DOJ’s New Self-Disclosure Policy and Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program
AGG Talks: Healthcare Insights Podcast - Episode 4: What to Do When Insurance Companies Deny Behavioral Health Claims
Video: Braidwood v. Becerra – Challenging the Affordable Care Act’s Preventive Services Coverage Provision – Thought Leaders in Health Law
Updates to Statute 1557 that Healthcare Providers Need to Know
The No Surprises Act: A Cost Saving Opportunity for Employer Plan Sponsors
Podcast: Health Equity – Behind the Buzzwords – Diagnosing Health Care
Opting Out of Medicare: When and How to Do It
The Burr Broadcast April 2023 - The Official End of COVID-19 Emergencies
Video: Health Care's Past, Present, and Future - Diagnosing Health Care Podcast
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 117: Chris Severn, Co-Founder & CEO, Turquoise Health
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 115: Dr. Michael Havig, CEO, HealthMe
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 106: Dr. James McElligott, MUSC & Dr. Shawn Stinson, BlueCross BlueShield of SC
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - Health Plan Transparency Requirements
Thinking About a Concierge Medical Practice? Assure Compliance with Payor Requirements and the Law
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - New Prescription Drug and Health Coverage Reporting Requirements
Video: Getting Ready for the No Surprises Act - Thought Leaders in Health Law
Podcast: What Is the Future of the Acute Care Hospital Industry? - Diagnosing Health Care
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - Can Employers Impose a Health Insurance Surcharge on Plan Participants Not Vaccinated for COVID-19?
Compliance Into The Weeds - Delta Airlines Responds to the Delta Variant
AGG Talks: Solving Employers’ Problems - The American Rescue Plan Act’s COBRA Subsidy: What Is It and How Does It Work?
Prior to the Obergefell decision, the U.S. Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Windsor, struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which mandated that federal laws only recognize opposite-sex marriages. As a result of...more
On June 26, 2013, in U.S. v. Windsor, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") was unconstitutional. Section 3 of DOMA provided that, for the purpose of any federal law, "marriage"...more
Two controversial cases involving same-sex marriage were decided on June 26, 2013 by the United States Supreme Court. ...more
Last week, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down as unconstitutional a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that defined “marriage” for purposes of over 1,100 federal laws as a legal union between...more
Although the decision of the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor invalidating much of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) affects at most approximately 20% of the population of the United States, it has...more
On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court (the “Court”) issued two decisions, finding that federal and California laws on same-sex marriages are unconstitutional. These decisions will have far-reaching and wide-ranging...more
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that the Defense of Marriage Act’s (DOMA) definition of marriage is unconstitutional. The Court's decision and the decisions allowing same-sex marriage to resume in California will have...more
Defense of Marriage Act - Supreme Court Ruling on United States v. Windsor - The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. ...more
On June 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court held that the Defense of Marriage Act (known as DOMA) is unconstitutional. What does this mean for your company’s employee benefit plans?...more
The ruling on Wednesday by the Supreme Court of the United States, that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional, will immediately extend to legally married same-sex couples a host of federal...more
On June 26, 2013, in U.S. v. Windsor, the US Supreme Court held the federal Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) unconstitutional as a violation of the right to liberty found in the due process clause of the 5th Amendment to the...more
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) provides a single definition of marriage, as between one man and one woman, for purposes of all federal laws, including the Internal Revenue Code and ERISA....more
Court's holding makes federal benefits and tax advantages available to same-sex couples but raises further questions. On June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in United States v. Windsor,...more
Today the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the Defense of Marriage of Act of 1996 in the Windsor v. United States case, which blocked federal benefits to same-sex couples. Originally Published in Equally Wed...more
On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") in Windsor v. United States. Prior to the Supreme Court's decision, Section 3 of DOMA, a federal law, had...more
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Windsor, ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional because it violates the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guaranty for persons of the same...more
The U. S. Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which had established a federal definition of marriage as a legal union only between one man and one woman....more
While the U.S. Supreme Court(the “Court”) ruled section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) unconstitutional, that does not mean that the changes for human resources departments and employee benefits plans can be...more
Today the United States Supreme Court ruled, in United States v. Windsor, that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that prohibited the federal government from recognizing same-sex couples who are legally married in...more