OSHA Finalizes Rules Requiring Health Care Employers to Report Injuries

David W. Morin

By David W. Morin



The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) implemented rules on January 1, 2015 which place additional requirements on employers under OSHA jurisdiction (and with greater than 10 employees) to report occupational injuries and illnesses. This new data is going to be made public, which would allow individuals, companies, or labor unions to view injury reports submitted by health care providers.

Currently, employers in Missouri are required to report work injuries to the state if an employee sustains an injury at work requiring medical treatment beyond immediate first aid. The information is not made public, but is rather provided only to the state as a reporting requirement. In fact, workers’ compensation trials or hearing are not generally open to the public. Express consent is usually required of the parties or their attorneys for a member of the general public to watch these court proceedings.

Under the current OSHA regulations, fatalities must be reported within eight hours. The regulations add additional requirements and require all employers to report work-related in-patient hospitalizations, as well as amputations or incidents where someone loses an eye, within 24 hours. Continue reading »

No-Fly Zones: Using Drones for Commercial Purposes

Jeffrey R. Schmitt

By Jeffrey R. Schmitt



Drones are all the rage. Actually, drones are causing quite a rage as well.

Last weekend’s Super Bowl in Arizona was a “no drone zone,” where flying drone aircraft for purposes of getting a better view of the action was prohibited. In fact, all NFL games are no-fly zones for drones, as are nearly all professional sporting events and other outdoor stadium events where more than 30,000 people are present.

Drones are threatening to interfere with air travel near airports, and one crashed on the White House lawn recently. The recent explosion of drone usage by the public has even caused one major drone manufacturer to begin a software update for its vehicles that will prohibit them from entering air space in Washington, D.C., or near airports.

Unmanned aerial vehicle (“UAV” or drone) technology is one emerging area where the speed of technology has eclipsed the speed of the law. If you were lucky enough to receive a drone as a gift during the holidays and want to use it for personal use, the good news is that the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) is not stopping you from doing so, as long as you do so in a reasonable manner and do not infringe on others’ rights.

However, commercial use of drone technology is a different story. Continue reading »

Understanding the ABLE Act

Misty A. Watson

By Misty A. Watson



Co-authored by Misty Watson and Samantha Maerz

“A major victory for the disability community, ABLE, for the first time in our country’s policy on disability, recognizes that there are added costs to living with a disability….For far too long, federally imposed asset limits to remain eligible for critical public benefits have served as a roadblock toward greater financial independence for the millions of individuals living with a disability.” – Michael Morris, Executive Director of the National Disability Institute

Savings accounts for individuals with disabilities will soon be possible without risking their access to federal benefits. On December 19, 2014, the Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) Act was signed into law by President Barack Obama after receiving huge bipartisan support in both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. The ABLE Act is an amendment to the federal tax code that eliminates the $2,000 cap on conventional savings accounts for individuals with disabilities to qualify for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Medicaid.

Eligibility for many federal benefits, such as SSI, SNAP and Medicaid, requires that individuals meet a means test. Part of that test includes that an individual can report no more than $2,000 in savings. However, such a uniform test failed to recognize the additional costs of living with a disability. The ABLE Act seeks to remedy this unfairness by allowing a tax-advantaged savings account to supplement federal benefits, rather than supplanting them. Continue reading »

Electronic Privacy Amendment May Have Broad Implications for Use of Digital Information

J. Clifton Smith

By J. Clifton Smith



This summer, Missouri voters approved an amendment to the Missouri Constitution protecting electronic data from searches and seizure by law enforcement officers.

Article I, Section 15 of the Missouri Constitution closely resembles the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution: both provide that the people shall be “secure in their persons, papers, homes and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures,” and that law enforcement must demonstrate probable cause before obtaining a search warrant. The recent amendment modifies Section 15 so that it now explicitly protects “electronic communications and data” and requires police to “describe the data or communication to be accessed as nearly as may be” when applying for a warrant.

Surprisingly, the amendment might have ripple effects far removed from searches conducted by law enforcement. Continue reading »

Is Your Property Insured Against a Riot?

David A. Zobel

By David A. Zobel



The current unrest facing the St. Louis metropolitan region carries with it the elevated risk of damage and/or destruction of both real and personal property. While everyone intends and hopes their insurance policies cover all eventualities that may arise, the truth of the matter is that not all eventualities are covered by insurance.

Unfortunately, it is generally only after something truly unexpected happens that policies are reviewed and tested for actual coverage. At that moment, it may be too late to both prepare for the event and/or adjust coverage.

As a result, it may be wise now to pull out your current auto, homeowners, renters, commercial or other similar policies to review each policy’s specific language.

One of the coverage limitations to consider are so-called “force majeure” clauses. “Force majeure” is a contractual term that relieves parties from performing their contractual obligations when certain circumstances beyond their control arise, often making their performance under the contract impractical or impossible. Examples of these circumstances can include earthquakes, war, strikes, epidemics, acts of God, and riots. Continue reading »

Another State Rules That Patients Can Sue For Negligence for Violating HIPAA Regulations

Laura Gerdes Long

By Laura Gerdes Long



The Connecticut Supreme Court has now joined Missouri, West Virginia and North Carolina in rulings connecting HIPAA with negligence lawsuits by patients.

In a case of first impression in Connecticut, the state’s Supreme Court ruled that a patient can sue a medical office for HIPAA negligence if it violates the patient’s privacy when improperly releasing the medical records to a third party. There is no dispute that HIPAA does not create a private cause of action. Increasingly, however, HIPAA can provide the standard of care for a medical office in how it releases confidential medical records and can be found negligent if it releases such medical records contrary to the requirements of the HIPAA regulations. Continue reading »

Protecting Your Intellectual Property in a Wild World

Ruth Binger

By Ruth Binger



Your company is an “A” player and it has done everything right in the U.S. in protecting its intellectual property (“IP”). You have not just relied upon a “smile.” You’ve invented a unique product called Superstar® widget and it is not yet offered by your competitors. Vast amount of resources have been poured into the development of the Superstar widget. Prior to introducing the Superstar widget, you used due diligence and used the IP Awareness Assessment Tool on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office website to identify what IP you have, if it has value, and if it can be protected under U.S. law.

Upon identifying your IP, the company retained capable attorneys who were successful in obtaining U.S. trademark registrations on the corporate name, non-functional design, and logo so customers could more easily identify the Superstar widget and its association with the company. Superstar widget packaging correctly evidences all registered trademarks.

You made a wise expenditure on patents and the company has received patents on the Superstar widget process. Further, copyright registrations with the U.S. Copyright Office have been obtained on your website, web video, and associated software and you are giving notice to the world of your ownership by using the appropriate symbol of “©2012 Company.” Continue reading »

Hacked Hospital Network Includes Outstate Missouri Hospitals

Laura Gerdes Long

By Laura Gerdes Long



4.5M Records Stolen, HIPAA violation

In June 2014, hackers in China used high-end, sophisticated malware to launch criminal cyber-attacks to access patient information from a national hospital system. Community Health Systems, Inc. (“CHS”), operates 206 hospitals across the U.S. in 29 states, including four located in Missouri (Kennett, Kirksville, Moberly, and Poplar Bluff). The breached data is considered protected health information under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”).

In a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, CHS said the attacker was an “Advanced Persistent Threat” group which bypassed CHS’ security measures, successfully copying and transferring certain data outside CHS. Although CHS has confirmed that this data did not include patient credit card, medical, or clinical information, the breach does include patient names, addresses, birth dates, telephone numbers and Social Security numbers. CHS has been working closely with federal law enforcement authorities in connection with their investigation and potential prosecution of those determined to be responsible for this attack.

Under various state and federal laws, CHS is obligated to notify affected patients. The Department of Health and Human Services provides a web page describing the breach notification requirements of covered entities to effected individuals, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and, in certain circumstances, to the media. Continue reading »

Inherited IRAs – Once Protected – Now Possibly Fair Game for Creditors

A. Thomas DeWoskin

By A. Thomas DeWoskin



You should read this article if  –

  1. You expect to transfer funds to your descendants through an individual retirement account (IRA); or
  2. You have inherited an IRA from a relative.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Clark v. Rameker that the money in an inherited IRA does not qualify for the protection from creditors as provided in the Federal Bankruptcy Code.[1]

The Court concluded that funds in an IRA which was inherited from someone else are not really retirement funds.  It gave three reasons for this conclusion.  The holder of an inherited IRA:

  1. Can never invest additional money into the account.
  2. Is required to withdraw money from the account, no matter how far away retirement may be.
  3. May withdraw the entire balance of the account at any time – and use it for any purpose – without penalty. Continue reading »

Inherited IRAs Not Protected in Bankruptcy

Misty A. Watson

By Misty A. Watson



Co-authored by Misty Watson and Samantha Maerz

If you directly inherited an IRA and are facing bankruptcy, these funds are no longer protected from creditors.

In Clark v. Rameker (In re Clark), No. 13-299, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that inherited IRAs do not qualify under the “retirement funds” bankruptcy exemption. As a result, non-spouses inheriting an IRA may no longer protect the funds from creditors after filing bankruptcy and spouses have more incentive to “roll over” inherited IRA funds.

Before the Supreme Court decided Clark, there was a split between the 5th and 7th Circuit Courts of Appeals regarding exactly what the “retirement funds” bankruptcy exemption covered. In Chilton v. Moser, the 5th Circuit previously held that inherited IRAs were exempt from the bankruptcy estate because the “retirement funds” exemption never stated that the retirement funds had to be the debtor’s. In Clark v. Rameker, the 7th Circuit disagreed and held that inherited IRAs were not exempt because they were an “opportunity for current consumption, not a fund of retirement savings.” The disagreement stemmed from the interpretation of what “retirement funds” included. Continue reading »