The Northern District of Texas has issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining multiple arbitration proceedings before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). In Billitteri v. Securities America Inc., et al., No. 3:09-CV-01568-F and related cases, (N.D. Tex., February 18, 2011), a group of representative plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit jointly filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of a partial class action settlement with settling defendants from the financial services industry. The representative plaintiffs also filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order to enjoin three scheduled FINRA arbitration proceedings because the plaintiffs in the arbitration proceedings were also members of the proposed class. The representative plaintiffs cited the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), and claimed that allowing the scheduled FINRA arbitrations to proceed would require the settling defendants to expend monies needed for the proposed settlement on defending the arbitrations. The settling defendants did not oppose the plaintiffs’ Motion. According to Judge Royal Furgeson, In a complex class action such as this one, district courts have been ruled to have the authority to stay proceedings taking place elsewhere “in aid of their respective jurisdictions” to assist the courts in the complex task of ensuring resolutions to the claims before it. See In re Baldwin-United Corp., 770 F.2d 328, 338 (2d Cir. 1985) (“An important feature of the All-Writs Act is its grant of authority to enjoin and bind non-parties to an action when needed to preserve the court’s ability to reach or enforce its decision in a case over which it has proper jurisdiction.”); see also United States v. New York Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159, 174 (1977) (“The power conferred by the Act extends, under appropriate circumstances, to persons who, though not parties to the original action or engaged in wrongdoing, are in a position to frustrate the implementation of a court order or the proper administration of justice . . . , and encompasses even those who have not taken any affirmative action to hinder justice.”) (citations omitted). The Northern District of Texas issued a Temporary Restraining Order to preserve the status quo while the court considered whether to approve the proposed settlement. The court also noted that it would consider the appropriateness of using the All Writs Act to enjoin arbitration proceedings when it decided the parties’ Motion for Preliminary Approval. The next hearing is scheduled for March 18, 2011. Although the FINRA forum does not provide for class action claims, customers of brokerage firms generally may opt out of a class action lawsuit in favor of FINRA arbitral proceedings. Because the Northern District of Texas has temporarily enjoined FINRA arbitration proceedings under the All Writs Act, this case could potentially have a substantial limiting effect on the availability of the FINRA arbitral forum in the future. You may read New York Times coverage of the case here. Technorati Tags: arbitration, FINRA, News, securities arbitration
Continue reading...The California Office of Health Information Integrity (CalOHII) has published proposed regulations for its electronic health information exchange (HIE) demonstration projects. According to CalOHII’s Initial Statement of Reasons, such projects “will test policies and rules to better inform the State and health care stakeholders while the HIE infrastructure is being defined over the next several years. By allowing for various HIE demonstration projects, it will be possible to determine how best to protect privacy in accordance with State and Federal laws while enabling electronic health information exchange.” The State of California was awarded $38.8 million dollars under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in order to develop the projects. The Request for Application states, Demonstration project participants will be testing electronic HIE privacy and security policies that will not only address the feasibility of implementation and gauge the implementation impact, but identify the need for standardization across all participating health care entities as the Participants gauge the impact of the policies. Participation in the demonstration projects will provide the Participants with clarification on privacy and security issues, protection and mitigation of legal risks, and the structure to facilitate valuable and appropriately safeguarded testing of policies within the demonstration projects regulations. This will allow the Participants to be engaged in the most advanced electronic exchange of health information environment in California as the State looks to the future. By helping to develop implementation strategies consistent with the demonstration projects regulations, participating entities will be contributing to inform the CalOHII and HIE stakeholders on the critical privacy and security policy issues, identifying new and innovative privacy and security practices that enhance consumers trust and confidence with electronic exchange of health information. Results from the demonstration projects will inform the California legislature of the outcomes, best practices, and the need for harmonization with federal privacy and security law. Additionally, For calendar year 2011, CalOHII is seeking demonstration project participants that will propose comprehensive implementation strategies for the identified demonstration project. The goals of each demonstration project will include: • Determine operational feasibility of implementing the policy; • Determine operational feasibility of implementing an electronic HIE process; • Discover issues associated with the operationalization of the policy; and • Develop and propose policy solutions. CalOHII will, in the future, seek participants for demonstration projects, as allowed through AB 278, for calendar years 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. Applications to participate in the 2011 demonstration projects are due March 7, 2011. The full text of the proposed regulations is available here. CalOHII will accept written comments on the proposed regulations until April 1, 2011. Disputing previously discussed some of the issues related to the utilization of electronic health records here and here. Technorati Tags: Healthcare
Continue reading...by Holly Hayes The February 2011 American Health Lawyers Association (AHLA) Connections magazine lists the “Top Ten Health Law Issues in a Reformed Healthcare System 2011.” Healthcare reform law passed in 2010 prompted the AHLA to change the focus of their annual “Top 10” article for 2011. Former “Top 10” issues amended by healthcare reform and some new topics that emerged by the passage of the legislation are included in this year’s list (details of each topic are listed here): 1. Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate – Peter Leibold, AHLA 2. Accountable Care Organizations – Bianca Bishop, AHLA 3. Fraud and Abuse and Program Integrity – Bianca Bishop, AHLA 4. Medicare Payment Modifications – Rebecca L. Burke, Powers Pyles Sutter and Verville PC 5. Medicare Physician Payment: The Sustainable Growth Rate Formula – Bianca Bishop, AHLA 6. Delivery System Reforms – Cynthia Conner, AHLA 7. Medical Loss Ratio Requirements – Arthur N. Lerner, Crowell & Moring LLP 8. Physician Employment – Cynthia Conner, AHLA 9. Insurance Reform and Medicaid Expansions – Katherine J. Hayes, Associate Research Professor, George Washington University, Department of Health Policy 10. EMR/HIT/HIPAA – Alan S. Goldberg, Attorney and Counsellor at Law Let us hear your thoughts on any of these topics. Technorati Tags: Healthcare, Mediation Holly Hayes is a mediator at Karl Bayer, Dispute Resolution Expert where she focuses on mediation of health care disputes. Holly holds a B.A. from Southern Methodist University and a Masters in Health Administration from Duke University. She can be reached at holly@karlbayer.com.
Continue reading...A bill seeking to establish a Texas Institute of Health Care Quality and Efficiency is currently before the Texas Legislature. Senate Bill 8 was authored by Senator Nelson and filed on February 16, 2011. It seeks “to improve health care quality, accountability, and cost containment in this state by encouraging health care provider collaboration, effective health care delivery models, and coordination of health care services.” The bill was referred to the Senate Health & Human Services Committee on February 17th. The full text of the bill is available here. You may monitor this and other bills as they move through the Texas Legislature here. Disputing’s own Holly Hayes has discussed the role of collaborative healthcare in healthcare conflict resolution and reform many times. You may read some of her more recent posts here, here, and here. Technorati Tags: Healthcare, Texas Legislation
Continue reading...Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.
To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.
Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.
To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.