Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Antitrust (2)
- Constitutional Law (2)
- Administrative Law (1)
- Air and Space Law (1)
- Alston v. NCAA (1)
-
- Ancillary Restraints Doctrine (1)
- Anti-trust (1)
- CDC (1)
- China (1)
- Civil Rights (1)
- Constitution's Taxing and Spending Clause (1)
- Consumer Protection Law (1)
- Corporate Diversity (1)
- Corporate Law (1)
- Estate Planning (1)
- Federal Securities Law (1)
- First Amendment (1)
- Health (1)
- Human Rights Law (1)
- Immigration Law (1)
- Insurance coverage Laws (1)
- Internet Law (1)
- Internet Property Rights (1)
- Less Restrictive Alternatives (1)
- Lyme (1)
- Lyme disease (1)
- Notarization Laws (1)
- Ohio v. American Express (1)
- Outer Space Arms Race (1)
- Professor David Skover (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
It’S About Lyme: Why Congress Must Enact Medical Insurance Coverage Laws For Lyme Disease Patients Now, Jennifer Barrett
It’S About Lyme: Why Congress Must Enact Medical Insurance Coverage Laws For Lyme Disease Patients Now, Jennifer Barrett
Seattle University Law Review Online
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates approximately 476,000 people are diagnosed with Lyme disease in the United States each year. While many will recover with a short course of antibiotics, up to 35% will suffer from persistent symptoms after initial treatment. Despite scientific evidence showing the infection can persist long after initial treatment, most insurance companies restrict access to treatment beyond twenty-eight days, leaving patients to bear much of the financial burden. To limit crippling out-of-pocket expenses, Congress must enact legislation mandating coverage for the treatment of clinically diagnosed Lyme disease and co-infections based on the International …
Less Restrictive Alternatives And The Ancillary Restraints Doctrine, Thomas B. Nachbar
Less Restrictive Alternatives And The Ancillary Restraints Doctrine, Thomas B. Nachbar
Seattle University Law Review
In Ohio v. American Express, both the majority and dissent introduced into Supreme Court antitrust jurisprudence a new test for evaluating restraints under the rule of reason: a less restrictive alternatives test. Occasionally appearing in circuit court cases, less restrictive alternatives tests have not been part of Supreme Court’s approach to the rule of reason, which generally evaluates restraints of trade by balancing their anticompetitive and procompetitive effects.
American Express was the first Supreme Court case to mention a less restrictive alternatives test, potentially representing a major shift in antitrust law, but it was not the last. In 2021’s …