Geological Observatory of Coldigioco
PennState, The Dickinson School of Law: Penn State Law eLibraryNot a member yet
7581 research outputs found
Sort by
Modeling Everyday Technology: How to Integrate Practice-Ready Skills Into Your Course
No full textThis session will explore how and why to integrate the professionalism and technology skills necessary to be a practice-ready lawyer into courses without reworking or changing an entire course. Using their own syllabi/training plans, attendees will find places to incorporate these skills into their courses/trainings
Using Feedforward and Peer Review to Teach
No full textIn this session, attendees will explore the highly-effective teaching techniques of feedforward instruction and peer review. Using transactional law research examples, attendees will discuss the techniques’ strengths, weaknesses, pedagogical purposes, and best practices. Attendees will then be given instructions, resources, and time to adapt the techniques for their own purposes and classes
Appalachian Basin--Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio -- Oil and Gas Developments
No full textThis article addresses oil and gas case law developments that have occurred within the Appalachian Basin’s primary oil and gas producing states of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio during 2021 by reviewing opinions issued by the highest appellate courts within each of these three states. The oil and gas law topics addressed by these state supreme courts during 2021 have ranged from those occurring upstream, such as leasing, to those occurring downstream, such as approval of a utility rate increase for the extension of a natural gas pipeline
Telemedicine Scams
No full textTelemedicine emerged as a lifeline during the COVID-10 pandemic. Although the technology existed long before the pandemic, its use was limited due to strict government regulations that limited reimbursement for telemedicine visits. In response to the pandemic, the Government waiver many of its restrictions for the duration of the Public Health Emergency. These changes fueled the growth of telemedicine.
The problem, however, is that telemedicine makes it easier to conduct fraud on a larger scale because without in-person visits, medical providers can reach many more beneficiaries in a short period of time. Thus, the size and scale of typical health care fraud schemes, such as sending medically unnecessary durable medical equipment, is magnified. This type of fraud has been on the rise since 2016, and, with the relaxed rules for telemedicine reimbursement during the pandemic, there is a serious concern that there will be a sharp increase in telemedicine fraud.
This Article examines the fraudulent practices in the telemedicine industry and the conditions that permit them to flourish. This Article critically assesses the changes to telemedicine coverage and their relationship to fraud. It examines the fraudulent practices through the lens of the fraud triangle to determine why telemedicine fraud occurs. After assessing the cause of telemedicine fraud, this Article argues that there is no need for additional criminal statutes to address telemedicine fraud. As the typical telemedicine scam involves the payment of kickbacks and bulling for medically unnecessary treatment and services, the existing fraud laws such as the Anti-Kickback statute and the False Claims Act are sufficiently capacious to address the criminality involved in these cases. This Article also argues that in lieu of the additional criminal statutes, the Government should focus on additional measures to prevent or detect telemedicine fraud because preventative measures are the best way to safeguard the integrity of federal health care programs
Unqualified Immunity and the Betrayal of Butz v. Economou: How the Supreme Court Quietly Granted Federal Officials Absolute Immunity for Constitutional Violations
No full textQualified immunity has been the subject of well-deserved scorn in recent years as a legal mechanism that shields government officials from constitutional accountability. But its shadow has hidden another mechanism that provides an unqualified immunity from constitutional accountability. That de facto absolute immunity extends to federal officials in all but a vanishingly few contexts where claims are still permitted under the 1971 Supreme Court decision Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. But it was not always that way. In its 1978 decision Butz v. Economou, the Supreme Court permitted Bivens claims to proceed against a cabinet-level federal official and others, denying their demands for absolute immunity. Butz detailed the historical availability of damages against federal officials in the United States and warned that holding them to a lower constitutional standard than their state counterparts would turn the Founders’ constitutional design on its head. In the years that followed, the Court consistently demonstrated its continued commitment to federal-state constitutional parity. Most notably, the availability of Bivens claims against federal officials was so well-established and robust in 1982 that the Court created qualified immunity in Harlow v. Fitzgerald to ameliorate policy concerns with Bivens liability. Citing the need to treat federal and state officials consistently, the Court formally extended qualified immunity to state officials a few years later. Over the intervening decades, the Court reversed course and created a two-tier system of constitutional accountability. While it continued to strengthen qualified immunity, often relying on the existence of Bivens claims to do so, the Court simultaneously sapped Bivens of its power, in effect cabining it to its precise facts. As a result, there is no longer a reliable—let alone broad— source of constitutional accountability for federal officers. Betraying Butz and the long history of federal accountability in the United States, the modern Court has ushered in an era of increasingly absolute and unqualified immunity for federal officials
An Attempt to Bring Modern Workplace Realities to the Social Security Disability Adjudication System
No full textScanning iPhones to Save Children: Apple’s On-Device Hashing Algorithm Should Survive a Fourth Amendment Challenge
No full textWhen Apple announced it would combat the growth of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) on its platform by scanning all its users’ devices without their consent, many of its loyal customers felt betrayed. With tech companies such as Google and Facebook arranging their business models around selling their customers’ personal information, Apple customers saw the company’s focus on privacy as a refreshing alternative. However, as Apple itself privately acknowledged, this emphasis on privacy had led to it becoming a haven for CSAM. Despite the reputational damage it would incur with its customers, Apple resolved to confront CSAM on its platform in an unprecedented manner. Until Apple’s announcement, no major tech company had resolved to install a hashing algorithm directly onto its devices to search for CSAM. Apple’s move places itself in the middle of a legal firestorm with the protections of the Fourth Amendment squaring off against the public demand to eradicate CSAM and protect the nation’s children from abuse. In deciding CSAM cases, courts have often focused on the application of the private search doctrine. Tech companies implementing anti-CSAM hashing protocols have sometimes run afoul of this doctrine and other aspects of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. This Comment argues that Apple’s move not only complies with the constitutional standards expressed by circuit courts but exceeds those standards. In addition, a strong public policy justification exists for Apple’s initiative. Congress has repeatedly expressed its intent to combat CSAM and protect children from sexual abuse, and by complying with this congressional intent, Apple aligns with public policy. Finally, this Comment recommends that the U.S. Supreme Court resolve the circuit split regarding Fourth Amendment-implicated CSAM cases by adopting a new rule