Posts made in June, 2015

Developments in the Texas Prompt Payment Act of 2003

Posted by on Jun 22, 2015 in Medical System | 0 comments

Doctors and other medical professional are historically slow-paid by health insurance companies that they service. There was a time when insurers paid slower than Medicare. As a result, these professionals refused to renew their contracts or limited their services, making it more difficult for people with health insurance to get the care they need.

This prompted the Texas state legislature to come up with the Texas Prompt Payment Act of 2003. This imposed strict timelines and penalties for insurers that failed to pay on time for legitimate invoices. Naturally enough, insurance companies brought their legal weight down to bear on the law, delaying implementation for nearly a decade. Medical service providers finally have the law on their side to ensure prompt payment of services.

However, according to the website of the Texas prompt pay lawyers at Williams Kherkher, there are fresh wrinkles in the legal landscape. One bill from the Texas House of Representatives (HB 1433) and another from the Senate (SB 1166) are proposing to amend the law in significant ways. HB 1433, for example, proposes a two-year statute of limitations and significantly lower caps for civil penalties. Currently, the lowest cap for payments delayed for at least 31 days is $100,000. The bill reduces it to $5,000.

On the other hand, SB 1166 proposes new exceptions for the penalty provisions that will make it harder for the burden of proof heavier for the plaintiff. It also proposes to that the 18% interest imposed on the insurer is only for the unpaid amount and limits the award of attorneys’ fees.

These are proposed changes to the law, and if they pass, they will have a significant impact on claims. However, it is not yet part of the law, so this is the time to make a claim. If you are currently suffering from the effects of long-delayed payments from an insurance company, you should not delay consulting with a competent prompt pay lawyer in Texas.

Read More

Basic Grandparents’ Rights to Custody and Visitation

Posted by on Jun 19, 2015 in Family Law | 0 comments

Most issues in marriage and divorce when it comes to the children are concerned with the rights of the parents. This leaves the doting grandparents pretty much on the wayside. However, all states in the US have lately come around to the notion that while grandparents may not have a constitutional right to have custody and visit their grandchildren, they should at least have statutory rights.

Unfortunately, not all parents agree. They have successfully challenged state laws that dictate grandparents’ rights based on constitutionality, and so the success of any bid to acquire rights over their grandchildren will depend on a particular state’s laws on it.

In Texas, for example, grandparents have no right of visitation. If a parent objects, they have no legal recourse. However, it is possible for grandparents to petition the state court to grant them visitation rights under specific circumstances. They can also petition for custody if the grandchildren lived a minimum of six months with them and the petition is within 90 days after the children were removed from their care. They may also petition for custody if an emergency arises wherein the grandparents can prove the wellbeing and safety of the children are at risk. According to the website of Holmes, Diggs, Eames & Sadler, this can be a tricky proposition. It requires a skilled family law attorney to have an even chance of success in most cases.

The same situation exists in Iowa, more or less. The law states that visitation and custodial rights of grandparents can only be granted if it is in the best interests of the child. The only way grandparents can prevail over the objections of the parents regarding visitation and custody is to prove them unfit. As pointed out on the website of Cedar Rapids family law attorneys Arenson Law Group, PC, it is important to maintain stability for the children even amidst a legal battle over them, and that is not an easy task. The children after all are the most important factor in such cases.

If you want to petition the court to grant you grandparents’ rights, you need to go to the right people. Consult with a qualified family or divorce lawyer in your state to make sure that you get the best representation you can get.

Read More

The Shape of things to Come with Dangerous Drugs and Medical Devices

Posted by on Jun 16, 2015 in Dangerous Products & Drugs | 0 comments

Pharmaceutical companies are not making it easy for plaintiffs to make a claim by dragging out the legal process as long as they can. For example, manufacturer of drospirenone-based combined oral contraceptives (COCs) Yaz and Yasmin Bayer Pharmaceuticals is now refusing to face some thousands of claims in a Lexicon waiver as it had previously offered, which would have allowed all plaintiffs to present their cases before U.S. District Judge David Herndon. According to the National Injury Law Center website, these COCs had dangerous side effects about which Bayer neglected to warn their users. Bayer is now maneuvering that plaintiffs bring their claims to their local district courts.

The first product liability lawsuit filed for hysterectomy power morcellation is also working its slow way up the legal ladder. The suit was filed in March 2014 by the widower of Donna Burkhardt, who died in February 2013 of metastatic leiomyosarcoma because of a hysterectomy using a device manufactured by LINA Medical. According to the website of the morcellator lawsuit attorneys at Williams Kherkher, morcellators significantly increase the risk of uterine and similar cancers when it cuts up fibroid tissues that may be cancerous. The discovery phase is set to complete by July 2015, and any pre-trial motions should be completed by October. Only then can the actual trial begin, scheduled for November 3, 2015 at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. However, further delays are extremely likely.

On the other hand, Stryker Orthopaedics has already begun to settle claims by patients or their families for the defective Stryker Hip Implant devices that failed catastrophically prior to November 3, 2014. According to the Williams Kherkher website, this is the reason that Stryker voluntarily recalled certain devices in 2012. However, patients whose implants failed after November 2014 will not be eligible for a claim. This does not mean that they cannot file a lawsuit against Stryker provided it is within the statute of limitations for their state. It is vital that they contact a dangerous drugs or medical device lawyer in their area immediately.

Read More

Things You Should Know About SR-22

Posted by on Jun 14, 2015 in Insurance | 0 comments

Nobody seems to know what the S and R in SR-22 stand for (although you could make some educated guesses), but that is not really important as long as you know what it is. An SR-22 is a certificate of financial responsibility that an insurance company issues to the Secretary of State on behalf of a motorist who is considered a “high risk.” These types of drivers are required an SR-22 in order to get back a suspended license, or to renew it.

Of course, in order to get it, you first have to buy car insurance from the company. The SR-22 is not a replacement for the insurance; merely a statement that you do have the required insurance. The SR-22 form may differ slightly from state to state, but according to Madison car accident lawyers, as long you can get the liability coverage your state requires, you are good.

In most cases, you will be required an SR-22 if you demonstrate bad judgment on the road. It could be for a serious moving violation such as driving under the influence of an intoxicant, driving without the requisite insurance, three or more traffic tickets over a short period, or driving on a suspended or revoked license.

The SR-22 itself is not expensive, ranging from $15 to $25. However, your insurance premiums will skyrocket if you ask an insurance company for an SR-22. Insurance companies do not like to cover high-risk drivers because they do not like to pay out, which they are more likely to do with a driver that needs an SR-22! Some insurance companies do not even offer SR-22 coverage.

Your best bet is to go with a state-approved insurance company specializing in issuing SR-22 certificates. They are most likely to give you the best rates and provide you with reliable customer service and coverage. Most importantly, try to be a more responsible driver to avoid trouble in the future.

Read More

Deferred Action out of Commission in Texas

Posted by on Jun 13, 2015 in Immigration Policies | 0 comments

There is a legal battle ongoing between the federal government and several states headed by Texas that are trying to bar the implementation of immigration policies that would prevent the deportation of eligible segments of illegal immigrants for a limited period. The lower courts have decided in favor of the plaintiff states, and the decision is now under appeal before the Fifth Circuit Court of New Orleans.

The policies in question are the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents (DAP), and the plaintiff states claim that the policies would place a financial burden on the states. They cited Social Security benefits and driver’s license costs, among other benefits currently barred to illegal immigrants. The federal government lawyers argue that providing these illegal immigrants legal working status will actually increase state incomes from income taxes. In the meantime, those who have applied for DACA and DAP, but have not yet been processed, are in legal limbo. Parents of US-born children in Texas that have not yet applied for DAP are in constant fear of deportation.

The DACA and DAP was pushed forward by the Obama Administration, and enacted into law in 2012. Two years later, the Immigration Services had conferred DACA status to 581,000 people, and denied 24,000. President Obama expanded the coverage of DACA and introduced DAP in November 2014. For the plaintiff states, this was going too far.

DACA and DAP would have been a great benefit for the millions of illegal immigrants currently living in the US, but many states are resisting their implementation. As pointed out on the website of the Law Office of William Jang, PLLC in Austin, immigrants are always facing serious challenges, even if they are eligible under the law. They often need competent legal representation specializing in immigration to maximize their chances of success.

Read More