Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Revised Department of Labor FFCRA Guidance, Effective September 16, 2020

In response to attacks on the legality of the Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) Final Rule regarding the Families First Coronavirus Act (“FFCRA” or the “Act”), which took effect in April 2020, the Department of Labor issued new guidance on Friday, September 11th to formally address ongoing questions and concerns related to the COVID-19 legislation.

To recap, on August 3, 2020, a judge out of the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) issued a decision in State of New York v. U.S. Department of Labor, challenging certain provisions of the DOL’s regulations, including the definition of “health care provider,” certain considerations regarding FFCRA leave eligibility, and employee notice requirements. A more comprehensive overview of the SDNY’s holding can be found here.

Although the SDNY’s decision was not the first legal attack on the FFCRA nor the DOL’s related regulatory provisions, the scrutiny arising from the Federal District Court was enough to prompt the DOL to reevaluate the challenged provisions.

The new DOL Final Rule, which is scheduled to take effect on Wednesday, September 16th, does the following:

  1. Addresses “Healthcare Provider” Definition and Exemption | In its new Final Rule, the DOL redefines who is encompassed within the meaning of “healthcare provider” under the FFCRA to include: (1) traditional healthcare providers under the FMLA, and (2) “other employees who are employed to provide diagnostic services, preventative services, treatment services, and other services that are integrated with and necessary to the provision of patient care.”

    In effect, the DOL Final Rule narrows the original FFCRA definition of “healthcare provider” as well as provides explicit examples of included professions and healthcare entities.

    As a practical matter, this modification will require all healthcare providers who previously invoked the “healthcare provider exemption” to revisit their parameters of use, as some employees may no longer be included within the new definition and exemption. 

  2. Doubles Down on the “Work Availability” Requirement | The DOL rejected the SDNY’s holding that an employer’s ability to provide an employee with work to complete may not be considered relevant in assessing eligibility for FFCRA leave. In other words, the DOL’s original position on this issue remains unchanged — an employee is only entitled to FFCRA leave if the employer has work available for the employee, but the employee cannot perform the work due to one of the six qualifying reasons under the FFCRA.

    As it relates to this requirement, employers should remember that they may not make work unavailable in an effort to deny an FFCRA leave request — this action would constitute impermissible retaliation.

  3. Doubles Down on Intermittent Leave Approval | In response to the SDNY’s challenge asserting that an employee may take intermittent leave without first receiving employer approval, the DOL affirmed its original position which provides that employer approval is required in order to take certain FFCRA leave intermittently. In support of this holding, the DOL reasoned that the FFCRA pre-approval requirement is consistent with longstanding FMLA principles on leave issues as it protects against disruptions in an employer’s business operations.

  4. Modifies Notice and Documentation Requirements | In its holding, the SDNY challenged certain FFCRA leave notice requirements as impracticable for requiring employees to submit notice prior to taking any leave. In its new Final Rule, the DOL agreed. Accordingly, employees are now required to submit notice of FFCRA leave “as soon as practicable.” For employees taking leave as a result of a school or childcare facility closure, this means providing notice in advance. However, for circumstances involving illness, notice and supporting documentation may be provided after leave begins. 

The new DOL Final Rule provides much needed clarification to questions lingering from the April FFCRA enactment and subsequent DOL guidance. With that said, COVID-19 legislation — including the forthcoming updates — are complex in nature and require careful adherence in order to mitigate future liability.

As questions, concerns, and legal guidance continue to evolve with the changing times, it is essential for employers to stay informed. If you need assistance with any issues arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, please contact Bryan Meek at 330.253.5586 or bmeek@bmdllc.com, or feel free to contact any member of BMD's Employment & Labor practice group. 

New York, Kansas, Massachusetts, and Delaware Become the latest States to Adopt Full Practice Authority for Nurse Practitioners

While the COVID-19 pandemic certainly created many obstacles and hardships, it also created many opportunities to try doing things differently. This can be seen in the instant rise of remote work opportunities, telehealth visits, and virtual meetings. Many States took the challenges of the pandemic and turned them into an opportunity to adjust the regulations governing licensed professionals, including for advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs).

Explosive Growth in Pot of Gold Opportunity for Bank (and Other) Cannabis Lenders Driving Erosion of the Barriers

Our original article on bank lending to the cannabis industry anticipated that the convergence of interest between banks and the cannabis industry would draw more and larger banks to the industry. Banks were awash in liquidity with limited deployment options, while bankable cannabis businesses had rapidly growing needs for more and lower cost credit. Since then, the pot of gold opportunity for banks to lend into the cannabis industry has grown exponentially due to a combination of market constraints on equity causing a dramatic shift to debt and the ever-increasing capital needs of one of the country’s fastest growing industries. At the same time, hurdles to entry of new banks are being systematically cleared as the yellow brick road to the cannabis industry’s access to the financial markets is being paved, brick by brick, by the progressively increasing number and size of banks that are now entering the market.

2021 EEOC Charge Statistics: Retaliation & Impact of Remote Work

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released its detailed information on workplace discrimination charges it received in 2021. Unsurprisingly, for the second year in a row, the total number of charges decreased as COVID-19 either shut down workplaces or disconnected employees from each other. In 2021, the agency received a total of approximately 61,000 workplace discrimination charges - the fewest in 25 years by a wide margin. For reference, the agency received over 67,000 charges in 2020, and averaged almost 90,000 charges per year over the previous 10 years.

Ohio’s Managed Care Overhaul Delayed – New Implementation Timeline

At the direction of Governor Mike DeWine, the Ohio Department of Medicaid (ODM) launched the Medicaid Managed Care Procurement process in 2019. ODM’s stated vision for the procurement was to focus on people and not just the business of managed care. This is the first structural change to Ohio’s managed care system since the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS) approval of Ohio’s Medicaid program in 2005. Initially, all of the new managed care programs were supposed to be implemented starting on July 1, 2022. However, ODM Director Maureen Corcoran recently confirmed that this date will be pushed back for several managed care-related programs.

Laboratory Specimen Collection Arrangements with Contract Hospitals - OIG Advisory Opinion 22-09

On April 28, 2022, the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) published an Advisory Opinion[1] in which it evaluated a proposed arrangement where a network of clinical laboratories (the “Requestor”) would compensate hospitals (each a “Contract Hospital”) for specimen collection, processing, and handling services (“Collection Services”) for laboratory tests furnished by the Requestor (the “Proposed Arrangement”). The OIG concluded that the Proposed Arrangement would generate prohibited remuneration under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) if the requisite intent were present. This is due to both the possibility that the proposed per-patient-encounter fee would be used to induce or reward referrals to Requestor and the associated risk of improperly steering patients to Requestor.