首页 > 最新文献

American Journal of Law & Medicine最新文献

英文 中文
ADOPTION WITHOUT TEARS: APPRAISAL OF THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS IN NIGERIA AND OTHER JURISDICTIONS 无泪收养:对尼日利亚和其他司法管辖区法律要求的评估
IF 0.6 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW Pub Date : 2021-12-23 DOI: 10.47672/ajl.882
J. A. M. Agbonika, Josephine A. A. Agbonika
The successes of most African marriages are largely predicated on child bearing. The discovery of childlessness in marriage often comes with psychological and physical torture, sometimes resulting in self-blame and seeking possible options, one of which is adoption. Adoption is a unique mode of establishing a family relationship between a person and a child of a known or unknown parentage with a view to making such a child legally that of the adopting parent. Adoption allows persons to legally assume the role of parenthood over a child that is not biologically borne by them. The reason for which a person may wish to adopt could range from infertility to need to get a particular sex or provide companionship for an only child, to stabilize a childless marriage, or to provide care for children who have been abandoned or rejected, or to ‘replace’ a dead child. Adoption is not just about picking any child of one’s choice and claiming of ownership. This paper focuses on an appraisal of the necessary procedures to comply with when adopting a child, whether to reside within or outside Nigerian jurisdiction. The doctrinal method of research such as textbooks, journal articles, case laws, internet materials etc. were used to carry out this research. Findings revealed that there are lots of legal gymnastics or hurdles involved which may be difficult to successfully navigate without professional help including the challenge of taking the child outside Nigeria. Therefore, it is recommended that there should be established legal frameworks that promote comprehensive child adoption laws that harmonize internal and international instruments, to back implementation of these laws with needed enforcement procedure.  
大多数非洲婚姻的成功很大程度上是建立在生育的基础上的。发现婚姻中没有孩子往往会带来心理和身体上的折磨,有时会导致自责,并寻求可能的选择,其中之一就是收养。收养是一种独特的方式,在一个人与一个父母身份已知或未知的孩子之间建立家庭关系,目的是使这个孩子合法地成为收养父母的孩子。收养允许人们在法律上对非亲生子女承担父母的角色。一个人可能希望收养的原因可能包括不孕不育,需要获得特定的性别或为独生子女提供陪伴,稳定无子女的婚姻,或为被遗弃或被拒绝的儿童提供照顾,或“取代”死去的孩子。收养不只是挑选自己喜欢的孩子并声称拥有所有权。本文的重点是评估必要的程序,以遵守当收养一个孩子,是否居住在尼日利亚管辖范围内或外。本研究采用教科书、期刊文章、判例法、网络资料等理论研究方法。调查结果显示,如果没有专业帮助,可能很难成功解决很多法律问题或障碍,包括将孩子带出尼日利亚的挑战。因此,建议应建立法律框架,促进协调国内和国际文书的全面儿童收养法,以必要的执行程序支持这些法律的执行。
{"title":"ADOPTION WITHOUT TEARS: APPRAISAL OF THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS IN NIGERIA AND OTHER JURISDICTIONS","authors":"J. A. M. Agbonika, Josephine A. A. Agbonika","doi":"10.47672/ajl.882","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.47672/ajl.882","url":null,"abstract":"The successes of most African marriages are largely predicated on child bearing. The discovery of childlessness in marriage often comes with psychological and physical torture, sometimes resulting in self-blame and seeking possible options, one of which is adoption. Adoption is a unique mode of establishing a family relationship between a person and a child of a known or unknown parentage with a view to making such a child legally that of the adopting parent. Adoption allows persons to legally assume the role of parenthood over a child that is not biologically borne by them. The reason for which a person may wish to adopt could range from infertility to need to get a particular sex or provide companionship for an only child, to stabilize a childless marriage, or to provide care for children who have been abandoned or rejected, or to ‘replace’ a dead child. Adoption is not just about picking any child of one’s choice and claiming of ownership. This paper focuses on an appraisal of the necessary procedures to comply with when adopting a child, whether to reside within or outside Nigerian jurisdiction. The doctrinal method of research such as textbooks, journal articles, case laws, internet materials etc. were used to carry out this research. Findings revealed that there are lots of legal gymnastics or hurdles involved which may be difficult to successfully navigate without professional help including the challenge of taking the child outside Nigeria. Therefore, it is recommended that there should be established legal frameworks that promote comprehensive child adoption laws that harmonize internal and international instruments, to back implementation of these laws with needed enforcement procedure. \u0000 ","PeriodicalId":7680,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","volume":"142 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74167698","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
AMJ volume 47 issue 4 Cover and Front matter AMJ第47卷第4期封面和封面
IF 0.6 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI: 10.1017/amj.2022.9
{"title":"AMJ volume 47 issue 4 Cover and Front matter","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/amj.2022.9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2022.9","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":7680,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","volume":"47 1","pages":"f1 - f6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44075801","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
AMJ volume 47 issue 4 Cover and Back matter AMJ第47卷第4期封面和封底
IF 0.6 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI: 10.1017/amj.2022.10
{"title":"AMJ volume 47 issue 4 Cover and Back matter","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/amj.2022.10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2022.10","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":7680,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"b1 - b1"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43973728","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
When Medical Devices Have a Mind of Their Own: The Challenges of Regulating Artificial Intelligence 当医疗设备有了自己的思想:监管人工智能的挑战
IF 0.6 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI: 10.1017/amj.2022.3
Jessa Boubker
How can an agency like the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”) effectively regulate software that is constantly learning and adapting to real-world data? Continuously learning algorithms pose significant public health risks if a medical device can change overtime to fundamentally alter the nature of a device post-market. This Article evaluates the FDA’s proposed regulatory framework for artificially intelligent medical devices against the backdrop of the current technology, as well as industry professionals’ desired trajectory, to determine whether the proposed regulatory framework can ensure safe and reliable medical devices without stifling innovation. Ultimately, the FDA succeeds in placing effective limits on continuously learning algorithms while giving manufacturers freedom to allow their devices to adapt to real-world data. The framework, however, does not give adequate attention to protecting patient data, monitoring cybersecurity, and ensuring safety and efficacy. The FDA, medical device industry, and relevant policymakers should increase oversight of these areas to protect patients and providers relying on this new technology.
像美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)这样的机构如何有效地监管不断学习和适应现实世界数据的软件?如果医疗设备可以随着时间的推移而从根本上改变设备上市后的性质,那么持续学习算法将构成重大的公共卫生风险。本文将在当前技术背景下评估FDA提出的人工智能医疗器械监管框架,以及行业专业人士的期望轨迹,以确定拟议的监管框架是否能够在不扼杀创新的情况下确保医疗器械的安全可靠。最终,FDA成功地对持续学习算法进行了有效限制,同时给予制造商允许其设备适应现实世界数据的自由。然而,该框架并未对保护患者数据、监控网络安全以及确保安全性和有效性给予足够的重视。FDA、医疗器械行业和相关政策制定者应该加强对这些领域的监督,以保护依赖这项新技术的患者和提供者。
{"title":"When Medical Devices Have a Mind of Their Own: The Challenges of Regulating Artificial Intelligence","authors":"Jessa Boubker","doi":"10.1017/amj.2022.3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2022.3","url":null,"abstract":"How can an agency like the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”) effectively regulate software that is constantly learning and adapting to real-world data? Continuously learning algorithms pose significant public health risks if a medical device can change overtime to fundamentally alter the nature of a device post-market. This Article evaluates the FDA’s proposed regulatory framework for artificially intelligent medical devices against the backdrop of the current technology, as well as industry professionals’ desired trajectory, to determine whether the proposed regulatory framework can ensure safe and reliable medical devices without stifling innovation. Ultimately, the FDA succeeds in placing effective limits on continuously learning algorithms while giving manufacturers freedom to allow their devices to adapt to real-world data. The framework, however, does not give adequate attention to protecting patient data, monitoring cybersecurity, and ensuring safety and efficacy. The FDA, medical device industry, and relevant policymakers should increase oversight of these areas to protect patients and providers relying on this new technology.","PeriodicalId":7680,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","volume":"47 1","pages":"427 - 454"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45685166","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Toward a Preliminary Theory of Organizational Incentives: Addressing Incentive Misalignment in Private Equity-Owned Long-Term Care Facilities 迈向组织激励的初步理论:解决私募股权长期护理机构的激励错位问题
IF 0.6 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI: 10.1017/amj.2022.4
Alesha Ignatius Brereton
The COVID-19 pandemic brought critical debates regarding private equity ownership of long-term care facilities to the forefront of political, legal, and social landscapes. Like many of the historical concerns about long-term care, these debates center around low quality patient care. While the concerns present important challenges to overcome, this note theorizes the kinds of organizational incentives that may provide opportunities to align patient quality care with the financial goals of private equity investing. After a discussion of the historical context of long term care facilities and the more recent trends towards for-profit and private equity ownership of these facilities (Parts II and III), I engage with value-based models as a starting point to consider organizational level incentive possibilities (Part IV). In Part V, I consider an organizational-level pay for performance model, a time-bound incentive structure, and investor-specific incentives as three distinct possibilities for addressing the patient care issues identified.
新冠肺炎大流行将关于长期护理设施私人股本所有权的关键辩论带到了政治、法律和社会领域的前沿。就像许多历史上对长期护理的担忧一样,这些争论围绕着低质量的患者护理展开。虽然这些担忧带来了需要克服的重要挑战,但本说明对可能提供机会使患者优质护理与私募股权投资的财务目标保持一致的组织激励进行了理论化。在讨论了长期护理机构的历史背景以及这些机构的营利性和私人股本所有权的最新趋势(第二部分和第三部分)后,我将基于价值的模型作为考虑组织层面激励可能性的起点(第四部分)。在第五部分中,我认为组织层面的绩效薪酬模型、有时限的激励结构和特定于投资者的激励是解决所确定的患者护理问题的三种不同的可能性。
{"title":"Toward a Preliminary Theory of Organizational Incentives: Addressing Incentive Misalignment in Private Equity-Owned Long-Term Care Facilities","authors":"Alesha Ignatius Brereton","doi":"10.1017/amj.2022.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2022.4","url":null,"abstract":"The COVID-19 pandemic brought critical debates regarding private equity ownership of long-term care facilities to the forefront of political, legal, and social landscapes. Like many of the historical concerns about long-term care, these debates center around low quality patient care. While the concerns present important challenges to overcome, this note theorizes the kinds of organizational incentives that may provide opportunities to align patient quality care with the financial goals of private equity investing. After a discussion of the historical context of long term care facilities and the more recent trends towards for-profit and private equity ownership of these facilities (Parts II and III), I engage with value-based models as a starting point to consider organizational level incentive possibilities (Part IV). In Part V, I consider an organizational-level pay for performance model, a time-bound incentive structure, and investor-specific incentives as three distinct possibilities for addressing the patient care issues identified.","PeriodicalId":7680,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","volume":"47 1","pages":"455 - 476"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41752985","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Applying a Common Enterprise Theory of Liability to Clinical AI Systems 通用企业责任理论在临床人工智能系统中的应用
IF 0.6 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI: 10.1017/amj.2022.1
Benny Chan
The advent of artificial intelligence (“AI”) holds great potential to improve clinical diagnostics. At the same time, there are important questions of liability for harms arising from the use of this technology. Due to their complexity, opacity, and lack of foreseeability, AI systems are not easily accommodated by traditional liability frameworks. This difficulty is compounded in the health care space where various actors, namely physicians and health care organizations, are subject to distinct but interrelated legal duties regarding the use of health technology. Without a principled way to apportion responsibility among these actors, patients may find it difficult to recover for injuries. In this Article, I propose that physicians, manufacturers of clinical AI systems, and hospitals be considered a common enterprise for the purposes of liability. This proposed framework helps facilitate the apportioning of responsibility among disparate actors under a single legal theory. Such an approach responds to concerns about the responsibility gap engendered by clinical AI technology as it shifts away from individualistic notions of responsibility, embodied by negligence and products liability, toward a more distributed conception. In addition to favoring plaintiff recovery, a common enterprise strict liability approach would create strong incentives for the relevant actors to take care.
人工智能的出现在改善临床诊断方面具有巨大潜力。与此同时,还存在对使用这项技术造成的损害承担责任的重要问题。由于人工智能系统的复杂性、不透明性和缺乏可预见性,传统的责任框架不容易适应人工智能系统。在医疗保健领域,这一困难更加严重,因为医生和医疗保健组织等不同行为者在使用医疗技术方面负有不同但相互关联的法律义务。如果没有原则性的方式在这些参与者之间分配责任,患者可能会发现很难从伤病中恢复过来。在这篇文章中,我建议将医生、临床人工智能系统制造商和医院视为共同的企业。这一拟议框架有助于在单一的法律理论下促进不同行为者之间的责任分配。这种方法回应了人们对临床人工智能技术造成的责任差距的担忧,因为它从由疏忽和产品责任体现的个人主义责任观转向了更分散的概念。除了有利于原告的追偿外,一种常见的企业严格责任方法将为相关行为体提供强有力的激励,促使其谨慎行事。
{"title":"Applying a Common Enterprise Theory of Liability to Clinical AI Systems","authors":"Benny Chan","doi":"10.1017/amj.2022.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2022.1","url":null,"abstract":"The advent of artificial intelligence (“AI”) holds great potential to improve clinical diagnostics. At the same time, there are important questions of liability for harms arising from the use of this technology. Due to their complexity, opacity, and lack of foreseeability, AI systems are not easily accommodated by traditional liability frameworks. This difficulty is compounded in the health care space where various actors, namely physicians and health care organizations, are subject to distinct but interrelated legal duties regarding the use of health technology. Without a principled way to apportion responsibility among these actors, patients may find it difficult to recover for injuries. In this Article, I propose that physicians, manufacturers of clinical AI systems, and hospitals be considered a common enterprise for the purposes of liability. This proposed framework helps facilitate the apportioning of responsibility among disparate actors under a single legal theory. Such an approach responds to concerns about the responsibility gap engendered by clinical AI technology as it shifts away from individualistic notions of responsibility, embodied by negligence and products liability, toward a more distributed conception. In addition to favoring plaintiff recovery, a common enterprise strict liability approach would create strong incentives for the relevant actors to take care.","PeriodicalId":7680,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","volume":"47 1","pages":"351 - 385"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47937848","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Episode III: California v. Texas 第三集:加州诉德州
IF 0.6 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI: 10.1017/amj.2022.6
J. Watson
Episode III:California v. Texas—On June 21, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their long-awaited decision on California v. Texas, “the third installment in the epic trilogy” of cases challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”).1 In a 7-to-2 decision authored by Justice Breyer, the Court found that both the individual plaintiffs and the states lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the so-called individual mandate.2
第三集:加利福尼亚州诉德克萨斯州——2021年6月21日,美国最高法院就加利福尼亚州诉得克萨斯州一案发布了他们期待已久的裁决,这是挑战《患者保护和平价医疗法案》(“ACA”)的“史诗三部曲中的第三部”,法院认定,原告个人和各州都没有资格质疑所谓的个人授权的合宪性。2
{"title":"Episode III: California v. Texas","authors":"J. Watson","doi":"10.1017/amj.2022.6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2022.6","url":null,"abstract":"Episode III:California v. Texas—On June 21, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their long-awaited decision on California v. Texas, “the third installment in the epic trilogy” of cases challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”).1 In a 7-to-2 decision authored by Justice Breyer, the Court found that both the individual plaintiffs and the states lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the so-called individual mandate.2","PeriodicalId":7680,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","volume":"47 1","pages":"507 - 512"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49199711","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Alabama Association of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Services: End of Federal Eviction Moratorium Curtails Expansive Interpretation of CDC’s Statutory Authority 阿拉巴马州房地产经纪人协会诉卫生与公众服务部:联邦驱逐禁令的终止限制了对美国疾病控制与预防中心法定权力的广泛解释
IF 0.6 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI: 10.1017/amj.2022.7
Christina Fuleihan
Alabama Association of Realtors v. Department of Health andHuman Services: End of Federal EvictionMoratoriumCurtails Expansive Interpretation of CDC’s Statutory Authority—Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the labor market, millions of Americans experienced sharp reductions in household income and faced increased housing insecurity.1 Record levels of unemployment, destabilized communities, and a lack of affordable housing all contributed to increased risk of bankruptcy and foreclosure.2 Estimates showed that 30 to 40 million Americans would be at risk of eviction during the COVID-19 pandemic without government intervention.3 As federal, state, and local governments failed to renew expiring housing protections, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) announced its own federal eviction mortarium.4 This unprecedented action raised serious implementation, constitutionality, and statutory concerns. Numerous courts reviewed challenges to the federal eviction moratorium between 2020 to 2021, but analyseswere inconsistent.5 InAlabama Association of Realtors (“AAR”) v. Department of Health andHuman Services (“HHS”), the Supreme Court of the United States (“Supreme Court”) confirmed that the federal eviction moratorium was unlawful.6 Consequently, the CDC’s federal eviction moratorium ended on August 26, 2021. In AAR v. HHS, trade associations, real estate professionals, and rental management corporations (“Plaintiffs”) brought suit against the HHS, CDC, and several government officials (“Government”) challenging the federal eviction moratorium on statutory and constitutional grounds.7 On May 5, 2021, the United States District Court for
阿拉巴马州房地产经纪人协会诉卫生与公众服务部:联邦驱逐禁令的结束限制了对疾病预防控制中心法定权力的广泛解释——由于新冠肺炎疫情对劳动力市场的影响,数百万美国人的家庭收入急剧减少,住房不安全状况加剧,不稳定的社区和缺乏负担得起的住房都增加了破产和丧失抵押品赎回权的风险。2估计显示,如果没有政府干预,在新冠肺炎大流行期间,3000万至4000万美国人将面临被驱逐的风险。3由于联邦、州和地方政府未能延长即将到期的住房保护,美国疾病控制与预防中心(“CDC”)宣布了自己的联邦驱逐死刑。4这一前所未有的行动引起了人们对执行、合宪性和法定问题的严重关注。许多法院审查了2020年至2021年间对联邦暂缓驱逐令的质疑,但分析结果不一致。5在阿拉巴马州房地产经纪人协会(“AAR”)诉卫生与公众服务部(“HHS”)一案中,美国最高法院(“最高法院”)确认联邦暂缓驱逐是非法的。6因此,美国疾病控制与预防中心的联邦暂缓驱逐令于2021年8月26日结束。在AAR诉HHS一案中,行业协会、房地产专业人士和租赁管理公司(“原告”)以法律和宪法为由,对HHS、CDC和几名政府官员(“政府”)提起诉讼,对联邦暂缓驱逐令提出质疑。7 2021年5月5日,美国地方法院
{"title":"Alabama Association of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Services: End of Federal Eviction Moratorium Curtails Expansive Interpretation of CDC’s Statutory Authority","authors":"Christina Fuleihan","doi":"10.1017/amj.2022.7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2022.7","url":null,"abstract":"Alabama Association of Realtors v. Department of Health andHuman Services: End of Federal EvictionMoratoriumCurtails Expansive Interpretation of CDC’s Statutory Authority—Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the labor market, millions of Americans experienced sharp reductions in household income and faced increased housing insecurity.1 Record levels of unemployment, destabilized communities, and a lack of affordable housing all contributed to increased risk of bankruptcy and foreclosure.2 Estimates showed that 30 to 40 million Americans would be at risk of eviction during the COVID-19 pandemic without government intervention.3 As federal, state, and local governments failed to renew expiring housing protections, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) announced its own federal eviction mortarium.4 This unprecedented action raised serious implementation, constitutionality, and statutory concerns. Numerous courts reviewed challenges to the federal eviction moratorium between 2020 to 2021, but analyseswere inconsistent.5 InAlabama Association of Realtors (“AAR”) v. Department of Health andHuman Services (“HHS”), the Supreme Court of the United States (“Supreme Court”) confirmed that the federal eviction moratorium was unlawful.6 Consequently, the CDC’s federal eviction moratorium ended on August 26, 2021. In AAR v. HHS, trade associations, real estate professionals, and rental management corporations (“Plaintiffs”) brought suit against the HHS, CDC, and several government officials (“Government”) challenging the federal eviction moratorium on statutory and constitutional grounds.7 On May 5, 2021, the United States District Court for","PeriodicalId":7680,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","volume":"47 1","pages":"513 - 522"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44656770","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Reformulating Graham v. Connor’s Excessive Force Test to ADApt for Individuals with Disabilities 重新制定格雷厄姆诉康纳的过度武力测试,以适应残疾人
IF 0.6 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI: 10.1017/amj.2022.5
Christiana Prater-Lee
Individuals with disabilities are sixteen times more likely to be killed by officers during a law enforcement encounter than other individuals. As the ever-growing list of victims demonstrates, law enforcement violence against individuals with disabilities is a national crisis. Yet, the current test, developed under Graham v. Connor, for whether officers’ use of force is excessive during an arrest considers only three factors: severity of the crime, immediacy of the threat, and resistance to arrest or attempts to flee. On its face, Graham’s three-factor test does not contemplate whether an arrestee’s individual characteristics are relevant to an officer’s use of force. Recognizing that the Graham factors are “non-exhaustive” and “flexible,” some lower federal courts have relaxed the excessive force test to account for particular circumstances. However, there is no consensus among the circuit courts and the Supreme Court has not revisited the Graham test. Over three decades later, courts still do not have sufficient guidance on how to address individual disability under Graham. This Note advocates that in adherence to Graham’s expressed flexibility, its three-factor test should be reformulated to add in a fourth factor inspired by Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act to account for whether “reasonable modifications” of an individual’s disability were made in situations when law enforcement employs force during the course of an arrest. Applying this standard in cases where an officer “reasonably should know” the arrestee has a disability promotes a baseline assumption that law enforcement officers have an active role in accommodating all disabilities.
在执法遭遇中,残疾人被警察杀害的可能性是其他人的16倍。越来越多的受害者表明,针对残疾人的执法暴力是一场全国性的危机。然而,根据格雷厄姆诉康纳案(Graham v. Connor)制定的现行标准,判断警察在逮捕过程中是否过度使用武力,只考虑三个因素:犯罪的严重性、威胁的即时性,以及对逮捕或企图逃跑的抵抗。从表面上看,格雷厄姆的三因素测试并没有考虑被捕者的个人特征是否与警察使用武力有关。认识到格雷厄姆因素是“非详尽的”和“灵活的”,一些下级联邦法院放宽了过度使用武力的检验,以考虑特殊情况。然而,巡回法院之间没有达成共识,最高法院也没有重新审议格雷厄姆标准。30多年过去了,在格雷厄姆治下,法院仍然没有就如何处理个人残疾问题提供足够的指导。本说明主张,根据格雷厄姆所表达的灵活性,应重新制定其三因素测试,以增加受《美国残疾人法》第二章启发的第四个因素,以说明在执法部门在逮捕过程中使用武力的情况下,是否对个人的残疾进行了“合理修改”。在一名警官“合理地应该知道”被捕者有残疾的情况下应用这一标准,促进了一种基本假设,即执法人员在照顾所有残疾方面发挥了积极作用。
{"title":"Reformulating Graham v. Connor’s Excessive Force Test to ADApt for Individuals with Disabilities","authors":"Christiana Prater-Lee","doi":"10.1017/amj.2022.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2022.5","url":null,"abstract":"Individuals with disabilities are sixteen times more likely to be killed by officers during a law enforcement encounter than other individuals. As the ever-growing list of victims demonstrates, law enforcement violence against individuals with disabilities is a national crisis. Yet, the current test, developed under Graham v. Connor, for whether officers’ use of force is excessive during an arrest considers only three factors: severity of the crime, immediacy of the threat, and resistance to arrest or attempts to flee. On its face, Graham’s three-factor test does not contemplate whether an arrestee’s individual characteristics are relevant to an officer’s use of force. Recognizing that the Graham factors are “non-exhaustive” and “flexible,” some lower federal courts have relaxed the excessive force test to account for particular circumstances. However, there is no consensus among the circuit courts and the Supreme Court has not revisited the Graham test. Over three decades later, courts still do not have sufficient guidance on how to address individual disability under Graham. This Note advocates that in adherence to Graham’s expressed flexibility, its three-factor test should be reformulated to add in a fourth factor inspired by Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act to account for whether “reasonable modifications” of an individual’s disability were made in situations when law enforcement employs force during the course of an arrest. Applying this standard in cases where an officer “reasonably should know” the arrestee has a disability promotes a baseline assumption that law enforcement officers have an active role in accommodating all disabilities.","PeriodicalId":7680,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","volume":"47 1","pages":"477 - 506"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47530902","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
The Optum-Atrius Transaction: A Model for Reviewing Mid-Sized Health Transactions Optum-Atrius交易:一个审查中等规模医疗交易的模型
IF 0.6 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI: 10.1017/amj.2022.8
Minji Kim
The Optum-Atrius Transaction: A Model for Reviewing Mid-Sized Health Transactions—In the last decade, consolidation transactions in healthcare have increased drastically.1 Following the financial difficulties of the pandemic, the popularity of vertical mergers and acquisitions at multiple levels of the health care supply chain is likely to continue.2 While larger transactions, which are valued at over $92 million, require notice to theFederal TradeCommission (“FTC”) and theDepartment of Justice (“DOJ”), mid-sized healthcare transactionswhich are valued at less than $92million often do not get special anticompetitive examination.3 Therefore state agencies, which may have “additional legal and administrative frameworks that they can use to review proposed health care transactions for potential anticompetitive harm,” can help protect health care provider markets.4 State attorney generals (“AGs”) may bring suit under state or federal antitrust laws or enjoin a transaction with the FTC or DOJ under Section 7 of the Clayton Act.5 In Massachusetts, there exists theHealth PolicyCommission (“HPC”), an independent state agency established within the Executive Office of Finance andAdministration. TheHPCwas created in 2012 to monitor and control Massachussett’s healthcare spending growth.6 This recent development comment examines the findings of the Massachusetts HPC’s review of the 2021 OptumAtrius transaction to examinewhat factors influence disruption of health care spending goals and how the HPC could serve as a model for other states to follow in evaluating mid-sized healthcare transactions amid increasing trends of consolidation at all levels.
Optum-Atrius交易:回顾中型医疗交易的模型在过去十年中,医疗保健领域的合并交易急剧增加在大流行的财政困难之后,在医疗保健供应链的多个层面上的垂直兼并和收购很可能会继续流行虽然价值超过9200万美元的大型交易需要通知联邦贸易委员会(“FTC”)和司法部(“DOJ”),但价值低于9200万美元的中型医疗保健交易通常不会受到特别的反竞争审查因此,国家机构可能有“额外的法律和行政框架,他们可以用来审查拟议的医疗保健交易,以防止潜在的反竞争损害”,可以帮助保护医疗保健提供者市场州总检察长(“AGs”)可根据州或联邦反托拉斯法提起诉讼,或根据《克莱顿法》第7条禁止与联邦贸易委员会或司法部进行交易。5在马萨诸塞州,存在健康政策委员会(“HPC”),这是一个独立的州机构,成立于财政和行政执行办公室内。hpc成立于2012年,目的是监测和控制马萨诸塞州的医疗支出增长这篇最新的发展评论研究了马萨诸塞州HPC对2021年OptumAtrius交易的审查结果,以研究影响医疗保健支出目标中断的因素,以及HPC如何在评估中等规模医疗保健交易时为其他州提供一个模型,以供其他州在各级整合趋势日益增加的情况下遵循。
{"title":"The Optum-Atrius Transaction: A Model for Reviewing Mid-Sized Health Transactions","authors":"Minji Kim","doi":"10.1017/amj.2022.8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2022.8","url":null,"abstract":"The Optum-Atrius Transaction: A Model for Reviewing Mid-Sized Health Transactions—In the last decade, consolidation transactions in healthcare have increased drastically.1 Following the financial difficulties of the pandemic, the popularity of vertical mergers and acquisitions at multiple levels of the health care supply chain is likely to continue.2 While larger transactions, which are valued at over $92 million, require notice to theFederal TradeCommission (“FTC”) and theDepartment of Justice (“DOJ”), mid-sized healthcare transactionswhich are valued at less than $92million often do not get special anticompetitive examination.3 Therefore state agencies, which may have “additional legal and administrative frameworks that they can use to review proposed health care transactions for potential anticompetitive harm,” can help protect health care provider markets.4 State attorney generals (“AGs”) may bring suit under state or federal antitrust laws or enjoin a transaction with the FTC or DOJ under Section 7 of the Clayton Act.5 In Massachusetts, there exists theHealth PolicyCommission (“HPC”), an independent state agency established within the Executive Office of Finance andAdministration. TheHPCwas created in 2012 to monitor and control Massachussett’s healthcare spending growth.6 This recent development comment examines the findings of the Massachusetts HPC’s review of the 2021 OptumAtrius transaction to examinewhat factors influence disruption of health care spending goals and how the HPC could serve as a model for other states to follow in evaluating mid-sized healthcare transactions amid increasing trends of consolidation at all levels.","PeriodicalId":7680,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","volume":"47 1","pages":"523 - 530"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44696690","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
期刊
American Journal of Law & Medicine
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1