MENU

Health Care Law

M&G Polymers USA v. Tackett - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 4-23-15 featuring Michael DeBoer
Michael DeBoer April 23, 2015

On January 26, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decision in M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett. The issue in this case is whether, when courts interpret collective bargaining agreements in Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) cases, they should assume that silence concerning the duration of retiree health-care benefits means the parties intended those benefits to vest (and therefore continue indefinitely), or should require that it be stated explicitly (or at least stated in some way) that health-care benefits are intended to endure after the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement. 

In an opinion delivered by Justice Thomas, the Court held unanimously that when determining whether retiree benefits should continue indefinitely after the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement, courts should apply ordinary contract principles.  Those principles do not support a presumption that the agreement reflects an intent to vest retirees with lifetime benefits. The judgment of the Sixth Circuit was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. Justice Ginsburg filed a concurring opinion, which Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. 

To discuss the case, we have Michael DeBoer, who is an Associate Professor of Law at the Faulkner University School of Law.

Innovation and Health Care - Event Audio/Video

2015 National Student Symposium
Peter Huber, Lindsay Kelly, Gerald Masoudi, Thomas B. Griffith April 17, 2015

Given that everyone is getting older and more prone to disease, medical innovation is one of the most important measures, if not the most important measure, of a successful health policy. Technological acceleration, including advances in genomics and stem cell research, suggest that we are on the cusp of a golden age of medical innovation. But government-imposed price controls and other policies can reduce the incentives for devising new treatments, resulting in preventable death and illness. This panel will look at the effect of Obamacare, and the policies of the FDA on innovation. More generally, will the current regulatory processes and reimbursement policies equipped to manage the next generation of personalized medicine and diagnostic devices?

  • Mr. Peter Huber, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute
  • Ms. Lindsay Kelly, Special Counsel, Irell & Manella LLP
  • Mr. Gerald Masoudi, Partner, Covington & Burling LLP; former Chief Counsel, Food and Drug Administration
  • Moderator: Hon. Thomas B. Griffith, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

This program was presented on February 21, 2015, as part of the 2015 Federalist Society National Student Symposium.

Debate: Hobby Lobby Decision - Event Audio/Video

Federalist Society with the American Constitution Society and the National Constitution Center
Frederick Gedicks, Kevin Walsh, Jeffrey Rosen, Caroline Fredrickson March 27, 2015

The Freedom Restoration Act prohibits the federal government from requiring closely held corporations to provide contraceptive coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

The National Constitution Center, the Federalist Society and the American Constitution Society convene the first in a series of constitutional debates to be held across America. In the inaugural debate, Frederick Gedicks of Brigham Young University and Kevin Walsh of the University of Richmond argue for and against the motion: "Hobby Lobby was wrongly decided."

This debate was made possible through the support of a grant from the John Templeton Foundation. 

Speakers:

  • Prof. Frederick Gedicks, Brigham Young University 
  • Prof. Kevin Walsh, University of Richmond 
  • Moderator: Prof. Jeffrey Rosen, President and CEO, National Constitution Center
  • Introduction: Ms. Caroline Fredrickson, President, American Constitution Society

The opinions expressed in this debate are those of the participants and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation.

King v. Burwell - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 3-6-15 featuring Jonathan Adler
Jonathan H. Adler March 06, 2015

On March 4, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in King v. Burwell. The question in this highly anticipated case is whether the Affordable Care Act authorizes the Internal Revenue Service to offer tax credit subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance through federal exchanges.

To discuss the case, we have Prof. Jonathan Adler who is the Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Business Law and Regulation at Case Western Reserve University School of Law.

Obamacare Back in the Supreme Court: King v. Burwell - Podcast

Administrative Law & Regulation Practice Group Podcast
Jonathan H. Adler March 04, 2015

On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in King v. Burwell, one of the most talked-about cases of the October 2014 term. At issue is whether the Internal Revenue Service may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government under Section 1321 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Those challenging the statute argue that tax-credit subsidies can only be legally extended to those purchasing insurance in state-run exchanges – fewer than 20 states have created such exchanges. Professor Jonathan Adler, widely regarded as one of the architects of this most recent challenge to the affordable care act, attended the oral arguments and offered his thoughts to a live Teleforum audience.

  • Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law