Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Ohio Appellate Court Rules in Favor of Gender-Affirming Care

Client Alert
March 19, 2025

On Tuesday, March 18, 2025, the 10th District Court of Appeals in Franklin County ruled that House Bill (HB) 68’s restrictions on the provision of puberty blockers and hormones to minors seeking gender-affirming care violates the Health Care Freedom Amendment to the Ohio Constitution and therefore, are not enforceable in Ohio.

According to the 10th District, banning prescription drugs (including puberty blockers and hormones) interferes with parents’ rights to care for their children and prohibits parents from accessing for their minor children and deciding on medical treatment that follows the standards of care and professional guidelines accepted in the medical community to treat gender-related conditions.

The case, Moe v. Yost, has been remanded back to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has explicitly indicated that his office will appeal the ruling.

HB 68 became effective in August 2024 and broadly, prevents minors from accessing gender-affirming care (including hormone blockers, hormone replacement therapy (HRT), and some mental health services) without first being assessed for other comorbidities, including depression, anxiety, ADHD, and autism spectrum disorder, as well as for signs of physical, sexual, mental, or emotional abuse, and other traumas.

BMD previously drafted a client alert on HB 68, available here.

If you have any questions regarding this ruling, or HB 68 generally, please contact BMD Healthcare Member Daphne Kackloudis at dlkackloudis@bmdllc.com or Attorney Jordan Burdick at jaburdick@bmdllc.com.

Health LawHealthcareHealth Care Freedom AmendmentDaphne KackloudisJordan Burdick
Client Alert

Update on Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haiti and Related Countries

July 13, 2026USCIS has temporarily extended Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) for certain Temporary Protected Status (TPS) beneficiaries from Haiti and several other countries following recent court action. Employers and TPS recipients should review EAD expiration dates, monitor ongoing developments, and ensure compliance with Form I-9 and E-Verify requirements.Client Alert

HHS Accessibility Requirements for Medical Diagnostic Equipment: What Health Care Providers Need to Know

July 8, 2026Health care providers that receive federal financial assistance are now subject to updated HHS accessibility requirements for medical diagnostic equipment under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. With the July 8, 2026, compliance deadline in effect, covered providers should ensure they have the required accessible equipment, train staff, and review operational practices to reduce compliance risk and provide accessible care for patients with disabilities.Client Alert

Florida Super Lawyers® Recognizes Brennan Manna Diamond Attorneys to the 2026 Lists

June 26, 2026BRENNAN, MANNA & DIAMOND is proud to announce that three of our attorneys have been designated to the 2026 Florida Super Lawyers® and Florida Rising Stars® lists. Super Lawyers is based on multiple categories of independent research and peer evaluation to identify outstanding lawyers.Client Alert

Supreme Court Clears Path for TPS Terminations: What Employers Need to Know

June 25, 2026The U.S. Supreme Court's June 25, 2026 decision in Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot removed legal obstacles that had delayed the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haiti and Syria. The ruling also reinforces the administration's authority to terminate other TPS designations currently under review. Employers should immediately identify workers whose employment authorization is tied to affected TPS programs, review Form I-9 records, and prepare for forthcoming USCIS guidance before taking any employment action.Client Alert

The Risks of Outsourcing Medical Billing and the Importance of State-Law Compliance

June 24, 2026Offshoring medical billing and other administrative functions can reduce costs, but it also raises significant compliance, operational, and contractual risks. Although HIPAA does not explicitly prohibit protected health information from being accessed or stored outside the United States, healthcare providers and their vendors remain responsible for safeguarding patient information and complying with state-specific restrictions that may limit or prohibit offshore subcontracting.
Older posts