14041 research outputs found
Sort by
Lunchtime Awards Ceremony Proceedings of the 45th Canada-United States Law Institute Annual Conference - Climate Change and the Arctic: Profound Disruption, Uncertain Impact
Get PDFRestoring Medical Professionalism: Physicians as Advocates for Their Patients
No full textMarch 25-26, 2022
The Law-Medicine Center at Case Western Reserve University School of Law is hosting an interdisciplinary conference titled “Restoring Medical Professionalism: Physicians as Advocates for Their Patients,” which will explore ways in which physicians can be supported when they advocate for their patients’ welfare. The event will be held on Friday, March 25, and Saturday morning, March 26, 2022.
The ability of physicians to advocate for their patients is an essential aspect of their professionalism, and critical for patient trust and well-being. Modern medicine recognized this by stating at the outset of the first modern code of medical ethics that patient welfare depended on physicians’ “skill, attention, and fidelity,” and the law accordingly regards physicians as fiduciaries for their patients. Yet pressures on physicians from employers and others have limited physicians’ ability to fulfill this vital obligation. One response might be to punish physicians who succumb to these pressures, but a better solution would be to support physicians who resist them. The March conference therefore will explore ways to strengthen physicians’ ability to advocate for their patients. Many people think it is too late, that physicians have irretrievably lost this crucial aspect of professionalism, but for the sake of patients and the profession, this conference hopes that this is not the case.
The conference will be open to the public, webcast, and videotaped for later viewing. It will begin with proposals from invited experts, followed by discussion with the presenters, other experts, and the general audience. Following the conference, a report and recommendations will be published in the Case Western Reserve University health law journal, Health Matrix, and publicly disseminated.
Presenters include:
Robert Bitonte, MD, JD, past president of the LA County Medical Society, who will propose creating a billing code for patient advocacy;
Stuart Bussey, MD, JD, president of the Union of American Physicians and Dentists, who will propose unionization of employed physicians;
Professor Mark Hall, the Fred D. and Elizabeth L. Turnage Professor of Law at Wake Forest University, who will propose reinvigorating state corporate-practice-of-medicine laws to limit private equity ownership of physician practices;
Sara Scher, RN, JD, CEO of the Cooperative of American Physicians, who will propose facilitating access to medical malpractice insurance for small and sole practices;
Professor Milan Markovic, Texas A&M School of Law, who will discuss what we can learn from attorneys’ fiduciary duties to clients;
Professor Maxwell Mehlman, Case Western Reserve Distinguished University Professor and the Arthur E. Petersilge Professor of Law, who proposes expanding state and federal laws and judicial rules that seek to protect physicians who act as fiduciaries for their patients from retaliation by employers, insurers and others
Uprooting Roe
Get PDFThe U.S. Supreme Court is likely poised to overturn Roe v. Wade in a matter of months. Yet, the roots of Roe run both wide and deep, and to uproot Roe would be to uproot the Constitution’s promise of gender equality in a radical way. Just as the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence of reproductive liberty freed people with reproductive capacity from having their destinies and status tied to their biology, an uprooting of Roe and its companion principles will restore the iron rules of gender difference and return women to their common-law status as lacking self-ownership and equal citizenship
The Sumner Canary Lecture: The Honorable Neomi Reo
No full textJudge Neomi Rao was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in March 2019. She graduated from Yale College in 1995 and the University of Chicago Law School in 1999. Following graduation, she served as a law clerk to Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and, in the 2001 October term, as law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Between her clerkships, Judge Rao served as counsel for nominations and constitutional law to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. In 2002, she joined the international arbitration group of Clifford Chance LLP in London, England. From 2005–2006, she served as apecial assistant and associate White House counsel to President George W. Bush. From 2006 to 2017, Judge Rao was a professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, where she taught constitutional law, legislation and statutory interpretation, and the history and foundations of the administrative state.
In 2014, she founded the Center for the Study of the Administrative State, a non-profit center that promotes academic scholarship and public policy debates about administrative law. In July 2017, she was appointed to serve as the administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget. She served in this position until her appointment to the D.C. Circuit
Current Issues in LLCs
No full textJayne Juvan, Glenn Morrical and Dan Schiau of Tucker Ellis LLP will discuss current issues in LLCs impacting business leaders and advisors alike and will review features of the new Limited Liability Company Act that will take effect in Ohio on Feb. 11, 2022. The new act’s expanded flexibility and deference to freedom of contract principles reflect the trend in state LLC laws as of today, and will serve to highlight the different approaches between jurisdictions. Topics to be discussed include management structures, fiduciary and other duties, restrictions on transfer of LLC interests, rights of creditors, series LLCs, dissolution, and more. The speakers will also discuss practical considerations to consider when setting up or operating an LLC. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS:
Glenn Morrical is a partner in the Corporate and Securities Practice Group of the Cleveland office of Tucker Ellis LLP. Over a career spanning more than 40 years, Glenn has served clients in a wide range of industries, as diverse as financial services, investment management, manufacturing, retail, mining, oil and gas and software development. He has helped clients form and operate entities ranging from single member LLCs to hedge funds and other investment funds with complex management and income sharing provisions. He has assisted borrowers needing to form “bankruptcy remote special purpose entities” to satisfy lenders who sell into the securitization markets. He has served on the Corporation Law Committee of the Ohio State Bar Association since the 1980s and has a hand in shaping many of Ohio’s business entity statutes.
Glenn holds a BA from The Ohio State University, an MBA from Cleveland State University, and a JD from Harvard Law School. Dan Schiau is an associate in the Corporate and Securities Practice Group of the Cleveland office of Tucker Ellis LLP. His practice spans a broad range of business areas, including mergers and acquisitions, corporate governance, private equity, securities and capital markets, real estate, and real estate and commercial finance. Dan has significant experience in advising family-owned businesses in all stages of their life cycle and from a variety of angles, from formation, to raising capital, to acquiring or divesting business divisions, to liquidation and winding up. He also devotes his time to practicing in the employee ownership space, where he has represented both ESOP trustees and worker-owned cooperatives in their organization, purchase, and sale of businesses of all sizes. Dan has also assisted Glenn Morrical in legislative drafting through the Corporation Law Committee of the Ohio State Bar Association.
Glenn holds a BS in Economics from Clemson University and a JD from Case Western Reserve University School of Law.
Jayne Juvan chairs both the Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities & Capital Markets practice groups at Tucker Ellis LLP, where she is a partner. She is also a member of the board of directors of Mace Security International (OTCQX: MACE), a manufacturer of personal safety and security products such as the widely recognized Mace Pepper Spray.
Jayne advises investors, boards of directors, and management teams on corporate transactions, regulatory compliance, and fiduciary duties. She counsels public and high-growth private companies, private equity firms, and venture capital firms from initial formation through all stages of the business life cycle.
Jayne frequently can be found in the boardroom with directors as they make highly impactful, potentially transformative, and confidential decisions. She is often tapped to assist corporate boards to maximize effectiveness and institute best practices. As the former co-chair of the American Bar Association\u27s Task Force on Director Misconduct, she is regularly called upon to advise corporate boards during their most challenging situations. She has also assisted activist shareholders in engaging with the board and management of struggling public companies
Due Process, Delegation, and Private Veto Power
Get PDFNondelegation doctrine is enjoying a scholarly revival. Some commentators have read the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Gundy v. United States to portend new limitations on Congress’s ability to give away its authority to the executive branch. A recent decision involving Amtrak’s entitlement to exercise regulatory authority raised similar questions about delegation to private entities. Together, these cases may suggest imminent new constraints on the administrative state, generating urgent reconsideration of the purpose and application of the nondelegation doctrine.
This Article is focused on one particular line of nondelegation cases that has received less attention in the nondelegation debate: those involving private vetoes. The private-veto doctrine holds that the government cannot, consistent with the Due Process Clause, grant standardless control to private individuals or entities over the property or liberty of others. Rather than waxing and waning like other forms of nondelegation, the private-veto doctrine has retained vitality for over a century. In fact, it is woven into a variety of constitutional doctrines, and it helps to explain cases like Larkin v. Grendel’s Den and City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, which embody the principle that due process is infringed when the government enables private individuals to exercise sovereignty over others based on illicit motives.
Yet, joining the private-veto doctrine with other nondelegation doctrines has resulted in courts and scholars both misunderstanding what is unique and important about this line of cases and failing to analyze legal questions properly. This particular delegation doctrine is primarily concerned not with separation of powers, but with arbitrary uses of power, including those motivated by pecuniary bias and by personal prejudices against unpopular groups. Thus, in addition to urging a more clear-eyed reconsideration of the private-veto doctrine, this Article suggests that the doctrine may be relevant to current constitutional controversies in ways that have not be previously recognized. In particular, it may provide a stronger basis for litigating certain kinds of abortion restrictions, as well as a new route for challenging statutes that empower religious individuals to deprive third parties of access to contraception and other forms of health care
The Appellate Judge as the Thirteenth Juror: Combating Implicit Bias in Criminal Convictions
Get PDFResearch has documented the effect that implicit bias plays in the disproportionately high wrongful-conviction rate for people of color. This Article proposes a novel solution to the problem: empowering individual appellate judges, even over the dissent of two colleagues, to send cases back for retrial when the trial record raises suspicions of a conviction tainted by the operation of implicit racial bias.
Factual review on appeal is unwelcome in most jurisdictions. But the traditional arguments against it, which highlight the importance of deference to the jury’s fact-finding powers, are overly simplistic. Scholars have already demonstrated the relative institutional competency of appellate judges to review jury verdicts gone awry, even when the evidence is legally sufficient. The operation of implicit bias in jury deliberations only enhances the need for this review.
But the review must be more robust than traditional three-judge panels can offer. Judges, too, fall victim to implicit bias, including bias in favor of affirming trial-court results. And the demographics of judges do not reflect those of the populations they serve. So requiring two of three judges to concur in reversing on a factual review is too high a burden to achieve the necessary reduction in bias-influenced wrongful convictions. Each individual judge should have that power. The benefits to the justice system outweigh the costs
Access Repository Dashboard
Do you manage Open Research Online? Become a CORE Member to access insider analytics, issue reports and manage access to outputs from your repository in the CORE Repository Dashboard! 👇