Summarizes the purpose, provisions, and implications of Illinois’ newly proposed legislation to regulate the insurance industry’s use of artificial intelligence in making decisions about health insurance plans and coverage.
Explores intersection of state initiatives to ban transgender therapy for minors with federal nondiscrimination laws and medical associations’ care guidelines
Summarizes 10/19/21 Oregon District Court decision to deny request for temporary restraining order against Oregon’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate
Discusses 10/19/21 First Circuit decision to deny motion for preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of Maine’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate
A person injured by another’s negligence is entitled to recover the reasonable value of the necessary medical care she received for her injuries. Although most injured parties have their medical care paid for by a third party—either health insurance or a government program—which settles the medical bills for a significantly discounted amount, in Illinois the injured party can submit the actual billed charges with a proper foundation to seek recovery of more than was actually paid for her care. In Willis v. Foster, 229 Ill. 2d 393 (208), the Supreme Court of Illinois held that ...
A recent decision could dramatically narrow the use of protected health information (“PHI”) that is disclosed to an insurer following the conclusion of litigation in Illinois. With this decision comes possible far-reaching implications facing insurers going forward by preventing the development of future medical fraud litigation and monetary recoveries.
In Haage v. Zavala, et al. 2020 IL App (2d) 190499 (March 17, 2020), Plaintiffs filed negligence suits for auto collisions, and moved for entry of qualified protective orders pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability ...
Under Illinois law, a healthcare provider facing allegations of malpractice knows that the standard by which his or her actions will be judged is what a reasonably careful healthcare provider would do under the same or similar circumstances based upon testimony provided by expert witnesses from the same area of practice. However, physicians and healthcare providers practicing in prisons, jails, and detention facilities will find that their decisions will be adjudicated under disparate standards that depend on a lay jury’s understanding of “objective ...
