Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

CLIENT ALERT: Class Action Waivers in Employment Contracts Upheld by Supreme Court

Client Alert

On May 21, 2018, in a 5-4 decision and a major win for employers, the United States Supreme Court upheld the legality of waivers in employment contracts that prohibit employees from grouping claims together in collective or class actions in favor of individual arbitration proceedings. See Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, ___U.S.___ (2018).

Employers have used these collective/class action waivers to protect against collective action wage and hour claims. Employees and the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) had challenged the legality of such provisions, arguing that they violate the National Labor Relations Act (the “NLRA”) prohibition against employers interfering with employees’ rights to engage in “concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” See 29 U.S.C. § 157.  Employers’ argued, under the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”), that arbitration agreements entered into through a lawful contract must be upheld. 9 U.S.C. § 2. The United States Supreme Court resolved the conflict in favor of the FAA and employers.

Employers are encouraged to consult with their legal counsel to determine whether collective/class action waivers may be beneficial to their business or review waivers already in place to determine whether such waivers fit squarely in the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision. BMD’s employment attorneys are available for such consultation.  Should you have any questions regarding the United States Supreme Court’s decision or class/collective action waivers, please contact Adam D. Fuller at adfuller@bmdllc.com.


What Inpatient Behavioral Health Providers Need to Know About ODM's New Draft Rule for Reimbursements

Ohio Department of Medicaid (ODM) recently released a draft rule that will transform how inpatient behavioral health services are reimbursed for some hospitals. ODM will migrate inpatient payments for behavioral health and substance use disorder services (BH/SUD) provided by freestanding psychiatric hospitals (FSPs) from the APR-DRG payment methodology to a per diem payment methodology derived from the APR-DRG system.

BMD Named to the 2024 U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms”

Brennan Manna & Diamond (BMD) is recognized among the leading law firms in the nation according to the 2024 Edition of U.S. News – Best Lawyers®  "Best Law Firms." The firm has ranked in in 13 practice areas and has earned “National Tier 1” rankings in Health Care Law and Litigation-Trusts & Estates.

Friendly Physician Models: The Basics Through 5 Frequently Asked Questions

During the past several years, many health law practices have noticed a dramatic increase in the number of telehealth businesses and private equity backed health care providers. Both of these trends often rely heavily on corporate structures commonly referred to as “friendly physician,” “captive PC” or “MSO” models. Although friendly physician models are used by non-physician health care providers (e.g., physical therapists, psychologists, and dentists), this article focuses on physicians and how the model is used in connection with the provision of professional medical services.

The DOL and EEOC Enter a Partnership to Strengthen Federal Employment Law Enforcement

On September 13, the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Wage and Hour Division and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreeing to work together in enforcing federal employment laws. The MOU forms a partnership between the two agencies to encourage coordination through information sharing, joint investigations, training, and outreach.

Proposed Laboratory Arrangement Draws Heightened Scrutiny from the OIG

On September 25, 2023, the Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (OIG) issued Advisory Opinion 23-06 (AO). The Opinion involved a proposed arrangement between an independent laboratory and other physician laboratories for the purchase of the technical component of anatomic pathology services. The OIG ultimately concluded that the arrangement at issue, if it was entered into with the requisite intent, would implicate the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) and constitute grounds for sanctions.