FSB: Best Lawyers in America 2011

Below is a list of all the 2011 FSB honorees:


    * Mike Bonasso - Commercial Litigation
    * Stephen Brooks - Medical Malpractice Law and Personal Injury Litigation
    * Bob Coffield - Health Care Law
    * Tom Flaherty - Personal Injury Litigation
    * David Givens - Medical Malpractice Law
    * Ted Martin - Medical Malpractice Law
    * Mark Robinson - Medical Malpractice Law
    * Don Sensabaugh - Medical Malpractice Law and Personal Injury Litigation
    * Jeff Wakefield - Bet-the-Company Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Medical Malpractice

Best Lawyers is based on an exhaustive peer-review survey in which more than 39,000 leading attorneys cast almost 3.1 million votes on the legal abilities of other lawyers in their practice areas. Corporate Counsel magazine has called Best Lawyers "the most respected referral list of attorneys in practice."

What Health Care Employers Need to Know about the West Virginia Patient Safety Act

Ryan Brown, a health care attorney at Flaherty Sensabaugh Bonasso PLLC who specializes in medical malpractice defense, health care regulatory work and health care related employment issues wrote this summary of the West Virginia Patient Safety Act.


In 2001, the West Virginia Legislature passed the Patient Safety Act (“PSA”), W.Va. Code § 16-39-1 et seq. The purpose of the PSA was to provide an avenue for health care workers to report instances of waste or wrongdoing without the fear of retaliatory or discriminatory treatment by their employers through termination, demotion, reduction of time, lost wage, or lost benefits. The PSA requires the identity of a health care worker who reports waste or wrongdoing to a health care entity (e.g., hospital, clinic, nursing facility, etc.) or appropriate governmental authority to remain confidential. Health care entities are also required to post a summary of the important provisions of the PSA on the premises for its employees.


It is important for health care entities to understand that the PSA prohibits retaliation or discrimination against a health care worker who made a good faith report; advocated on behalf of patients, services or conditions of a health care entity; or cooperated in any investigation relating to the care, services or conditions of the health care entity. A health care worker who has been retaliated or discriminated against by his or her employer in violation of the PSA may file a civil suit and recover payment of back wages, costs of the litigation, reasonable attorney fees, and even reinstatement.


Many employers in West Virginia have had experience with the West Virginia Human Rights Act (“WVHRA”), W.Va. Code § 5-11-1 et seq, and its exception to the “at-will” employment doctrine. The WVHRA prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, disability, and familial status. The WVHRA has been used by former employees as a way to defeat “at-will” employment by alleging that they were wrongfully terminated based on a protected status, rather than for unsatisfactory job performance. Although initially designed to improve the quality of patient care, the PSA has also been used by some former health care employees as a way to get around the concept of “at-will” employment. For example, a discharged health care worker could potentially sue his former employer using the PSA to allege that he was discriminated against after he reported instances of the employer’s waste and wrongdoing.


Health care entities must take special care not only to document the unsatisfactory performance of its employees, but also document and investigate complaints of waste or wrongdoing to shield itself from such PSA lawsuits. These lawsuits can be quite complicated as they encompass elements of both employment litigation and medical professional liability litigation.

Reversal of Conviction Because Undisclosed MySpace Friendship Between Defendant and Juror

Brian Peterson posts on a fascinating West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals decision involving the use of social media between a juror and defendant and the issue of disclosure of such connections during voir dire.


In State v. Dellinger, No 3573 (W.Va. Supr. Ct. June 3, 2010) (PDF version) the West Virginia Supreme Court reversed a felony conviction of a Braxton County Sheriff due to a juror's "complete lack of candor" during voir dire. The juror and defendant were MySpace friends, but hardly knew each other. The Court found that the juror should have disclosed the relationship.


The Court describes the juror misconduct as follows:

    At the direction of the trial judge, an investigation into alleged juror misconduct was conducted concerning Juror Amber Hyre. During the course of the investigation and at the June 11, 2008, hearing, it was learned that on February 7, 2008, approximately one week before Appellant's trial began, Juror Hyre sent a message to Appellant on “www.MySpace.com,” a social networking website. In that message, Juror Hyre, known as “Amber,” wrote to Appellant:

        Hey, I dont know you very well But I think you could use some advice! I havent been in your shoes for a long time but I can tell ya that God has a plan for you and your life. You might not understand why you are hurting right now but when you look back on it, it will make perfect sence. I know it is hard but just remember that God is perfect and has the most perfect plan for your life. Talk soon!

    According to Juror Hyre, after she sent this message to Appellant, the two became MySpace “friends,” which allowed Appellant to view postings on Juror Hyre's MySpace page and vice versa.

At the end of the decision, the Court in footnote 11 highlights the need for lawyers and judges to instruct jurors of their responsibility and provides a cautionary note to them about using technology during the trial process and deliberation. The Court provides a link to the model jury instruction developed by the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States. I previously blogged about this Model Jury Instruction here.


The footnote reads:

    As noted above, Juror Hyre posted a message on her MySpace page during the course of the trial in which she wrote, “Amber Just got home from Court and getting ready to get James and Head to church! Then back to court in the morning!” Next to “mood,” she wrote the word “blah.” The trial court found that Juror Hyre “did not state which trial she was hearing or any facts or opinions about the trial.” Though this Court does not condone any communication about a case by a sitting juror, we agree with the trial court's apparent finding that Juror Hyre's posting was benign in nature. We believe that, standing alone, it was not sufficient to find that she engaged in juror misconduct. However, we also believe some cautionary words are warranted concerning the prominent presence of the internet and routine use of and dependence upon various technologies by everyday Americans called to jury service. In an effort to preclude jurors from using cell phones, computers and social media websites such as MySpace, the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States has endorsed a model jury instruction for federal district court judges to help deter jurors from using such technology for improper purposes (such as communicating about their case or conducting their own research). [Rules for Jurors: No Talking, Texting, Tweeting,] The National Law Journal, February 9, 2010, available at http//www.law.com/jsp/law technologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202442983764. For example, the jury instruction to be given before trial cautions, inter alia:
    I know that many of you use cell phones, Blackberries, the internet and other tools of technology. You also must not talk to anyone about this case or use these tools to communicate electronically with anyone about the case. . . .You may not communicate with anyone about the case on your cell phone, through e-mail, Blackberry, iPhone, text messaging, or on Twitter, through any blog or website, through any internet chat room, or by way of any other social networking websites, including Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, and YouTube.”

    The jury instruction to be given at the close of the case similarly provides:
    During your deliberations, you must not communicate with or provide any information to anyone by any means about this case. You may not use any electronic device or media, such as a telephone, cell phone, smart phone, iPhone, Blackberry or computer; the internet, any internet service, or any text or instant messaging service; or any internet chat room, blog, or website such as FaceBook, MySpace, LinkedIn, YouTube or Twitter, to communicate to anyone any information about this case or to conduct any research about this case until I accept your verdict.

    We note that, presently, there are no similar uniform standards for jurors in state trials. Id.

Lesson: If you are called for jury duty be sure to review all your MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, etc. contacts to make sure you have no connection to the parties in the matter. The case also highlights that technology has allowed all of us to develop new (more extended, not necessarily deeper) relationships with people that we don't really consider part of our "in person" social circle.The case also points out that jurors need to "go off the grid" during trial and deliberation process.


To get the full context of what occurred I recommend reading the full decision. Also, jump over to Brian's blog post to read more of his comments on the decision. I agree with his conclusion, "It's clear that voir dire and jury instructions need to catch up with technology."


UPDATE (6/15/10): Eric Goldman at the Technology & Marketing Blog and Molly DiBianca at Going Paperless provides additional analysis and thoughts on the decision.


UPDATE (6/18/2010): Ry Rivard at the Charleston Daily Mail covers the decision in his story, Web stirs problems in jury selection.

AHLA Connections: Legal Implications of Health Care Social Media

The current issue of the American Health Lawyers Association's Connections magazine features an article I co-authored with fellow AHLA health lawyer, Jody Joiner, on the impact of social media use in health care.

The article, Risky Business: Treating Tweeting the Symptoms of Social Media (PDF version), is featured in the March 2010 issue of AHLA Connections (Vol.14, No. 3, March 2010), a health lawyer magazine for the health and life sciences law community.

We provide background context on the use of social media tools by health care providers, address why we think health lawyers need to understand social media, and explore some of the legal implications as social media and the law intersect. The article ends with practical guidance to health care providers and organizations on implementing policies emphasizing the appropriate use of social media.

You can peruse the complete digital edition of the March 2010 AHLA Connections (Vol. 14, No. 3, March 2010). AHLA members should also check out the article in this issue on the recently launch Health Law Wiki. Great to see AHLA adding a wiki resource for members to share their expertise and experience in the complex and ever changing health care legal and regulatory world.

Special thanks to the AHLA Connections staff for allowing Jody and I the opportunity to write the article and for their great editorial assistance.

HITECH Law Blog

A warm welcome to fellow AHLA member and health law blogger, Kathie McDonald-McClure.

I just ran across her blog, HITECH Law Blog. She focuses the blog on health information technology, privacy and security and the blog was named after the HITECH Act. Looks like a great addition to the health law blogosphere.

Ms. McDonald-McClure is a member of the Health Care Services Team at Wyatt Tarrant & Combs, LLP in Louisville, KY.

AHLA Hospital's Friend or Foe: The Age of Social Media and Health 2.0

Today Jody Joiner and I presented at the AHLA Hospitals and Health Systems Institute on the use of social media by hospitals and health care providers. We provided an overview of social media use by hospitals and health care providers, discussed the pros/cons of using social media in the health care environment, presented case studies of the risks and legal implications and did a short role play involving tweets in the context of a medical negligence case. We also provided those attending with recommendations on developing social media guidelines and policies.

To show the speed and ease of using social media tools to spread information, news and photos we we did some live shots during the presentations using an iPhone that were then loaded up to my blog, Twitter and Facebook. We then pulled up the posts and tweets at the end of our hour presentation.

Great audience with great follow up questions. Thanks go out to Mark Browne (@ConsultDoc) and Peter Leibold (@HealthLawyers) for live tweeting during the session.

Model Jury Instruction: Warning Jurors on Use of Electronic Technology and Social Media

The Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States has issued a memo regarding Juror Use of Electronic Communication Technologies.

At its December 2009 meeting, the Judicial Conference Committee endorsed a set of suggested jury instructions that federal district judges should consider using to help deter jurors from using electronic technologies to research or communicate about cases while they serve as jurors. The recommended instructions were developed as a result of the increased use of web enabled mobile phones and devices that can be used to research information and communicated in a variety of ways, including email, social media, etc.

The Proposed Model Jury Instruction reads as follows:

Proposed Model Jury Instructions

The Use of Electronic Technology to Conduct Research on or Communicate about a Case Prepared by the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management

December 2009

Before Trial:
You, as jurors, must decide this case based solely on the evidence presented here within the four walls of this courtroom. This means that during the trial you must not conduct any independent research about this case, the matters in the case, and the individuals or corporations involved in the case. In other words, you should not consult dictionaries or reference materials, search the internet, websites, blogs, or use any other electronic tools to obtain information about this case or to help you decide the case. Please do not try to find out information from any source outside the confines of this courtroom.

Until you retire to deliberate, you may not discuss this case with anyone, even your fellow jurors. After you retire to deliberate, you may begin discussing the case with your fellow jurors, but you cannot discuss the case with anyone else until you have returned a verdict and the case is at an end. I hope that for all of you this case is interesting and noteworthy. I know that many of you use cell phones, Blackberries, the internet and other tools of technology. You also must not talk to anyone about this case or use these tools to communicate electronically with anyone about the case. This includes your family and friends. You may not communicate with anyone about the case on your cell phone, through e-mail, Blackberry, iPhone, text messaging, or on Twitter, through any blog or website, through any internet chat room, or by way of any other social networking websites, including Facebook, My Space, LinkedIn, and YouTube.

At the Close of the Case:
During your deliberations, you must not communicate with or provide any information to anyone by any means about this case. You may not use any electronic device or media, such as a telephone, cell phone, smart phone, iPhone, Blackberry or computer; the internet, any internet service, or any text or instant messaging service; or any internet chat room, blog, or website such as Facebook, My Space, LinkedIn, YouTube or Twitter, to communicate to anyone any information about this case or to conduct any research about this case until I accept your verdict.

HISPC Reports on State Health Information Law, Business Practice and Policy

The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) has made available a compendium of reports which detail variations in state health information law, business practices and policy related to privacy and security of health information and the electronic exchange of health information.

The reports were developed in 2009 as a part of the ongoing efforts of the Health Information Security and Privacy Collaboration (HISPC) that started in 2006 when I had the the opportunity to work on the initial round of HISPC work as it related to West Virginia. The efforts by HISPC was to take a national look (at a state level) on the privacy and security challenges faced by the variation of state laws, policies and practices.

The reports will be a great resource for those who regularly look at state health information legal issues. Following are the summaries of the five reports along with links to the various tables/appendices:

• Report on State Medical Record Access Laws This report analyzes state laws that are intended to require health care providers (specifically, medical doctors and hospitals) to afford individuals access to their own health information and to identify potential barriers to the electronic exchange of health information. Specific state law provisions examined: scope of medical records to which patients are afforded access, format of information furnished, deadlines for responding to requests, fees for furnishing copies, record retention laws and access to records of minors.
• Report on State Law Requirements for Patient Permission to Disclose Health Information In Phase I of the HISPC project a majority of participants reported significant variation in the business practices and policies surrounding the need for and process of obtaining patient permission to use and disclose personal health information for a variety of purposes, including for treatment. This report furthers the initial work of this project by collating and analyzing state laws that govern the disclosure of identifiable health information for treatment purposes to identify commonalities and differences.
• Releasing Clinical Laboratory Test Results: Report on Survey of State Laws For this report, state statutes and regulations were analyzed to determine to whom clinical laboratories may release test results. This report focused on clinical laboratory and hospital licensing laws (that contain standards for hospital laboratories). It also examined general state medical record access laws to determine whether they provided an avenue for patients to access their clinical laboratory results directly.
• Report on State Prescribing Laws: Implications for e-Prescribing This report identifies and analyzes the impact and variation of state laws related to e-prescribing. The report addresses state laws related to the e-prescribing of controlled and non-controlled substances as well as topics such as record keeping and content requirements, out-of-state prescriptions, and generic substitution laws.
• Perspectives on Patient Matching: Approaches, Findings, and Challenges This report analyzes various approaches to matching patients to their health information in the context of electronic health information exchange. Current and potential methods for matching patients to their health records are discussed, challenges to performing patient matching such as scalability and ease of use are analyzed, and the types of information some HIOs use to match patients to their health records is described.

The Saga Over The Privacy of Medicare Claims Data Continues . . .

Guest post by Michele Grinberg, my colleague in the Health Care Practice Group at Flaherty, Sensabaugh Bonasso PLLC.

Through indirection find direction out? With apologies to William Shakespeare, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the11th Circuit and D.C. circuit say: NO, not this time.

In Jennifer D. Alley, Real Time Medical Data, LLC v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, issued Dec. 18, 2009, the Court held that plaintiffs Alley & Real Time Data cannot obtain certain Medicare data for procedures performed in Florida, Georgia, Mississippi and Tennessee by AMA physicians and for all Florida physicians (the certified class). Specifically, Medicare Part B raw claims data that could easily be matched to a particular physician and then aggregated to calculate the total annual Medicare payment by physician cannot be disclosed to Alley. Alley had sought the information through filing a federal Freedom of Information Request (FOIA).

The reason? Because the Florida District Court in 1979 issued a permanent injunction in Florida Medical Assn. v. Dept. of Health Education & Welfare, prohibiting DHHS (then HEW) from disclosing “any list of annual Medicare reimbursements…for any years, which would personally and individually identify those providers of services …. Any such disclosure of annual Medicare reimbursement amounts, for any years, in a manner that would personally and individually identify the providers….is contrary to federal law.” (quoted in Alley)

Judge Carnes in a well-authored opinion (for those of you, like me, who care about good writing) enjoys the irony of hearing argument that sounds much like the health policy arguments heard in the mid-1970s. His second sentence reads: “The present national debate over health care rhymes a lot with one that took place three decades ago.” But whether it’s still good policy or not, Judge Carnes holds that plaintiffs cannot collaterally attack the 1979 injunction by arguing it does not apply to the data sought or the context has shifted in favor of disclosure or the reimbursement methodology has changed. Rather, if plaintiffs believe the injunction is no longer valid, their recourse is to go back to the court where the injunction issued and challenge it there.

In a footnote, the 11th Circuit references a recent 2009, United States of Court of Appeals D.C. Circuit, decision: Consumers’ Checkbook, Center For Study of Services. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The lower court’s holding in this case was discussed in this blog in 2008 (Consumers' Checkbook v HHS Update). In the 11th Circuit footnote (No.9), the court observes that in a factually similar case, the D.C. Circuit has held that FOIA exemption 6 permits DHHS to not disclose the requested Medicare data. FOIA exemption 6 protects from disclosure government agency files that constitute “a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

What we have then are two cases: one that upholds a 1979 injunction which enjoins DHHS from providing Medicare data that can be manipulated to identify annual reimbursements to individual physicians and other providers but which injunction reaches only the certified class of providers (identified above); and a second case that holds that providing similar Medicare data that can be tied to individual providers is protected from disclosure by a FOIA exemption. Thus, data elements which might indirectly seem disclosable are not if they lead to a resulting disclosure which invades personal privacy. We will see what changes health insurance reform brings, if any.

The AMA provides additional analysis of the decision in a story posted January 11, 2010, Appeals court rejects effort to sell Medicare physician claims data. Also, Law.com reports on the decision in its article, Mark Twain Lives On in Federal Judge's Ruling on Release of Medicare Data.

2010 AHLA Hospitals and Health Systems Law Institute: Hot 2010 Health Law Legal Topics

Although it is cold today in West Virginia - I'm hoping it will be hot in Florida in February.

I thought I would take a moment on this cold wintry day to write about the hot health topics that will be discussed at the American Health Lawyers Association (AHLA) Hospitals and Health Systems Law Institute scheduled for February 25-26, 2010 at the Doral Golf Resort & Spa in Miami, Florida (Conference Brochure PDF).

I will be speaking at the Hospitals Law Institute along with my colleague, Jody Joiner, Assistant Operations Counsel at Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System. Our topic scheduled for Friday, February 26 is Hospital’s Friend or Foe: The Age of Social Media and Health 2.0 where we plan to cover:

• The social media technology tools used by health care providers and hospitals
• Pros/cons and legal implications of social media and health 2.0 services such as blogs, wikis, social networking, podcasting, video sharing, etc.
• Best practices and development of policies and procedures which address staff and employees using social media

In addition to our session there will be variety of "hot" health law legal topic covered at the conference that will interest hospital administrators and their legal counsel, including sessions on government data mining to identify hospital compliance, understanding the recent ARRA HITECH developments impacting HIPAA and EHR, hospital/physician collaboration and relationships, best practices in hospital practitioner credentialing, peer review and privileging, voluntary disclosure strategies, hospital clinical research issues, and much more.

The AHLA Hospital and Health System Law Institute overlaps with the AHLA Physicians and Physician Organizations Law Insitute which will be held on February 24-25.The Physician Law Insitute will include "hot" physician topics on on call payments, Accountability Care Organizations, HITECH, disruptive physician behavior intervention, Stark issues for physicians, hospital/physician mergers, FMV for physician compensation and much more.

You can register for one or both. As an AHLA Member I regularly attend the Physician/Hospital Law Institutes every year or so because of quality and breadth of health law related materials for those who work in the health care industry. More information, along with how to register, can be found at the AHLA website:
Hospitals and Health Systems Law Institute
Physicians and Physician Organizations Law Insitute

Lorman Medical Records Law Seminar: March 18, 2010

On March 18, 2010 I will be speaking on Medical Records Law at a seminar in Charleston, West Virginia. The seminar is sponsored by Lorman Educational Services. Joining me for the day long seminar will be three very knowledgeable health care colleagues:

• Michael T. Harmon, MPA, CIPP/G, Compliance Specialist for the West Virginia Mutual Insurance Company, a Medical Professional Liability Insurance Company
• Sallie H. Milam, J.D., CIPP/G, Executive Director of the West Virginia Health Information Network and Chief Privacy Officer for the West Virginia State Government
• James W. Thomas, Esq., Manager of the Charleston, West Virginia Business Law Department of Jackson Kelly PLLC whose practice focuses primarily upon health care matters of a business, regulatory and operational nature
  

Additional information about the seminar and how to register can be found at Lorman Educational Services. Following is the full seminar agenda:

8:30 am – 9:00 am			Registration
9:00 am – 9:15 am			Overview
9:15 am – 10:30 am			HIPAA Compliance: Reality and Perspective
			— Michael T. Harmon, MPA, CIPP/G
			Overview Enforcement Complaints Case Examples Summary of HITECH Changes
10:30 am – 10:45 am			Break
10:45 am – 12:00 pm			HITECH Financial Incentives for Implementation of HIT
			— James W. Thomas, Esq.
			Qualifying an Electronic Health Record System Available Financial Incentives
12:00 pm – 1:00 pm			Lunch (On Your Own)
1:00 pm – 2:00 pm			Health Information Exchange in West Virginia: Impact on Patient Records
			— Sallie H. Milam, J.D., CIPP/G
2:00 pm – 2:15 pm			Break
2:15 pm – 3:30 pm			Consumer Driven Health Care: HITECH, Health 2.0, Social Media and Personal Health Records
			— Robert L. Coffield, Esq.
			HITECH Breach Notification Requirements Impact of Health 2.0 and Social Media Technology on the Future of Health Care Development and Adoption of Personal Health Records Discuss the Legal Implications of Emerging Technology
3:30 pm – 4:30 pm			Panel Discussion
			— Robert L. Coffield, Esq., Michael T. Harmon, MPA, CIPP/G, Sallie H. Milam, J.D., CIPP/G and James W. Thomas, Esq.

West Virginia State Bar and Office of Disciplinary Counsel News

The West Virginia State Bar announced today that the Office of Disciplinary Counsel has a new website. Also, the West Virginia State Bar has redesigned its website design..

The new Office of Disciplinary Counsel website contains information about the disciplinary complaint process the function of the Lawyer Disciplinary Board, the Rules of professional Conduct and the disciplinary complaint process. The website also has links to all Legal Ethics Opinions issued by the Lawyer Disciplinary Board and recent disciplinary decisions issued by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Also, the West Virginia State Bar announces that the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeal has entered order with a proposed amendment to Rule 8, Rules for Admission Pro Hac Vice. The proposed amendment increases the fee pad to the West Virginia State Bar for each individual applicant for pro hac vice admission from $250 to $350. Public comment on the proposed rule is being received through January 25, 2010.
A copy of the proposed order:

Request for Comments on Proposed Amendment to Rule 8.0 Admission pro hac vice, of the West Virginia Rules of Admission to the Practice of Law

UPDATE (3/16/10):

The West Virginia State Bar's Unlawful Practice of Law Committee released Advisory Opinion 10-001, relating to questions from attorneys regarding its interpretation of Rule 8 of the West Virginia Rules of Admission to the Practice of Law, relating to admissions pro hac vice.

Advisory Opinion 10-001 addresses the following issues:

1. Whether the requirement in Rule 8 of of admission pro hac vice extends to matters in which no action, suit or proceeding is pending;

2. To what extent is the responsible local attorney required to participate in proceedings involving the attorney admitted pro hac vice;

3. Whether presiding judicial officers can "excuse" local counsel form participation or "waive" the requirement of participating; and

4. What limitations exist for attorneys seeking to be admitted pro hac vice, particularly their ability to be admitted on a frequent basis, or in multiple or consolidated actions.

Drug and Device Law: Herrmann's Farewell Post

Farewell and congratulations go out to fellow health law blogger, Mark Herrmann, (formerly) co-author of the Drug and Device Law Blog and author of The Curmudgeon's Guide to Practicing Law.

In Mark's Farewell Post he announced that he is leaving Jones Day after 20 years to become the VP and Chief Counsel - Litigation at Aon Corporation. Fellow co-author, James Beck, has this to say (Long Live the Blog) about Mark's departure. He also announces 3 new lawyers joining the blogging team to replace Mark. Wow! 3 lawyers to replace 1. What a complement.

Although not much of my practice focuses on drug and device work, I have been a periodic reader since the early years of blogging. Why? Because I've always loved the tone of their posts - informal, practical and lighthearted. Great to see Beck link to a post that I remember reading (and liking) about why big firms don't blog well. Great advice for any law blogger.

Thanks to the Likelihood of Confusion post that tipped me on Mark's departure.

Blawg Review #242: The Age of Illumination

These days I don't always get around to religiously reading Blawg Review every week - but I'm glad I took the time to read Ron Coleman's Blawg Review #242 hosted at Likelihood of Confusion.

In the past I often submitted blog posts to the editor - but have gotten out of the habit. Ron's post reminded me of the importance of keeping this blogging carnival tradition alive. I'm glad that Blawg Review has survived the onslaught of the 140 character micro-blawg post (aka legal tweet).

Blawg Review #242 is an eloquent Chanukah edition containing an insightful look at the whys of blogging (especially for those of us who have been doing this for years). Ron provides a glimpse at the current state of law blogging and what the future may hold. He leaves us with this wonderful thought.

"It's the Age of Illumination. A light in every window. A blawg for every shingle. Photons and pixels souring across the either, generating, light yes! Fluorescent, halogen, you name it; sparkling, illuminating all . . . Generating light . . but no heat."

As past host of Blawg Review (Edition #97) and Grand Rounds (Grand Rounds 3.5) I understand the time and effort put into digesting and creatively weaving together the posts from the week. Incredible job Ron - thanks for giving me the pleasure of reading your post.

Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion on Social Media: Accept or Deny? Deny

The Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee issued JEAC Opinion 2009-20 on November 19, 2009, indicating that judges may not add lawyers who may appear before the judge as "friends" on a social networking site, nor may judges permit such lawyers to add the judges as their "friend".

However, the Committee did not entirely ban judges from using social media tools. Judges may post comments and other materials on their social media pages as long as the materials do not otherwise violate the Code of Judicial Ethics.

So, if you are a Florida judge using Facebook the answer to invitations to connect from lawyer colleagues must be "deny." Interesting decision that may have significant impact in the legal community as it relates to the use of social media tools by litigation lawyers.

For more analysis and thoughts on the topic check out the NYT article, For Judges on Facebook, Friendship Has Limits. Additional coverage and posts via the Mike Frisch at Legal Professional Blog, Ashby Jones of WSJ Legal Blog and Dan Macsai of Fast Company. Thanks to Denise Howell for the tweet tip about the recently issued opinion.

This is not the first look by judicial ethics committees at the evolving role of social media relationships between lawyers and judges. As reported by the ABA Journal back in June, a North Carolina judge was publicly reprimanded by the North Carolina Judicial Standards Committee for "friending" a lawyer in a pending case.

Following are the specific questions/answers the Florida Committee addressed in the Opinion.

Q: Whether a judge may post comments and other material on the judge's page on a social networking site, if the publication of such material does not otherwise violate the Code of Judicial Conduct. ANSWER: Yes.
Whether a judge may add lawyers who may appear before the judge as "friends" on a social networking site, and permit such lawyers to add the judge as their "friend." ANSWER: No.
Q: Whether a committee of responsible persons, which is conducting an election campaign on behalf of a judge's candidacy, may post material on the committee's page on a social networking site, if the publication of the material does not otherwise violate the Code of Judicial Conduct. ANSWER: Yes.
Q: Whether a committee of responsible persons, which is conducting an election campaign on behalf of a judge's candidacy, may establish a social networking page which has an option for persons, including lawyers who may appear before the judge, to list themselves as "fans" or supporters of the judge's candidacy, so long as the judge or committee does not control who is permitted to list himself or herself as a supporter. ANSWER: Yes.

UPDATE (12/14/09): Over the weekend Ernie Swenson tweeted (via @LALegalEthics) about a South Carolina Advisory Opinion (Opinion No. 17-2009) issued in October 2009 looking at the propriety of a magistrate judge being a member of a social networking site such as Facebook.

The facts presented to the Advisory Committed on Standards of Judicial Conduct by the magistrate judge were:

A magistrate judge has inquired as to the propriety of being a member of Facebook, a social networking site. The Magistrate is friends with several law enforcement officers and employees of the Magistrate’s office. The Magistrate is concerned about the possibility of an appearance of impropriety since the list of Facebook subscribers is vast.

The South Carolina Advisory Committee reached a less restrictive conclusion than the Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee discussed above. The Committee reasoned that a judge "shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary." The Committee continued by stating that "complete separation of a judge from extra-judicial activities is neither possible nor wise" and that a judge should nto become isolated from the community. The Committee found that allowing a magistrate to be a member of a social networking site allows the community to see how the judge commicates and gives the community a better understanding of the judge.

The Committee's conclusion was the following:
A judge may be a member of Facebook and be friends with law enforcement officers and employees of the Magistrate as long as they do not discuss anything related to the judge’s position as magistrate.

Bob Ambrogi at Legal Blog Watch provides additional analysis and comparison of the South Carolina and Florida opinions. Bob points out a distinction between the two rulings in that one deals with the friending of "attorneys" by judges while the other deals with friending of "non-lawyers" (law enforcement officials and courtroom employees) by judges. He concludes by making this point:

The key difference between the two opinions is in who a judge may friend without calling into question the judge's impartiality and integrity. A judge who friends courtroom employees provides no cause for concern, South Carolina says, but a judge who friends courtroom advocates does, Florida finds.

ARRA - HITECH: Health Care Information Breach Notification Regulations Now In Effect

Have you had a health data security breach? Do you know what a health data breach is? Are you required to notify individuals impacted by the breach? Do you have to notify federal agencies of such breach?

Read on for more information regarding the Office for Civil Right (OCR) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulations requiring health care providers and other health data business vendors to assess and in some cases notify and report health information data breaches under the new federal law created by ARRA-HITECH.

The new regulations went into effect on September 23, 2009 and September 24, 2009, respectively, with a full compliance date of February 22, 2010. Health care providers covered under HIPAA and third party users of health information, including personal health record (PHR) companies and vendors, PHR related entities, health 2.0 companies and other third party health data service providers, should examine the regulations and understand the impact on their business.

The regulations require entities to develop internal compliance processes to act upon and advise individuals of data breaches that pose a significant risk of financial, reputational or other harm to the affected individual. The OCR regulations apply mainly to covered entities and business associates under HIPAA and the FTC regulations apply mainly to PHR vendors and PHR related entities. The regulations define a "breach" and set forth the time frames and scope of notification required. The regulations require the tracking and reporting of such data breaches to OCR and FTC. Also, OCR has published separate guidance specifying the technology and methods that will render health information unusable, unreadable and undecipherable as defined under ARRA-HITECH.

OCR has provided a summary of the breach notification rule on its website. OCR has also published instructions for reporting breaches to the HHS Secretary. The instructions include details for reporting "Breaches Affecting 500 or More Individuals" and "Breaches Affecting Fewer than 500 Individuals." OCR will also maintain a list of reported breaches that impact 500 or more individuals. The FTC also has a section on its website providing information on its health breach notification rule.

Below are links to the full regulation text:

• OCR Interim Final Rule - Breach Notification for Unsecured Protected Health Information (45 CFR Part 160 and 164) 74 Fed. Reg. 42740 (Aug 24, 2009).
  

• OCR Guidance Specifying the Technologies and Methodologies That Render Protected Health Information Unusable, Unreadable, or Indecipherable to Unauthorized Individuals for Purposes of the Breach Notification Requirements Under Section 13402 of Title XIII (Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009; Request for Information 74 Fed. Reg. 19006 (April 27, 2009).
  

• Federal Trade Commission: Health Breach Notification Rule: Final Rule -- Issued Pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 -- Requiring Vendors of Personal Health Records and Related Entities To Notify Consumers When the Security of Their Individually Identifiable Health Information Has Been Breached (16 CFR Part 318) 74 Fed. Reg. 42962 (Aug 25, 2009). The FTC has also issued a Breach Notification Form.

UPDATE (July 29, 2010):

Today the OCR/HHS issued a statement that the OCR Interim Final Rule listed above and published on August 24, 2010, is being withdrawn from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The full notice published on the OCR website states:

Breach Notification Final Rule Update

The Interim Final Rule for Breach Notification for Unsecured Protected Health Information, issued pursuant to the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, was published in the Federal Register on August 24, 2009, and became effective on September 23, 2009. During the 60-day public comment period on the Interim Final Rule, HHS received approximately 120 comments.

HHS reviewed the public comment on the interim rule and developed a final rule, which was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Executive Order 12866 regulatory review on May 14, 2010. At this time, however, HHS is withdrawing the breach notification final rule from OMB review to allow for further consideration, given the Department’s experience to date in administering the regulations. This is a complex issue and the Administration is committed to ensuring that individuals’ health information is secured to the extent possible to avoid unauthorized uses and disclosures, and that individuals are appropriately notified when incidents do occur. We intend to publish a final rule in the Federal Register in the coming months.

West Virginia Health Care Authority Revises Fee Schedule for Certificate of Need Program

On July 15, 2009, the West Virginia Health Care Authority filed with the West Virginia Secretary of State proposed amendments to the its procedural rule regarding the schedule of fees for the filing of certificate of need applications and exemption requests under the West Virginia Certificate of Need Program.

The amendment revises the fee schedule pursuant to Senate Bill 321 passed during the 2009 Legislative Session. The amendment required the fee schedule contain a maximum amount or cap for certificate of need application fees.

The proposed rule, Fee Schedule for Certificate of Need Matters, CSR 65-10 (redline version showing amendments) has been filed with the West Virginia Secretary of State. Written comments to the proposed rule may be submitted to the Authority before August 14, 2009 at 5:00 p.m.

WV Northern District Court: Attorney Filing Manual

Brian Peterson highlights a great resource for lawyers who regularly practice in the United States District Court for the Northern District Court of West Virginia.

The Attorney Filing Manual is a 20 page manual that provides guidance to lawyers on how to e-file certain types of documents wth the Court. The manual explains when documents should be filed electronically and the exceptions to the mandatory electronic filing requirements. The manual contains specifics on the filing of all types of pleadings and provides sample certificate of services format for electronic filing.

The manual also discussed the use of "hyperlinks" in documents and allows electronically filed documents to contain hyperlinks to other portions of the document or to internet sites that contain source documkents for citations. However, the manual states that hyperlinks do not replace standard citations format and "neither the hyperlink, or any site to which it refers, shall be considered part of the record."

Proposed Certificate of Need Rule: Hospital Ambulatory Health Care Facility

On June 8, 2009, the West Virginia Health Care Authority filed a proposed legislative rule with the Secretary of State and Legislative Rule-Making Review Committee titled Hospital Ambulatory Health Care Facilities. CSR 65-27. The official notice can be found in the June 12, 2009 issue of the West Virginia Register.

The proposed rule impacts the procedure used by West Virginia hospitals to obtain approval prior to developing an ambulatory health care facility. The proposed legislative rule establishes the circumstances and procedures by which a certificate of need may not be required for the construction, development, acquisition or other establishment by a hospital of an ambulatory health care facility. The proposed rule sets out exemption criteria and the exemption procedure.

The Authority established a comment period for interested parties to submit comments concerning the  proposed rule. Written comments must be submitted to the Authority before July 8, 2009 at 5:00 p.m.

West Virginia Lawyer Disciplinary Board Issues Legal Ethics Opinion on Metadata

On June 10, 2009, the West Virginia Lawyer Disciplinary Board issued Legal Ethics Opinion 2009-01 (What is Metadata and Why Should Lawyers Be Cautious?) to raise awareness among lawyers to be cautious when dealing with metadata. The opinion describes "metadata" as the data behind the data - including the location where the document is created, opened or saved, author's identity, number of revisions, comments and redlining.

The opinion concludes that lawyers have a duty on both ends. The lawyer sending electronic information has the burden of understanding what information may be contained in the electronic document and take reasonable steps to protect metadata in transmitted documents. Likewise, the receiving lawyer has the duty and burden when receiving inadvertently provided metadata to consult with the sender and abide by the senders instructions before reviewing such metadata.

The opinion also points out that different rules on removing metadata apply in the context of responding to discovery responses and subpoenas. In this case the electronic documents may be tangible evidence and the rules of professional conduct may prohibit the removal of metadata, subject to an assertion that the metadata is privileged.

More thoughts on the metadata opinion by Brian Peterson at West Virginia Legal Weblog.

The West Virginia Lawyer Disciplinary Board also issued Legal Ethics Opinion 2009-02 (Wholly-Owned Subsidiary Law Firms) on June 10, 2009. This opinion looks at the question of whether one law firm can organize a wholly-owned subsidiary law firm. The Board concluded that law firms are allowed to form wholly-owned subsidiary entities but cautioned that law firms should keep these entities transparent and fully disclose to the public and clients the relationship among the seperate entities.

were passed by the Lawyer Disciplinary Board at its June 5, 2009 meeting and entered on June 10, 2009. Click here 2009-01 and 2009-02 for the full Opinions.