U.S. Supreme Court

The Supreme Court’s Rulings on COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates, Explained

By Kaitlynn Milvert

In a pair of rulings issued January 13, the Supreme Court put on hold the federal vaccine-or-test requirements for large employers, but allowed federal vaccination requirements for health care workers to take effect while they are litigated in the lower federal courts.

The Court decisions each addressed questions of whether federal agencies — the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) — have authority to set these vaccination-related requirements.

In doing so, the Court drew new and unprecedented lines between the kinds of risks that agencies operating outside of the health care context — such as OSHA — have power to address through federal regulations. The Court’s decisions on these issues are likely to loom large in future litigation as federal vaccine requirements continue to be litigated in the lower courts.

Read More

Close up of a Doctor making a vaccination in the shoulder of patient.

The CMS Vaccine Mandate: The Nationwide Injunction and What It Means

By Kaitlynn Milvert

On November 30, 2021, a federal district court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction to block the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) vaccine requirements for health care workers.

This ruling comes mere days before the December 6 deadline for employees of CMS-funded facilities to receive their first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, and it casts uncertainty over upcoming deadlines for vaccination compliance.

Read More

Vial and syringe.

The OSHA Vaccine Mandate: A Roundup of State Responses

By Kaitlynn Milvert

When the federal Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) published its “vaccine-or-test” requirements for large employers on November 5, 2021, it immediately faced backlash from many states.

In the weeks that have followed, states not only have filed numerous lawsuits challenging the OSHA requirements, but also have actively pushed through legislation that seeks to limit the scope or use of vaccine requirements in the workplace.

This new wave of state legislation contributes to a landscape of uncertainty surrounding the legal status of workplace vaccine requirements and available exemptions.

Read More

Kirkland, WA / USA - circa March 2020: Street view of the Life Care Center of Kirkland building, ground zero of the coronavirus outbreak in Kirkland.

The PREP Act and Nursing Homes’ Fight to Move COVID Claims to Federal Court

By Kaitlynn Milvert

As nursing homes face wrongful death claims amid the COVID-19 pandemic, they increasingly have pursued a common litigation strategy: attempting to reroute state tort lawsuits to federal court.

A recent ruling in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals rejected this tactic. As the first court of appeals ruling on this issue, the decision avoids extending a federal statute limiting pandemic liability into unprecedented areas and defines at least some limits on the statute’s effect on state tort suits. Read More

Healthcare concept of professional psychologist doctor consult in psychotherapy session or counsel diagnosis health.

Beyond Parity in Mental Health Coverage

By Kaitlynn Milvert

Mental health “parity” laws require insurers to provide the same level of mental health benefits as they do medical or surgical benefits.

These laws have made important strides toward reducing restrictions in an area of historically limited and inconsistent coverage. But this comparative approach also creates complexities and gaps, which reveal the need to move beyond “parity” in addressing mental health coverage restrictions.

Recent state legislative developments show a way forward. These developments build on parity laws to codify baseline requirements for coverage of “medically necessary” treatment, designed to ensure that necessary coverage is not improperly denied under overly restrictive standards for evaluating mental health care claims. Read More

Los Angeles, California, United States. June 23, 2021: #FreeBritney rally at LA Downtown Grand Park during a conservatorship hearing for Britney Spears.

How Adult Guardianship Law Fails to Protect Contraceptive Decision-Making Rights

By Kaitlynn Milvert

After Britney Spears testified this past summer about her struggle to have her intrauterine device (IUD) removed while under conservatorship, many commentators posed a simple, but critical question: Can conservators (or guardians) make contraceptive decisions for those under their care?

Attempting to answer that question reveals an area of state guardianship law where guardians’ authority is particularly murky and ill-defined. Reform is needed to address the restrictions on reproductive decision-making rights that adults under guardianship currently face.

Read More