|
|
|
Top U.S. court backs S.F. health care
Law Firm News |
2008/02/23 13:45
|
| The U.S. Supreme Court allowed San Francisco on Thursday to continue requiring employers to pay part of the cost of providing health care to uninsured residents while a group of restaurant owners tries to overturn the program.pJustice Anthony Kennedy denied a request by the Golden Gate Restaurant Association to suspend the employer contributions while the case awaits an April 17 hearing before an appellate panel. /ppThe city expanded its health care program six weeks ago after winning a ruling from the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. That court allowed city officials to require large and medium-size companies to provide insurance to their employees, at spending levels set by the city, or pay a fee to support care for the uninsured at 22 hospitals and clinics./ppThe expansion lets San Francisco phase in coverage for about 26,000 residents who were not previously eligible for subsidized care. The city says the program will ultimately cover all 73,000 adult residents who are not poor enough for Medi-Cal or old enough for Medicare. About 12,500 people have enrolled so far, program Director Tangerine Brigham said Thursday./p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
US court rules for Medtronic, bars some state suits
Legal World News |
2008/02/20 13:46
|
| pThe U.S. Supreme Court handed a victory to Medtronic Inc on Wednesday, ruling that patients cannot sue medical-device manufacturers in state court over harm from a device that has approval from federal regulators./ppBy an 8-1 vote, the court ruled a 1976 law creating federal safety oversight for medical devices bars state-law claims challenging safety or effectiveness of devices that have won premarket approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration./ppThe decision was the Supreme Court's first ruling on the legal effect of the FDA's approval of a medical device on liability lawsuits, Medtronic said./ppThe ruling could benefit other device makers, who have argued that the FDA's judgment that a product is safe and effective should protect companies from being sued for liability in state court./ppThe Medtronic case involved a New York man who was injured in 1996 when a doctor inflated a balloon catheter during an artery-clearing procedure./ppMedtronic has said the doctor in the case used the catheter contrary to labeling instructions and in a patient for whom it was not recommended. The company no longer makes that specific catheter./ppA federal trial court in Albany, New York, dismissed the lawsuit, finding the patient was not entitled to state law remedies because of the FDA's prior approval of the device./ppA U.S. appeals court agreed that the lawsuit was pre-empted by federal law, and the Supreme Court upheld that decision. /p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top US court rejects spying case
Legal World News |
2008/02/19 13:48
|
pThe US Supreme Court has dismissed a legal challenge to a domestic anti-terrorism eavesdropping programme.
President George W Bush authorised the monitoring, without a court order, of international phone calls and e-mails of US citizens after the 9/11 attacks. /ppThe American Civil Liberties Union argued that Mr Bush did not have the constitutional authority to order the programme, which ended last year. /ppThe Supreme Court gave no explanation for its ruling. /ppstrongLegality questioned/strong pThe domestic spying programme was denounced by Democrats and rights activists when it was disclosed in 2005. pA group of civil liberties activists, journalists, academics and lawyers challenged the spying programme in the courts, arguing it violated a 1978 rule prohibiting surveillance of American citizens on US soil without a warrant. pIn July last year, an appeals court struck down a lower court's ruling that found the programme to be unconstitutional. pThe appeals court, based in Cincinnati, dismissed the case because the plaintiffs had failed to show that their communications had been monitored. pBut the Cincinnati judges did not rule on the legality or otherwise of the programme. pThe president rejected claims that he broke the law by ordering surveillance without first securing warrants. He argued the eavesdropping programme was necessary and was targeted against al-Qaeda. pThe Bush administration has so far refused to release documents about the programme that might reveal who was under surveillance. /pp
/p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Appeals Court sets deadlines in Peel case
Law Firm Press Release |
2008/02/08 11:16
|
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago allowed Gary Peel's federal public defender to withdraw from his case.
The Seventh Circuit appointed Paul Camarena of Chicago to replace Stephen Williams of the East St. Louis federal public defender's office on Jan. 25, after Williams filed a motion to withdraw just before Christmas.
Before the appeals court would allow Williams to withdraw, it ordered him to gather all of the transcripts of Peel's trial from Stiehl's court reporter Daveanna Ramsey.
Peel filed his notice of appeal of his final judgment and sentence to the Seventh Circuit on Dec. 4.
He was sentenced to 12 years in prison by U.S. District Court Judge William Stiehl on Nov. 19. He was technically sentenced to 37 years, but Stiehl ordered the time to be served concurrently.
Peel, 63, was convicted on one count of obstruction of justice, one count bankruptcy fraud and two counts of child pornography by a federal jury in East St. Louis on March 23. He was also fined $1,000 and placed on three years supervised release.
Peel was prosecuted for blackmailing his ex-wife Deborah Peel with nude photos taken of her 16-year-old sister in 1974.
He and Deborah Peel were married in 1967 and divorced in 2003. During contentious settlement proceedings Gary Peel filed for bankruptcy in 2004.
At trial, prosecutors told jurors that Peel threatened to bankrupt his ex-wife in legal fees if she did not stop trying to get a deposition of his current wife, Deborah A. Pontious-Peel.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin Burke told the jury that Peel planned to send the nude photos to Deborah Peel's parents if she did not agree to a new divorce settlement.
The Seventh Circuit also set the deadlines for the appeal to be filed.
Peel has to file his written brief and short appendix by April 23. The government has until May 23 to file its brief. If Peel wants to reply to the government's brief, he must submit it no later than June 6.
Peel originally had until Jan. 15 to file his brief, but was allowed more time since Williams withdrew from the case. |
|
|
|
|
|
Law Firm News RSS Feed
