Government Involvement in Medical Decisions During Outbreaks
It’s apparently (and hopefully) on its last legs. The Covid-19 pandemic was the most recent health issue to raise questions around government’s involvement (or interference) in an individual’s control over their own medical treatment.
In their article – Government Involvement in Medical Care Decisions During Outbreaks of Disease: How Far is Too Far? – our guests wrote about the intersection of law and medicine. They reviewed medical mandates, implications brought about by the impact of advances in science and medicine, and where role of government to protect public health intersects (or collides) with personal healthcare choices. They focused is on governmental responses to the pandemic, that is, what the government can mandate in the spirit of public health, and not on the separate issue of abortion, which is a “choice” subject for another day.
How much authority do government agencies or even the courts have over a person’s healthcare decisions? People often assume the practice of medicine and the enactment and enforcement of laws are separate and independent enterprises; that they remain fixed in their respective corners. However, they wrote, after a deeper dive into history and precedent, it’s evident that the tension between individual rights and health-related mandates has existed for some time.
Listen to my interview with the authors, Bryce McCloskey and Sandra M. Cianflone with Hall Booth Smith, P.C. Bryce is based in Jacksonville, Fla., where he focuses on medical malpractice and professional liability law. Sandie is a partner in the firm’s Atlanta office where she concentrates on a variety of aspects of healthcare defense She chairs the firm’s Coronavirus Task Force and is a member of the firm’s National Trial Counsel team. She is also a valued member of the Editorial Board of Advisors of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation.
***********
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.
(actual size)
Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page
LinkedIn
Bryce McColskeyHall Booth Smith P.C.
Bryce McColskey focuses his practice on medical malpractice, professional liability, and general liability matters.
Prior to joining Hall Booth Smith, Bryce was an Associate with another firm in Jacksonville where he focused his practice on workers’ compensation defense. Earlier in his career, he worked as a summer clerk for the University of North Florida’s Office of General Counsel and a local firm in Jacksonville.
Bryce earned a Juris Doctorate from the University of Florida Levin College of Law where he was a member of the University of Florida Association of Law and Business and the Chester Bedell Inn of Court. Bryce earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration from the University of North Florida.
Sandra CianfloneHall Booth Smith P.C.
Sandra Cianflone is a Partner in the Atlanta office of Hall Booth Smith. Her practice primarily focuses on medical malpractice on defending hospitals, healthcare institutions, physicians, nurses and institutional employees in medical malpractice actions from inception through trial. She is part of Hall Booth Smith’s National Trial Counsel team and has litigated cases across the country.
Sandra also provides national risk management and crisis management services across the healthcare industry. These services have guided clients through tumultuous regulatory and statutory schemes by providing efficient approaches which assist with public/community relations, litigation preparation, defense alternatives, and effective case management. Ms. Cianflone is also the Chair of our Coronavirus Taskforce.
Sandra received her Juris Doctorate from Pace University School of Law and her undergraduate degree from Fairleigh Dickinson University.
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 in defending against claims by health plans and government benefits programs seeking payment out of tort recoveries. Among his significant cases in the field, Mr. Solomon argued before the New Jersey Supreme Court in Perreira v. Rediger, 169 N.J. 399 (2001), obtaining a decision which prohibited health insurers’ reimbursement claims against their insureds’ tort recoveries. He was plaintiffs’ counsel in Levine v. United Healthcare, 402 F.3d 156 (3d Cir. 2005), a federal class action challenging reimbursement claims of ERISA-governed health plans. He was also appellate counsel in Wurtz v. The Rawlings Company, 761 F.3d (2d Cir. 2014), a class action challenging New York insurers’ reimbursement claims against their insureds, and was plaintiffs’ counsel in Taransky v. Sebelius, 760 F.3d 307 (3d Cir. 2014), a class action challenging Medicare’s claims for reimbursement out of tort recoveries. More recently Mr. Solomon was appellate counsel in Arnone v. Aetna, 860 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2017), a decision which subjected ERISA plan disability insurers to state anti-subrogation law. Prior to opening his own firm, Mr. Solomon’s practice included 20 years of litigating mass tort and individual personal injury claims on behalf of plaintiffs.
rett Newman is known nationally by plaintiff attorneys for his expertise on claims avoidance and reduction. Recognizing the ever-growing nature of lien resolution and the ever-increasing associated liability, Brett established Newman Settlement Services Group to assist both individual claimants of personal injury lawsuits and mass tort claimants in the protection of their proceeds and government benefits. 
