Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

BMD Obtains Dismissal of ADA Title III Suit Against National Outlet Mall Chain

Client Alert
February 6, 2018

On January 12, 2018, Brennan, Manna & Diamond obtained the dismissal of an Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) lawsuit filed against Tanger Factory Outlet Centers, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan.

The suit, which was brought under Title III of the ADA, alleged that Tanger’s Byron Center, Michigan outlet mall contained barriers to access in violation of the ADA’s accessibility requirements. The plaintiff demanded prospective injunctive relief, including a retrofit of the entire mall, as well as expert witness and attorneys’ fees.

BMD moved to dismiss the case for lack of standing. Unlike a conventional suit, where a plaintiff seeking monetary damages must show a past injury to possess legal standing, an ADA Title III plaintiff must show a threat of prospective future harm in order to recover. Typically, this means that the plaintiff must plead (and prove) that he or she has reason to continue to visit the public accommodation in question and will continue to be injured by the facility’s alleged non-compliance with the ADA.

In its opinion granting Tanger’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, United States Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody held that the plaintiff’s Amended Complaint failed to adequately plead prospective future injury. In particular, the Court noted that “[v]ague and conclusory allegations that a plaintiff intends to return to a location […] are insufficient to maintain an ADA claim.” Applying this standard to the plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, the Court held that his “vague and conclusory statements regarding his alleged intent to return” to Tanger’s Byron Center property “are insufficient.” On this record, the Court found that the plaintiff “failed to sufficiently allege that he will suffer a future injury in the absence of injunctive relief.”

Recognizing the cost that ADA Title III actions pose to owners and operators of public accommodations, BMD’s experienced team of ADA litigators uses a proactive approach to seek the early and cost-effective resolution of cases before proceeding with expensive expert discovery. BMD was proud to obtain this result for Tanger Factory Outlets, one of the largest and most iconic outlet mall chains in the country.

BMD Partners Christopher Congeni and Daniel Rudary represented Tanger Factory Outlet Centers in this case. The citation for Court’s opinion is Saar v. Tanger Factory Outlet Centers, Inc., W.D. Mich. No. 1:17-cv-41, 2018 WL 387962 (Jan. 12, 2018).

Litigation
Client Alert

Ohio House Bill 537: Proposed Regulations for Midwives and Birthing Centers

January 28, 2026House Bill 537, introduced in the Ohio House of Representatives, proposes a comprehensive regulatory framework for certified nurse-midwives, certified midwives, licensed midwives, and traditional midwives. The legislation would clarify scope of practice, establish licensure standards, and impose new requirements for freestanding birthing centers and home births. Healthcare providers and facilities should be aware of the proposed changes and their potential operational impact.Client Alert

Proposed Health Information Privacy Reform Act Expands Protections Beyond HIPAA

January 26, 2026The Health Information Privacy Reform Act (HIPRA) seeks to extend privacy protections to health data not covered under HIPAA, including data collected by apps and wearables. HIPRA introduces broader definitions of protected health information, strengthens privacy and security requirements, establishes patient notification rights, and sets national de-identification standards. Companies processing health data should monitor developments to ensure compliance.Client Alert

Medicare Updates on Skin Substitutes: LCDs Withdrawn, Payment Changes Take Effect

January 23, 2026Medicare’s planned Final Local Coverage Determinations (LCDs) for skin substitutes were withdrawn in late December 2025, meaning previous coverage rules remain in effect. The 2026 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule introduces a single payment rate of approximately $127.14 for these products. Providers should review implications for diabetic foot and venous leg ulcer treatments.Client Alert

Understanding the Seven Core Elements of an Effective Healthcare Compliance Program

January 22, 2026The Affordable Care Act requires healthcare providers participating in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP to maintain an effective compliance program. Guidance from the Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of Inspector General outlines seven core elements that form the foundation of these programs, from written policies and compliance oversight to auditing, training, and corrective action. This alert highlights each element and explains how practices can tailor compliance programs to their size and risk profile while meeting federal expectations.Client Alert

Preventing a Board Investigation

January 21, 2026Healthcare professionals in Ohio are subject to licensing board investigations that can lead to disciplinary action. Staying compliant with regulations, documenting carefully, and operating within your professional scope can help prevent issues. If contacted by a board, working with an attorney is critical to protect your license and rights.
Older posts