Search for: "Community Health Choice, Inc. v. United States"
Results 1 - 20
of 211
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Mar 2016, 5:00 pm
Employer and union sponsored group health plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and their insurers are not required to comply with a Vermont state law that requires health insurers and certain other parties to report payments relating to health care claims and other information relating to health care services to a state agency for compilation in an all-inclusive health care database, according to… [read post]
11 Aug 2007, 8:02 am
Earlier this week, the qui tam case of United States ex. rel.Louanne Boothe v. [read post]
25 Apr 2011, 3:07 pm
United States District Court Judge Cormac J. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 5:00 am
Pa. 1989); In re Bexar County Health Facility Development Corp. [read post]
4 Jun 2021, 12:18 pm
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court granted cert in Unicolors, Inc v. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 10:53 am
With the Obama Administration construing the United States Supreme Court’s King v. [read post]
27 Mar 2018, 5:02 pm
Plaintiff earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Communications and Media from Fordham University in 2000 and a Juris Doctorate from New York Law School in February of 2004. [read post]
9 Nov 2014, 6:46 pm
United States v. [read post]
10 May 2017, 10:20 am
While Congress continues to debate the future of the Obamacare health reforms and its exchanges, the Department of Health & Human Services is reminding employers with less than 50 employees that wish to offer group health coverage for their employees to check out their coverage options offered the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) Marketplace established as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). [read post]
25 Apr 2017, 3:21 pm
See, Businesses Must Confirm & Clean Up Health Plan ACA & Other Compliance Following Supreme Court’s King v. [read post]
11 Mar 2020, 6:30 am
Indeed, if much of the worry about government speech is that government speech will limit or distort the communicative choices of non-governmental actors, then there is little reason to suppose that taxation, government funding, government spending, and various other governmentally-provided incentives and disincentives cannot limit or distort those communicative choices even more. [read post]
28 Dec 2018, 2:22 pm
Over 25 years ago, the United States Supreme Court answered a narrow legal question about whether the so-called Frye rule was incorporated into Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. [read post]
15 Oct 2014, 9:01 pm
Now you may ask: how can a state overturn a United States Supreme Court decision on religious liberty? [read post]
16 Oct 2018, 3:55 pm
Health plans, their employer and other sponsors and fiduciaries, health insurers, health care providers, health care clearinghouses and their business associates should study and learn from the just announced, record-setting $16 million resolution agreement between health insurance giant, Anthem, Inc., to resolve Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR) charges that Anthem, Inc. [read post]
11 Nov 2014, 7:27 pm
Forest City Enterprises, Inc.,[2] 426 U.S. 668 (1976) (due process limitations)· K.K. [read post]
17 Nov 2016, 4:18 am
While privacy is regulated in areas such as medical records (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act 2000), consumer information (Fair Credit Reporting Act 1970), telemarketing (Telephone Consumer Protection Act 1991), electronic communications (Electronic Communications Privacy Act 1996) and children and the internet (Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act 1998), there is no federal law on the co [read post]
5 May 2015, 9:02 am
Appeals Court Environmental Decisions <> State of Veracruz v. [read post]
19 Aug 2013, 5:08 am
She sent the request to “a member of the Executive Protection Unit (EPU) of the Washington State Patrol. [read post]
17 Sep 2019, 7:56 am
During its upcoming term, in Espinoza v. [read post]
28 Sep 2015, 9:39 am
Xcentric * Griping Blogger Protected by Fair Use But Not Section 230–Ascend Health v. [read post]
