Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital: capping medical practice reform in Illinois

On February 4, 2010 the Illinois Supreme Court struck down Illinois' medical practice reform bill, P.A. 94-677, when it decided Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital. Although the court only considered the unconstitutionality of the cap on non-economic damages contained in that bill, an inseverability provision resulted in the invalidation of all of its provisions. The end result of the Lebron decision extends much further than the striking of the cap on non-economic damages. It affects such areas as medical liability insurance law, physician discipline, public disclosure of information, the admissibility of physician statements into evidence, and expert witness standards. The Lebron holding has raised a significant obstacle to the implementation of a wide range of legislative measures intended to improve both the delivery and quality of healthcare services in Illinois. This article explains the impact of Lebron in these collateral, but important, areas of the law.     

马萨诸塞州诉美国联邦环保局案的述评

马萨诸塞州诉美国联邦环保局案是美国第一件具有里程碑意义的气候变化公益诉讼案件,该案体现了美国各州和民间力量通过公民诉讼方式促进政府采取温室气体减排行动的艰巨努力。该案从联邦上诉法院一审到联邦最高法院再审,始终存在较大争议,其中关于原告诉讼资格的争议更是人声鼎沸。在联邦最高法院判决中,原告仅以微弱优势胜诉。尽管关于原告胜诉的理由仍有颇多争议,但该案在明确温室气体属于《清洁空气法》的调整范围、拓展气候变化公民诉讼原告的诉讼资格以及确立公民诉讼可以促进政府采取减排行动等方面,都具有非常积极的意义。     

Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas v. Harris: a dubious consequence of piecemeal health care legislation

For almost forty years, legislators have advocated comprehensive measures designed to assure Americans quality health care. Instead of implementing an integrated health care plan, Congress has intermittently enacted statutes which address specific health care delivery problems. At times the judiciary has stretched the ambit of existing health legislation in response to particular plaintiffs' urgent claims. This Case Comment examines the dilemma of piecemeal legislation and judicial policymaking as exemplified by Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas v. Harris, a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals health care financing decision whose outcome Congress has flatly rejected.     

The HIV-infected health care provider. Doe v. Attorney General of the United States

Doe demonstrates that once an employer enters into a relationship with an individual and thereafter determines that he or she may be disabled, the employer has the right to ask the individual questions about the possible disability when those questions are relevant to assessing his or her qualifications for continuing on the job. In fact, once a health care provider is on notice that an employee's or physician's disability may render the employee or physician no longer qualified, thereby potentially endangering patients, the provider is required to determine whether the person is qualified for the job. In these sensitive matters, employers must draw a fine line between unreasonably following up on every rumor on the one hand, and on the other hand investigating reliable information when there may indeed be a direct threat to patients.