On March 25, 2016, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) published a final rule that increased the protections in place for employees exposed to silica in the workplace and imposed new obligations on employers. The final rule created two separate standards addressing occupational exposure to silica – one for general industry and maritime and another for the construction industry. Most of the provisions of the standard for general industry and maritime became enforceable on June 23, 2018.
The new standard establishes a permissible exposure limit ...
Every day, at sites across the United States, federal agents search container ships, trucks, cars, and aircraft entering the country. Now, increasingly, federal agents are also searching the electronic devices of the individuals entering the country – from citizens to permanent residents to tourists. See United States v. Cotterman, 709 F.3d 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (“Every day more than a million people cross American borders [and] . . . they carry with them laptop computers, iPhones, iPads, iPods, Kindles, Nooks, Surfaces, tablets, Blackberries, cell ...
Nationwide reimbursement litigation by private Medicare Advantage Plans (MAPs) providing health coverage to some Medicare enrollees has grown significantly over the past few years. Any number of entities are sued for failing to reimburse MAPs for injury-related treatment costs when a beneficiary is paid to resolve a claim. These include alleged tortfeasors, their insurers, tort plaintiffs, and their attorneys. Determining if a claimant receives health coverage under Medicare that paid a claimant’s medical expenses related to an injury is critical to complete claim ...
In Campbell v. General Electric, 2018 IL App (1st) 173051, the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, recently reversed the Cook County Circuit Court’s finding of personal jurisdiction over General Electric (“GE”) in an asbestos case. In directing that GE be dismissed from the case due to a lack of personal jurisdiction, the court struck down the plaintiff’s claims of general jurisdiction, specific jurisdiction, consent jurisdiction and jurisdiction by necessity. And in so doing, the Court followed the principles set forth by the United States Supreme Court ...