Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Law

It's A Mistake: Insurer Cost Cutting, Insurer Liability, And The Lack Of Erisa Preemption Within The Individual Exchanges, Christopher Smith Jan 2014

It's A Mistake: Insurer Cost Cutting, Insurer Liability, And The Lack Of Erisa Preemption Within The Individual Exchanges, Christopher Smith

Cleveland State Law Review

In today’s society, most people receive their health insurance through their employers. If their employment-based insurer engages in cost cutting that leads to patient injury, Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) preemption means that these people have no state tort-based recourse against their insurers. ERISA is a federal statute that regulates employee benefit plans, and the Supreme Court has interpreted the ERISA statute to preempt most beneficiary state tort claims against an employment-based insurer. In other words, even if the insurer, and not the doctor, caused the patient’s harm, the patient with employment-based insurance can only sue their …


Smoking Out A Compromise: Splitting The Difference Through A Public Policy Approach To Resolving The Graphic Cigarette Warning Label Circuit Split, Amelia B. Larsen Jan 2014

Smoking Out A Compromise: Splitting The Difference Through A Public Policy Approach To Resolving The Graphic Cigarette Warning Label Circuit Split, Amelia B. Larsen

Cleveland State Law Review

The imposition of graphic warning labels is necessary; the tobacco market exploits the lower class by capitalizing on their under-education regarding the negative health consequences of smoking. This injustice can be corrected by providing the most direct and clear communication imaginable to consumers to ensure they are completely informed of the peril they are placing themselves in when they choose to smoke—the graphic warning labels provide this kind of communication. This Note discusses why the FDA’s warning labels meet First Amendment constitutional scrutiny and serve a substantial governmental interest regarding the country’s public health, socioeconomic equality, and economy. Part II …