Court questions limits on use of prescription data
Court Alerts
The Supreme Court cast doubt Tuesday on efforts by states to limit drug manufacturers' use of information about the prescription drugs that doctors like to prescribe.
The court took up a dispute between the state of Vermont and companies that sell doctors' prescribing information to pharmaceutical companies, though without patient names. The drug makers use the data to tailor their pitch to individual doctors.
The Vermont law had prevented the sale of information about individual doctors' prescribing records without the doctors' permission.
But several justices said the so-called data mining law raised troubling constitutional concerns because it appeared to make it harder for brand-name drug makers to state their case, while placing no similar restrictions on the state, insurance companies and others who favor the increased use of cheaper generic medicines.
Chief Justice John Roberts said the Vermont law seemed to be "censoring" what doctors could hear. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court has ruled in the past that governments "can't lower the decibel level of one speaker so others can be heard better."
A federal appeals struck down the Vermont law as a restriction on commercial free speech that violates the First Amendment, but another appeals court rejected the constitutional challenge and upheld similar laws in Maine and New Hampshire.
Related listings
-
Wis. court recount will cost hundreds of thousands
Court Alerts 04/26/2011County clerks say the Wisconsin Supreme Court recount will cost them at least a half-a-million dollars. The Associated Press asked clerks in all 72 counties for their anticipated costs. Twenty-two provided cost estimates ranging from $120 in Price Co...
-
Md. court considering same-sex spousal privilege
Court Alerts 04/25/2011A court in Hagerstown is poised to consider whether a woman who legally married her lesbian partner in another jurisdiction can assert the spousal privilege of refusing to testify against her in Maryland, where same-sex marriage isn't allowed. Lawyer...
-
Court denies Va. inmate's lawsuit over beard
Court Alerts 04/25/2011A federal court has denied a Muslim inmate's lawsuit claiming the Virginia prison system violated his religious rights by refusing to allow him to grow a 1/8-inch beard. William Couch challenged the Department of Corrections' grooming policy that ban...
Illinois Work Injury Lawyers – Krol, Bongiorno & Given, LTD.
Accidents in the workplace are often caused by unsafe work conditions arising from ignoring safety rules, overlooking maintenance or other negligence of those in management. While we are one of the largest firms in Illinois dedicated solely to the representation of injured workers, we pride ourselves on the personal, one-on-one approach we deliver to each client.
Work accidents can cause serious injuries and sometimes permanent damage. Some extremely serious work injuries can permanently hinder a person’s ability to get around and continue their daily duties. Factors that affect one’s quality of life such as place of work, relationships with friends and family, and social standing can all be taken away quickly by a work injury. Although, you may not be able to recover all of your losses, you may be entitled to compensation as a result of your work injury. Krol, Bongiorno & Given, LTD. provides informed advocacy in all kinds of workers’ compensation claims, including:
• Injuries to the back and neck, including severe spinal cord injuries
• Serious head injuries
• Heart problems resulting from workplace activities
• Injuries to the knees, elbows, shoulders and other joints
• Injuries caused by repetitive movements
For Illinois Workers’ Compensation claims, you will ALWAYS cheat yourself if you do not hire an experienced attorney. When you hire Krol, Bongiorno & Given, Ltd, you will have someone to guide you through the process, and when it is time to settle, we will add value to your case IN EXCESS of our fee. In the last few years, employers and insurance carriers have sought to advance the argument that when you settle a case without an attorney, your already low settlement should be further reduced by 20% so that you do not get a “windfall.” Representing yourself in Illinois is a lose-lose proposition.