9873 research outputs found
Sort by
FREEDOM TO CHOOSE PLANNED PARENTHOOD? PRIVATE ENFORCEMENT OF MEDICAID’S FREEDOM OF CHOICE PROVISION POST-TALEVSKI
From Regulation by Enforcement to Pragmatic Governance in American Administrative Law: Case Studies of the Role of Law in Digital Transformation
The Quest for Budget Armor: Public Expenditures, Positive Rights, and Separation of Powers in Washington\u27s State Constitution
In 2012, Washington’s landmark McCleary decision confirmed and expanded previous interpretations of the state constitution’s “paramount duty” clause, affirming a vital positive right to education and a judicial willingness to enforce it against the other branches. Notwithstanding a tense six-year period of judicial supervision after the ruling, ultimately the state legislature enacted broad education funding reforms and the appropriations and revenues to implement the additional resources for schools. Given competition among stakeholders for public funding for state programs, in the post-McCleary period, other litigants have asked courts to find similar positive constitutional rights to state services and funding. So far, advocates for school construction, judicial branch funding, and environmental rights have failed to persuade the courts that the state constitution establishes other positive rights to judicially compelled funding. Does the paramount duty stand alone as the sole positive right under Washington’s state constitution, or will future litigants demonstrate that separation of powers concerns should not prevent the judiciary from recognizing new positive rights? Expanding positive rights jurisprudence poses a significant risk for the state’s judiciary, which has broad general jurisdiction that contrasts with federal judicial restraint principles such as the political question doctrine. Whether accepting or rejecting future positive rights lawsuits, Washington’s courts must analyze positive rights claims and separation of powers defenses under principles fully rooted in state constitutionalism
The Reasonability Rule for Medical Damages in Tort: In Defense of Chargemaster Recovery
In a personal injury suit, Washington law requires the plaintiff to prove that their medical costs are reasonable to recover damages for those costs. Tort reform proponents attempt to use this reasonability rule to limit tort damages awards. They argue that a plaintiff should only recover a portion of a hospital’s bill because most people do not pay a hospital’s sticker price—or the “chargemaster rate”—for medical care. Some reformers argue that recovery rates should instead be based on a set figure. Others argue in favor of eliminating the collateral source rule, which prohibits juries from reducing tort damages awards in light of plaintiffs’ insurance coverage. The critics share a common belief: that chargemaster rates are not an accurate measure of damages.
This Comment defends the use of chargemaster rates by juries in determining damages awards. A hospital may always charge patients its chargemaster rate, so any limit on recovering the chargemaster rate places plaintiffs at risk of incurring medical debt as a result of necessary medical care secondary to an injury. The problem lies not with the tort damages system, but with unregulated and skyrocketing medical costs. Legislative action preventing providers from billing at their chargemaster rate or other safeguards that ensure plaintiffs cannot lose their recoveries to medical bill repayment could combat this problem. But, barring such actions, courts should interpret the reasonable rate of medical billing to be the hospital’s chargemaster rate
Institutionalized Ostracism
Belonging is a fundamental need, like food or water. Hundreds of social psychology studies find that people who are ostracized (excluded, rejected, or ignored) experience severe pain and suffering. Ostracism threatens basic needs, triggers the same neurocognitive processing system as physical pain, and impairs functioning. Furthermore, ostracized people may cope in ways that beget “deviant” labeling and further ostracism.
Belonging and ostracism are prevalent themes in social psychology research, but these constructs have received relatively little attention in law. This Article begins to explore the implications of this research for law. I make three contributions: First, I name and describe the phenomenon of “institutionalized ostracism”: When government institutions ostracize people in ways that threaten their sense of belonging. This institutionalized ostracism is mostly lawful under current anti-discrimination law. Second, I draw from social psychology literature to explain why institutionalized ostracism is so harmful—in some ways comparable to physical violence. Third, I identify and critique several ways in which current jurisprudence supports and facilitates institutionalized ostracism. In discussing these, I make some preliminary suggestions as to how our jurisprudence ought to attend to the harm of ostracism
Clarifications and Complications in Enforcing Open Source Software Licenses
The Handbook combines an in-depth analysis of various specific types of IP licensing agreements (including FRAND licensing of Standard Essential Patents and data licensing) with a presentation of other topics of both dogmatic and practical relevance affecting all types of IP licensing transactions, including competition law and bankruptcy law. The Handbook goes beyond the analysis of classical substantive issues and discusses the treatment of IP licensing under international investment law and the use of commercial arbitration for solving international IP licensing disputes.The Handbook ultimately aims to offer a scholarly contribution to the development of global or regional IP licensing laws and policies. By opening innovative transversal, comparative and policy perspectives, this Handbook will appeal to a wide audience including IP practitioners, lawyers and IP and contract law scholars globally.https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/faculty-chapters/1073/thumbnail.jp