Law Commons^™

If A Right To Health Care Is Argued In The Supreme Court, Does Anybody Hear It?, W. David Koeninger

Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality

No abstract provided.

The Birth Of A Real Right: An Overview And Analysis Of The Recent Revision Of Book Iii, Title X Of The Civil Code, Bradley Schwab

Louisiana Law Review

The article examines the revised articles in Title X, Book III, of the Louisiana Civil Code which is regarding rents of lands and annuities. It explains the revisions to Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 of Title X, Book III that pertains to the annuity contract and the annuity charge respectively. It discusses some economic benefits created by these new articles including bankruptcy protection and Medicaid benefits.

A Broke(N) System: Comment On The Supreme Court's Decision To Rule On The Equal Access Provision In Douglas V. Independent Living Center, And Its Potential Impact On The Affordable Care Act, Megan Waugh

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

This comment first provides a historical and legal backdrop of the Medicaid system, the Equal Access Provision and private individuals' enforcement of the Equal Access Provision through litigation in order to analyze the outcome of Douglas in light of the Supreme Court's decision in the Affordable Care Act Case. Then taking that analysis, this article recommends an approach to handle either a cause of action or no cause of action under the Supremacy Clause upon the implementation of PPACA.

Maine's Battle In America's Other Drug War: Pharmaceutical Research And Manufacturers Of America V. Walsh, Lynsey Mitchel

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Advocacy In Health Proceedings In New York State, Kia C. Franklin

Touro Law Review

Individuals and communities navigating the healthcare system without an advocate often experience devastating outcomes and become burdened with unnecessary costs. These negative outcomes undermine the very utility of our healthcare system. The creation of a legal right to counsel for individuals with critical health related claims would meet an important and unmet need in our health and legal systems by empowering patients, improving the quality of health for many, and preventing unnecessary costs to the health care system.

A dedicated group of healthcare advocates, lawyers, public policy analysts, and other concerned individuals gathered together at Touro Law Center to strategize …

Harris V. Mcrae: Whatever Happened To The Roe V. Wade Abortion Right?, Laura Crocker

Pepperdine Law Review

The controversial Roe v. Wade decision purportedly removed the abortion controversy from the political arena and set constitutional standards by which questions on the issue could be resolved. The enactment of the Hyde Amendment, a bill which generally forbids the use of Medicaid funds for abortions, was a recent political response to the abortion controversy. However, in the recent case of Harris v. McRae, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment and thus injected the abortion controversy back into the political arena. The author exhaustively examines the abortion controversy from the time of the Roe decision up …

Medicaid Expansion, The Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act, And The Supreme Court's Flawed Spending Clause Coercion Reasoning In National Federation Of Independent Business V. Sebelius, L. Darnell Weeden

Cleveland State Law Review

The issue to be addressed is whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s (ACA or “Obamacare”) manifest goal of promoting the general welfare of the nation by encouraging states to expand their existing Medicaid plans is a coercive use of Congress’ power under the Spending Clause if the federal government permanently picks up at least 90 percent of the cost of the expansion. The Spending Clause grants Congress the power “to pay the Debts and provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States.” To make certain that federal money given to the States is used …

Kicking Ohio Medicaid Recipients When They Are Down: How Ohio's Third Party Liability Medicaid Statute Violates Federal Law As Interpreted By Ahlborn, Kelly Voyles

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note argues that Ohio’s Medicaid third party liability statute must either be invalidated by the Ohio Supreme Court or repealed by the Ohio General Assembly. This Note then goes on to argue that the Ohio General Assembly must amend its Medicaid third party liability statute to require settlement allocation before ODJFS can recover the medical payments it made on behalf of Ohio Medicaid recipients. Finally, this Note argues that Ohio should also amend its Medicaid third party liability statute to require that the parties come to an allocation agreement themselves or, if that proves impossible, to require a judicial …

How An Obscure Tennessee Opinion Uncovers The Veil Of Legal Malpractice Between Asset-Protection Trusts And The Uniform Trust Code., Charles Epps Ipock

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

In the year 2000, the Uniform Law Commissioners approved the Uniform Trust Code (UTC). This was the first effort to provide states with an all-inclusive model for codifying their trust laws. Since then, at least twenty-three states adopted some, or most of the UTC. But this enactment did not come without controversy. Most of the controversies stem from provisions regarding asset-protection trusts. The net result of asset-protection trusts within the UTC essentially disposes of discretionary trusts by requiring them to contain spendthrift language. The undesirable effect of these provisions is that without a spendthrift clause any creditor can attach a …

Embracing Justice Roberts’ “New Medicaid”, Sidney D. Watson

Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy

No abstract provided.

Medicaid’S Next Fifty Years: Aligning An Old Program With The New Normal, Sara Rosenbaum

Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy

No abstract provided.