Explains resolution of False Claims Act qui tam claim against KareFirst. This independent nurse practitioner group will pay nearly $2 million to settle allegations it overbilled Medicare/Medicaid for services provided in skilled nursing facilities.
Illinois Supreme Court: no rights of action exist/implied in state’s Environmental Protection Act or its LUST (leaking underground storage tank) Program. Made clear distinction between legal remedies to protect environment and ones for recovery from personal injuries when those laws violated.
Offers guideposts to answering three key insurance coverage issues in benzene liability cases: when is coverage triggered, how is coverage allocated among multiple insurers, and what method triggers umbrella coverage.
Announces U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright, which overturns a long-standing doctrine of deferring to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes.
Examines how the Supreme Court’s ruling in Taveski and the CMS’ final rule on minimum staffing requirements for long-term care facilities have expanded private parties’ rights to sue long-term care facilities.
Explains how Illinois’ federal courts apply the control group test and common interest doctrine to determine whether attorney-client privilege applies to communications with non-employees.
Highlights PFAS requested items in the U.S. EPA’s 2025 budget request. Major areas include clean and safe water, superfund, PFAS measurement technology, and enforcement efforts to avoid and mitigate PFAS releases.
Analyzes Illinois Supreme Court case where plaintiff sued his attorneys for violating HIPAA and Mental Health Act by allegedly disclosing privileged health information. Court found Plaintiff waived that privilege by self-disclosing information at trial.
Highlights key points of the Illinois Department of Insurance Bulletin on use of artificial intelligence systems in insurance. Includes guidelines for insurers, navigating third-party AI systems, and potential regulatory oversight.
Explores significance of innocent insured doctrine in safeguarding policyholders who are inadvertently implicated in disputes arising from actions of others. Provides insights into implications of the doctrine for both insurers and insured parties.