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

Pondering Over Patient Billing: CARES Act and Provider Relief Fund Lead to More Questions

April 16, 2020On April 11, 2020, HHS, along with the Department of Labor and Department of the Treasury, issued jointly prepared FAQs regarding the FFCRA, the CARES Act, and other health coverage issues. The FFCRA was enacted on March 18, 2020 and requires group health plans and health insurance issuers to provide benefits for certain items and services related to diagnostic testing for COVID-19. Additionally, plans and issuers must provide coverage without imposing any cost-sharing requirements (deductibles, copayments, and coinsurance), prior authorization, or other medical management requirements.Client Alert

Important Update and FAQs: HHS Tweaks Guidance on The CARES Act Provider Relief Fund Terms and Conditions

April 16, 2020On April 10, 2020, many providers awoke to find electronic payment deposits from Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in their bank accounts. This was the first round of $30 billion of payments from the HHS Provider Relief Fund as a result of the CARES Act, which was signed into law on March 27, 2020. All healthcare providers that received Medicare fee-for-service payments in 2019 should have received a payment.Client Alert

Returning to Work: Forecasting the New Normal in Business

April 16, 2020We cannot predict when businesses will reopen across the county. As we publish this Alert, dynamic business leaders are cooperating in comprehensive efforts to create safe work environments so that they can all re-engage the workforce. However, we can predict the new normal in business. Some important studies were published yesterday, and the new normal in business will be facemasks for all employees, and probably all business visitors.Client Alert

Updated Guidance on Ohio Department of Medicaid Telehealth Rules During the Covid-19 Public Health Emergency

April 15, 2020In its initial response to the COVID-19 public health emergency, the Ohio Department of Medicaid (“ODM”) issued emergency rule 5160-1-21, which dramatically expanded reimbursable telehealth services, telehealth providers, allowable technology, location of both providers and patients, and covered billing provider types. See BMD’s initial COVID-19 and Telehealth Resource Guide here. This emergency rule provides wide flexibility for patients to receive necessary healthcare services while Ohio’s Stay-At-Home Order remains in place. Regulations are continually changing in response to the public health crisis, and on April 13, 2020, ODM issued new guidance further expanding telehealth services reimbursable under Ohio’s Medicaid program.Client Alert

Essential Businesses during COVID-19: Identification and Operation FAQs

April 14, 2020During the COVID-19 pandemic, the ability to classify your business as “essential” could be the key to its survival. Almost every state in the United States has imposed a “stay-at-home” or “shelter-in-place” order that restricts the types of businesses that can remain open. In fact, as of the writing of this alert, there are only seven states that have not imposed state-wide restrictions on which businesses can stay open during the Coronavirus pandemic and even those states have individual cities and counties that have imposed stricter orders. However, these orders are not always clear, and interpretation is often left to the individual business. This alert will answer some of the most common questions about essential businesses.
Older posts
Newer posts