Journal of law and health最新文献

Part I of this paper considers the historical foundations, motivations, and evolution of veterans' disability and employment legislation in the United States. Utilizing disability and employment as its framework, Part II then defines, describes, and critiques contemporary policies for disabled veterans in the areas of federal employment protections and uses of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) within the VA's disability decision review process. Part III discusses the roles played by disabled veterans and the federal government in policy reform, finding that both sides act as catalysts and barriers to legislative change. This paper concludes in Part IV, recommending legislation that integrates elements of disability care--currently under the auspices of the VA--into Medicare. Through this newly created insurance component, which this paper will call "Medicare Part V," disabled veterans will be eligible to access all hospitals and clinics currently accepting Medicare. This is anticipated to increase access to care in local facilities. Second, it is essential that the federal government devotes sufficient resources to conduct more longitudinal data collection studies, enabling a more comprehensive assessment of the transitional and employment resource needs of disabled veterans over time. Achieving a greater understanding of these needs may induce greater veteran participation rates in the labor force, benefiting employers and veterans alike. Finally, this paper calls for modernizing and optimizing the VA's claim appeals process by creating a secure online method of Alternative Dispute Resolution for appeals, specifically in Higher-Level Reviews (HLR's) of disability and compensation requests.

Michael Johnson or "Tiger Mandingo" as he referred to himself on social media, engaged in sexual acts with six different men, all of whom claimed that Michael lied about living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). As a result, the State of Missouri charged him with recklessly infecting a partner with HIV exposing or attempting to expose another with HIV. With contradictory trial testimony, no genetic fingerprint testing, and little to no questioning of his sexual partners' credibility, the jury found Michael Johnson guilty of five felony counts which resulted in a 30-year prison sentence. Ultimately the Missouri Court of Appeals overturned Michael Johnson's conviction, but only on the function of a discovery violation; the court did not reach the question of whether Michael's 30-year sentence was cruel and unusual and thus constitutionally impermissible. However, Michael's conviction and sentencing sparked international attention towards how the United States continues to convict people living with HIV under archaic statutes that do not align with medical and scientific advancements or evolving moral standards. Today, HIV is a chronic disease, like diabetes, yet exposure to HIV is still treated as if it is a death sentence in both public opinion and American jurisprudence. These convictions and sentencing guidelines result in harsh sentences for punishments that do not match the crime, misplaces responsibility when two consenting adults choose to have sex, and raises the possibility of exposing people to wrongful convictions. While Missouri and other states have attempted to modernize these antiqued laws, the modernized laws require further analysis to determine whether they in step with the science and if people living with HIV are still vulnerable to harsh sentences and wrongful convictions. This article identifies major legal considerations of the modernized laws and provides guidance on reform.

This article looks at the nation's response to the COVID-19 pandemic since March 2020 and explores the commonalities and differences of states' actions to protect their citizens, especially the most vulnerable populations. The article discusses the government's obligations to jailees and prisoners during the COVID-19 pandemic and how incarcerated persons have been consistently failed by the institutions that are required to protect them. The article examines possible remedies for these governmental and institutional failings under the Eighth Amendment and §1983 civil rights claims. Ultimately the article proposes that monetary damages would provide relief to incarcerated individuals and their families where other remedies have often failed. Additionally, monetary damages will send the message that those under the protection of the state need tangible justice and that the government needs rigorous accountability during a public health emergency.

The False Claims Act (FCA) has a long-standing history of protecting the United States government from being defrauded by merchants and other parties submitting claims for repayment. Affording Americans who have enrolled in Medicaid and Medicare expansion plans the same protection afforded to the federal government will allow for action to be brought to prevent large hospital networks from engaging in price-fixing behaviors. Implementing this change will have the effect of reducing healthcare prices for all Americans. Applying the False Claims Act at the price-fixing level will have the largest affect; however, it is still important to iron out procedures for individual claims involving factual and legal falsity. Although the different requirements established for the two types of falsity at first glance appear to be contradictory to each other, it is clear there is no overlap or split between factual and legal falsity. However, if large scale litigation were brought under FCA liability, it is important for Congress or the Supreme Court to offer lower courts guidance in applying these distinct standards. Establishing requirements for FCA liability under factual and legal falsity will allow for healthcare providers to make plans to adhere to the guidance. This change will have the effect of reducing unnecessary healthcare treatments and spending, passing on financial and physical health benefits to the American people.

As states start to recognize exotic dancers as employees under Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), states that have not yet classified exotic dancers as employees have put club owners in danger of costly litigation for violating the FLSA. Thus, this Note is designed to act as a road map for club owners and state legislators to recognize exotic dancers as employees in compliance with the FLSA and provide insight into how to avoid litigation. This Note analyzes this issue in four parts; Part IV, the analysis, is split into four substantial sections. Part I gives a short summary of the history and purpose of the FLSA. It then reviews the relevant facts and holdings of three circuit court cases in which exotic dancers were classified as employees under the FLSA. Finally, it concludes with a short discussion of the test used in these cases to make that determination. Part II starts with a broader geographical analysis of the United States and summarizes the current groups of states in relation to the laws surrounding exotic dancers as employees. It then analyzes the industry impact of states that mandated dancers be recognized as employees and states that still do not have such mandate. It also discusses the potential impact on states that have not yet followed suit. Part II then analyzes the practical implications of holding exotic dancers as employees of clubs. Part III presents an anomaly in the current framework of the industry that has the potential to lead to a destructive loophole with feature entertainers. Part IV compares the labor rights of strippers to other sex workers. Part V is a brief conclusion with broad recommendations for club operators and legislators, reiterating the potential impact on the health and wellbeing of the entertainers.

This Article attempts to untangle the complicated web of providing telehealth to those populations it is potentially capable of further alienating from access to healthcare including: 1) race/minority populations, 2) aging adults, 3) individuals with disabilities, 4) non-English speakers, 5) individuals living in rural areas, 6) socioeconomic class, and 7) children, in order to advance the argument that telehealth can be successful in providing healthcare access to these populations. Rather than suggesting that telehealth simply "cannot work" for these populations, instead this Article considers how telehealth can and must meet the needs of these individuals through technology, access, and policy developments. First, this Article explains how telehealth is defined and how the definition has and can continue to influence policy development. Next, this Article explores the issues surrounding the "digital divide" and how this relates to telehealth use. Then this Article discusses how access to technology impacts particular populations. This Article then considers legislation and policy developments both at the federal and state level that have emerged thus far that could help overcome challenges of accessibility, affordability, and usability. Finally, this Article offers policy recommendations for ensuring that the delivery of telehealth can be accessible to those populations with potentially less access to technology to ensure telehealth's successful availability and use for these populations can continue beyond Covid-19.

There are many reports presenting expert policy recommendations, and a substantial volume of research supporting them, that detail what should shape and guide statutes for juvenile competency to stand trial. Ohio has adopted provisions consistent with some of these recommendations, which is better protection than relying on case law and the adult statutes, as some states have done. However, the Ohio statute should be considered a work in progress. Since appeals courts are unlikely to provide meaningful review for the substance of a juvenile competency determination, the need for procedures for ensuring that the determination is initially made in a deliberate and informed manner is significantly heightened. Every aspect of the statute should be reviewed considering the research and scholarship that is newly available since it was implemented in 2011. Furthermore, there is one glaring gap in the statute's protection that cannot wait. The provisions for attainment and attainment review must be amended to include substantially detailed requirements and procedures for the statute to ensure that juvenile due process rights are not violated by making children face adjudications while not competent to do so.

This note argues that decisions like that of NAACP v. Wilmington Medical Center, Inc. have been one of many contributing factors in the disparity in mortality rates of both black and American Indian/Alaska Native newborns in comparison to white newborns across the country. Part II examines the current state of the law regarding issues of discrimination, accessibility of health care, and relocation and closure of medical centers that has disproportionately affect minorities in the U.S. Part III discusses the statistics of white, black, and American Indian/Alaska Native newborn and maternal mortality rates in the United States. Part IV addresses the potential causes of this disparity, which include inadequate access to quality medical care for racial minorities, implicit racial bias, a demand for more minority doctors, and strict abortion restrictions. Part V proposes that a reduction in the racial disparities in mortality rates for black and indigenous mothers and infants can be achieved by implementing comprehensive state-level "public-private" collaborations, and increasing availability and coverage of more birthing resources like midwives. Lastly, Part VI concludes that the current condition of federal and state legislation has not eliminated the racial disparities in maternal and infant mortality rates, and further measures must be taken to achieve this goal.

In 2020, Oregon voters legalized therapeutic psilocybin in response to a plethora of scientific studies showing symptom reduction for depression, anxiety, substance use disorders, opioid addictions, migraines, other mental illnesses, HIV/AIDS, and cancer. The legal rethinking regarding therapeutic psilocybin continues in both state legislatures and city councils. Yet, despite state and local legalization or decriminalization of therapeutic psilocybin it remains illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act. This tension between local and federal law places therapeutic psilocybin users and their employers in a difficult position. Because all types of psilocybin use remain illegal under federal law, a zero-tolerance drug use workplace policy would discipline a state sanctioned psilocybin user for off-site or off-hours therapeutic psilocybin use. Therefore, this article proposes that as states and cities legalize therapeutic psilocybin, jurisdictions should adopt employment protections for therapeutic psilocybin users like states have adopted for medical cannabis users. The proposed statute in this article protects therapeutic psilocybin users from adverse action based solely on off-site and off-hours drug use and balances employers' rights.