|
|
|
Court nixes faith-based birth control mandate challenge
Law Firm News |
2015/02/16 12:41
|
An appeals court has ruled that the birth control coverage required by federal health care reforms does not violate the rights of several religious groups because they can seek reasonable accommodations.
Two western Pennsylvania Catholic dioceses and a private Christian college had challenged the birth control coverage mandates and won lower-court decisions. However, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court ruling Wednesday said the reforms place "no substantial burden" on the religious groups and therefore don't violate their First Amendment rights.
All three groups — the college and the Pittsburgh and Erie dioceses — are mulling whether to appeal to the entire 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court.
"Such a ruling should cause deep concern for anyone who cares about any First Amendment rights, especially the right to teach and practice a religious faith," Pittsburgh Bishop David Zubik said in a statement. "This decision says that the church is no longer free to practice what we preach."
At issue is an "accommodation" written into the Affordable Care Act that says religious organizations can opt out of directly providing and paying to cover medical services such groups would consider morally objectionable. In this case, that refers to all contraceptive and abortion services for the Catholic plaintiffs, and contraceptive services like the "week-after" pill and other medical coverage that Geneva College contends violate its anti-abortion teachings. The school in Beaver Falls is affiliated with the Reformed Presbyterian Church.
Justice Department lawyers have argued the accommodation solves the problem because it allows religious groups to opt out of directly providing such coverage. But the plaintiffs contend that merely filing the one-page form, which puts a religious group's objections on record with the government, violates their rights because it still "facilitates" or "triggers" a process that then enables third-party insurers to provide the kind of coverage to which they object. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Romanian court sentences judge to 22 years in bribe case
Law Firm News |
2015/02/04 10:21
|
A court has sentenced a judge to 22 years in prison on charges that he took bribes to rule favorably in several cases involving one of Romania's richest businessmen.
The Bucharest Appeals Court also confiscated a luxury car and money from Mircea Moldovan. The ruling is not yet final.
Businessman Dan Adamescu was also sentenced to four years and four months while judge Elena Roventa received five years and 10 months. Two other judges were also sentenced to prison.
Adamescu was convicted of instructing his lawyer — who threw himself under a train after the judges were arrested — to bribe the judges 20,000 euros ($17,700 ) in December 2013 to rule in his favor in several insolvency cases involving his companies. Adamescu denies wrongdoing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
US Supreme Court takes case, but plaintiff missing
Law Firm News |
2014/12/31 11:39
|
When the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take Bobby Chen's case involving a run-down Baltimore row house razed by the city, it looked past the fact he was too poor to pay the court's filing fee and had no attorney. But now Chen can't be found, something unheard of at the nation's highest court.
The Supreme Court agrees to take less than 1 percent of the roughly 10,000 petitions it receives every year, but it was even rarer for the court to take a case like Chen's. On average, the court takes just 10 petitions a year like his, in which the party making the request is too poor to pay the court's $300 filing fee.
But since the court agreed to take Chen's case in November, he hasn't surfaced. Dec. 22 was Chen's deadline to mail his main legal brief in the case. The court hadn't heard from him as of Tuesday, said Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg.
The court's Clerk's Office, which corresponds with parties who have a case before the court, has tried to reach Chen by letter and email. But it's not clear he got the messages, Arberg said. And he didn't list a phone number when he asked the court to take his case. The Associated Press also tried to reach Chen by email, but the message bounced back as undeliverable. Efforts to find a telephone number were also unsuccessful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Houston Personal Injury Lawyers
Law Firm News |
2014/12/08 14:22
|
An Employer in Texas is obligated to make sure your workplace is safe, that you have competent co-workers, and that you receive proper training and supervision, in addition to following other policies for your safety. Negligence on their watch may result in injuries, ranging from fall, burn, and crush injuries, to broken bones, amputation, and
death. Without proper protection from pinch points, machines, and the assistance of coworkers, you may be in danger. Other hazards include improper fall protection, ladders without safety cages, and poor housekeeping with tripping hazards.
Even if you are receiving workers’ compensation payments for your injuries, and you have been told you are barred by the workers’comp bar, you may still have a claim against a third party for creating or failing to remedy the hazard, such as a general contractor or
contractor, product manufacturer or safety consultant.
You may have a claim against a third party for making a hazard in your workplace, even if you are already receiving workers' compensation payments. Even if you have been told you are barred by the "workers' comp bar," a safety consultant or general contractor may be to blame.
You may have signed a pre-injury waiter, but there is change it is not enforceable. Call one of our personal injury lawyers in Houston, Texas to have questions answered or a case reviewed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal Marketing News RSS
