You are here

legislation

Draft Bill Would Limit FDA Oversight of Electronic Health Records

U.S. Senators Michael Bennett and Orrin Hatch are circulating a draft bill to exempt some electronic health records, including medical charts and health histories, from the FDA's oversight, Reuters' Christina Farr reported last week. Medical technology that is classified as posing a low risk to patient safety would be exempt from FDA regulation. Bradley Merrill Thompson, an FDA-specialist with the Washington D.C.-based legal firm Epstein Becker & Green, told Reuters the bill would have unintended consequences.

Forlorn Prospects for Federal Shield Law for Journalists

The likelihood is very low that the U.S. Senate will take up a law that would provide a federal evidentiary privilege to journalists against revealing their sources, writes Rem Rieder in USA Today. While the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the bill and the House of Representatives also has passed a bill with a shield for journalists, the Senate is not likely to spend a week debating an evidentiary privilege for reporters during its lame-duck session starting November 12, Rieder further writes. "So the shield law, like immigration reform and gun control, looms as yet another casualty of the gridlock that has paralyzed Capitol Hill and turned Congress into a wildly dysfunctional and widely loathed travesty," Rieder concludes.

KY Latest State Mulling Drone Legislation

Kentucky is the latest state to consider legislation to prohibit the warrantless use of drones by law enforcement, the Kentucky Enquirer reports. A Northern Kentucky legislator is reintroducing a bill to bar law enforcement agencies from using drones to gather evidence without warrants. Fourteen states have passed laws limiting the use of drones, the Enquirer reports.

Meanwhile, there are three drone bills pending in Pennsylvania, including two bills to bar drone interference with hunting and fishing.

 

Lawmakers Debate Reducing Size of Drug-Free Zones

Submitted by Amaris Elliott-Engel on Wed, 04/02/2014 - 10:05

Legislation is pending again in Connecticut that would reduce the size of the zones near schools, daycares and public housing projects that trigger enhanced sentences for defendants convicted of drug possession and selling within those zones. Here is the piece I wrote about the subject for the Connecticut Law Tribune:

During the crack epidemic of the 1980s, it seemed like a commonsense move to help protect the young and the innocent.

The state would add enhanced penalties for drug possession and drug trafficking within 1,500 feet of schools, day-care facilities and public housing complexes. Drug defendants faced an extra three years on their prison sentence if convicted of the extra charge.

But in recent years, some lawmakers and members of the legal community have had second thoughts. The Connecticut General Assembly is once again considering legislation that would reduce the size of the drug-free zones from 1,500 to 200 feet.

The Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the matter March 12. The legislation, which has the backing of both prosecutors and defense attorneys, has not been scheduled for a vote.

Former Supreme Court Justice David Borden, who now chairs the Connecticut Sentencing Commission, said the commission has recommended that there be a reduction in the size of the sentencing enhancement zones.

The commission found that in Connecticut's biggest cities nearly every piece of land is within 1,500 feet of a school, day-care center or public housing facility. And so the penalties for posessing drugs are the same in virtually every part of those municipalities. If there are no zones where penalties are increased, "there's no special deterrent, which is the theory of the enhanced sentences," Borden said. "If every area is a special area, then there is no special area."

The commission includes members from various sectors of the criminal justice system, and proposals adopted by the panel have the group's consensus, Borden said. Mark Dupuis, a spokesman for the Office of the Chief State's Attorney, said there are state's attorneys on the Sentencing Commission and the office is supporting the commission-backed legislation.

Morgan Ruecker, a board member of the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association and a partner with Shipman & Goodwin, said the Sentencing Commission "has come up with commonsense changes to address some issues that need to be addressed. This is a recommendation that we really support. It's an appropriate time to move forward with this."

The Prison Policy Initiative (PPI), a Northampton, Mass.-based reform group, says the concept of drug-free zones in areas where children congregate is a popular one across the nation. A just-released PPI report says that Connecticut is one of the states with the largest zones. PPI found that 94 percent of Hartford residents, 93 percent of New Haven residents and 92 percent of Bridgeport residents live in areas covered by the sentencing enhancement.

The report's author, PPI's legal director Aleks Kajstura, said she understands the concern about reducing sentencing enhancement zones at a time when narcotics remain illegal. But Kajstura echoed Borden's point that the law hasn't really created any "pressure penalties" because entire "urban areas are essentially all within enhanced penalty zones."

There also are "racial disparities that this law creates" because more minorities live in cities, Kajstura said.

In a 12-month period ending in October 2012, 3,109 white defendants in Connecticut and 3,102 nonwhites were charged with drug crimes in school zones, according to prepared testimony by Sentencing Commission Acting Director Andrew Clark.

Connecticut is not the only state to revisit the issue. In 2010, New Jersey passed a law that requires judges to consider a variety of factors before handing down an enhanced sentence for drug arrests near schools and day-care centers. This past January, Massachusetts reduced its school zone radius to 300 feet.

Legislation that would have shrunk Connecticut's zones to 300 feet appeared on the way to passage last year in the Legislature before lawmakers from suburban and rural areas raised objections. They said the problems with the enhanced enforcement zones covering entire municipalities is an urban problem and that the zones should not be shrunk statewide.

"We're identifying an issue in urban areas and applying it to 169 cities and towns," Rep. Jason Perillo, R-Shelton, said during debate on the issue last year. "Who are we helping? We're helping that drug dealer who happens to sell his product 500 feet from a school."

This year, state Rep. Prasad Srinivasan, R-Glastonbury, submitted testimony in opposition to the legislation. "Shrinking the drug zone, to my mind, is sending the wrong message" about illegal drugs, Srinivasan said.

The legislator said he does understand the concern that urban residents convicted of drug possession and drug trafficking are more likely to face enhanced penalties than rural residents. He said other policy changes should be considered. Last year, Rep. Rosa Rebimbas, R-Naugatuck, proposed and then withdrew an amendment that would have allowed municipalities to determine the size of school zones by local ordinance.

State Rep. Christie Carpino, a Republican who represents Cromwell and Portland, also submitted testimony this year to the Judiciary Committee opposing the reduction in drug-free zones.

Carpino noted that there are about 3,500 schoolchildren in her district. "Each one of these kids will face struggles throughout their lives," she said. "Giving drug dealers reduced penalties for selling close to their schools is one danger we should not impose on them."•

 

Legislators Mull Bills to Extend Time to Sue, Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs in Insurance Disputes

Submitted by Amaris Elliott-Engel on Wed, 03/19/2014 - 19:20

Earlier this year, I wrote about how many homeowners still waiting for insurance payouts after Superstorm Sandy will soon run out of time to take their cases to court if that is necessary. In Connecticut, it is industry practice to include in homeowners' insurance policies a time limitation on lawsuits. The law lets insurers limit lawsuits by property owners to 18 months after a disaster hits.

Now the Connecticut General Assembly has taken up a bill that would extend the time period to sue to two years after a disaster hits. Another bill would allow property owners to recoup attorney fees and court costs after a disaster.

An excerpt on my piece about the legislation for the Connecticut Law Tribune: 

Lawmakers are considering several pieces of legislation that would change state laws governing homeowners' insurance policies, including a bill that would award reasonable attorney fees and lawsuit costs to plaintiffs who win their cases against insurers.

The legislation is supported by trial attorneys, but opposed by the insurance industry.

State Rep. Robert W. Megna, D-New Haven, and co-chair of the Insurance and Real Estate Committee, said there's merit in authorizing plaintiffs who win their cases to be able to obtain attorney fees and lawsuits costs.

When policyholders report damage claims to their insurers and when those claims have been denied to some extent, the policyholders have the burden of hiring an attorney and paying for that attorney out of any recovery they obtain, Megna said. The proposed legislation would remove that burden.

As it stands, attorney fees are "going to come off the property damage settlement," Megna said. "Even if the homeowner prevails, they're at a disadvantage when it comes to fixing their home."

The committee will decide this week whether the bills, including the attorney fees measure, will be voted out of committee, Megna said.

Ryan Suerth, a Hartford-based solo practitioner who represents policyholders in insurance disputes, testified in support of the legislation. "The intent of it is to ensure that the policyholder gets the benefit of the policy they purchased… You get taken care of 100 percent," Suerth said in an interview.

If the legislation is passed, there may be a decrease in litigation alleging bad faith by insurers or alleging that insurers violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act, Suerth said. Attorney fees can be obtained in those types of lawsuits but not in breach of contract actions prosecuted against insurers.

The Insurance Association of Connecticut said in submitted testimony that, at times, it can be unclear when policyholders "prevail" in legal action against an insurer, and thus it would be confusing just who is entitled to attorney fees and costs.

"The proposal is contrary to the traditions of the American judicial system," the association said in its prepared testimony. "Insurers should be able to challenge questionable claims when there is a good-faith basis for such a challenge … Examining the validity of claims helps insurers maintain rates for all policyholders by weeding out the frivolous or meritless claims."

If the policy behind the legislation is to deter insurers from unnecessarily denying or delaying claims, the threat of bad-faith claims or penalties from the Insurance Department already does that, the association said.

Oregon Authorizes American Indian Mascot Bill

Oregon has passed a bill that would allow school districts to receive the permission of American Indian tribes to use school mascots "that represent or are significant to the tribes," the Portland Tribune reports. The Oregon State Board of Education voted to prohibit public schools from using American Indian names, symbols or images as school mascots after July 1, 2017, the Tribune also reports.

The governor previously vetoed similar legislation because "he believed it created an overly broad exception to the State Board of Education’s decision to ban Native-themed mascots," the Tribune further reports. The legislation was changed to require that the board approves agreements reached between school districts and tribes.

CT Lawmakers Debate Bill Limiting Access to Homicide Photos and 911 Tapes

The Connecticut General Assembly is considering a bill called the "look, listen but don't copy law," which would allow public access to homicide photos and 911 tapes to review them but not necessarily to get copies of them, the Connecticut Post reports. Family members of crime victims could cite an unwarranted invasion on their public privacy to block release of the records, then putting the onus on the public to show that there actually is no invasion, the Post reports.

Phila. City Council Oversight of Indigent Representation Becomes Official

The Legal Intelligencer's P.J. D'Annunzio reports that Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter neither signed nor veteoed legislation that will establish City Council oversight over large contracts for a private law firm to represent criminal defendants and family-court litigants too poor to hire their own lawyers. No action by the mayor means that the bill becomes law.

Quality-control and financial audts will be triggered for large contracts where the Defender Association of Philadelphia or other non-profits can't represent clients due to conflicts.

Other legislation, which would give council authority to review contracts entered for less than one year, will require voter approval.

Nutter is trying to institute a private law firm to handle cases in an effort to improve the quality of legal representation, but there have been many objections, including from City Councilman Denny O'Brien and the lawyers currently doing that work. 

Governor Vetoes Bill that Would Have Allowed Religious-Based Discrimination Against Gays and Lesbians

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, a Republican, vetoed legislation that would have allowed conservative religious business owners to refuse to provide services to same-sex couples regarding their marriages, such as wedding photography, wedding cakes and flowers, The Washington Post reports. In deciding to veto the legislation, Brewer said, "'I have not heard of one example in Arizona where business owners' religious liberty has been violated. The bill is broadly worded, and could result in unintended and negative consequences,'" The Post reports.

The legislation was created "in response to a ruling by the New Mexico state Supreme Court against a wedding photographer who declined to work for a couple's same-sex wedding," The Post further reports.

Arizona Bill at the Crux of LGBT Discrimination and Religious Freedom

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer must decide whether to sign legislation that would allow conservative religious business owners to refuse to provide services to same-sex couples regarding their marriages, such as wedding photography, wedding cakes and flowers, The New York Times reports. On one hand, "civil libertarians and gay rights advocates say there is a difference between protections for clergy and houses of worship that do not want to participate in same-sex marriage and the obligations of business owners that serve the general public," The Times further reports. On the other hand, Sarah Warbelow, the state legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, told The Times, "'this is not about the freedom of individuals to practice their religion, this is about a license to discriminate against individuals.'"

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - legislation