Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

BMD Obtains Supreme Court Victory on Behalf of Sterilite of Ohio, LLC

Client Alert
August 28, 2020

Columbus, Ohio – On August 26, 2020, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued its opinion in Lunsford v. Sterilite of Ohio, LLC, Slip Op. No. 2020-Ohio-4193. The Supreme Court’s 4-3 decision reversed an Ohio Court of Appeals ruling that had reinstated a putative class action against Sterilite brought by a group of current and former employees claiming that Sterilite’s use of “direct observation” urinalysis screening violated their common law right to privacy.

BMD originally obtained dismissal of the case in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, which was reversed by a decision of the Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals in August 2018. Following the Fifth District’s adverse ruling, BMD successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of Ohio to accept jurisdiction and hear the case. BMD partner Daniel Rudary argued Sterilite’s appeal to the Supreme Court on January 28, 2020.

In its decision reversing the appellate court, the Supreme Court majority adopted BMD’s argument that the plaintiff employees consented to drug testing under the “direct observation” method when they voluntarily produced urine samples while being observed by a same-sex monitor in a designated restroom facility. The Supreme Court also reaffirmed Ohio’s long standing rule of employment-at-will, holding that because “Sterilite had the legal right to terminate appellees’ employment at any time, appellees’ argument that their consent was involuntary because of their fear of termination necessarily fails.”

BMD Litigation Member John Childs and Partner Daniel Rudary represented Sterilite before the Supreme Court of Ohio. Their brief to the Supreme Court can be read here, and Attorney Rudary’s January 28, 2020 oral argument can be viewed here.

See additional coverage on the decision in the ABA Journal and Bloomberg News.

BMDBrennan Manna DiamondOhio Supreme CourtSterilite of Ohioputative class actionOhio Court of Appealsdirect observationcommon law right to privacyemployment-at-willJohn ChildsDaniel J. RudaryLitigationEmployement Law
Client Alert

Ohio State Dental Board Implements Teledentistry Rules

May 26, 2020Ohio law defines “teledentistry” as the delivery of dental services through the use of synchronous, real-time communication and the delivery of services of a dental hygienist or expanded function dental auxiliary pursuant to a dentist’s authorization.[1] The law requires a dentist who desires to provide dental services through teledentistry to apply for a teledentistry permit from the Ohio State Dental Board (“OSDB”).[2] Pursuant to the mandate under Ohio Revised Code 4715.436, the OSDB is implementing the following teledentistry permit rules and requirements (to be set forth under Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 4715-23). These regulations, which were subject of a public hearing on February 19, 2020, are effective on May 30, 2020.Client Alert

HHS Addresses Drug Manufacturer Coupons on Out-of-Pocket Limits

May 25, 2020On May 7, 2020, the US Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) announced their Notice of Benefit Parameters for 2021 in which HHS addressed the application of prescription drug manufacturer copay coupons towards a patient’s out-of-pocket limit. Under this guidance, HHS will permit, but not require, plans and insurers to count direct support offered to enrollees by drug manufacturers (i.e., coupons) for specific prescription drugs toward the annual limits on cost-sharing, regardless of whether a generic equivalent is available.Client Alert

Important Updates, Deadlines, and Clarifications for the HHS Provider Relief Funds

May 22, 2020On May 20, 2020, HHS made important updates and clarifications regarding the General Distribution payments to providers. Between April 10, 2020 and April 24, 2020, HHS distributed an initial $30 billion to providers based on the provider’s 2019 Medicare fee-for-service receipts. These funds were distributed automatically and providers did not need to submit an application in order to receive these funds. The funds were originally touted as a “no strings attached” stimulus payment reserved for healthcare providers. But HHS issued a 10-page Terms and Conditions and required that providers sign an attestation confirming receipt of the funds and agreeing to the Terms and Conditions.Client Alert

Reopening & Social Media: Tips for Businesses

May 21, 2020As the country starts to reopen, businesses are under great pressure to keep employees and customers safe. Even if a business follows every reopening requirement, there will inevitably be scrutiny from within and outside the organization. And, in this world of social media, perception tends to become reality. Below are a few practical tips to avoid attracting negative press while restarting your business.Client Alert

Back to Work: Employer Documents

May 20, 2020The return of the workforce brings a renewed set of documentation requirements for employers, particularly those employers with fewer than 500 employees and any companies who received PPP funds. Back in March, employers needed a COVID-19 Leave Form and a Remote Work Policy, but things have changed.
Older posts
Newer posts