MENU

Health Care Law

Federalism and Healthcare - Event Audio/Video

2016 Annual Florida Chapters Conference
John Goodman, Avik Roy, Antonia C. Novello, Christa Calamas, Daniel Woodring February 03, 2016

This panel will move beyond the Obamacare discussion and address what the current problems in health care and whether there are proven and scalable solutions to these problems. The panel will also discuss what the legal barriers to those solutions are and what the appropriate Federal/Florida role in Healthcare is. 

This panel was part of the 2016 Annual Florida Chapters Conference at Disney's Boardwalk Inn in Lake Buena Vista, FL on January 22-23, 2016.

Federalism and Healthcare

  • Mr. John Goodman, Senior Fellow, Independent Institute 
  • Mr. Avik Roy, Senior Fellow, The Manhattan Institute
  • Dr. Antonia C. Novello, MD, MPH, Dr.PH, VADM (Ret.), 14th Surgeon General of the United States
  • Moderator: Ms. Christa Calamas, Staff Director, Florida House of Representatives Health and Human Services Committee
  • Introduction: Mr. Daniel Woodring, Principal Attorney, Woodring Law Firm

Disney's Boardwalk Inn
Lake Buena Vista, FL

Case Study in Government Overreach?: The LabMD Case - Podcast

Litigation Practice Group Podcast
Reed D. Rubinstein December 22, 2015

On November 13, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission's Chief Administrative Law Judge, D. Michael Chappell, issued a 92 page opinion in the closely-watched LabMD data security case. In his opinion, the ALJ comprehensively disagreed with the FTC's factual claims and legal theories. Applying Section 5, he ruled that Complaint Counsel failed to prove a probability, or "likelihood," of harm, and that "Fundamental fairness" means Section 5(n) “requires proof of more than...hypothetical or theoretical harm...” Complaint Counsel has appealed and, according to statistics published by former Commissioner Joshua Wright, the Commission is likely to reverse. Reed D. Rubinstein, counsel to Cause of Action and a Partner at Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP, spoke about the case and answered questions about its implications for data security regulation, Section 5 jurisprudence, and combating administrative agency overreach.

Featuring:

  • Reed D. Rubinstein, Of Counsel, Cause of Action, Partner, Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP

Examination of the Obama Administration’s Protection of Religious Liberty - Event Audio/Video

2015 National Lawyers Convention
Stanley Carlson-Thies, William P. Marshall, William L. Saunders, Adam J. White, Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain November 18, 2015

With the U.S. Supreme Court cert grant in the Little Sisters of the Poor case, religious liberties is once again in the legal and media spotlight. What is the recent record of the government in protecting religious liberty? Our panel will discuss everything from the contraceptive mandate and its exemptions to ministerial hiring, RLUPA, the faith-based initiative, the Planned Parenthood controversy, and everything in between.

Religious Liberties: Examination of the Obama Administration’s Protection of Religious Liberty
3:45 p.m. – 5:15 p.m.
State Room

  • Dr. Stanley Carlson-Thies, Founder & Senior Director, Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance
  • Mr. William P. Marshall, William Rand Kenan, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law
  • Mr. William L. Saunders, Senior Vice President of Legal Affairs, Americans United for Life
  • Mr. Adam J. White, Counsel, Boyden Gray & Associates
  • Moderator: Hon. Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

Regulatory Crimes: Clay v. U.S. Oral Argument - Podcast

Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Podcast
Paul D. Kamenar, John J. Park, Jr. October 06, 2015

Is Clay v. United States, argued on October 2 in the 11th Circuit, a case study of overcriminalization and abusive federal prosecution? The case raises basic notions of due process, fair notice, the rule of lenity, mens rea, and actus reus. What began as a highly publicized raid by some 200 FBI agents on a Florida health care company over an accounting dispute of how to interpret a provision in Florida’s Medicaid reimbursement statute with no clarifying administrative regulations, led to the indictment, conviction, and prison sentences for the company’s top executives for fraud. This case is particularly important for all regulated industries, where there are numerous and ambiguous laws and complex regulations governing conduct subject to administrative, civil, and criminal enforcement.

Featuring:

  • Paul D. Kamenar, Senior Fellow, Administrative Conference of the United States
  • John J. Park, Jr., Of Counsel, Strickland Brockington Lewis LLP

Criminalizing Reasonable Interpretations of Regulatory Schemes: Clay v. United States - Podcast

Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Podcast
Paul D. Kamenar, John F. Lauro, John G. Malcolm July 29, 2015

Is Clay v. United States, currently pending in the 11th Circuit, a case study of overcriminalization and abusive federal prosecution? The case raises basic notions of due process, fair notice, the rule of lenity, mens rea, and actus reus. What began as a highly publicized raid by some 200 FBI agents on a Florida health care company over an accounting dispute of how to interpret a provision in Florida’s Medicaid reimbursement statute with no clarifying administrative regulations, ended in the indictment, conviction, and prison sentences for the company’s top executives for fraud. This case is particularly important for all regulated industries, where there are numerous and ambiguous laws and complex regulations governing conduct subject to administrative, civil, and criminal enforcement. John Lauro, counsel in the case, discussed the lawsuit, with Paul Kamenar joining to offer questions and comments.

  • Paul D. Kamenar, Washington, D.C. Attorney and Senior Fellow, Administrative Conference of the United States
  • John F. Lauro, Principal, Lauro Law Firm
  • Moderator: John G. Malcolm, Director and Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation