drug News
from
National Law Review

[wp-rss-aggregator feeds=”nlr-biotech-drugs”]

May 24, 2021
Kathryn Hatfield on Labor Law in 2021
Kathryn Hatfield on Labor Law in 2021

Participation in labor unions is less than half of what it was 40 years ago. It has seen an uptick in the service sector, but a sharp decline in manufacturing. According to Heidi Shierholz — former chief economist at the Department of Labor, now senior economist and policy director at the Economic Policy Institute — decline in union rolls is partly responsible for today’s yawning income inequality gap. Recently we’ve seen the formation of a modest union at Google and a movement among Amazon workers. We’ve also seen how the pandemic has shone a bright light on the fragility of our nation’s workforce struggling to survive at the bottom rungs of the pay scale.

Joining me to speak about these issues is Kathryn Van Deusen Hatfield, a senior managing partner at Hatfield Schwartz Law Group in New Jersey. Kathy represents private and public sector employers in all aspects of labor and employment law, with expertise in litigating state and federal cases on behalf of employers involving Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, and providing legal opinions and advice on personnel, employment and labor issues. Kathy shares her insights on recent developments in the labor movement, some of the causes of its decline, how unions get a bad rap, and how, even though she represents management, she believes unions can be a good thing for everyone — employees and companies alike.

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful and informative Kathy is, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

I hope you enjoy the interview, and how I managed to demonstrate how little I know about sports. I feel made up for it by learning something about baseball Hall of Famer Jim Rice, who did something really cool and heroic in 1982.
- Safeguarding Against Financial Exploitation
  
  Gallery
  
  Safeguarding Against Financial Exploitation
Safeguarding Against Financial Exploitation

An on-demand CLE-eligible webinar Safeguarding Against Financial Exploitation America’s senior population is growing. Nearly one in five U.S. residents will be 65 or older in 2030. Which means the average age of U.S. investors is climbing too. With that comes the risk that they will be exploited by people with access – or gain access through nefarious methods – to their investment portfolio. Seniors and vulnerable persons lose billions of dollars each year. Remarkably, 90% of the people to take advantage of senior investors are members of their own family. Attorneys who represent senior clients need to know the signs of vulnerability, red flags that their clients are being exploited, what laws apply, and rules lawyers must follow in these matters. Questions our speakers answer: What is senior / vulnerable investor exploitation? Who is protected by state and federal laws? How prevalent is senior financial exploitation? What do the numbers tell us? What is the pace of financial abuse SAR filings by securities firms? What are the most popular scams? What is diminished capacity? What are the red flags indicating possible exploitation? What are the laws, rules, and regulations governing law firms? What are some best practices for law firms? How can firms best protect their senior clients? On Demand CLE Webinar What You Get PowerPoint and supplemental materials. Complete recording for later review. Answers to your questions via email. Invitation to contact speakers. 1.5 CLE credits (for licensed attorneys). CLE assistance.* *Subject to state bar rules. For licensed attorneys. Register Meet the Speakers Joseph Calabrese Bressler, Amery & Ross, P.C. A 1991 Graduate of St. John’s University Law School, Mr. Calabrese brings 30 years of practice and 18 years of Securities Litigation/Regulatory experience to his role as principal in the New York office of Bressler, Amery & Ross’s Financial Institutions Group. He began his career as a Wall Street litigator as an associate general counsel for Citigroup’s Smith Barney and […]
- Lien Resolution: Government & Private Plans Get Aggressive (Against Attorneys)
  
  Gallery
  
  Lien Resolution: Government & Private Plans Get Aggressive (Against Attorneys)
Lien Resolution: Government & Private Plans Get Aggressive (Against Attorneys)

Includes Nearly 75 minutes of insights from experienced professionals. CLE credit: 1+ (subject to bar rules). For CLE questions: CLE@LitigationConference.com The complete Power Point presentation. Continued access to the complete recording for later use. Answers to your questions via email to the presenters or write to HB and we will be sure to contact the speakers. What can you do to settle personal injury suits cleanly and avoid costly litigation and penalties? What recent cases can inform you about protecting your settlements and, as attorneys, yourselves, from post-settlement federal lawsuits? How can your firm set itself up to meet government expectations? What role might experts play in navigating these pitfalls? Medicare Advantage (42 USC § 1395w-22) Federal Medical Care Recovery Act (FMCRA) (42 USC § 2651) Armed Forces Act (10 USC §1095) Veterans’ Benefits (38 USC §1729) Third-Party Collection Rules (32 CFR 537.24; 38 CFR 17.101, etc.) Set-Asides under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (42 USC § 1395y(b)(2)] On Demand Registration Lien Resolution Government & Private Plans Get Aggressive (Against Attorneys!) On Demand | Recorded September 2020 It is increasingly common these days. Personal injury attorneys settle a case, only to find themselves sued by a U.S. Attorney for failing to reimburse Medicare for conditional payments as required by the Medicare Secondary Payer Act. In some cases the attorney may be required to pay fines in addition to the reimbursements and interest, a costly proposition. Are you up to speed on issues surrounding Medicare Advantage, TRICARE, veterans’ claims, and Medicare set-asides? Join nationally recognized healthcare lien and resolution expert Franklin P. Solomon and go-to lien resolution provider Brett Newman as they offer a practical, in-depth CLE presentation. Franklin P. Solomon, Esq. Attorney & Founder, Solomon Law Firm A graduate of Rutgers University School of Law at Camden, Franklin Solomon is based in Cherry Hill, NJ, with a practice focused on evaluation, litigation and resolution of healthcare “liens” and reimbursement claims. Mr. Solomon represents personal injury victims and their attorneys […]
- Telepsychiatry: Mitigating the Risks
  
  Gallery
  
  Telepsychiatry: Mitigating the Risks
Telepsychiatry: Mitigating the Risks

REGISTER Registration Includes Nearly 90 minutes of insights from experienced professionals. CLE credit: 1+ (subject to bar rules). For CLE questions: CLE@LitigationConference.com The complete Power Point presentation. Continued access to the complete recording for later use. Answers to your questions via email to the presenters or write to HB and we will be sure to contact the speakers. Understand the risks associated with telepsychiatry and how to manage them. Telemedicine has emerged as an important solution for healthcare in general and psychiatric medicine specifically during the current global pandemic. Remote access for sub-practices including addiction counseling have been commonly used. Our panel of psychiatric professionals who have served as expert witnesses and attorneys who counsel and represent physicians have prepared a 90-minute session to share insights with attorneys, physicians, healthcare providers, risk professionals, and more. Agenda Examining procedures and best practices that exist for ensuring confidentiality in a telemedicine practice How do you draft a telepsychiatric consent form? What is the emerging standard of care for telemedicine? Will the standard of care for telemedicine become a national standard? (Should it?) Review the case law addressing telemedicine or telepsychiatry How do the HIPAA regulations and HITECH privacy laws impact telemedicine? How have the HIPAA regulations and HITECH privacy laws been relaxed during the pandemic? Will the relaxed HIPAA and HITECH regulations impacting telemedicine continue past the pandemic? Which technical platforms are preferred? Which ones to avoid? Panelists Mark Levy, M.D., Medical Director at fpamed David Kan, M.D., UCSF Psychiatry Department and the California Society for Substance Abuse Medicine Ayesha Ashai, M.D., associated with fpamed Stephen M. Fatum, J.D., Partner, Barnes & Thornburg LLP Angela W. Russell, J.D., Partner, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP Meet our physician and attorney panelists. Mark Levy MD Medical Director fpamed Dr. Levy is a graduate of Columbia College (A.B. 1967) and the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons (M.D. 1971) in New York. He is a Physician […]
- The Commercial Drone Industry: Privacy, Security, Threats, and Mitigation of Risk
  
  Gallery
  
  The Commercial Drone Industry: Privacy, Security, Threats, and Mitigation of Risk
The Commercial Drone Industry: Privacy, Security, Threats, and Mitigation of Risk

HB presents a CLE-eligible webinar Now on-demand at the West LegalEdcenter THE COMMERCIAL DRONE INDUSTRY Privacy, Security, Threats, and Mitigation of Risk Drones have become an increasingly valuable tool for businesses of all types and sizes. Drones are already being used in many applications, but more will certainly arise as the technology advances. This means that certain risks, like cyber threats, will also continue to present themselves. Protecting the transmission and storage of data collected through drones is critical. Unfortunately, security usually comes as an afterthought. The drone industry is part of the aviation industry, which, based on its knowledge, keeps safety as a number one concern. Part of that safety is having proper protection for your systems, including security as a fundamental design principle. Take this webinar to gain insights on the topics listed below, and shared by an attorney who practices on the cutting-edge of this evolving technology. Topics: Defining drones. Current and future applications. FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. FAA Part 107 Regulations and waivers. Resources, e.g. the FAA Drone Zone and LAANC Portal. Penalties for violations. Privacy implications. Drones as weapons. Vulnerability to cyber attacks. Take it now! What you get: 1+ CLE credits (subject to bar rules). Insights from an experienced professional who specializes in this area of the law. The complete PowerPoint presentation. Continued access to the complete recording for later use. Answers to your questions. Fee: No additional charge to subscribers to the West LegalEdcenter. Non-subscribers may take the course for $170. Meet the Speaker Kathryn Rattigan Robinson & Cole LLP Kathryn Rattigan is a member of the firm’s Business Litigation Group and Data Privacy + Cybersecurity Team. She advises clients on data privacy and security, cybersecurity, and compliance with related state and federal laws. She assists clients in assessing risks related to technology and software contracts, as well as with compliance-related issues with outsourcing and […]
- The Intersection of Privacy and Antitrust Webinar Now Available On-Demand on the West LegalEdcenter
  
  Gallery
  
  The Intersection of Privacy and Antitrust Webinar Now Available On-Demand on the West LegalEdcenter
The Intersection of Privacy and Antitrust Webinar Now Available On-Demand on the West LegalEdcenter

Available as part of your subscription to The Thomson Reuters West LegalEdcenter®. Don’t subscribe to the West LegalEdcenter? This webinar is still available directly from HB. Take it now! Questions for speakers Questions@LitigationConferences.com CLE questions CLE@LitigationConferences.com Check out the MoginRubin blog for more insights on antitrust and privacy law. What attorneys and companies need to know about the increasing interplay between these critical areas of the law. Highly publicized cases and investigations in the U.S. and Europe of big technology, e-commerce, and social media companies demonstrate how anti-competition laws are being used to scrutinize and challenge not only how these corporations conduct themselves in the marketplace, but the very core of their colossal success: the mass collection and utilization of user data. Are the privacy and antitrust worlds beginning to cross over? Or do they simply run parallel while addressing entirely different types of conduct? Whatever the answer, data is the raw material that drives the likes of Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon, so how it is handled is a critical question when counseling clients on mergers and acquisitions. Moderator Daniel J. Mogin | Managing Partner, MoginRubin LLP Speakers Jennifer M. Oliver, CIPP/US | Partner, MoginRubin LLP Thomas N. Dahdouh | Director, Western Region, Federal Trade Commission Franklin M. Rubinstein | Partner, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Randi W. Singer, CIPP/US, CIPT | Partner, Weil, Gotshal & Manges Contributor Dina Srinivasan | Independent Researcher & Author of The Antitrust Case Against Facebook Dina was unable to present but we thank her for her content contributions. Agenda Who should regulate privacy violations in the U.S.? Which antitrust issues implicate privacy concerns? What role does machine learning play on the competitive landscape? What is big data really? How is it different from “data”? What are the elements of effective merger reviews? What are the appropriate remedies? What are “notice-and-choice” versus “harms-based” approaches? Plus answers to your questions. Send them to Questions@LitigationConferences.com.
April 7, 2021
Employment Law in the COVID-19 Era with Stefani Schwartz

Employment Law in the COVID-19 Era with Stefani Schwartz

Joining me to discuss this important subject is Stefani Schwartz, co-founder of the woman-owned employment-and-labor boutique Hatfield Schwartz in New Jersey. Stefani has devoted her legal career to representing employers in all aspects of employment law, including discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination matters.

Stefani will be featured in the next issue of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how awesome Stefani is, drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

We hope you enjoy the interview, and a guest appearance by Benny, her Portuguese Water Dog, you know, because she’s working from home. Stefani also shares one retail customer’s quick fix for forgetting her face mask.

More of us are working from home and, given it often has advantages, it’s an arrangement that is likely to continue for many of us.

This raised the general question: Is your home officially “the office,” with all the attendant rules and norms?

What new risks do employers face? What new ways can employees find themselves in trouble?

We’re also getting vaccinated. But many are not. Can companies required employees to get the shot?

Studies reveal that we’re not all bearing the burden of remote working evenly. Who is carrying more of the load?

Given these dramatic changes, should employers adjust their policies?

January 22, 2021