Solving the Nuisance-Value Settlement Problem: Mandatory Summary Judgment

2004 ◽  
Vol 90 (7) ◽  
pp. 1849 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randy J. Kozel ◽  
David Rosenberg
Keyword(s):  
Summary Judgment

Medicaid & Medicare: D.C. Appellate Court Denies Claim for Medicare Reimbursement of GME Cost

1999 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-205
Author(s):  
choeffel Amy
Keyword(s):  
Medical Center ◽  
Federal District ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
University Of Pennsylvania ◽  
District Court ◽  
Appellate Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Administrative Proceedings ◽  
Summary Judgment

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld, in Presbyterian Medical Center of the University of Pennsylvania Health System v. Shalala, 170 F.3d 1146 (D.C. Cir. 1999), a federal district court ruling granting summary judgment to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) in a case in which Presbyterian Medical Center (PMC) challenged Medicare's requirement of contemporaneous documentation of $828,000 in graduate medical education (GME) expenses prior to increasing reimbursement amounts. DHHS Secretary Donna Shalala denied PMC's request for reimbursement for increased GME costs. The appellants then brought suit in federal court challenging the legality of an interpretative rule that requires requested increases in reimbursement to be supported by contemporaneous documentation. PMC also alleged that an error was made in the administrative proceedings to prejudice its claims because Aetna, the hospital's fiscal intermediary, failed to provide the hospital with a written report explaining why it was denied the GME reimbursement.

EMTALA: Screening Can Satisfy EMTALA, Despite Misdiagnosis

2003 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 169-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hemanth Gundavaram
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Medical Treatment ◽  
Emergency Room ◽  
Urinary Retention ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Statutory Duty ◽  
Active Labor ◽  
Summary Judgment ◽  
De Medicina ◽  
The U.S

In Del Carmen Guadalupe v. Agosto, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that a hospital fulfills its statutory duty to screen patiens in is emergency room if it provides for a “screening examination reasonably calculated to identify critical medical conditions” that may be afflicting symptomatic patients and if it “provides that level of screening uniformly to all those who present substantially similar complaints.” The First Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision to grant summary judgment to the hospital in a claim raised under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA).Maria del Carmen Guadalupe brought her husband, Narciso Figueroa, to the Hospital Interamericano De Medicina Avanzada, Inc., (HIMA) on October 3, 1998, with symptoms of urinary retention, edema in the legs, high blood pressure, pain, increased respiratory difficulty, a dry cough, fever, and drowsiness.

JUDGE LIFTS CALIFORNIA BAN ON IQ TESTS FOR BLACK CHILDREN

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 93 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-31
Author(s):  
J. F. L.
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Black Students ◽  
San Francisco ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
Gifted Students ◽  
Black Children ◽  
Department Of Education ◽  
Iq Testing ◽  
Summary Judgment ◽  
Iq Tests

A federal judge in San Francisco ruled that any parent can arrange for the use of IQ testing in assessing students' learning disabilities, despite arguments that the tests discriminate against minorities. Judge Robert F. Peckham issued a summary judgment ruling in favor of the families of nine black schoolchildren in California. The families were challenging the constitutionality of a statewide ban on the use of standardized intelligence tests for black children in California special-education classes. The state Department of Education in 1986 banned the use of IQ tests for assessing black students, but the ban did not apply to students from other minority groups. Later, black students seeking access to programs for gifted students were exempted from the tests as well.

Summary judgment — Quo vadis?

2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (1) ◽  
pp. 88-114
Author(s):  
Thino Bekker
Keyword(s):  
South African ◽  
Historical Development ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Core ◽  
Golden Opportunity ◽  
Quo Vadis ◽  
The Right ◽  
Summary Judgment ◽  
Made In

The summary judgment procedure in South African law provides for a speedy judgment in favour of a deserving plaintiff where it can be shown that the defendant does not have a triable defence. In 2019 the Rules Board made certain drastic amendments to the procedure of summary judgment in the high court. In this article the historical development of the procedure of summary judgment will be discussed, and the new amendments to rule 32 of the Uniform Rules of Court critically evaluated. It will be argued that the amendments to rule 32 were unnecessary and that it may diminish the right to access to justice in civil disputes. It will, however, also be argued that there are some merits in the critique raised by the Rules Board in relation to rule 32 and that the Rules Board missed a golden opportunity to overhaul the entire summary judgment procedure in a more sensible manner and in line with the core constitutional values of s 34 of the Constitution. It will be argued that rule 32 should be replaced in its entirety by a new, more streamlined procedure, and some recommendations for legal reform will be made in this regard.

Lee v. Dong-A Ilbo

1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (1) ◽  
pp. 90-94
Author(s):  
Sonya D. Winner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Korean American ◽  
District Court ◽  
Public Television ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
South Korean ◽  
Official Report ◽  
Foreign Governments ◽  
Summary Judgment

In 1985 two intelligence agencies of the South Korean Government announced that they had successfully disrupted a North Korean spy ring operating in the United States. Their press release, which was widely publicized in the Korean press, named Chang-Sin Lee as a North Korean agent associated with a spy ring at Western Illinois University, where Lee had been a student. The story was picked up and reported in the United States by six Korean-American newspapers and a public television station. When Lee sued for libel, the defendants relied upon the official report privilege, which gives absolute protection to the accurate republication of official government reports. The district court, holding that the privilege applied and that Lee had not overcome it by showing malice, dismissed the case. Plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which in a two to one decision reversed (per Ervin, J.) and held: that the official report privilege does not apply to the republication of official reports of foreign governments. Judge Kaufman, sitting by designation, dissented from the majority’s reversal of the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

scholarly journals Courts React

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 601-613
Author(s):  
Gretchen L. Casey
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Copyright Infringement ◽  
Fair Use ◽  
District Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Youtube Videos ◽  
Summary Judgment ◽  
First Time ◽  
Video Format ◽  
Tube Channel

Over the past few years, the rise in popularity of a genre of You- Tube videos known as “reaction videos” has resulted in controversy for various reasons. The United States District Court in Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, a landmark case for the genre, described the “reaction videos” as “a large genre of YouTube videos . . . [that] vary widely in terms of purpose, structure, and the extent to which they rely on potentially copyrighted material.” According to the Hosseinzadeh opinion, “[s]ome reaction videos. . .intersperse short segments of another’s work with criticism and commentary, while others are more akin to a group viewing session without commentary.” Essentially, reaction videos are exactly what the name suggests: a video showing a person or group of people reacting to the work of another, which by nature requires the incorporation of the work being reacted to for the viewer’s reference. The first time that controversy arose out of the “reaction” genre was in 2015 when the Fine Brothers, the creators of a popular YouTube channel known for its “Kids React” series along with several other “reaction video” series, applied to trademark the term “react.” The brothers did so with the intention to create a program called “React World,” through which they would license out the “reaction video” format to other video creators. This endeavor came not long after the Fine Brothers criticized Ellen DeGeneres for allegedly using their “re- action” format in a segment on her television show, suggesting the brothers’ belief that they were the sole owners of what is, in reality, a widely-used format. As a result, YouTube viewers became distrustful of the Fine Brothers’ intentions in trademarking the format, and viewers criticized them to the point that they issued a public apology in February of 2016 in which they announced their decision to “[r]escind all. . .‘React’ trademarks and applications” and “[d]iscontinue the React World program.” Later in 2016, reaction videos would again become the subject of controversy when Ethan and Hila Klein, the husband-and-wife creators of the popular YouTube comedy channel H3H3 Productions, were sued by Matt Hosseinzadeh of the decidedly less popular You- Tube channel, Matt Hoss Zone, for copyright infringement. Hosseinzadeh alleged copyright infringement for the use of segments of his video, “Bold Guy vs. Parkour Girl,” in a humorous reaction video made by the Kleins.8 What resulted was the aforementioned Hosseinzadeh v. Klein opinion, which set a precedent that will hopefully allow future reaction video creators to produce and share content without their creativity being stifled by the looming risk of copyright infringement lawsuits. Hosseinzadeh alleged that a video, which was part of a series of videos, starring himself as “Bold Guy,” “in which the Bold Guy flirts with a woman and chases her through various sequences” was infringement. Hosseinzadeh alleged that the Kleins’ video entitled “The Big, The BOLD, The Beautiful,” infringed upon “Bold Guy vs. Parkour Girl,” as it featured the couple “comment[ing] on and criticiz[ing] [his] video, playing portions of it in the process.” Accepting the Kleins’ motion for summary judgment, which pleaded the fair use defense, the court held that its “review of the. . .videos makes it clear that [the claim] in which plaintiff alleges that defendants in- fringed plaintiff’s copyrights, must be decided in defendants’ favor.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document