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

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.


January 2025 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Brings Notable Changes to HIPAA Security Rule

In January 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services proposed amendments to the HIPAA Security Rule, aiming to enhance cybersecurity for covered entities (CEs) and business associates (BAs). Key changes include mandatory compliance audits, workforce training, vulnerability scans, and risk assessments. Comments on the proposed rule are due by March 7, 2025.

Corporate Transparency Act Effective Again

The federal judiciary has issued multiple rulings on the enforceability of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which took effect on January 1, 2024. Previously, enforcement was halted nationwide due to litigation in Smith v. U.S. Department of the Treasury. However, on February 18th, the court lifted the stay, reinstating the CTA’s reporting requirements. Non-exempt entities now have until March 21, 2025, to comply. Businesses should act promptly to avoid civil penalties of $591 per day and potential criminal liability.

Status Update: Physician Noncompete Agreements in Ohio

Noncompete agreements remain enforceable in Ohio if they meet specific legal requirements. While the AMA and FTC have challenged these restrictions, courts continue to uphold reasonable noncompete provisions for physicians. Recent cases, like MetroHealth System v. Khandelwal, highlight how courts may modify overly restrictive agreements to balance employer interests with patient care. With ongoing legal challenges to the FTC’s proposed ban, Ohio physicians should consult a healthcare attorney before signing or challenging a noncompete agreement.

Immigration Orders and Their Economic Impact on Small Business: Insights from Attorney and Former Immigration Judge Rob Ratliff

President Trump's recent executive orders, targeting immigration policies, could significantly impact small businesses in Ohio, particularly those owned by undocumented immigrants. With stricter visa vetting, halted refugee admissions, and potential deportations, these businesses face uncertainty, workforce disruption, and closures. Ohio's immigrant-owned businesses, especially in food services and transportation, contribute billions to the state economy, and any disruption could result in economic ripple effects.

Corporate Transparency Act Ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled on the enforceability of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), lifting an injunction previously imposed by the Fifth Circuit. However, a separate nationwide injunction remains in effect, meaning businesses are still not required to comply with the CTA’s reporting requirements. FinCEN continues to accept voluntary reporting while enforcement remains paused.