Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

BMD Obtains Supreme Court Victory on Behalf of Sterilite of Ohio, LLC

Client Alert
August 28, 2020

Columbus, Ohio – On August 26, 2020, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued its opinion in Lunsford v. Sterilite of Ohio, LLC, Slip Op. No. 2020-Ohio-4193. The Supreme Court’s 4-3 decision reversed an Ohio Court of Appeals ruling that had reinstated a putative class action against Sterilite brought by a group of current and former employees claiming that Sterilite’s use of “direct observation” urinalysis screening violated their common law right to privacy.

BMD originally obtained dismissal of the case in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, which was reversed by a decision of the Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals in August 2018. Following the Fifth District’s adverse ruling, BMD successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of Ohio to accept jurisdiction and hear the case. BMD partner Daniel Rudary argued Sterilite’s appeal to the Supreme Court on January 28, 2020.

In its decision reversing the appellate court, the Supreme Court majority adopted BMD’s argument that the plaintiff employees consented to drug testing under the “direct observation” method when they voluntarily produced urine samples while being observed by a same-sex monitor in a designated restroom facility. The Supreme Court also reaffirmed Ohio’s long standing rule of employment-at-will, holding that because “Sterilite had the legal right to terminate appellees’ employment at any time, appellees’ argument that their consent was involuntary because of their fear of termination necessarily fails.”

BMD Litigation Member John Childs and Partner Daniel Rudary represented Sterilite before the Supreme Court of Ohio. Their brief to the Supreme Court can be read here, and Attorney Rudary’s January 28, 2020 oral argument can be viewed here.

See additional coverage on the decision in the ABA Journal and Bloomberg News.

BMDBrennan Manna DiamondOhio Supreme CourtSterilite of Ohioputative class actionOhio Court of Appealsdirect observationcommon law right to privacyemployment-at-willJohn ChildsDaniel J. RudaryLitigationEmployement Law
Client Alert

CMS and Ohio Ramp Up Fraud Enforcement in Home Health and Hospice

May 15, 2026CMS and Ohio have launched sweeping new fraud prevention initiatives targeting home health and hospice providers, signaling a period of heightened scrutiny for enrollment, billing, documentation, and EVV compliance. While aimed at combating fraud, these measures also create significant operational and due process risks for compliant agencies, making proactive compliance programs, auditing, and governance more important than ever.Client Alert

MYTH BUSTER: Can a New Chiropractor Bill Under An Established Chiropractor’s NPI?

May 14, 2026Many chiropractic practices mistakenly believe a newly hired chiropractor can bill under an established chiropractor’s NPI while waiting for credentialing approval. In most cases, this is not permitted. Claims should be submitted under the NPI of the chiropractor who actually rendered the service to avoid compliance risks, including potential False Claims Act exposure. This article outlines key billing rules, common exceptions, and practical compliance tips for chiropractic practices.Client Alert

RNs and APRNs Take Note: Ohio Board of Nursing Mandates a New CE Reporting Period

April 29, 2026Ohio’s Board of Nursing has updated the continuing education reporting period for RNs and APRNs. Beginning March 26, 2026, CE credits must be completed between July 1 and June 30 of odd-numbered years, replacing the previous November to October timeframe.Client Alert

Ohio Med Spas: Peptide Do's and Do Not's

April 29, 2026Recent guidance from the Ohio Board of Pharmacy outlines key compliance requirements for med spas using peptides. While some peptide drugs are FDA approved, others are not or cannot be compounded. Med spa operators should ensure they source medications from licensed suppliers, avoid non-approved or “research use only” products, and follow all compounding and storage regulations to maintain compliance and avoid enforcement actions.Client Alert

Substance Use Disorder Providers: 42 CFR Part 2 Now Enforceable

April 15, 2026Updates to 42 CFR Part 2 are now enforceable, bringing significant changes to how substance use disorder (SUD) records are handled. The Final Rule aligns Part 2 more closely with HIPAA, introduces updated penalties, allows a single patient consent for treatment, payment, and operations, and adds new requirements for Notices of Privacy Practices. It also creates a formal definition of SUD counseling notes and imposes strict consent requirements for their use and disclosure. Providers should review and update policies to ensure compliance.
Older posts
Newer posts