Kean Miller

Subscribe to Kean Miller's Posts

September 23, 2013 is the effective date of new HIPAA Regulations that address many changes, such as:

  • Changes to Business Associate Rules
  • Changes to Investigations, Compliance Reviews and Civil Monetary Penalties
  • Mandatory Restriction on Disclosure of Protected Health Information to Health Plans in Some Cases of Cash Payment for Items and / or Services
  • Risk

…

* This article originally appeared in the July 8, 2013 edition of Around the Bar

Act No. 88 makes an important change to a creditor’s right to collect a debt from property that the debtor has transferred to someone else. Unlike alternative approaches to transfer avoidance, the right of action in Louisiana – the “Revocatory…

“Pumping,” or expressing breast milk, is now protected under Title VII. In a matter of first impression, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal recently held that an adverse employment action taken against a female employee because she was expressing milk constituted sex discrimination in violation of Title VII. See Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Houston…

Through House Bill 589 of the 2013 Regular Session, the Louisiana legislature amended article 966 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which, as of August 1, 2013, requires additional legwork by practitioners who seek to obtain a ruling or dismissal by summary judgment. The new rule requires the moving party to formally admit its evidence into the record for the purposes of that particular summary judgment motion. Thus, unlike in years past, the practitioner may no longer rely upon evidence “on file” in the record or evidence simply attached to the motion itself. Even under the 2012 amendments with similar language to HB589, at least one circuit recently held that the movant must formally admit its evidence in support of the motion at the hearing on the motion.

Article 966(B)(2) now states in pertinent part:

(2) The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions, together with the affidavits, if any, admitted for purposes of the motion for summary judgment, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law (underlined language is added by HB589).Continue Reading Louisiana Legislature Amends Article 966 of the Code of Civil Procedure Requiring Additional Legwork by Practitioners Seeking Summary Judgment

The Kean Miller Connection is a free, two-day law school preparatory program for college students from groups that are traditionally underrepresented in the legal profession.  Attorneys from Kean Miller  along with other legal instructors, provide an intense overview of the law school experience. The goal of the program is to "connect" students with information helpful…

Floating oil and gas production facilities, such as the Single Point Anchor Reservoir (“SPAR”), are designed to operate in deep water environments where construction of a traditional fixed platform is not feasible. Unlike a fixed platform, floating production facilities are constructed on a floating hull.  Fields v. Pool Offshore, Inc., 182 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 1999).  The hull is typically moored to the seabed with wire or synthetic rope attached to suction piles and/or anchors.  The structures are typically capable of limited movement by manipulation of mooring lines.  Although it is typically a complicated, expensive, and time-consuming endeavor, floating production facilities are capable of being detached from the seabed and towed from one location to another.

The 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Stewart v Dutra Construction Company, 543 U.S. 481 (2005) caused many to question whether floating production facilities (traditionally not considered a vessel) may qualify as a vessel under maritime law.  Due to certain language in the decision, Stewart provided what some consider a more expansive definition of which structures may qualify as a “vessel” for purposes of maritime law.   The Stewart Court analyzed the vessel status of the Super Scoop dredge, a floating platform with a bucket that removes silt from the ocean floor and dumps it onto adjacent scows. The Super Scoop is in some ways similar to a SPAR because it has limited means of self-propulsion, but can navigate short distances by manipulating its anchors and cables.  In Stewart, the Court concluded that the Super Scoop’s practical capability of transporting equipment and people over water rendered it a vessel.  Continue Reading Vessel Status of Floating Production Facilities After Lozeman v. Riviera Beach

On May 10, 2013, the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, handed down its opinion in CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp., No. 2011-1301, slip op. (Fed. Cir. May 10, 2013). The majority of the Federal Circuit judges agreed on little other than that the method and computer-readable medium claims involved in the dispute were patent ineligible. Essentially, Alice Corporation owned patents that the Federal Circuit found to be nothing more than abstract ideas based on use of escrow accounts and record keeping associated with the settling of transactions. However, the Court failed to agree on the reasoning as to why such claims were ineligible subject matter with the judges evenly split regarding the eligibility of comparable computer systems claims.
Continue Reading CLS Bank: Software Patents at Risk?

All persons associated with non-public construction projects in Louisiana are affected by, and should be familiar with, the Louisiana Private Works Act. La. R.S. 9:4801, et. seq. (“PWA”).  The two fundamental policies behind the implementation of the PWA summarized are:

  1. To protect those who contribute to the improvement of immovable property by ensuring that the owner does not benefit from their labor without compensating them; and
  2. To incentivize the owner to take reasonable steps to ensure that contractors and suppliers are paid.

The PWA was first enacted in 1981 and was based upon the work and recommendations of the official advisory law revision commission and, the law reform agency and legal research agency of the State of Louisiana – The Louisiana Law Institute. Over the last thirty years, numerous amendments and revisions to the PWA have resulted in piece-meal changes to certain provisions that lead to confusion, ambiguity, and potential traps for the unwary.

Recognizing the undesirable effects of the many revisions, the 2012 Louisiana Legislature has once again turned to the Louisiana Law Institute for its recommendations to simplify and better organize the provisions of the PWA.Continue Reading On the Horizon, Revisions to the Louisiana Private Works Act: “The More Things Change, the More they Stay the Same”

Those health care providers and suppliers who are contemplating accepting donations of electronic health records software and training services should be aware of proposed amendments to the regulations that might protect such arrangements under the anti-kickback statute and the Stark physician self-referral law. The Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) is proposing to amend the anti-kickback safe harbor pertaining to electronic health records (“EHR”) items and services found at 42 CFR 1001.952(y).  The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) is proposing the same amendments to the Stark physician self-referral exception pertaining to donations of certain EHR software and directly related training services found at 42 CFR 411.357(w).  The OIG safe harbor and physician self-referral exception were promulgated in 2006 to protect certain arrangements involving the donation by permitted donors of interoperable electronic health records software or information technology and training services.  Both proposed rules make the identical changes to the protections offered under the safe harbor and exception.

First, the proposed amendments would update the provision under which EHR software is deemed interoperable. Interoperable has been defined to mean “able to communicate and exchange data accurately, effectively, securely, and consistently with different information technology systems, software applications, and networks, in various settings, and exchange data such that the clinical or operational purpose and meaning of the data are preserved and unaltered.” Both CMS and the OIG consider interoperability to be an important concept to reduce the risk that parties might use the donated software and technology to capture referrals. Both considered that, if the donated technology is interoperable, the recipient would be able to use the technology to transmit EHR not only to the donor but to others, including competitors of the donor, and would not be “locked-in” to communications with the donor only.Continue Reading Proposed Amendments to OIG Safe Harbor and Stark Physician Self-Referral Exception for Electronic Health Records