Podcasts about alj

Suite et fin des 12 croyances qui vous freinent peut être dans votre stratégie de réseautage, et comment les dépasser -- Bio Alban Masse -- Depuis plus de 10 ans, je développe une méthode basée sur l'introspection et l'action pour faire les bons choix de carrière. J'accompagne mes clients dans la recherche d'un job idéalJ'ai également co-créé la Carte des Talents, un outil qui révolutionne la connaissance de soi au travail+ d'infos sur www.albanmasse.com et sur https://www.lacartedestalents.com-- Trouver Sa Voie--

Vous pensez que le networking, c'est réservé aux extravertis, aux commerciaux ou aux experts ?Voici 12 croyances qui vous freinent peut être, et comment les dépasser -- Bio Alban Masse -- Depuis plus de 10 ans, je développe une méthode basée sur l'introspection et l'action pour faire les bons choix de carrière. J'accompagne mes clients dans la recherche d'un job idéalJ'ai également co-créé la Carte des Talents, un outil qui révolutionne la connaissance de soi au travail+ d'infos sur www.albanmasse.com et sur https://www.lacartedestalents.com-- Trouver Sa Voie--

Flavie Prévot, fondatrice du podcast Le Board, partage sa méthode pour devenir un salarié diversifié : cumuler CDI et side project sans s'épuiser.Comment se lancer ? Avec quelle organisation ? Et surtout : pourquoi c'est une vraie sécurité.Ressources: Le prompt stratégie salarié diversifié : https://leboard.systeme.io/freebie-strategie-salarie-diversifieSon livre "salarié diversifié" : https://amzn.eu/d/2fmkLnG-- Bio Alban Masse -- Depuis plus de 10 ans, je développe une méthode basée sur l'introspection et l'action pour faire les bons choix de carrière. J'accompagne mes clients dans la recherche d'un job idéalJ'ai également co-créé la Carte des Talents, un outil qui révolutionne la connaissance de soi au travail+ d'infos sur www.albanmasse.com et sur https://www.lacartedestalents.com-- Trouver Sa Voie--

Notre objectif était simple : créer un outil all in one de connaissance de soi, pour que chacun puisse construire sa carrièreDécouvrez la genèse, l'approche méthodologique et l'aventure entrepreneuriale autour de ce projet ambitieux. Vous voulez faire votre carte ? C'est ici : https://hrgmnng8i2k.typeform.com/cartedestalents-- Bio Alban Masse -- Depuis plus de 10 ans, je développe une méthode basée sur l'introspection et l'action pour faire les bons choix de carrière. J'accompagne mes clients dans la recherche d'un job idéalJ'ai également co-créé la Carte des Talents, un outil qui révolutionne la connaissance de soi au travail+ d'infos sur www.albanmasse.com et sur https://www.lacartedestalents.com-- Trouver Sa Voie--

Comment réagir si vos candidatures restent sans réponse ? Ressource: la newsletter de Gwladys: https://gwladysramette.substack.com/Mots clés de cet épisode:#CandidatureSansRéponse #TrouverUnEmploi #RelancerUneCandidature #DécrocherUnEntretien #BoosterSesCandidatures #RéussirSaCandidature #AstucesRechercheEmploi #AméliorerSonCV #CandidatureIgnorée #RéponseDesRecruteurs-- Bio Alban Masse -- Depuis plus de 10 ans, je développe une méthode basée sur l'introspection et l'action pour faire les bons choix de carrière. J'accompagne mes clients dans la recherche d'un job idéalJ'ai également co-créé la Carte des Talents, un outil qui révolutionne la connaissance de soi au travail+ d'infos sur www.albanmasse.com et sur https://www.lacartedestalents.com-- Trouver Sa Voie--

Jeff Schultz, Partner at Foley Hoag, joins the show this week to help us understand the complex political catalysts ahead for cannabis. We start with rescheduling, and Jeff offers his perspective on the ALJ hearing and when we may see a final ruling. A Garland Memo may follow the final ruling and Jeff explains the memo's importance. SAFER Banking may become topical again late this year. We discuss the importance of SAFER in light of Schedule III, and how it would complement a Garland Memo. A combination of Schedule III, Garland Memo, and SAFER my unlock uplisting, and we debate what's needed to get to higher exchanges and when this may happen. We wrap with a conversation about state catalysts and dig into adult-use opportunities in Florida, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and a handful of smaller states. 

The rescheduling process got extended with the announcement of the ALJ hearing on December 2nd. The show starts by discussing whether this is categorically bearish or if going through a more thorough process may yield a net benefit. Jesse and Morgan debate whether this impacts the broader thesis and the types of companies you should own. David Goubert, CEO of Ayr Wellness, joins the show about twenty minutes in and shares their perspective on the ALJ hearing. The conversation transitions into AYR's 2Q24 results and steps they can take to drive more revenue and boost margins. AYR operates 94 dispensaries, and 76 (80%) are in states that may soon transition to adult-use sales. David gives his thoughts on opportunities in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, where AYR operates 65 stores. Finally, the guys talk about the intoxicating hemp market and how AYR may approach this emerging category. 

Labor Law Insider host Tom Godar engages in a lively discussion with guests Trecia Moore, Megann McManus, and Terry Potter regarding remedies in matters involving unfair labor practice charges. The centerpiece of our discussion is Thryv, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, a recent case in which the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals took up questions relating to a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) order that sought to challenge and reverse a company's unilateral layoffs during a bargaining impasse. The employer, a Yellow Pages advertising vendor, had properly and legally implemented its Last Best Final Offer (LBFO) protocols and instituted its workforce reduction per the LBFO, but the union charged it with unfair labor practices before the NLRB anyway. What ensued next was unusual, even for the Biden administration's NLRB. The Board overruled its own administrative law judge (ALJ) when the ALJ returned only a partial victory in the Board's in-house venue and slapped Thryv with what the circuit court later called “a novel, consequential-damages-like labor law remedy.”We explore what made the Board's order noteworthy, why the circuit court ultimately dismantled most of it, and the likely future for so-called make-whole remedies.

Recently, an administrative law judge (ALJ) ruled that Amazon CEO Andy Jassey's answers to interview questions violated the National Labor Relations Act. Unless the ALJ's decision regarding Jassey's seemingly innocuous statements made during various interviews in 2022 (included in this episode) is overturned, which is unlikely to happen soon, all employers' speech during union-organizing campaigns may be significantly impacted. [See the full ALJ decision here.]In this joint episode of Labor Relations Radio and Labor Relations Institute's Left of Boom show, LRI's Phil Wilson and Peter List discuss the ALJ's decision against Amazon, and its ramifications for all employers.* NLRB ALJ Decision on Amazon CEO Comments* NLRB's Basic Guide to the National Labor Relations ActFor all prior episodes of Labor Relations Radio, go here.LaborUnionNews.com's Labor Relations Radio is subscriber-supported. To receive new posts and support our work, become a subscriber. Get full access to LaborUnionNews.com's News Digest at laborunionnews.substack.com/subscribe

Employers Beware: An NLRB administrative law judge found that Amazon CEO Andy Jassey's seemingly innocuous answers to interview questions violated the law.Recently, an administrative law judge (ALJ) ruled that Amazon CEO Andy Jassey's answers to interview questions violated the National Labor Relations Act.Unless the ALJ's decision regarding Jassey's seemingly innocuous statements made during various interviews in 2022 (included in this episode) is overturned, which is unlikely to happen soon, all employers' speech during union-organizing campaigns may be significantly impacted. [See the full ALJ decision here.]In this joint episode of Labor Relations Radio and Labor Relations Institute's Left of Boom show, LRI's Phil Wilson and Peter List discuss the ALJ's decision against Amazon, and its ramifications for all employers.NLRB ALJ Decision on Amazon CEO CommentsNLRB's Basic Guide to the National Labor Relations ActFor all prior episodes of Labor Relations Radio, go here.__________________________LaborUnionNews.com's Labor Relations Radio is a subscriber-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a subscriber here.

The U.S. Supreme Court has heard arguments in the case of SEC v. Jarkesy. NCLA proudly filed an amicus curiae brief in this case, with core constitutional rights at stake. SEC prosecuted George R. Jarkesy, Jr. in a years-long administrative proceeding that denied him his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. His administrative proceeding was adjudicated by an ALJ who was improperly insulated from removal. For both of these reasons, NCLA encouraged the court to rule against the SEC. NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Peggy Little joins the show to discuss the oral argument in Jarkesy.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Bryan Conley is a shareholder and experienced litigator at Wolf Greenfield who focuses his practice on intellectual property matters at the agency, trial, and appellate levels. He regularly represents high profile technology clients at trial concerning their most challenging patent matters.One area of intense interest lately has been Section 337 investigations. These investigations into unfair import practices are conducted by the US International Trade Commission and most often involve claims regarding intellectual property rights, including allegations of patent infringement and trademark infringement by imported goods. In this episode of IP Talk with Wolf Greenfield, Bryan offers a detailed look at Section 337. Here are some of the highlights.00:56 - Bryan provides an overview of Section 337 investigations02:41 - Factors driving the increase in questions related to public interest 05:27 - Examples of public interest factors that the Commission considers06:28 - The role of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)07:38 - Bryan explains why the ITC is more willing to delegate public interest fact finding to the ALJ when standard essential patents (SEPs) are involved 08:52 - Why it's critical for private parties to create a public interest record and what should be included in that record10:32 - Recent impactful public interest Section 337 cases12:39 - It's important for respondents to act quickly to highlight the significance of public interest factors after a complaint is filed13:57 - The top four statutory factors that are important when developing a public interest strategy and related arguments15:23 - Bryan describes “tailoring” 16:31 - Final suggestions on preparing for and dealing with public interest Section 337 issues

In September, a panel of judges on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument in Illumina v. Federal Trade Commission. Earlier this year, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ordered biotechnology company Illumina to unwind its $8 billion acquisition of Grail, a cancer-screening startup. This case began with a 2021 administrative complaint challenging the transaction. In September 2022, the FTC's administrative law judge (FTC) concluded that the FTC “failed to prove its asserted prima facie case that Illumina's post-Acquisition ability and incentive to advantage Grail to the disadvantage of Grail's alleged rivals is likely to result in a substantial lessening of competition in the relevant market.” The FTC complaint counsel appealed the decision of the ALJ to the commissioners, who then voted to overturn the ALJ's decision, ordering Illumina to divest the acquisition. The case is now pending before the Fifth Circuit.Please join us as we break down oral argument and discuss the broader implications of Illumina v. FTC.Featuring:Ashley Baker, Director of Public Policy, Committee for JusticeJohn B. Kirkwood, Professor of Law, Seattle University School of LawModerator: Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Look around you - almost everything in your home or office was once on an ocean shipping vessel. Yet this essential area of commerce continues to enjoy one of the oldest exemptions from US antitrust law. Does this loophole keep prices low for consumers? Or does it raise prices for shippers and make supply shocks worse? Hosts Anant Raut and David Golden are joined by Shipping Act expert Melissa Maxman and the American Antitrust Institute's Kathleen Bradish to debate whether it's time to deep-six the Shipping Act antitrust exemption. With special guests: Kathleen Bradish, Acting President, American Antitrust Institute and Melissa Maxman, Partner, Cohen & Gresser LLP Related Links: American Antitrust Institute report on "Competition Enforcement, Private Actions, and the Shipping Act" Hosted by: Anant Raut and David Golden

In this episode Max Ajl returns to the podcast. Max Ajl is an educator and a researcher and the author of A People's Green New Deal, which we highly recommend and had a previous discussion of back in 2021. He is also the associate editor of Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy. We caught up with Max back in early August to talk about one of his recent pieces, from Agrarian South. The article is entitled “Theories of Political Ecology: Monopoly Capital Against People and the Planet.”  It's a very interesting article that covers a range of ostensibly left-wing approaches to ecology and the ecological crisis through a critical lens. Recording this conversation in the middle of summer there were a number of events and conversations we reference that folks will recall. This will be a two-part release. In this first portion we talk about the theory of ecologically unequal exchange, wheat and cereal grains as weapons of imperialism, bananas and fresh fruits in the first world, and get into some of Alj's critiques of different strains of political ecology. In particular in this episode Max talks about Andreas Malm's formulation of “Fossil Capitalism,” and also critically engages with the frameworks of eco-modernism and extractivism.  Ajl challenges the euro-centric variants of Marxism that dominate much of the first-world Marxist engagement with ecological questions, raising the importance of bringing anti-imperialist analysis, a world-system level understanding of capitalism and solidarity with national liberation movements into the theory and practice of ecological movements.  We will link the article we discuss in the show notes as well as some of the articles that Max mentions in the discussion.  In part two of this conversation which will come out in a few days, we will talk a little more about eco-modernism and get into degrowth as well. This is our first episode of the month of October, we thankfully hit our goal of new patrons for the last month. And have set a goal once again to add 40 new patrons this month to keep up with nonrenewals and hopefully slowly increase our base of support for the show. Thanks to everyone who contributes. You can become a patron of the show for as little as $1 a month at patreon.com/millennialsarekillingcapitalism   Links/Citations: “Theories of Political Ecology: Monopoly Capital Against People and the Planet.” by Max Ajl (the subject of the episode) Patrick Higgins articles referenced Charlotte Kates article referenced Archana Prasad mentioned    

Vendredi 22 septembre, Erwan Morice a reçu Frère Grégoire Requier, ex-DRH d'EDF, Emmanuel Chila, coach en prise de parole chez Wayta Formation, Anne-Lyse Joliot, ancienne DRH, directrice du cabinet ALJ ressources et Aude Jean, responsable des ventes chez AirPlus internationa. Ils sont revenus sur le management de ses anciens collègues, encadrer des amis et assurer la collaboration mutuelle ? L'utilisation de l'Anglicisme dans la langue française, ainsi que de l'AirPlus international, une solution de paiement pour les entreprises, dans l'émission Happy Boulot le mag sur BFM Business. Retrouvez l'émission le vendredi et réécoutez

In the five-step audit appeals process, hospices often stop their appeal efforts after finding success at the third step, a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). However, if an ALJ issues an unfavorable decision, the hospice still has recourse. In this episode, Husch Blackwell's Meg Pekarske and Bryan Nowicki talk about dealing with an unfavorable ALJ decision, including how to evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, costs, and benefits of pursuing the remaining steps of the appeal process.

On this day in legal history, Italy turned from a monarchy into a republic following a public referendum.  On June 2, 1946, Italy underwent a momentous transformation as it transitioned from a monarchy to a republic, marking a significant milestone in its history. This pivotal event was the result of a nationwide referendum held following the fall of Fascism and the end of World War II. The choice before the Italian people was clear: they had to decide between retaining King Umberto II as their monarch or establishing a republic. The Italian people, weary of the autocratic rule that had characterized the monarchy and the role the country played in the Second World War, cast their votes to determine the country's future. With an overwhelming majority, they chose to abolish the monarchy and establish a republic, cementing their commitment to democratic principles. This decision led to the creation of the Italian Republic, where sovereignty now rested with the people. Italy had been ruled by the House of Savoy, a royal family that held power since the unification of the country in the late 19th century. As a result of the referendum, King Umberto II, the last monarch of Italy and the House of Savoy, abdicated his throne on June 18, 1946. The monarchy was formally abolished, and the Italian Republic was proclaimed. The head of state would now be a president, elected by the Parliament.This transition also sparked a wave of reforms, including land reform, labor rights, and the expansion of social welfare programs. Italy embarked on a path of modernization and reconstruction, focusing on economic development, infrastructure, and education. The republican system allowed for greater political participation and representation, empowering the Italian people to shape their own destiny.Starbucks, the world's largest coffee chain, has been found to be violating federal labor law in numerous administrative law decisions, indicating a deliberate effort to impede unionization and disregard the authority of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Over the past eight months, Starbucks has lost 16 out of 17 cases decided by NLRB administrative law judges, facing charges such as worker intimidation, discriminatory rules, and unlawful termination of union organizers. The company has also been accused of interfering with NLRB processes, reflecting a corporate strategy that treats labor law violations as a mere cost of doing business. The rulings, although representing a fraction of the NLRB complaints against Starbucks, could strengthen allegations in other cases and potentially lead to court injunctions. The NLRB has filed nearly 100 complaints against Starbucks based on union-filed charges, while Starbucks has reciprocated with charges against Starbucks Workers United, the union representing its employees. Critics argue that Starbucks seems to undermine the NLRB's authority, believing it will be vindicated by the courts or that the board's remedies are insufficient to change its behavior. These labor law violations shed light on Starbucks' alleged anti-union campaign, which the company denies, emphasizing its commitment to policies that prohibit retaliation against organizers and its dedication to engaging in collective bargaining. The ALJ decisions have revealed a pattern of violations, including illegal statements made by managers and promises of benefits to dissuade unionization efforts. Such previous misconduct can serve as evidence in future cases, demonstrating anti-union motives. As Starbucks continues to face legal challenges, labor law experts suggest that the company is prepared to fight these allegations extensively, reinforcing the need for a comprehensive cease-and-desist order to curtail its nationwide strategy.Starbucks Is Racking Up Labor Law Violations as Rulings Roll inThe US Supreme Court has ruled in an 8-1 decision that federal labor law does not prevent a ready-mix concrete company from suing a union in state court for alleged intentional destruction of property during a strike. The ruling allows costly lawsuits against striking unions based on the economic consequences of their protests and may lead to state legislation curbing strike conduct. However, the decision is specific to the case and does not reshape the law on strike protections. The case involved Glacier Northwest Inc., a concrete supplier, accusing an International Brotherhood of Teamsters affiliate of coordinating with truck drivers to time their strike in a way that would result in wasted concrete. The Supreme Court overturned a Washington state high court decision and clarified the boundaries of state and local efforts to regulate conduct in relation to the National Labor Relations Act. The majority opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, emphasized the duty of the Teamsters affiliate to protect Glacier's property and stated that the union's conduct went beyond the protections of the NLRA. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch indicated their willingness to reconsider the broad preemption doctrine of the NLRA. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, suggesting that labor disputes of this nature should be resolved by the National Labor Relations Board. The ruling was seen by Glacier's attorney and the National Federation of Independent Business as upholding the balance of power between labor unions and employers, while the Teamsters criticized it for favoring corporations over workers. The Service Employees International Union expressed satisfaction that the right to strike was not rolled back. The Teamsters affiliate's attorney noted that the ruling left options open for the union to seek preemption in state court based on new evidence. Overall, the decision is not expected to limit union workers' ability to strike.For further reading, check out coverage here and discussion of same here.Justices Allow Company to Sue Union for Strike Destruction (2)Supreme Court ruling could chill labor strikes | ReutersAirbnb has filed a lawsuit against New York City over a new law that the company claims will act as a "de facto ban" on short-term rentals. The law, set to take effect in July, will impose stricter regulations on hosts, requiring them to register with the city and comply with various complex regulations. Airbnb argues that these regulations will make it more difficult for hosts to do business. The company is seeking a court order to block the enforcement of the law. In response, the Mayor's office stated that it will review the lawsuit while emphasizing its commitment to protecting safety and community livability.Airbnb sues New York City over short-term rental restrictions | ReutersThe Gambian government has hired a U.S. law firm to explore potential legal action following an investigation that found contaminated medicines from India were likely responsible for the deaths of children in the country. At least 70 children, mostly under the age of 5, died from acute kidney injury between June and October. Local doctors suspected Indian-imported cough syrups, and tests by the World Health Organization confirmed the presence of lethal toxins. Gambian Justice Minister Dawda Jallow stated that legal action was being considered, but did not specify the target or name the law firm involved. The medicines linked to the deaths were manufactured by Indian drugmaker Maiden Pharmaceuticals, which denied wrongdoing. A report by a panel of international experts indicated that 22 of the analyzed cases were "very likely" caused by poisoning from the toxins found in Maiden products. The causality assessment and the justice ministry's recommendations will be made public within six months. Gambia plans to establish a testing facility for imported drugs with support from the World Bank.Read coverage by here. Exclusive: Gambia hires US law firm to consider action on toxic Indian cough syrup, minister says | ReutersThe US Supreme Court has revived two False Claims Act (FCA) suits against SuperValu Inc. and Safeway Inc. that were filed by whistleblowers alleging overcharging the government for prescription drugs. The suits were initially rejected by the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for lack of "scienter," (SAI-UHN-TER) which refers to a defendant's knowledge and subjective beliefs. The Supreme Court stated that the appeals court failed to consider evidence of subjective intent and that the scienter element should focus on the defendant's actual mental state, not an objectively reasonable interpretation. The companies are accused of falsely reporting reimbursement prices to Medicaid and Medicare, claiming they were their "usual and customary" prices while charging retail customers less. Whistleblowers can establish scienter by demonstrating that the companies knew their reported prices were inaccurate, were aware of the risk but intentionally avoided verifying accuracy, or submitted claims despite being aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk. The ruling is expected to make it more challenging for defendants to seek early dismissal based on lack of scienter, potentially leading to increased discovery costs and more FCA cases being brought forward.Supreme Court Reopens Fraud Suits Against SuperValu, Safeway (1) Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This episode is hands-down one of Sean's favorites to date... This episode exposes the Medicare Administrative Appeals Process for what it really is... Smoke and mirrors! The fact is, even if you prevail at the ALJ level there is a significant chance you can still lose the case based on an AdQIC referring the case to the Departmental Appeals Board (DAB)! Sean is definitely in a rare and irritated mood, which makes this episode that much more enjoyable! Charity of the Month - The Tafida Raqeeb Foundation was formally launched on 22 March 2022 in London, United Kingdom. The Foundation believes that every child deserves a chance to live after any suffering from any form of neurological condition. Every year over 300,000 children attend A&E in the UK with a head injury. Website: www.tr-foundation.org

Renowned Federal Judge Retains NCLA to Oppose CAFC Chief Judge's Unlawful Efforts to Oust Her NCLA has written to Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit expressing concern with her efforts to remove fellow U.S. Circuit Judge Pauline Newman. Chief Judge Moore claims that Judge Newman “is unable to discharge all duties of the office by reason of mental or physical disability.” Moore has appointed a three-judge special committee—including herself—to investigate the matter. Mark, Vec, and NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Greg Dolin discuss the move to remove Judge Newman from the bench. Challenging SEC's ‘Hotel California' Administrative Adjudication Regime Since 2014, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has been inspecting, investigating, and prosecuting Marian Young and her former investment business Saving2Retire, LLC, with no end in sight. SEC's adjudication regime has deprived them of a jury trial and the Commission itself is now willfully refusing to decide their appeal from an administrative law judge's (ALJ) initial decision issued back in August 2019, effectively blocking them from access to federal court review for nearly four years. NCLA has filed a petition on behalf of Ms. Young and her company, asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to issue a writ of mandamus against the SEC Commissioners in In re Marian P. Young and Saving2Retire, LLC that would compel them to either dismiss the case or else promptly decide the appeal in the agency's eight-year-old administrative matter. NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Russ Ryan joins the show to talk through In re Marian P. Young and Saving2Retire, LLC.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Following his retirement from the Navy in 1998, where he had spent many years on the bench as a judge, Ken Krantz served as an Administrative Law Judge for three different Federal agencies. While Ken acknowledges his information about when he became an ALJ is a little dated, he nonetheless brings awareness to the opportunities that are out there for people who would like to serve as one after leaving the JAG Corps. In addition to providing a link to a fact sheet on ALJ put out by the Office of Personal Management (https://www.opm.gov/services-for-agencies/administrative-law-judges/fact-sheet-administrative-law-judge-alj-positions-posted.pdf), Ken is open to connecting to interested lawyers via LinkedIn. His profile can be found at https://www.linkedin.com/in/kenneth-krantz-06586530/. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tom-welsh/support

NCLA Wins Big at Supreme Court, Nets Unanimous Decision In an historic ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that Texas Accountant Michelle Cochran has the right to challenge the constitutionality of her Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) removal protections in federal court before undergoing an administrative adjudication. NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Peggy Little joins Vec and Mark to discuss NCLA's recent Supreme Court win in SEC v. Cochran.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jury Trials in Administrative Hearings NCLA filed an amicus curiae brief in Burgess v. FDIC, et al., urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to redress the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's (FDIC) unlawful enforcement action against Cornelius Campbell Burgess, which the agency pursued through its in-house administrative court. NCLA argues that FDIC's allegations must be tried in front of a jury rather than an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). FDIC's current ALJ enforcement regime deprives Burgess of his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. Mark and Vec discuss jury trials in administrative hearings with NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Greg Dolin.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The concern is real. And it's growing.Providers could incur False Claims Act (FCA) liability when care that is delivered crosses over from “worth less” to “worthless.” You need to know where to draw the line. And that's why we asked physician and attorney John K. Hall to explain, during the next live edition of Monitor Mondays.Broadcast segments will also include these instantly recognizable features:Special Report: Prominent healthcare attorney Andrew Wachler, managing partner at Wachler and Associates, will return to the broadcast to report on meeting the 90-day statutory timeframe for administrative law judge (ALJ) hearings.Monday Rounds: Ronald Hirsch, MD, vice president of R1 RCM, will be making his Monday Rounds.The RAC Report: Healthcare attorney Knicole Emanuel, partner at the law firm of Practus, will report the latest news about auditors.Risky Business: Healthcare attorney David Glaser, shareholder in the law offices of Fredrikson & Bryon, will join the broadcast with his trademark segment.Legislative Update: Cate Brantley, a legislative analyst for Zelis, will report on current healthcare legislation.The Wrapper: John Zelem, founder and CEO of Streamline Consulting Solutions, will join the broadcast for a wrap-up on the morning's top stories.

Recently, there has been an uptick in contractor participation at the administrative law judge (ALJ) stage of hospice audit appeals. This development poses unique challenges and new advocacy opportunities for providers. In this episode, Husch Blackwell's Meg Pekarske talks with Bryan Nowicki, Emily Solum and Zaina Niles about how hospices can prepare for and get the most out of contractor appearances at ALJ hearings.

On November 7, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Michelle Cochran v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In April 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought an enforcement action against Michelle Cochran, a certified public accountant, alleging that she had failed to comply with federal auditing standards. A SEC administrative law judge (ALJ) determined Cochran had violated federal law, fined her $22,500, and banned her from practicing before the SEC for five years. The SEC adopted the ALJ's decision, and Cochran objected.Before the SEC could rule on Cochran's objection, the Supreme Court decided Lucia v. SEC, in which it held that SEC ALJs are officers of the United States under the Appointments Clause, who must be appointed by the President, a court of law, or a department head. In response to the Lucia ruling, the SEC remanded all pending administrative cases for new proceedings before constitutionally appointed ALJs, including Cochran's. Cochran filed a federal lawsuit arguing that while Lucia may have addressed one constitutional issue with ALJs, it left uncorrected another problem: because SEC ALJs enjoy multiple layers of "for-cause" removal protection, they are unconstitutionally insulated from the President's Article II removal power. The district court dismissed her case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on five circuit courts of appeal ruling that the Exchange Act implicitly stripped district courts of the jurisdiction to hear challenges to ongoing SEC enforcement proceedings. Arguing that in 2010, the Supreme Court had unanimously ruled in Free Enterprise Fund that nothing in the Exchange Act stripped federal court jurisdiction either explicitly, or implicitly, Cochran appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. A three judge panel affirmed the dismissal 2-1, but later, the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc, reversed 9-7, holding that Cochran had district court jurisdiction to bring her challenge to the SEC ALJ's removal protections. Tune in to hear a breakdown of the oral argument.

On November 7, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Michelle Cochran v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In April 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought an enforcement action against Michelle Cochran, a certified public accountant, alleging that she had failed to comply with federal auditing standards. A SEC administrative law judge (ALJ) determined Cochran had violated federal law, fined her $22,500, and banned her from practicing before the SEC for five years. The SEC adopted the ALJ's decision, and Cochran objected. Before the SEC could rule on Cochran's objection, the Supreme Court decided Lucia v. SEC, in which it held that SEC ALJs are officers of the United States under the Appointments Clause, who must be appointed by the President, a court of law, or a department head. In response to the Lucia ruling, the SEC remanded all pending administrative cases for new proceedings before constitutionally appointed ALJs, including Cochran's. Cochran filed a federal lawsuit arguing that while Lucia may have addressed one constitutional issue with ALJs, it left uncorrected another problem: because SEC ALJs enjoy multiple layers of "for-cause" removal protection, they are unconstitutionally insulated from the President's Article II removal power. The district court dismissed her case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on five circuit courts of appeal ruling that the Exchange Act implicitly stripped district courts of the jurisdiction to hear challenges to ongoing SEC enforcement proceedings. Arguing that in 2010, the Supreme Court had unanimously ruled in Free Enterprise Fund that nothing in the Exchange Act stripped federal court jurisdiction either explicitly, or implicitly, Cochran appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. A three judge panel affirmed the dismissal 2-1, but later, the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc, reversed 9-7, holding that Cochran had district court jurisdiction to bring her challenge to the SEC ALJ's removal protections. The case is set to be argued on Nov 7, 2022. We will break down the oral argument for this case on the next day, November 8, 2022. Featuring:--Margaret A. Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

October 14, 2022Mark, Ray, and Scott welcome special guest Dr. John Lin.  Dr. Lin shares he almost lost over $8k due to documentation/appeal snafu and how he finally won it at the ALJ level.Dr. Lin is the administrator of The Thriving Urology Practice Facebook group.The Thriving Urology Practice Facebook Group link to join:https://www.facebook.com/groups/ThrivingPractice/  Urology Advanced Coding and Reimbursement Seminar  - Registration OpenLas Vegas, NV - December 2-3, 2022New Orleans, LA - January 27-28, 2023Register NowCompliance PlansQuestions or need help, please send us an email: info@prsnetwork.com Join the discussion:Urology Coding and Reimbursement Group - Join for free and ask your questions, and share your wisdom.Click Here to Start Your Free Trial of AUACodingToday.com 

Labor Law Insider host Tom Godar welcomes two new Labor Law Insiders as they discuss the shifting standards applied by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to traditional employment policies found in almost every employee handbook, including social media policies. Tom is joined by two new California-based Husch Blackwell attorneys, Tyler Paetkau and Olga Savage. These experienced labor counsel review employer policies that are under greater NLRB scrutiny, which is currently dominated by Biden Administration appointees. Tyler and Olga present a compelling argument that the world of labor law will change at a far greater pace than what might be expected by a mere change of administration from Republican to Democrat. This sea change has been almost exclusively through administrative action rather than through federal legislation, although some state legislation is changing the picture in various jurisdictions, such as California. In August of 2021 General Counsel Abruzzo set forth a blueprint for these pro-labor changes, which called for changes related to confidentiality policies, union access, and many more employer handbook rules. That blueprint is now being followed in still more GC memorandums, as well as ALJ decisions, which show a sharp turn from the policies that the Trump NLRB had initiated. See the contrast in the two NLRB cases in less than one year, one decided by the Trump-majority NLRB, and the other by the NLRB with the new Biden appointments. One of the more frustrating results for employers is the lack of predictability as to how facially neutral policies might be reviewed and found in violation of the National Labor Relations Act.This makes it difficult for employers to know what to do when they see highly derogatory comments on Facebook or in social media regarding their company when it seemed unlikely these were within the context of what traditionally had been identified as protected concerted activity but is now being seen in exactly that light. Essentially, the Board is—one policy at a time—undoing the more employer-friendly standards that had been in play under the Trump and Obama administrations. As the podcast closes, Olga Savage gives a brief but compelling description of how the standard of reviewing policies has changed. If an employer adopts a neutral policy, not targeting traditional organizing activity or activity related to concerted discussions among employees about wages, hours, working conditions, the review of that policy and its application revolves around the potential to chilling impact on employee expression. Such a policy that could be interpreted as having that impact, regardless of employer intent or the express disclaimer regarding protected concerted activity, i.e., Section 7 rights of employees, will itself be seen as a violation and give rise to the possibility of NLRB violations and remedies. Our companion Labor Law Insider podcast, which will follow in a very short time, goes into greater detail and specific application of these changes. Tyler and Olga discuss how these NLRB changes will affect employers reviewing handbook policies that relate to such standard areas as confidentiality, discussion of individual wages, rules for employer investigations, or use of the internet to criticize the employer or its agents. Enjoy this podcast and stay tuned for its follow up podcast in about two weeks.

1. Mark and Kara discuss Hennis case over EPA land grab 1 EPA's “Orange River” DisasterTodd Hennis spent decades building his nest egg as owner of the Gold King Mine near Silverton,Colorado. But seven years ago, the U.S Environmental Protection Agency destroyed the entranceto the mine causing a breach and releasing a toxic sludge of over three million gallons of acidmine drainage and 880,000 pounds of heavy metals. Referred to as the “orange (or yellow) riverseen around the world”, the rush of contamination snaked down the Animus River watershed.NCLA represents Mr. Hennis in his lawsuit, Hennis v. U.S., seeking compensation for the yearsEPA has been squatting on his property without his permission or constitutional authority to doso without just compensation. Mark and NCLA Litigation Counsel Kara Rollins discuss Hennisover EPA's land grab. 2. Mark and Russ discuss latest NCLA amicus, involving ALJ tenure protection at FDIC 2 NCLA Calls for Full Sixth Circuit to Reconsider FDIC ALJ ProtectionsNCLA has filed an amicus brief in a case addressing whether certain Federal Deposit InsuranceCorporation officers, including the agency's ALJs, are protected by multiple layers of tenureprotection in violation of the “Take Care” clause of the Constitution. NCLA asks the SixthCircuit Court of Appeals to grant the petition for rehearing in Calcutt v. FDIC.Mark and NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel or Russ Ryan discuss the latest NCLA amicus.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Employers are at the receiving end of the enhanced remedies championed by General Counsel Jennifer A. Abruzzo of the National Relations Labor Board. General Counsel Abruzzo has taken the interesting avenue of highlighting the success of the board in implementing these changes. On June 23, the General Counsel released her Memorandum GC 22-06, which essentially touted the enhanced remedies, or what she described as “full remedies in settlements.” Included in the memorandum were examples of regions securing compensation for derivative economic harm. That is, employers were forced to provide not just full back pay and benefits for employees, but also additional economic relief, including fees for late car loan payments or late rent, or reimbursement of interest payments on loans that were taken out by employees to cover living expenses and even the “cost of baby formula due to the loss of workplace breast pump station.” Further, General Counsel Abruzzo highlighted that the terms of settlement have included letters of apology to reinstated employees, mailing of the notice to all employees who had been employed at the time of or during the previous year, permitting union use of company bulletin boards, and even creating a video recording of a board agent reading the notice of violation while a company representative is in the frame, to be distributed to employees at the workplace. One can only imagine where else that video is distributed.  Labor Law Insider attorney Terry Potter of Husch Blackwell not only touches on this memorandum, but also reviews developments related to the Starbucks organizing campaign. There, the board is demanding remedies of bargaining orders and other broad relief in the context of alleged unfair labor practices. Finally, listeners will hear of bargaining orders even without any majority showing of union support by the employees. Terry also describes at least one potential strategy of taking a settlement which might not be approved by a regional office of the NLRB to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) assigned to hear the case, as the ALJ may not feel as beholden to the General Counsel's mandate of harsh remedies.

1 Due Process Victory! AZ Court of Appeals Sides with NCLA A three-judge panel of the Arizona Court of Appeals ordered the removal of NCLA client Phillip B.'s name from the Arizona Department of Child Safety (DCS) Central Registry of substantiated findings of child abuse. DCS's then-Director had ‘deleted' factual findings and credibility determinations made by an independent administrative law judge (ALJ) who took live testimony in the case. DCS thereby unjustly destroyed Phillip B.'s reputation and career. In a decision that vindicates Phillip B., the Arizona Court of Appeals held: “Because [the DCS] Director's Decision here does not meet the regulatory requirements for a substantiated finding, there is no legal authority for the Director to enter Phillip B.'s name into the Registry.” Mark announces the victory in the AZ Court of Appeals. 2 In NCLA Amicus Win, SCOTUS Rules Against HHS A unanimous Supreme Court has ruled that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) violated the 2003 Medicare Act by lowering drug reimbursement rates for specific hospitals. NCLA filed an amicus brief in support of petitioners in American Hospital Association v. Becerra. NCLA agreed with the petitioners' argument that HHS's authority under the Medicare statute to “adjust[ ]” average sales price when calculating reimbursement rates does not include wholesale authority to substitute acquisition costs for average sales price. Mark discusses the amicus victory. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Se disputará en Elda y Petrer con el Aljúcer ElPozo, Ciudad de Móstoles y Unicaja Banco Ciudad de Toledo como rivales

This week's episode includes disciplinary action taken against a southern Indiana judge, the finalists for the upcoming Marion Superior Court vacancy and a complaint filed by The Bail Project and ACLU of Indiana regarding a new Indiana law. This week's guest is Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law professor Gerard Magliocca, who discusses the recent SCOTUS draft opinion leak, his involvement during an ALJ hearing in Georgia regarding U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and his new book on Justice Bushrod Washington. 

This week in airplane news: Trent Palmer's license has been suspended, a pilot claimed responsibility for the RedBull stunt, Spirit rejects Jetblue offer, Cape Air orders 75 Eviation Alice Aircraft. Pilot and YouTuber Trent Palmer announced on Thursday that the FAA suspended his certificate for 60 days The FAA accuses Palmer of violating 14 CFR 91.13: careless and reckless operation of an aircraft 14 CFR 91.119(a) and (c), which cover minimum safe altitudes, including allowing for an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property if a power unit fails and not operating an aircraft closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure except when necessary for takeoff or landing. “The problem here is the precedents or the case law that is established by the decision. The problem with that is that by the judge or ALJ stating that because I didn't land it wasn't a necessary landing procedure, now that would basically mean that any time we want to land in a new place that would require inspection passes to assess the feasibility of that spot, if there were any chance that you were within 500 feet of a vehicle, vessel, person, or structure—knowingly or unknowingly—you would need to go land there for it to not be a violation, meaning there would be external pressures making us change our aeronautical decision making.” https://www.avweb.com/flight-safety/faa-regs/youtuber-trent-palmers-license-suspended/ Pilot and Skydiver Luke Aikins claimed responsibility for continuing red bull's plane swap stunt without a waiver “As Project Lead and Chief Pilot, it was entirely my responsibility to operate within the regulatory framework to ensure a successful outcome” The FAA is investigating, and we'll see if they decide to give these pilots the same thing they did for Trevor Jacobs. https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/pilot-claims-responsibility-for-attempting-plane-swap-without-faa-exemption/ Spirit Airlines rejected a purchase offer from JetBlue, citing a low probability of obtaining antitrust clearance. JetBlue launched this bid to compete with the merger between Spirit and Frontier JetBlue offered MORE than Frontier, but the board of directors found that the risk assigned to stockholders was not worth the additional money in the offer. https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/spirit-rejects-jetblue-bid Cape Air has signed a Letter of Intent with Eviation to purchase 75 Alice aircraft. According to the Eviation, Alice will have a top cruise speed of 250kts, a maximum payload of 2500lbs, and a range of 440NM. The aircraft will seat 9 passengers and two crew. Eviation expects the Alice to fly “In the upcoming weeks” https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/cape-air-signs-deal-for-75-electric-alice-commuter-aircraft

  Now that the Fall 2021 half of the regular school year has come to an end and all the students on my caseload are on Winter Break, I'm taking advantage of the break from back-to-back Individualized Education Program (IEP) meetings to reflect on the most serious issues I've had to deal with so far during this first half of the current school year.   While I've had to deal with a lot of different challenges, it is the impact that the lack of appropriate services during shutdown, from March of 2020 to August or September of 2021, that has hit hardest. It's been the absolute most hardest on my students with intensive behavioral services in their IEPs who have suffered the most regression and lost educational benefits. School districts all over Southern California, and likely elsewhere throughout the State and beyond, refused to provide in-person services to children on IEPs who required them in order to continue learning during shutdown.   This was in spite of explicit changes to State law that mandated in-person services for those special education students who needed it and compensatory education for any special education students who lost educational benefits during shutdown. Not only were in-person services denied, compensatory services are still being denied as school districts act like their students' regression has nothing to do with the fact that the districts failed to provide in-person services to these children during shutdown.   What was done instead? Aides employed originally to provide direct, in-person support to these students in the classroom setting were put on Zoom, Google Meets, Microsoft Teams, or whatever else platform their employers were using for distance learning as remote participants. How in the Hell an aide on Zoom was supposed to provide the supports necessary to facilitate the student's participation in online learning via Zoom was anyone's guess. It consistently failed to work.   Further, even though the new laws clearly made it an option, only one of my students' districts hired a non-public agency (NPA) to provide in-person behavioral support services in the student's home during distance learning so the student's behaviors could not be permitted to allow him to escape/avoid the instruction. Instead, they rewarded his participation and prompted him to return to task when his attention wandered, so he was able to make excellent academic progress during distance learning.   What he wasn't able to work on was his social skills with peers and adults in normal everyday settings. When he returned to on-campus learning, his classroom behaviors became increasingly challenging and the behaviors of the other students in the class became escalated in response. It eventually got so bad that the other students in his non-public school (NPS) classroom assaulted his NPA behavior aide because they blamed her for keeping him in their class. He triggered them that badly.   We ultimately changed his placement right before Winter Break started and a due process case for the involved district's utter failure to offer or deliver a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for the last two years is now pending. Settlement is entirely possible, which I can't discuss in detail, and the IEP team has come up with a strategy to hopefully salvage his education for the moment, but this is a student who is able to meet academic standards in spite of his grossly impaired social skills.   Our concern is that he will graduate with a diploma and get arrested the next day for acting out in public. His behavioral needs have been exacerbated by shutdown because he didn't get any instruction or practice in behaving in socially appropriate ways when in-person with peers or adults at school. In part, this was because the NPS he had attended had a “philosophy” that failed to conform with the evidence-based scientifically valid practices of the NPA that was providing his behavioral interventions.   As such, NPS staff regularly failed to abide by the Behavioral Intervention Plan (BIP) in the student's IEP, much to the frustration of the NPA experts who had designed it and much to the danger of the Behavioral Intervention Implementation (BII) staff who was assaulted by my student's classmates because he made them so upset. Rather than work collaboratively with the experts hired to address his behaviors using methods proven to work by science, the NPS staff would engage in ad hoc interventions based on whatever ideas popped into their science-denying minds in the given moment, none of which worked.   Most of the students in the NPS had mental and emotional health needs, many of which arising from past trauma, but our student had autism and just didn't know how to read the room. It was dubious as an appropriate placement from the outset, but the ecological factors of the on-campus setting weren't a problem during distance learning.   It wasn't until our student, who not only has autism, but also ADHD, started attending on-campus, which required him to be in transport between home and school for a total of five hours per day, and then attempt to behave in a socially appropriate manner among other students with serious mental and emotional health needs, that things really fell apart. He might as well have been put into a rocking chair in a room full of long-tailed cats.   The harm was inevitable. And, as always, he's being blamed and vilified while no one from his school district offers something appropriate to his needs. We're hoping the interim placement he has for now will benefit him more than where he's been, but it's still less than ideal. It may take a judge to figure it all out.   I've had two other students on my caseload face expulsion just within the last few weeks. One student's case just recently settled after the involved school district attempted to assert that behaviors that were clearly associated with the student's disabilities somehow magically were not, during a Manifestation Determination (MD) IEP meeting.   The only way for a parent to appeal an MD IEP meeting outcome is to file for due process. Because the student is facing expulsion, the hearing is automatically expedited. This gives parents very little time to prepare for hearing, much less find adequate representation.   I was able to refer this family to an attorney right away who was able to handle the MD appeal via due process. We were lucky to find a really good attorney who could take the case right away and handle it. Most of my attorney colleagues are overwhelmed with the volume of cases they are getting, right now. The violations are everywhere, evidently, and this failure to provide in-person services during shutdown when they truly were needed seems to be a recurring theme.   This case settled because we were able to move quickly through the process and find a good attorney who could handle going to an expedited hearing if necessary or otherwise negotiate an appropriate settlement. Not everybody is having that same experience, these days. This family was lucky. The violations in this student's case were pretty egregious and the attorney was able to convince the involved school district that it wasn't worth going to hearing.   My other student facing expulsion still awaits a decision from school site administration as to whether the principal should just let the IEP team effect a change in placement for special education reasons rather than subject this student to expulsion proceedings. Again, the involved school district tried to claim that the student's disability had nothing to do with the behaviors, which was simply ridiculous.   The student already had behavioral interventions built into his IEP to address the very kinds of behaviors for which he was in trouble. He had a history of escalating to the most outlandish behaviors he could think of to come right up to the line and just barely cross it enough to get himself kicked out of school to avoid the instruction. He hated it that much.   He had transitioned to his current placement in a Special Day Class (SDC) for special education students with behavioral challenges from a special school where all the students had behavioral challenges at the start of the 2019-20 school year and had been largely successful for most of that school year, until the shutdown started in March 2020. During that time, his targeted behaviors of work refusals and avoiding the classroom setting altogether were entirely reinforced by being stuck at home on the computer while the aides from his SDC were also in their own homes using their district's online meeting platform.   There was no one in his home trained in the interventions that were necessary to compel his compliance with teacher directions. There was no one who could make him even login. He had a baby sister at home and his mother was not about to have him triggered into angry outbursts in the home by trying to convince him to participate in the instruction with a baby in the house. Further, his mother was medically fragile and required multiple surgeries throughout the shutdown and afterwards. She was in no position to handle the angry outburst of a frustrated teenager with no impulse control due to ADHD struggling with the work because of a co-morbid learning disability.   We have a complaint pending before one of his school district's regulatory agencies in response to its mishandling of his behavioral needs to date. He is now pending expulsion for a behavior we're fairly convinced he engaged in so as to be kicked out of school. We don't believe he ever had any intent to hurt anyone, but he did enough wrong for someone who doesn't understand the function of his behaviors to think he might pose a credible threat. Law enforcement determined he posed no threat. It appears that district personnel may have exaggerated the severity of the behavior on purpose to justify expulsion.   All that said, the expulsion case may be dismissed if the district agrees to simply let the IEP team refer this student back to his previous placement at the special school. It was successful in preparing him for his transition to a comprehensive high school placement before shutdown; it should be able to return him to that state and help him transition back, again, with success. We also have a ton of new assessments pending to figure out what the most appropriate IEP for him should be, going forward.   This situation may deescalate before it has time to turn into a full kerfuffle. If we can all just agree to work together to address this student's serious behavioral regression through the IEP process and avoid the expulsion process altogether, particularly given that this district is being looked at very closely by one of its regulators right now for failing to adequately support this student thus far, already, we can implement a solution that will eliminate the parent's need to pursue accountability.   The goal isn't to nail the school district's hide to the wall; the goal is to get the student appropriately served as quickly as possible. Nailing hides to walls should only take place if it's absolutely necessary to get a student appropriately served as quickly as possible. It's a last resort option.   I have yet another student whose case is pending settlement, hopefully. It would be foolish on the part of his school district to allow it to go to hearing. I can't discuss much about it while it's pending settlement, but suffice it to say his school district totally blew it by failing to provide in-person behavioral services and supports during shutdown.   He has a host of learning challenges including partial vision loss, severe autism, intellectual disability, a seizure disorder, extremely limited communication skills, and self-injurious behaviors that frequently result in property damage in his home. His windows now have Plexiglas® panes and the dry wall in his home has been replaced so often, his family has lost count. He has made frequent trips to the emergency room and urgent care for medical treatment after hurting himself during an outburst. He has hurt his petite mother by accident.   He's now a young adult who is still eligible for special education and he's had these behavioral challenges his entire life. He's been a student of the same school district his entire public education career. It's not like they don't know what he needs. Before shutdown, he received intensive 1:1 and 2:1 behavioral supports throughout the school day to keep him safe and engaged in the instruction. He got none of that at home during shutdown.   His mother was left to be his 1:1 aide support during distance learning over a computer while his actual aide support staff stared back at him from the screen from their own homes. He was immediately triggered into violent outbursts because he didn't understand why he wasn't at school with these people instead of looking at them on a computer screen. His participation in distance learning had to stop immediately for his own safety and that of his mother. It's been a struggle ever since to get an offer of appropriate services in his IEP as a prospective matter of FAPE, much less with respect to all of the compensatory remedies he's due.   This student's case has been referred to a different attorney than the one mentioned above, but also an amazingly talented and smart one. Because settlement terms are still being discussed, I can't speak much further to the matter, but I think the point is made that this is happening way too much. We've got too many kids who didn't get what they needed during shutdown who are now owed compensatory remedies and they have until March 2022 to file for due process on their claims.   Special education attorneys who represent families are working at capacity with respect to their caseloads. That said, there have now been enough cases litigated and settled since the increase in claims began that openings are starting to come on many caseloads. Others are bogged down by appeals, which are largely occurring in the federal District Courts.   Some attorneys are having an easier time these days than others, just depending on whether they get good judges at the due process level, or have to work the appeals system before they get to someone willing to take the time to really listen to the arguments and examine the evidence relative to the rule of law and applicable science. That's always the chance that attorneys take with these cases, and it's not fun to work the appeals, I promise you.   I've provided paralegal support on cases all the way up to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and there is nothing more tedious than a Table of Uncontroverted Facts, because there are always facts that become controverted between the parties. The back-and-forth between the parties about what facts were agreed to, which ones were disputed, and all the references to the evidence and testimony on the existing record from the original due process case and previous appeal to the District Court that supposedly supported each party's asserted facts, became one of the most exhausting exercises I've ever engaged in as professional. I have ADHD – Inattentive Type, myself, so trust me when I say it was grueling.   Litigation should always be the very last resort to solving a special education problem, but these days it's been necessary. For those of you finding yourselves in similar circumstances, I'd like to share a decision from the California Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).   I downloaded the PDF of this decision just in case it ever gets taken down in the future, and have uploaded it to our site. Click here to download the PDF of this due process decision from California in which the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found in favor of a student who was deprived of educationally necessary in-person behavior services during shutdown, if the link to the OAH site doesn't work. In this case, the ALJ ordered compensatory services as remedies to the student.   If this decision can help you argue for resolution to your own child's lost educational benefits during shutdown, whether via due process or just a sensible discussion with your school district's representatives, it will have served its purpose as a persuasive authority on the subject. If you find it necessary to hire an attorney to file for due process over shutdown-related deprivation of educational benefits, be sure to share this authority with your attorney. They may have very well already seen it, but if you can relate the facts of your own child's case to the facts of this due process case linked to here, you will help bring your attorney up to speed regarding your child's claims, so you can timely file your case before March 2022.   You may also choose to use this decision to support your arguments as you advocate for your own child in the IEP process as a parent. If you share this decision with your school district's IEP team members and relate the facts of your child's situation to the similar facts in this due process case, presuming your child's case follows a similar pattern of a denial of behavioral services from his/her IEP during shutdown, your school district may be compelled to work with you rather than have you lawyer up and then have to deal with the costs of a legal action.   Parents' attorneys' fees and costs can be recovered from the offending school districts as a condition of settlement or upon prevailing in due process or appeal. School districts are smart to work things out through Informal Dispute Resolution (IDR) Agreements or Confidential Settlement Agreements, if they can. The costs of due process and any subsequent litigation are far too great for taxpayers to fund when those dollars could be spent on educating children, instead. Spending education dollars on fights over the deprivation of educational benefits just adds insult to injury, honestly.   The evidence is increasingly making clear that far-right politics have way too much influence on public education at various levels of government, from local to state to federal education agencies. This is how public service was infiltrated at its weakest point. Extremists would get elected by an uniformed or misinformed electorate, then hire their cronies to work for them within their agencies, undermining the efficacy of local government while mishandling the finances in order to “prove” that government doesn't work while arguing for increased local control and reduced regulatory oversight.   Then they pay themselves more than they'd ever earn in the private sector where job performance matters as they slash resources to those expected to actually deliver on the agency's mandates who work beneath them. This is the climate in which special education violations occur. This is why public agencies defy the regulations to the detriment to some of our most vulnerable children, many of whom coming from low-income households whose parents are often at a loss as to how to fight back. Most parents won't do anything because they don't know what to do and don't realize how badly their children are being hurt in the long run.   If you are a parent whose child did not get appropriate services during shutdown, and who has regressed and may require compensatory services to be brought back to where he/she should be in school, right now, you're not alone. Whether you negotiate resolution on your own with you local education agency or hire someone to help you, know that many other parents have already started to fight this same fight before you, and some really helpful decisions are coming out of the various venues that can help bolster the arguments you and/or your representatives make on behalf of your child.   I hope this helps you put your own child's situation into perspective and gives you some ideas on how to go forward in the most constructive and least adversarial way possible. I can only imagine the other families' stories that out there similar to the ones I've described and the case captured by the decision linked to above. All of you are in my heart and I'm praying for you all.

NCLA Wins Major Fifth Circuit en Banc Decision Versus SEC In a major victory for NCLA, the full Fifth Circuit bench ruled that Texas accountant Michelle Cochran has the right to challenge the constitutionality of her Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) removal protections in federal court before undergoing an administrative adjudication. NCLA represents Ms. Cochran in Michelle Cochran v. Securities and Exchange Commission. We applaud this decision, which will allow our client to plead her case before a real Article III federal court rather than be subjected to an endless series of unlawful agency hearings. At issue before the en banc panel was whether a provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 implicitly strips federal district courts of subject-matter jurisdiction to hear structural constitutional claims. Judge Haynes's opinion, joined by eight others, reverses and remands the district court's reluctantly adverse decision. Her decision for the court holds that Section 78y of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 neither explicitly nor implicitly strips federal district courts of jurisdiction to decide Article II removal questions.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hospice Audit SeriesAudits are a fact of life for hospices—it's not a matter of “if” a hospice will be audited, but “when.” The alphabet soup of audits has expanded, from UPICs to SMRCs, CPIs, TPEs and more. With the hospice carve-in to Medicare Advantage, MAO audits will join the list. The recent pause in audits as a result of the COVID pandemic hints at increased activity as the pandemic wanes. In this series, Meg Pekarske and Bryan Nowicki of Husch Blackwell's Hospice Audit team deconstruct the most recent developments in hospice audits, providing insight and guidance on the why, when and how of audits and—most importantly—what hospices can do about it.Today's Episode: Hospice Audit Series - Insights for Winning at Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Hearings, Part IIIn Part II of our two-part series on ALJ hearings, Husch Blackwell's Meg Pekarske unpacks strategies for winning with colleagues Bryan Nowicki, Emily Solum and Erin Burns. They explore what it means to be well-prepared and who should be on your team. They also share tips for overcoming the most common hurdles to winning, and the hidden surprises they have found in ALJ decisions. We hope you enjoy this engaging conversation!

Hospice Audit SeriesAudits are a fact of life for hospices—it's not a matter of “if” a hospice will be audited, but “when.” The alphabet soup of audits has expanded, from UPICs to SMRCs, CPIs, TPEs and more. With the hospice carve-in to Medicare Advantage, MAO audits will join the list. The recent pause in audits as a result of the COVID pandemic hints at increased activity as the pandemic wanes. In this series, Meg Pekarske and Bryan Nowicki of Husch Blackwell's Hospice Audit team deconstruct the most recent developments in hospice audits, providing insight and guidance on the why, when and how of audits and—most importantly—what hospices can do about it.Today's Episode: Hospice Audit Series - Insights for Winning at Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Hearings, Part IIn this two-part series, Husch Blackwell's Meg Pekarske unpacks strategies for winning at ALJ hearings with colleagues Bryan Nowicki, Emily Solum and Erin Burns. They explore what it means to be well-prepared and who should be on your team. They also share tips for overcoming the most common hurdles to winning, and the hidden surprises they have found in ALJ decisions. We hope you enjoy this engaging conversation!

Way back in January 2020, Sonos sued Google over patent infringement. Today, the streaming speaker company scored an early victory with the U.S. International Trade Commission. A preliminary ruling penned by ITC chief administrative law judge Charles Bullock finds that Google infringed on five patents. “Today the ALJ has found all five of Sonos' asserted […]

Cases covered this month: Chicago Commits Bodycam-Related Unfair Labor Practices, Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge #7 and City of Chicago, Case No. L-CA-20-024 (Ill. LRB ALJ 2021). Civil Service Referee Upholds Firefighter’s CBD-Based Termination, City of Cleveland (Colon), December 23, 2020. Link to CBD notice from Department of Transportation: https://www.transportation.gov/odapc/cbd-notice Fire Department’s Tattoo Policy Upheld, City of Brockton (Matchem), Case No. G1-19-234 (Mass. CSC 2021). Weingarten And Supervisory-Subordinate Conversations, Waukesha Deputy Sheriffs Labor Union v. Waukesha County, 2021 WL 1837223 (WI.Emp.Rel.Com. ALJ 2021). When Does A ULP Charge Block An Election? Coutre v. Village of Crestwood, 37 PERI ¶ 92... The post First Thursday, June 2021 appeared first on Labor Relations Information System.

There was a time when the word “logjam” seemed to be synonymous with the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearings conducted under the purview of the Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals (OMHA).Today, by all accounts, hearings are being scheduled almost back-to-back, and attorneys are scrambling to represent their clients during unprecendented times. Preparing for a multi-million-dollar hearing on Tuesday, May 25 is Andrew Wachler, managing partner at Wachler and Associates – and the cases he’s working have dates of service dating back to 2009 and 2010. With a long-established presence at the ALJ level of appeal, Wachler will brief Monitor Mondays listeners on the new reality during the next edition of the weekly Internet radio broadcast.Other segments to be featured during the live broadcast include the following:Monday Rounds: Ronald Hirsch, MD, vice president of R1 RCM, will return to make his Monday Rounds with another installment of his popular segment.RAC Report: Healthcare attorney Knicole Emanuel, a partner at the law firm of Practus, will file the Monitor Mondays RAC Report.Legislative Update: Former Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) official Matthew Albright, now chief legislative affairs officer for Zelis, will report on the latest healthcare regulatory news coming out of Washington, D.C.Risky Business: Healthcare attorney David Glaser, shareholder in the law offices of Fredrikson & Bryon, will join the broadcast with his trademark segment, reporting on legal implications facing healthcare providers.Social Determinants of Health: Ellen Fink-Samnick, a nationally recognized expert on the social determinants of health (SDoH), will report on the latest news that’s occurring at the intersection of healthcare and socioeconomics. Ellen will also conduct the Monitor Mondays Listeners Survey.Resources: https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Transmittalshttps://oig.hhs.gov/reports-and-publications/workplan/summary/wp-summary-0000585.asp

What percentage of administrative law judge (ALJ) decisions end up at the Medicare Appeals Council? What percentage of those decisions are reversed?These are important questions asked by a reader in response to a recent article written for RACmonitor by Frank Cohen, senior healthcare analyst and director of business intelligence for DoctorsManagement. Cohen, who has extensive experience as a subject matter expert in ALJ hearings, will look under the hood of the perpetual appeals machine, while sharing insight into the appeal process – describing how it is broken and why.Other segments to be featured during the live broadcast include the following:Monday Rounds: Ronald Hirsch, MD, vice president of R1 RCM, will return to make his Monday Rounds with another installment of his popular segment.RAC Report: Healthcare attorney Knicole Emanuel, a partner at the law firm of Practus, will file the Monitor Mondays RAC Report.Legislative Update: Former Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) official Matthew Albright, now chief legislative affairs officer for Zelis, will report on the latest healthcare regulatory news coming out of Washington.Risky Business: Healthcare attorney David Glaser, shareholder in the law offices of Fredrikson & Bryon, will join the broadcast with his trademark segment, reporting on legal implications facing healthcare providers. Social Determinants of Health: Ellen Fink-Samnick, a nationally recognized expert on the social determinants of health (SDoH), will report on the latest news that’s occurring at the intersection of healthcare and socioeconomics. Ellen will also conduct the Monitor Mondays Listeners Survey.

Carr v. Saul In this episode, Mark discusses NCLA's amicus win at SCOTUS in Carr v. Saul. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that the lower courts erred in imposing an issue-exhaustion requirement on Social Security disability claimants. In Carr v. Saul, claimants challenged a judge-made version of the administrative exhaustion rule, a requirement that litigants at an administrative hearing must raise any legal arguments in support of their claim at each step of the administrative process or forfeit those arguments on appeal. NCLA and the Cato Institute filed a joint amicus brief arguing that imposing issue exhaustion requirements is inappropriate when the issue does not depend on an agency's discretion, expertise, or fact-finding. In Justice Sotomayor's opinion for the Court, the judgments of the Eighth and Tenth Circuit Courts of Appeal were reversed under the reasoning that petitioners could not have developed their Appointments Clause challenges in the Social Security Administration (SSA) administrative law judge (ALJ) proceedings given that: (1) the proceedings were non-adversarial; and (2)(a) the structural constitutional claims at issue were ill suited for agency adjudication because they fell outside the agency's expertise; and (b) raising them would have been futile since the SSA ALJ could not have granted the claimants their requested relief. NCLA's amicus briefs in Lucia v. SEC and now Carr aim to ensure that agency adjudicators must afford people their constitutionally guaranteed rights. The Court's decision in Carr makes certain that Article III courts will serve as a constitutional backstop and step in to enforce the Constitution when agencies can't or won't. Read more about the decision here: https://nclalegal.org/2021/04/in-victory-for-ncla-supreme-court-unanimously-rejects-issue-exhaustion-requirement-before-alj/   AMG v. FTC Later in the episode, Vec talks about NCLA's second SCOTUS victory of the week in AMG Capital Management, LLC, et al. v. Federal Trade Commission. Justice Stephen Breyer handed down a unanimous decision declaring that section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act does not authorize the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) “to seek, or a court to award, equitable monetary relief such as restitution or disgorgement.” Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act strictly authorizes the Commission to obtain, “in proper cases,” a “permanent injunction” in federal court against “any person, partnership, or corporation” that it believes “is violating, or is about to violate, any provision of law” that the Commission enforces. But the FTC had transformed its limited statutory right to enjoin present or future unlawful conduct into a near-absolute right to secure any “equitable remedy” for past damages under Section 13(b). NCLA's successful amicus brief admonished FTC for its unlawful practice of applying the agency's statutory provisions in an unauthorized way to avoid the due process protections for monetary remedies Congress provided in the FTC Act. NCLA commends the Court for rejecting the FTC's arguments and for restoring the limits Congress imposed on the agency. Read more about the decision here: https://nclalegal.org/2021/04/ncla-celebrates-scotus-win-rejecting-ftc-power-grab-and-restoring-limits-on-rogue-agency/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

New CFPB Rule Strengthens Unlawful Eviction Moratorium  In this episode, Vec criticizes the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) eviction rules for landlords. On April 19th, CFPB issued an interim final rule strengthening tenant protections under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), in support of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) COVID-19-related eviction moratorium. The rule requires debt collectors to provide to tenants who may have rights under the eviction moratorium a written notice of those rights concurrent with an eviction notice or on the date that an eviction action is filed, and clarifies that notice given over the phone or by electronic means such as text or email is insufficient. NCLA filed several lawsuits across the country challenging CDC's unlawful eviction moratorium and similar government edicts. NCLA filed a class-action lawsuit, Mossman v. CDC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. The case Brown v. CDC is on appeal in the U.S. of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The cases Johnson v. Murphy and Kravitz v. Murphy challenge New Jersey Governor Murphy's abuse of power in issuing Executive Order No. 128, which unilaterally forces residential housing providers to use their tenants' security deposits towards rent payments and criminalizes adherence to existing contracts.   Arizona DCS Ruins Man's Reputation Before Due Process  Later in the episode, Mark discusses NCLA's Arizona Court of Appeals case in Phillip B. v. Faust. NCLA filed a reply brief this week in the Arizona Court of Appeals which challenges the Maricopa County Superior Court's decision allowing the Arizona Department of Child Safety (DCS) to overrule factual findings and credibility determinations made by an independent administrative law judge (ALJ). DCS's unjust decision placed NCLA client Phillip B. (whose name has been redacted to preserve his anonymity under court rules) on the DCS Central Registry of child abusers for 25 years, destroying his reputation and career. After taking live testimony, the ALJ did not find probable cause to support the accusations of alleged child abuse against Mr. B. But state law allowed DCS to appeal the ALJ's decision to its own Director, who in July 2019, disregarded due process and rejected the findings of the ALJ, adopting his own agency's unsupported and unproven version of events. Acting as prosecutor, judge, and jury, then-director of DCS, Greg McKay, decided unilaterally that the charges against Mr. B. were ‘substantiated.' For 27 years, Phillip B. has been a coach, school teacher, and group-home caregiver for troubled teens. In 2018, Mr. B. was falsely accused of child abuse by one of the teens in a group home. After a two-day trial, the ALJ found that Mr. B. committed no abuse when he placed his hand on the upset teenager's shoulder to calm him down. Director McKay rewrote the ALJ's facts and applied an unconstitutional standard of proof that deviated from DCS's own regulations. Additionally, Director McKay carried out his own decision without waiting for the court process to commence, much less conclude. The Court should reverse and vacate the DCS Director's and the Superior Court's decisions, and follow the initial conclusion of the neutral ALJ, who deemed the allegations against Mr. B. baseless. In addition, the Court of Appeals should require DCS to accord due process before placing anyone's name in the Central Registry in the future. Read more about the case here: https://nclalegal.org/2021/04/ncla-asks-az-court-of-appeals-to-require-due-process-before-dcs-adds-names-to-central-registry/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

With little in the way of reporting on the backlog of appeals at the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) level, you could conclude that such hearings are on hiatus.But that’s not the case, according to senior healthcare consultant Frank Cohen, who will be reporting the lead story during the next live edition of Monitor Mondays. Cohen, director of business intelligence at DoctorsManagement, is expected to report that while he had testified at four ALJ hearings in all of 2019-2020, he has already testified at four so far this year, with four more between now and June – all pertaining to cases from 2014-2015. Ask Cohen why the Recovery Audit Contractors (RACs) are to blame for the backlog – his answer will be one you may not expect.Other segments to be featured during the live broadcast include the following:RAC Report: Healthcare attorney Knicole Emanuel, a partner at the law firm of Practus, will file the Monitor Mondays RAC Report.Legislative Update: Former Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) official Matthew Albright, now chief legislative affairs officer for Zelis, will report on the latest healthcare regulatory news coming out of Washington.Risky Business: Healthcare attorney David Glaser, shareholder in the law offices of Fredrikson & Bryon, will join the broadcast with his trademark segment, reporting on legal implications facing healthcare providers.Social Determinants of Health: Ellen Fink-Samnick, a nationally recognized expert on the social determinants of health (SDoH), will report on the latest news that’s occurring at the intersection of healthcare and socioeconomics. Ellen will also conduct the Monitor Mondays Listeners Survey.Monday Rounds: Attorney and physician John K. Hall, MD, founder of the Aegis Firm, will be pinch-hitting for Ronald Hirsch, MD, who regularly makes his rounds on Monitor Mondays.

Bíblia em um ano: Juízes 7–8; Lucas 5:1-16 Leitura bíblica de hoje: Filipenses 2:12-18 Vocês são a luz do mundo. É impossível esconder uma cidade construída no alto de um monte. Mateus 5:14 Em 2015, um grupo da nossa igreja foi edificado pelo que vimos em Mathare, uma das comunidades de Nairobi, no Quênia. Visitamos uma escola com o piso sujo, paredes de metal enferrujado e bancos de madeira. Mesmo assim, uma pessoa se destacava nesse cenário extremamente humilde. O nome dela era Brilliant, uma professora do Ensino Fundamental cuja alegria e determinação eram compatíveis com a sua missão. Com roupas coloridas, sua aparência e a alegria com a qual ensinava e encorajava os alunos eram impressionantes. A luz resplandecente que ela irradiava parece o jeito como os cristãos de Filipos deveriam se colocar em seu mundo quando Paulo lhes escreveu no século primeiro. Naquele cenário espiritualmente carente, os cristãos deveriam brilhar como “luzes resplandecentes” (FILIPENSES 2:15). Nossa missão não mudou. As luzes resplandecentes são necessárias em todos os lugares! É estimulante saber que, por meio daquele que “está agindo em vocês, dando-lhes o desejo e o poder de realizarem aquilo que é do agrado dele” (v.13), os cristãos podem brilhar a ponto de encaixar-se na descrição de Jesus para os que o seguem. Para nós, Ele ainda diz: “Vocês são a luz do mundo. […] suas boas obras devem brilhar, para que todos as vejam e louvem seu Pai, que está no céu” (vv.14-16). ALJ

Bíblia em um ano: Josué 1–3; Marcos 16 Leitura bíblica de hoje: 2 Timóteo 1:3-7 Você, porém, deve permanecer fiel […]. Sabe que é a verdade, pois conhece aqueles de quem aprendeu. 3:14 Madeline Harriet Orr Jackson Williams viveu até os 101 anos, enviuvando de dois maridos. Ambos foram pregadores. Madeline era a minha avó, e nós a chamávamos de Mama. Meus irmãos e eu a conhecíamos bem; vivíamos na casa dela até seu segundo marido a levar embora. Mesmo depois disso, permanecemos a menos de 80 km de distância. Vovó cantava hinos de louvor, recitava o catecismo, tocava piano e era uma mulher temente a Deus. Fomos marcados por sua fé. De acordo com 2 Timóteo 1:3-7, a avó de Timóteo, Loide, e a mãe dele, Eunice, tiveram grande influência sobre a vida desse discípulo. Os ensinamentos e a vida delas estavam enraizados nas Escrituras (v.5; 3:14-16), e por fim a fé delas floresceu no coração de Timóteo. Sua criação com base bíblica não foi apenas fundamental para o seu relacionamento com Deus, mas também vital para ele ser útil na obra do Senhor (1:6,7). Hoje, assim como no tempo de Timóteo, Deus usa homens e mulheres fiéis para influenciar gerações futuras. Nossas orações, palavras, ações e nosso serviço podem ser poderosamente usados pelo Senhor enquanto vivemos e depois que partirmos. É por isso que meus irmãos e eu ainda praticamos coisas que nos foram transmitidas pela Mama. Oro para que o legado dela não pare em nós. ALJ

In this episode of the SALT Shaker Podcast, host Chris Lee discusses recent sales tax rulings from Colorado (PLR-20-2008) and Missouri (Ltr Rul 8095) and an ALJ income tax nexus decision from New York City (In the Matter of Mars Holding Inc.).