|
|
|
Iowa insurers get more time on new health law
Headline News |
2011/07/25 08:17
|
Iowa insurance companies have been given more time to comply with a new federal rule designed to curb insurers' profits.
The regulation that went into effect this year calls for insurance companies to spend at least 80 percent of premiums on medical care and quality assurance. For employer plans covering more than 50 people, the requirement is 85 cents. Insurers that fall short of the mark are required to issue their customers a rebate.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services told the state on Friday that Iowa insurers will be given have to reach the 80 percent mark by 2013, but will be required to meet interim goals until then, the Des Moines Register reported.
The Iowa Insurance Division had requested extra time to comply with the law, citing fears that insurers would leave the state in droves. Six pulled out of Iowa after the law was passed.
Steve Larsen, director of HHS' Center for Consumer Information and Oversight, said in a letter to the state that implementing the law in Iowa in 2011 could cause turmoil in the insurance market. So, he laid out a timetable for compliance that calls for Iowa insurers to spend 67 percent of premiums on medical care this year, 75 percent in 2012 and 80 percent in 2013.
Iowa insurance commissioner Susan Voss said she wasn't displeased by the decision. The state had sought even more time for companies to comply, but, I don't think we'll see companies exit as a result of this, Voss said.
Of those particularly hard-hit by the law are insurers who sell individual policies because those premiums are more volatile. Employers or large groups can negotiate for better premiums, and the risk in those plans are spread among the group.
There are 56 insurance companies in Iowa that offer individual policies. Seven of those account for 95 percent of the market, with Wellmark holding onto almost 84 percent. Wellmark spent 92 percent of premiums on care but none of the state's other top insurers met the 80 percent standard in 2010.
Federal regulators said that had the law gone into effect this year, Iowa consumers would have received $6.5 million in rebates over three years. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court reverses conviction on online Obama threat
Court Watch |
2011/07/20 09:41
|
A federal appeals court on Tuesday overturned the conviction of a man who posted Internet messages threatening Barack Obama during his 2008 presidential campaign.
A divided three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Walter Bagdasarian's violent and racist screeds against Obama were repugnant but not criminal. The court also said it was obvious the San Diego man wasn't planning to attack the candidate and that the postings were protected by Bagdasarian's free speech rights.
Bagdasarian was convicted in 2009 of two felony counts of threatening a major presidential candidate.
Bagdasarian posted several messages to a Yahoo Finance message board in October 2008, including one that called Obama a racial epithet and another that said he will have a 50 cal in the head soon — a reference to a .50 caliber gun.
A retired Air Force officer forwarded the postings to the Secret Service. Yahoo provided Bagdasarian's subscriber information to investigators, who raided his house and seized six guns and a hard drive containing an email with similar sentiments.
Bagdasarian admitted posting the messages, but said he was drunk and joking.
He waived his right to a jury trial. District Judge Marilyn L. Huff found him guilty and sentenced him to 60-days in a half-way home.
But the appeals panel said no reasonable person could have taken seriously Bagdasarian's posts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ex-CEO convicted in scam at auto-chemical company
Court Watch |
2011/07/20 09:40
|
A former corporate executive officer of a New York-based automotive-chemical company was convicted Tuesday in a multimillion-dollar investor fraud scheme that enabled him to buy expensive jewelry and take private jets.
A jury in Manhattan state Supreme Court found Cleveland lawyer James Margulies guilty of charges including grand larceny and scheme to defraud. He faces up to 25 years on the top two counts, which could run consecutively. Bail was set at $1.5 million.
Ira London, an attorney for Margulies, said he planned to file a very vigorous appeal.
The jury has spoken. I believe they have convicted an innocent man, he said.
While serving as the company's finance chief — and briefly as CEO — of Industrial Enterprises of America, Inc., from 2004 to 2008, Margulies illegally issued millions of shares of stock to friends and relatives, inflating the share price by making the company look more profitable than it was, prosecutors said.
A teachers' pension fund in Ohio and a church were among the victims of the scheme, prosecutors said.
Margulies personally reaped more than $7 million, spending it on lavish luxuries such as a $350,000 diamond ring for his wife from jeweler Harry Winston, prosecutors said.
He also paid more than a million dollars on the mortgage of his first home, bought a second home and spent $500,000 on a vacation club membership, prosecutors said.
Margulies was charged in the scheme in 2010 along with John D. Mazzuto, who pleaded guilty Jan. 14 to his role in issuing fraudulent shares of stock. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paralegal accused of stealing from law firm
Headline News |
2011/07/20 09:40
|
Authorities say a South Florida paralegal stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from her Fort Lauderdale law firm.
Miami-Dade officials on Tuesday charged 53-year-old Brenda Wilcott-Kelly with more than 80 felonies, including grand theft and forging documents. Records show she's also took money from a lawyer who was on his deathbed.
Employees of Hermelee amp; Geffin were in court Tuesday as Judge Dennis Murphy set Wilcott-Kelly's bond at $116,000.
Defense attorney Morgan Cronin said his client is innocent.
According to the arrest affidavit, Wilcott-Kelly took $82,472 from the firm to pay off her husband's credit cards. She is also accused of stealing $31,050 from lawyer Steven A. Schultz, while he was in the hospital. Schultz leased space from the firm. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
When is a Person an Employee of Another?
Opinions |
2011/07/19 09:40
|
On July 19, 2011, the Indiana Court of Appeals issued a decision which I found surprising in McCann v. City of Anderson, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), Cause No. 48A02-1009-PL-1060. At issue was whether a trial court had properly granted summary judgment on the question of whether a warrant officer was an employee of the Anderson City Court. Despite the procedural posture of the case and factors that weighed in favor of finding an employer-employee relationship, the Court affirmed a decision granting summary judgment to the defendants.
In this case, McCann was a police officer, who eventually became warrant officer for the Anderson City Court in 1998. He held that post until 2005, when the judge asked that McCann be reassigned. As a result of this dismissal, McCann filed suit based on the Indiana Wage Statute, arguing that he had been an employee of the Court and was entitled to funds that had been allocated to the position of warrant officer by that court. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and the trial court granted the defendants' motion.
On appeal, the Court quoted GKN Co. v. Magness, 744 N.E.2d 397, 402 (Ind. 2001), for the seven factors that a court should consider when determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists. The Court then analyzed each of these factors and determined that three weighed in favor of the existence an employer-employee relationship and four against, with the most important factor weighing against.
Thus, over all, four of the seven factors, including the most important, Control over the Means Used, indicate McCann was not an employee of the City Court. Because the City Court was not McCann's employer, he cannot be due any unpaid wages from the City Court. Therefore, he cannot assert a claim against the City Court under the Indiana Wage Statute.
The aspect of this decision that is most surprising is that the Court reached this conclusion despite the procedural posture of the case. It could have easily held that, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to McCann, the seven factors weighed both for and against a finding of an employer-employee relationship between McCann and the City Court created a genuine issue of material fact. This indicates that the factor the Court identified as being most important, whether the purported employer exercised control over the means used by the purported employee to perform work, is very important indeed.
Lesson:
1.It will be exceedingly difficult to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship if the purported employer did not exercise control over the means that the purported employee used to perform his work.
Brad A. Catlin
Price Waicukauski amp; Riley, LLC
http://www.indianalawupdate.com/entry/When-is-a-Person-an-Employee-of-Another |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court sets oral arguments in campaign lawsuit
Law Firm News |
2011/07/15 21:32
|
A conservative group fighting campaign finance rules in Montana says in a recent filing that it agrees disclosure laws can apply to corporate speech, but Western Tradition Partnership argues it isn't subject to current disclosure laws because its attack mailers fall outside the definition of electioneering.
The Montana Supreme Court has set oral arguments for September in the state's challenge to a district court decision that tossed out the outright ban on corporate political spending.
Western Tradition Partnership first filed the lawsuit last year piggybacking on the high-profile Citizen's United case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The group aims to undo Montana's century-old restriction on corporate political spending.
Western Tradition is separately fighting a decision that it failed to report campaign expenditures. The group argues its activities are not intended to influence elections.
In a brief filed earlier this month with the Supreme Court on the main case fighting the ban corporate campaign spending, WTP made it clear it believes campaign finance regulation is OK.
If the State is truly concerned with accountability, the state has other means at its disposal, such as disclosure laws, to make sure that people know who is speaking, Western Tradition argued in the brief. It is inappropriate, and indeed, unconstitutional, to completely outlaw corporate political speech. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
