Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

You can now enter into a Postnuptial Agreement in Ohio!

Client Alert

Earlier this year, Ohio was one of just two states (Iowa) that did not permit couples to enter into postnuptial agreements – agreements made between married couples that separate their marital and non-marital property in the event of death or a future divorce. The Ohio Legislature changed this on March 23, 2023, when it passed S.B. 210 legalizing these agreements.

The new law considers that a couple’s financial health and goals often change throughout their marriage and that they should have the option to terminate or update an existing prenuptial agreement, or execute (and later modify if needed) a postnuptial agreement, to reflect these changes. To exercise any one of these options, the following conditions must be satisfied: 1) the agreement is in writing and signed by both spouses; 2) the agreement is entered into freely without fraud, duress, coercion, or overreaching; 3) there was full disclosure, or full knowledge, and understanding of the nature, value, and extent of the property of both spouses; and 4) the terms do not promote or encourage divorce or profiteering by divorce.[1]

Life is unpredictable and the new law affords Ohio couples greater flexibility when planning for their futures, which most likely look very different now than they did before marriage. The law also takes the pressure off engaged couples who are contemplating entering into a prenuptial agreement. Additionally, the ability to enter into a postnuptial agreement lessens the burden of dividing up assets if a couple were to ultimately divorce.

For questions regarding S.B. 210 and your options, please contact Cassandra Manna at clmanna@bmdllc.com or (216) 658-2206.

[1]  S.B. 210, 134th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ohio 2023). 


Recent HIPAA Breach Settlements - Lessons Learned

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the consequences for providers may include settlements of $30,000 to $240,000. OCR recently released two settlements for improper breaches of protected health information (PHI) that are good examples of the major monetary penalties that can result from common HIPAA mistakes.

Supreme Court Issues Major False Claims Act Decision

Telehealth Flexibility Updates: HIPAA, DEA, and CMS

The Covid-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE) officially ended on May 11, 2023. But what does that mean for telehealth, a field that expanded exponentially during the PHE? Fortunately, many of the flexibilities will remain intact, at least temporarily. This client alert presents a brief overview of the timelines that providers need to follow, but for a more comprehensive review of telehealth flexibilities and when they will end

WEBINAR SERIES RECAP | Ending the Public Health Emergency + Post-Pandemic Check-Up

Some may take the position that the rest of the country already returned to a new “normal” following the COVID-19 pandemic.  But healthcare providers continue to implement COVID protocols and navigate the ever-changing healthcare regulations at both the federal and state levels.  It is important for healthcare providers to take time for a “Healthcare Check-Up” with the start of 2023 and the ending of the Public Health Emergency (“PHE”).

Sharp Rise in False Claims Act Cases - Navigating the FCA Waters

Recently, on April 18, 2023, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the FCA’s scienter, or mental state, requirement. To prove violation of the FCA, the statute requires that a defendant “knowingly” file false claims for payment. The term “knowingly” is defined within the statute to mean a person that acts with actual knowledge, deliberate ignorance, or reckless disregard. Circuit courts are split on how to interpret and apply the knowledge element of the FCA, and based on the Supreme Court’s decision, there will be a large impact on healthcare defendants and their businesses as well as anyone who contracts with, or receives money from, a federal program. A broader interpretation of the FCA would unnecessarily target and stifle healthcare, and other businesses, for simple errors in daily operations. This goes against the intended application of the FCA, which was to prevent fraudulent activity.