Huping Zhou, a former researcher for the UCLA Healthcare System, argued on appeal that he could not be convicted of a health information privacy violation because he had no knowledge of HIPAA when he accessed some 323 patient records, including those of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tom Hanks.

The court disagreed and upheld Zhou's conviction and prison term. The court ruled that the word "knowingly" in HIPAA pertains only to the act of obtaining private individuals' health records without their consent. In essence, if a person knows he or she is looking at someone else's personal health information without the consent of that person, then he or she is "knowingly" violating the law.

Zhou in 2010 had pled guilty to violating HIPAA and was sentenced to four months in prison and assessed both a $2,000 fine and a $100 special assessment.

Zhou in 2003 had gone on a "snooping" spree during a three-week period after being informed that he was being dismissed for performance reasons. There is no evidence that he used the patient records for personal gain.

Under PPACA, health insurance companies must spend 80 percent of premiums received in the individual market on direct medical costs and 85 percent in the group market. If they fail to reach their applicable medical-loss ratio (that is, if they spend less than 80 or 85 percent on medical costs), they must issue rebates to the consumers or group plans on or after July 1, 2012, but no later than Aug. 1, 2012.

Under the final rule released this past Friday, even companies that meet their medical-loss ratios must issue letters explaining what the MLR is and why there is no rebate coming. The HHS final rule calls this "a notice of MLR information." The notice must employ standardized language from the HHS final rule and must direct the recipients to visit www.HealthCare.gov for further information on MLR.

Judge Boasberg was also instrumental in putting a hold, at least temporarily, on the NLRB's mandate that virtually every employer in the United States post a National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) Employee Rights Poster.

The NLRB on Dec. 16, 2011, voted 2-0, in the absence of the lone Republican member of the board, to implement new union organizing election rules that would expedite elections from about 40 days to just 16 from the request date, while also making legal challenges more difficult. It subsequently argued that since the lone Republican member of the board had previously voiced opposition to the plan, his vote against the rule counted even though he was not present to vote. The judge didn't buy it, citing Woody Allen as a source:

According to Woody Allen, 80 percent of life is just showing up.  When it comes to a quorum requirement, though, showing up is even more important than that.  Indeed, it is the only thing that matters — even when the quorum is constituted electronically.  In this case, because no quorum ever existed for the pivotal vote in question, the Court must hold the challenged rule is invalid.

The NLRB in a statement on its Web site basically said that it would abide by the court's decision, but of the 150 organizing cases that have come before the NLRB since the April 30 implemention of the new (now invalidated) rule, it said it would be up to the participants to decide which rule (pre-April 30 or afterwards) to abide by. Here are the board's exact words:

All parties involved in the 150 cases will be contacted and given the opportunity to continue processing the case from its current posture rather than re-initiating the case under the prior procedure.

“We are cutting red tape and improving health care for all Americans,” said Secretary Sebelius. “Now it will be easier for health care providers to do their jobs and deliver quality care.”

The new rules are being issued today by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

The first rule revises the Medicare Conditions of Participation (CoPs) for hospitals and critical access hospitals (CAHs). CMS estimates that annual savings to hospitals and CAHs will be approximately $940 million per year.

The second, the Medicare Regulatory Reform rule, will produce savings of $200 million in the first year by promoting efficiency. This rule eliminates duplicative, overlapping, and outdated regulatory requirements for health care providers.

Among other changes, the final rules will: 

• Increase flexibility for hospitals by allowing one governing body to oversee multiple hospitals in a single health system; 
• Let CAHs partner with other providers so they can be more efficient and ensure the safe and timely delivery of care to their patients; 
• Require that all eligible candidates, including advanced practice registered nurses and physician assistants, be reviewed by medical staff for potential appointment to the hospital medical staff and then be granted all of the privileges, rights, and responsibilities accorded to appointed medical staff members; and
• Eliminate obsolete regulations, including outmoded infection control instructions for ambulatory surgical centers; outdated Medicaid qualification standards for physical and occupational therapists; and duplicative requirements for governing bodies of organ procurement organizations.

HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) requires covered entities to safeguard all private health information (PHI) from unwarranted disclosure. KPMG so far has visited 20 covered entities, ranging from a single physician's office to acute managed care facilities, during the initial part of its OCR audit contract (OCR is an agency of the Health and Human Services Department of the U.S. government).

In a recent interview, Michael Ebert, who heads the HIPAA audit program for KPMG, shared some preliminary guidance and findings, and his first advice was for companies handling PHI to conduct a "risk analysis," which he says is the "biggest failing" he's discovered so far.

As for the most common problem, according to Ebert: “People need to understand that safeguarding PHI goes beyond electronic. It goes to paper and oral. So how you set up your ERs, how you set up your consultation area” matter.

“We did a review at a large national pharmacy chain and they didn’t have consultation areas that were private enough in a good 20 percent of their stores,” he said. “It was just the nature of the design. They had not updated their design in some of their stores. And they are doing that now. That was an interesting finding. They were like, ‘Oh, we missed that.’”

KPMG will now audit as many as 95 more covered entities, who will receive copies of their audits and be allowed to comment on them before they are forwarded to OCR. Full findings — and subsequent guidance — will be delayed until well after that process is completed.

"This guidance will help both plan administrators and covered service providers comply with their obligations under the department's new fee-transparency rules, so that workers who make their own investment decisions in retirement plans will have the information they need to make informed investment choices," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for EBSA Phyllis C. Borzi. "We also are working on a second set of frequently asked questions and answers focused more narrowly on the new rules for disclosure by covered service providers."

On Oct. 20, 2010, the department published a final rule to help America's workers manage the money they have contributed to their 401(k) accounts, or similar retirement plan accounts, by requiring the disclosure of information regarding the fees and expenses associated with their plans. This participant-level disclosure rule, under section 404(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), also ensures that workers receive core investment information in a format that enables them to meaningfully compare their plan's investment options.

A second and related fee transparency rule requires, in part, that certain covered service providers furnish specified information to plan administrators so that they in turn can comply with their disclosure obligations to participants. This second rule, published by the department on Feb. 3, 2012, under section 408(b)(2) of ERISA, requires disclosures to employers sponsoring pension and 401(k) plans about the administrative and investment costs associated with providing such plans to their workers.

The violations affected current and former vision center managers and asset protection coordinators at Wal-Mart Discount Stores, Wal-Mart Supercenters, Neighborhood Markets and Sam's Club warehouses. Wal-Mart failed to compensate these employees with overtime pay, considering them to be exempt from the FLSA's overtime requirements. The Labor Department's investigation found that the employees are nonexempt and consequently due overtime pay for any hours worked beyond 40 in a week.

About 1,700 employees and former employees in asset protection will receive about $290 each on average, while about 2,000 vision center managers past and present will receive about $2,300 each.

"When the issues resolved today were initially raised, we took them seriously and fully cooperated with the Department of Labor to make sure they were corrected in 2007," said Walmart spokesman Greg Rossiter.

Every year, thousands of workers across the country suffer from serious heat-related illnesses, the agency explained. If not quickly addressed, heat exhaustion can become heat stroke, which has killed — on average — more than 30 workers annually since 2003. Labor-intensive activities in hot weather can raise body temperatures beyond the level that normally can be cooled by sweating. Heat illness initially may manifest as heat rash or heat cramps, but quickly can become heat exhaustion and then heat stroke if simple prevention steps are not followed.

"It is essential for workers and employers to take proactive steps to stay safe in extreme heat, and become aware of symptoms of heat exhaustion before they get worse," said David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health. "Agriculture workers; building, road and other construction workers; utility workers; baggage handlers; roofers; landscapers; and others who work outside are all at risk. Drinking plenty of water and taking frequent breaks in cool, shaded areas are incredibly important in the hot summer months."

In preparation for the summer season, OSHA has developed heat illness educational materials in English and Spanish, as well as a curriculum to be used for workplace training. Additionally, a Web page provides information and resources on heat illness — including how to prevent it and what to do in case of an emergency — for workers and employers.

OSHA also has released a free application for mobile devices that enables workers and supervisors to monitor the heat index at their work sites. The app displays a risk level for workers based on the heat index, as well as reminders about protective measures that should be taken at that risk level.

The California-based corporation, which operates fitness centers across the country, requires employees to agree in writing, as a condition of employment, to forego any rights to collective or class action lawsuits or arbitrations.  Such a requirement violates protections guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), according to the complaint issued by the agency’s San Francisco Regional Office.

An investigation was prompted by a charge filed by an employee at the 24 Hour Fitness center in San Ramon, Calif. Since at least the summer of 2010, the company has enforced its no-class-action policy by asserting it in litigation brought by employees in numerous cases, seven of which are cited in the complaint. In each case, employees, who are not represented by a union, sought to bring workplace-related claims, such as wage and hour violations, on a class-wide basis. In response, 24 Hour Fitness sought to compel the employees to submit their common claims to individual arbitrations, citing the policy in its handbook.

The complaint calls for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on June 11, and seeks an order requiring the company’s fitness centers nationwide to stop maintaining and enforcing that portion of the policy that prohibits collective and class action, and to notify all judicial and arbitral forums before which it has opposed such action. 

In D.R. Horton, Inc., 357 NLRB No. 184, decided earlier this year, the board found that the employer, a home building company, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by maintaining, as a condition of employment, a mandatory arbitration agreement that did not allow its employees to file joint, class, or collective employment-related claims in any forum, arbitral or judicial.

This past year, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) held hearings on the subject of employer bias toward the unemployed in the hiring process, but so far those hearings have not resulted in any new regulations or initiatives on the national level.