By Nicolas Terry and Frank Pasquale
Our return guest this week is Wendy Parmet, Matthews Distinguished University Professor of Law, Professor of Public Policy and Urban Affairs, Director of the Program on Health Policy and Law, and Associate Dean for Interdisciplinary Education and Research Support at Northeastern University School of Law. Professor Parmet is a leading voice internationally on cutting edge issues in public health.
In the opening, lightning round, Nic and Frank discussed:
1) Zubik v. Burwell, and the long line of First Amendment cases in the area.
2) The FTC’s new interactive tool for mobile apps.
3) The Part 2 proposed rule, and AMIA’s comment.
4) In the series Frontiers in the Financialization of Health Care, mortgages for expensive treatments, and crowdfunded funerals.
Our focus on Flint, Michigan this week featured Wendy’s insightful work on solidarity in bioethics, and “invisible victims” of public health failures. We also discussed the Docs v. Glocks saga, and the limits of regulation of professional speech.
And finally, attention all listeners: Northeastern will be hosting a conference on the future of public health law this Friday, and Wendy’s book “Welcoming Newcomers” will be out this Fall!
The Week in Health Law Podcast from Frank Pasquale and Nicolas Terry is a commuting-length discussion about some of the more thorny issues in Health Law & Policy. Subscribe at iTunes, listen at Stitcher Radio, Tunein and Podbean, or search for The Week in Health Law in your favorite podcast app. Show notes and more are at TWIHL.com. If you have comments, an idea for a show or a topic to discuss you can find us on twitter @nicolasterry @FrankPasquale @WeekInHealthLaw
By Alex Stein
Two months ago, the Seventh Circuit has delivered another important decision with regard to medical malpractice actions filed against federally qualified health centers. Blanche v. United States, 811 F.3d 953 (7th Cir. 2016). See also Arteaga v. United States, 711 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2013), and Sanchez v. United States, 740 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2014), discussed here.
Such actions can only be filed in federal courts pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), but patients and – worse – their attorneys are often unaware of this fact. As a result, by the time they properly file a suit, the FTCA’s two-year limitations period expires and the patient’s cause of action against the United States becomes time barred. See 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b). I call this problem “FTCA’s Trap for the Unwary.” To salvage the suit, the patient can petition for equitable tolling, but her chances of being granted equitable tolling are slim (in courts that still interpret the FTCA’s limitations provision as jurisdictional, those chances do not even exist). Continue reading
HLS Health Law Workshop: Nathan Cortez
April 11, 2016, 5-7 PM
Hauser Hall 105
Harvard Law School, 1575 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02138
Download the Presentation: “Regulation by Database”
Nathan Cortez is Associate Dean for Research and Associate Professor in Dedman School of Law at Southern Methodist University. He teaches and writes in the areas of health law, administrative law, and FDA law. His research focuses on emerging markets in health care and biotechnology. He has become one of the world’s leading legal scholars on medical tourism, patient mobility, and cross-border health insurance.
His research also addresses mobile health technologies, how to regulate innovations that disrupt static regulatory regimes, the First Amendment restraints on FDA regulation (including FDA’s graphic tobacco warnings), immigration federalism, and alternative modes of regulation.