Health Law



Meet the Co-chairs - TAGLAW


Burkett, Teresa Meinders
Conner & Winters, LLP
tburkett@cwlaw.com


Health Law


On June 25, 2019, Governor Ron DeSantis approved House Bill 843. On the surface, the legislation addresses a variety of valid healthcare concerns. However, tucked within the bill is a provision whereby the Florida Legislature amended Florida law governing restrictive covenants by invalidating certain restrictive covenants with licensed physicians. Pursuant to the legislation, an entity that employs all of the physicians who practice a certain medical specialty in one county will not be able to restrict its physicians from practicing that specialty in the same county. If the entity entered into such a restrictive covenant with its physicians, the restrictive covenant will be void and unenforceable.

Read more: Certain Physician Non-Competes Are Now Void and Unenforceable in Florida


On May 28th, Arizona’s Supreme Court ruled 7-0, that cannabis extracts are protected under Arizona’s 2010 law legalizing medical marijuana in the state. 

The Court’s unanimous ruling came as a relief to the State’s 198,000 qualified patients and 5,600 dispensary workers.  Extracts include many of the most popular methods of administering cannabis such as vape cartridges and edibles.  These products are made from resin that is extracted from the plant. 

Even though the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA) of 2010 made it clear that the law permits "the dried flowers of the marijuana plant, and any mixture or preparation thereof,” some card-carrying patients were still prosecuted for having extracts.  The problem stemmed from an existing definition of hashish in Arizona’s constitution that left enough ambiguity for an aggressive prosecutor to incarcerate qualified patients.

The Court’s May 28th ruling clearly established that the voter’s intent in 2010 was to include extracts in the AMMA.

Read the entire article.


Author: Richard Y. Cheng

A physician certification for Medicare coverage for ambulance services is not the final word. An ambulance service also must demonstrate the beneficiary’s condition and establish medical necessity when transporting the Medicare beneficiary. In a recent Southern District of Texas decision, the Court affirmed a decision by the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) to deny payment to an ambulance service that provided repeated non-emergency transport to a Medicare beneficiary when the service failed to show that transportation by another means was contraindicated by the patient’s condition.

Read more: Medicare Coverage for Ambulance Services – Physician Certification Will Not Be Enough


Introduction

Medicine has been defined by the World Health Organization as “products that are used to change or analyze physiological and pathological circumstances to the benefit of the user.[1] Under Turkish law, medicine corresponds to “substance or a combination of substances of natural and/or synthetical origin applied to humans to cure a disease and/or prevent, to make a diagnosis or to restore, regulate or change a function.[2]

Read more: General Legal Framework of Pharmaceutical Industry in Turkey


Under the contract terms, Popa & Associates provides legal assistance in gathering information and elaborating technical documentations, developing the business plan, negotiations with public authorities regarding licenses and permits that are necessary to realize the mentioned project, giving a complex legal consultancy throughout the project, implemented with its support and assistance.

Read more: Popa & Associates provides legal advice to a renowned dialysis healthcare provider BBraun Avitum...