Menu

Legal News

In addition to serving our clients, our attorneys are active in publishing articles, conducting seminars and giving speeches. Our firm also issues many press releases and is frequently mentioned in various news sources. These resources are available for information purposes only and may be obtained by using the various search functions below.

RSS Subscribe to the articles RSS feed

Filter Results Options

Apply

Apply

Posting Type(s)

Date Range

Apply

Displaying 1173 results

Filters Applied:

Nov 03 2017

The National Practitioner Data Bank and a U.S. District Court Disagree on Mandatory Reporting Criterion

A Federal statute requires that any health care entity that "takes a professional review action that adversely affects the clinical privileges of a physician for a period longer than 30 days" file a report with the National Practitioner Data Bank ("NPDB"). See 42 U.S. Code § 11133. The statute has broadly been understood to mean that a restriction of privileges is reportable once it has been in place for 31 days. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas recently challenged that understanding. See Walker v. Mem'l Health Sys., 231 F. Supp. 3d 210 (E.D. Tex. 2017).

In Walker, the court determined a hospital erred by reporting a privilege restriction that spanned more than 30 days because the sanction that stipulated the terms of the restriction failed to specify duration. The court concluded "whether a proctoring sanction is reportable should be established by the terms of the sanction at the time it is delivered, and not by whether, in fact, it takes more than 30 days to satisfy the requirement." After Walker, the NPDB appeared to take aim at the court's interpretation by releasing a policy statement explaining that it is the impact of a sanction that makes it reportable, not the way in which the sanction was written. In the NPDB's view, a restriction is reportable once it has been in place for 31 days, regardless of the expected length of the restriction when issued.

Read More

Oct 31 2017

Don't Mess With Texas ... Or At Least the Attorneys that Attended the 2017 ICSC Legal Conference

The 2017 ICSC Legal Conference was held in San Antonio, Texas and (as usual) both the topics addressed and accompanying discussions did not disappoint. From year to year many of the topics remain the same. However, there are always a number of hot issues that garner a significant amount of attention. The following is a summary of the hottest issues that were discussed at more than one session at the conference.

Read More

Oct 10 2017

Adding Clarity to the Elimination of Domestic Partner Benefits for Local Government Employers

The response to our October 4 Legal Update has been overwhelming. Many of our clients and friends have responded with a variety of questions, and some misunderstandings, about this new law and the applicable effective dates. This Legal Update seeks to add clarity to the Wisconsin Legislature's recent decision to prohibit domestic partner benefits from being offered through school district, county, and municipal insurance plans and more specifically answer questions we have received regarding the new law.

Read More

Oct 09 2017

New Partnership Tax Audit Rules Require Action

This article originally appeared in Wisconsin LawyerOctober 2017 issue.

Significant changes to the way entities taxed as partnerships are audited and the tax from audit adjustments is collected generally become effective for returns filed for taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 2017. Such entities include limited partnerships, limited liability partnerships (LLPs), and multi-member limited liability companies (LLCs) that have not elected to be taxed as corporations.1 Law firms will need to consider the effects of these changes not only on clients but also potentially on the entity in which the firm conducts business.

Read More