News (All)

A Refresher on Medicare Exclusions from the Office of Inspector General

Posted: December 18th, 2015

Tags:

As we near the end of the year, the government will report on how much money it has recovered from healthcare entities for improper Medicare billing.  It is important to remember that, while monetary penalties are serious consequences, egregious overbilling violations may result in the Office of the Inspector General for Health and Human Services (“OIG”) issuing an order excluding a provider from participating in Federal Health Care programs.  This sanction is in effect a civil death penalty, since an excluded provider may not bill for services reimbursed by any Federal Health Care program during the exclusion period.  As medical practices make year-end certifications of their compliance programs and the like, it is a good time to remind everyone about OIG’s guidance on how to deal with excluded medical providers.

Medical practices must remain vigilant in their compliance efforts to root out and avoid excluded providers.  The OIG remains aggressive in its enforcement efforts, and providers who present claims for payment to Federal health care programs for services provided by excluded providers face liability under the Civil Monetary Penalties Law, codified at 42 U.S.C. §1320(a)-7(a).  Civil Monetary Penalties (“CMPs”) include a $10,000 fine for each individual violation, plus potential liability for three times the amount of reimbursement claimed or paid by a Federal health care program.

On May 8, 2013, nearly fourteen years after its premier published advisory, the September 1999 Special Advisory Bulletin (the “1999 Bulletin”) on the effect of exclusion from participation in Federal health care programs, the OIG published an Updated Special Advisory Bulletin on the Effect of Exclusion from Participation in Federal Health Care Programs (the “Updated Bulletin”).  The Updated Bulletin is available at oig.hhs.gov/exclusions/files/sab-05092013.pdf.

Background

The 1999 Bulletin explained that under an exclusion from Federal health care programs, no Federal health care program payment may be made for any items or services: 1) furnished by an excluded individual or entity, or 2) directed or prescribed by an excluded physician (42 C.F.R. 1001.1901).  The ban covers all methods of Federal health care program reimbursement, whether from itemized claims, cost reports, fee schedules, through a prospective payment system (“PPS”), and it includes any items or services furnished at the medical direction or prescription of an excluded physician.  If Federal health program payments are made to another, non-excluded, provider, for services provided by an excluded provider, then those payments are also prohibited.  The prohibition even extends to claims resulting from an excluded provider’s administrative and management services not directly related to patient care, if those services are a necessary component of providing items and services to Federal program beneficiaries.  Thus, an excluded physician could not serve as a medical director or office manager, if the patients receiving treatment are Federal health care program beneficiaries.

OIG’s 1999 Bulletin listed the following examples of items or services that could subject employers or contractors to CMP liability if performed by excluded providers:

  • Services performed by excluded nurses, technicians or other excluded individuals who work for a hospital, nursing home, home health agency or physician practice, where such services are related to administrative duties , preparation of surgical trays, or review of treatment plans if such services are reimbursed directly or indirectly (such as through a PPS or a bundled payment) by a Federal health care program;
  • Services performed by excluded pharmacists or other excluded individuals who input prescription information for pharmacy billing or who are involved in any way in filling prescriptions for drugs reimbursed, directly or indirectly, by any Federal health care program;
  • Services performed by excluded ambulance drivers, dispatchers and other employees involved in providing transportation reimbursed by a Federal health care program, to hospital patients or nursing home residents;
  • Services performed by excluded social workers who are employed by health care entities to provide services to Federal program beneficiaries, and whose services are reimbursed, directly or indirectly, by a Federal health care program;
  • Administrative services, including the processing of claims for payment, performed for a Medicare intermediary or carrier, or a Medicaid fiscal agent, by an excluded individual;
  • Services performed by an excluded administrator, billing agent, accountant, claims processor, or utilization reviewer that are related or reimbursed, directly or indirectly, by a Federal health care program;
  • Items or services provided to a program beneficiary by an excluded individual who works for an entity that has a contractual agreement with, and is paid by a Federal health care program; and
  • Items or equipment sold by an excluded manufacturer or supplier, used in the care or treatment of beneficiaries and reimbursed, directly or indirectly, by a Federal health care program

The 1999 Bulletin concludes by advising health care providers and entities to check the status of their current employees on the OIG’s List of Excluded Individuals/Entities (“LEIE”) on the OIG’s website, and to “periodically” check the OIG website for the status of current employees and contractors.

The Updated Bulletin

The Updated Bulletin provides needed clarification to providers and entities as to what constitutes acceptable “periodic” checks of the LEIE, and it attempts to answer questions it has received from providers since 1999, including:

  • May an excluded person provide an item or service that a health care provider needs but that is not for direct patient care or billing?
  • How frequently should providers screen against the LEIE? How far downstream do they need to screen (e.g. do they have an obligation to screen the employees of contractors and subcontractors in addition to screening contractors)?
  • How should a provider disclose to OIG that it has employed or contracted with an excluded person?
  • What is the distinction between the information that appears on the LEIE and the information that appears on the General Services Administration’s (“GSA”) System for Award Management (“SAM”) and other systems that report sanctions or adverse actions taken with respect to health care practitioners (e.g., the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB))?

The Updated Bulletin answers the first question above by delineating specific circumstances under which an excluded person may be employed by, or contract with, a provider that receives payments from Federal health care programs.  First, Federal health care programs must not pay, directly or indirectly, for the items or services provided by the excluded individual.  Second, the arrangement is permissible if the excluded person is furnishing items or services solely to non-Federal health care program beneficiaries.  Third, a provider need not maintain a separate account from which to pay the excluded person, as long as no claims are submitted to, nor is payment received from, Federal health care programs for items or services that the excluded person provides.

Although not required by any statute or regulation, OIG recommends that providers check the LEIE monthly.  A 2011 CMS final rule already requires States to screen enrolled providers monthly.  OIG also believes the LEIE, which is updated monthly, is better than the SAM or the NPDB because it displays: (1) the name of the excluded person at the time of the exclusion, (2) the person’s provider type, (3) the authority for the exclusion, (4) the State where the individual resided at the time of the exclusion, and (5) a mechanism to verify search results via Social Security Number or Employer Identification Number.  OIG plans to add NPI to the LEIE, and it wants to include information regarding waivers of exclusion granted by OIG.  Presently, waivers of exclusion granted by OIG are found at oig.hhs.gov/exclusions/waivers.asp.

To determine which providers to screen, the OIG recommends that providers review each job category or contractual relationship to determine whether the item or service being provided is directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, payable by a Federal health care program.  If the answer is yes, then the best practice is to screen all persons that perform under that contract or that are in that job category.  Providers should screen contractors with the same scrutiny that they screen their own employees.  Specifically, OIG recommends screening nurses provided by staffing agencies, physician groups that contract with hospitals to provide emergency room coverage, and billing or coding contractors.  The provider may rely upon the contractor to perform screening, but the provider should demand documentation to ensure that the contractor is in fact screening on behalf of the provider.  The OIG notes that pharmacies commonly rely upon Medicare Part D plans or State agencies to ensure that prescribers are not excluded through computer system edits.  However, pharmacies and laboratories that rely upon third parties to screen prescribers remain responsible for overpayment liability and CMPs if items or services are prescribed by excluded providers.

For providers who find that they have received payment for items or services provided by an excluded person, the OIG recommends that providers use OIG’s Provider Self Disclosure Protocol to disclose and resolve the potential CMP liability.  The protocol is found at oig.hhs.gov/compliance/self-disclosure-info/index.asp.

CMP sanctions can devastate a medical practice, so providers should follow OIG’s new guidance scrupulously to avoid, or at the very least mitigate, exposure.  Providers with questions about compliance or self-disclosure should follow up with health care counsel in order to minimize further risk and liability.

The information contained in this article is provided for informational purposes only and is not and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. The firm provides legal advice and other services only to persons or entities with which it has established an attorney-client relationship.

Landlord’s Self-Help and Charging for Capital Improvements: A Busy Fall at the Appellate Division, First and Second Departments

Posted: December 18th, 2015

By Patrick McCormick

The Appellate Courts have been busy this fall rendering significant decisions involving landlord/tenant law.  Two decisions of interest are discussed below.

The first is a decision by the Appellate Term, Second Department[1] involving a landlord who engaged in self-help to regain possession of the commercial demised premises at issue.  The tenant commenced an unlawful entry and detainer summary proceeding under RPAPL §713(10), and apparently the landlord engaged in self-help to regain possession of the demised premises after commencement of the proceeding.

The court recognized a landlord’s right to engage in self-help, provided such is authorized by the parties’ lease.  Here, the landlord engaged in self-help—as authorized by the commercial lease—upon the tenant’s alleged breach of the lease after the notice called for therein.  The Appellate Term dismissed the tenant’s petition, not because the landlord improperly engaged in self-help, but because the tenant’s pleadings failed “to contain any allegations establishing that tenants were not in breach of a condition of the lease, that landlord had not complied with the lease provisions requiring notice, or that reentry by landlord was not accomplished peaceably.”

While achieving an apparent victory, the landlord was, in fact, not so lucky.  The Appellate Term affirmed the denial of the landlord’s request for possession and for use and occupancy.  The court recognized that RPAPL §743 permits the assertion of legal counterclaims on a summary proceeding.  The court emphasized that RPAPL §743 “does not allow a respondent to circumvent the requirements of RPAPL article seven for the maintenance of a summary proceeding to obtain a judgment of possession” (citations omitted).  When the tenants resumed possession, they did so—if landlord’s position was accepted—as squatters, the lease having been terminated, and no 10-day notice was served as is required to obtain a final judgment pursuant to RPAPL §713(4) (citation omitted).  Moreover, the landlord had not pleaded the elements of a Civil Court ejectment action.

Thus, although the tenant had reentered the premises, the court determined that the landlord was, nevertheless, obligated to comply with the notice requirements of the RPAPL prior to initiating a claim for possession.  Indeed, the Court chastised the landlord, holding “while the landlord may now be faced with additional litigation, this was brought about by landlord’s resort to self-help.  The court was available for landlord to seek an award of possession, but, having chosen to act on its own, landlord cannot now complain of being denied the opportunity to short circuit the procedural requirements of a summary proceeding, by way of counterclaim.”  Therefore, engaging in self-help may not result in expeditiously obtaining possession of the demised premises, and caution should be used before engaging in such.

The second case, from the Appellate Division, First Department,[2] involves a tenant’s claim that the landlord was improperly charging tenant an assessment for a façade restoration.  In affirming the lower court’s ruling that the tenant was not obligated to pay any part of the façade restoration assessment, the court looked to the unambiguous language of the parties’ lease.  The court recognized that the lease specifically provided that after the condominium conversion, “‘and in lieu of CAM [common area maintenance] Costs described in paragraph (B)(1) above,’ ‘Tenant shall pay…[its] Proportionate Share of [the] monthly Common Charges levied against the Commercial Unit; and other special or regular assessments against the Commercial Unit.’”  The court went on to recognize that the lease specifically provided that “‘costs for capital improvements, to the extent that same are not in furtherance of reasonable or necessary maintenance of the building,’ ‘shall not be included as CAM Costs.’”  The court rejected the defendant/landlord’s argument that the obligation to pay “other special or regular assessments against the Commercial Unit” required the tenant to pay a proportionate share of the façade assessment.  While the court did not go into detail in explaining its reasoning, the decision serves as a cautionary tale to both landlords and tenants that, whenever possible, the obligation to pay certain costs must be specifically detailed in the parties’ lease.

[1] Martinez v. Ulloa, 2015 WL 5775821(App.Term 2d Dep’t 2015)

[2] Rogan LLC v. YHD Bowery Commercial Unit LLC, 2015 WL 6510726 (1st Dep’t 2015)

Rights to “Santa Claus is Comin’ to Town” Song Pass to Songwriter’s Family

Posted: December 18th, 2015

Tags:

This time of the year, we all hear the popular Christmas song “Santa Claus is Comin’ to Town,” but what we don’t hear is the ownership dispute over it.  Recently, the Second Circuit ruled that the current rights to the song will end December of 2016, and it will pass to the descendants of one of the songwriters, John Frederick Coots.

Tracing the history of the song through decades that also included significant changes in copyright law, records showed that the songwriters had sold the song and copyright to EMI Feist Catalog, Inc. (partially owned by Sony) in 1934.  EMI and Coots later entered into an agreement in 1951, where Coots assigned EMI rights to the song, as well as “all renewals and extensions” of the song’s copyright.  Subsequently, Coots and EMI entered into another agreement in 1981, wherein Coots assigned EMI all of his rights and interests “whatsoever now or hereafter known or existing.”

In 2007, the Coots descendants served EMI a termination notice.  That notice stated that their agreement would terminate on December 15, 2016.  Under 17 U.S.C. § 203, it permits authors and their heirs to terminate grants executed on or after January 1, 1978 “beginning at the end of thirty-five years from the date of execution of the grant” or in this case, December 15, 2016.

EMI offered to pay the Coots descendants $2.75 million to “acquire 100% ownership and exclusive administration” in the song, but this offer was rejected, and a litigation was commenced in 2012.

The Coots descendants argued that the notice in 2007 canceled the agreement in 1981.  However, EMI argued its rights are governed by the agreement in 1951, and that its rights extend until when the copyright is set to expire – until 2029.  At that point the song will enter the public domain.

The Second Circuit held that the 1981 agreement superseded the 1951 agreement, and thus, the Coots descendants had the right to terminate the agreement.  The termination notice was valid and the December 2016 termination date is effective.  Therefore, by Christmas of next year, it will be a very merry Christmas for the Coots descendants as “Santa Clause is Comin’ to Town.”

The information contained in this article is provided for informational purposes only and is not and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. The firm provides legal advice and other services only to persons or entities with which it has established an attorney-client relationship.

Loss Mitigation in Labor Law Cases

Posted: December 18th, 2015

By Scott Middleton

Many of our clients own commercial buildings or multifamily residential buildings and may not be aware of their legal exposure when having construction, renovation, or repair work performed on these buildings.

Labor Law sections 240 and 241 apply to these types of buildings and can be devastating to the unknowing owner. If any worker falls from height, or has an accident involving a gravity-related risk while the work is being performed, the owner and general contractor are absolutely liable.

To adequately protect owners, first and foremost, only reputable contractors should be hired. In the contract between the owner and contractor, the parties must agree that the contractor and any subcontractor will indemnify and hold the owner harmless for all losses arising out of the work to be performed. It is imperative that the owner be named as an additional insured on all policies of insurance and that the policies be reviewed to ensure they contain the proper language.

Assuming all of the foregoing is done and an accident occurs, what happens immediately after the accident is very important. Do not rely upon the contractor or subcontractor to do what is right. As the owner, get involved or have your attorney or other representative become involved in the investigation immediately. This initial investigation is of paramount importance in terms of preparing a defense.

The steps to take immediately are: prepare an accident report, secure and preserve any equipment involved, photograph the area, obtain statements from all involved parties and witnesses, make copies of all contracts and insurance policies (as well as certificates of insurance), and notify all primary and excess insurance carriers.

For large projects, the burden of the investigation is usually shifted to a general contractor or construction manager. For small projects, the owner should have a simple and clear policy for doing its own initial investigation. Of course, our office can always assist in this process.

All incidents involving gravity-related risks or industrial code violations resulting in injuries to construction workers must be considered serious. This is true no matter how minor or inconsequential an accident seems. Even minor injuries can develop into career-ending injuries, thereby exposing property owners to astronomical damages.

Feb 10 – East End Exec Breakfast: Labor & Employment Update for 2016

Posted: December 17th, 2015

c u r r E n t l y (3)

February 10, 2016

Labor & Employment Update for 2016
Our next East End Executive Breakfast event will feature an interactive panel of Long Island professionals discussing important legal and practical updates on a wide range of Labor and Employment topics for business owners, CEOs, managers, in-house counsel, and human resources professionals. Join us as we host Irv Miljoner, Director of the Long Island District Office, U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage & Hour Division, together with Markowitz, Fenelon & Bank as we address employment law issues that impact our business community.

February 10, 2016
8:00 am to 10:00 am

Sea Star Ballroom
431 East Main Street, Riverhead, NY 11901

CMM Managing Partner, Joe Campolo
will moderate our panelists as they discuss:

  • Independent Contractor Classification
  • Overtime Exemptions
  • Differences between Federal and NY State Labor Law
  • Shared Work Program
  • Individual Liability
  • Private Lawsuits

The event is complimentary but reservations are required.

PANELISTS:

Irv Miljoner
Director of the Long Island District Office
U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division

Irv Miljoner is the Director of the Long Island District Office for the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division.  The agency enforces the Fair Labor Standards Act, which sets minimum wage, overtime, recordkeeping requirements, and child labor rules, prevailing wage laws, the Family Medical Leave Act and other federal labor laws.

Irv has 40 years of federal government service, with 23 years in the Labor Department’s Long Island office, where he’s been District Director for the Wage Hour Division for the past  20 years.  During that time, his office has recovered over $40 million in wage underpayments for workers who hadn’t received lawfully due wages, and protected the interests of the employer communities against unfair competition.


Joseph Mammina
Partner, Markowitz, Fenelon & Bank, LLP
Joseph Mammina is a Partner at Markowitz, Fenelon & Bank where he established his practice at the firm by providing income tax planning for closely-held businesses, their owners, along with tax-consulting services in the areas of business acquisitions/dispositions and real estate transactions.

Joseph also created niche in non-profit and governmental accounting and auditing especially “yellow book” audits and consultation with rules and regulations for governmental entities such as local townships and fire districts.


Arthur Yermash, Esq.
Senior Associate, Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, LLP

Arthur Yermash advises business owners, executives, and general counsel on legal and business strategies in his role as Senior Associate at Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, LLP. He has drafted and negotiated hundreds of contracts for various business-related matters including employment, non-competition, non-disclosure, licensing, supply, and distribution agreements.

Arthur’s practice also includes the representation of clients in investigations by regulatory and government agencies including the New York State Department of Labor, the United States Department of Labor, the New York State Attorney General’s Office, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 


MODERATOR:
Joe Campolo, Esq.
Managing Partner, Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, LLP

Joseph N. Campolo is the Managing Partner of Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, LLP.  With broad experience in both commercial litigation and transactions, Joe advises business owners, executives, and Board members on legal and business strategies.

Holiday Party Guide for Employers

Posted: December 7th, 2015

picjumbo.com_IMG_8407

By Christine Malafi

It’s that time of the year again! Many employers are hosting holiday parties, where employees, and sometimes clients and customers as well, get a chance to relax, socialize, and take a break from the work to celebrate the holiday season. Raising employee morale during the holiday season is a good way to say thank you for their work all year, but despite the fun of a party, there are potential legal issues which could quickly make you forget the fun. To avoid problems from arising, it is advisable to act before the party to minimize potential headaches after the party.

Serving alcohol is always a risk–the potential for accidents and injuries, as well as inappropriate behavior, and lawsuits. Risk can be reduced by advanced planning. While liability generally does not attach to “social hosts” for accidents or injuries suffered off-premises by third parties as a result of alcohol served by the host, at least in New York, if an employee leaves a holiday party, and travels directly to another state, New York law may not prevent liability. Additionally, no one under the age of 21 years may be served alcohol at a holiday party, or liability will result if someone is injured by that underage holiday party drinker. The safest way to prevent potential liability relative to physical injuries involving alcohol use at a holiday party is to hire bartenders to serve the alcohol and make sure alcohol is not served to underage party guests.

Another risk associated with alcohol consumption is the level of “celebration.” As an employer, you do not want managers and/or supervisors acting inappropriately or provocatively, or flirting, with your staff. Some people tend to exude an excessive amount of cheer during the holiday season. The same workplace standards of a non-hostile work environment and non-harassing conduct apply to and should be enforced at holiday parties.

If the party will have music, employers should check the song list, and gift-giving should have limits. Joking and teasing, while permissible, should be without the bounds of a work setting. You don’t want to start the New Year with a humiliated employee commencing a hostile work environment or discrimination lawsuit.

Additionally, it is probable that a court will find that employees’ attendance at a holiday party relates to their employment, even if attendance is voluntary, potentially triggering workers’ compensation benefits for injuries sustained during the party (and potentially afterwards). Employers must take reasonable steps to protect their employees (and guests) from injury, whether at the workplace or an off-site location where the holiday party is held.

Finally, to avoid potential wage claims, if attendance at the party is required, the party should be held during normal work hours.

To help set your mind at ease before your holiday party, consider doing the following:

  • Have transportation to and from the party available;
  • Hire a professional bartender or caterer with sufficient liability insurance;
  • Provide non-alcoholic drinks;
  • Serve food, not only snacks;
  • Have management/supervisors at the party on the lookout for excessive drinking and/or inappropriate behavior;
  • Have a holiday lunch instead of a dinner;
  • Invite employees’ family members to participate in the party;
  • Make sure employees know that they do not have to attend the party if they chose not to; and
  • Do not focus on one religion or holiday to the exclusion of any employee’s beliefs or observances.

A little advance planning can go a long way to help the success of your holiday party!

If you have any questions about your holiday party, please feel free to contact us.

Happy Holidays!

Court of Appeals Expands Environmental Standing to Challenge SEQRA Determinations

Posted: November 23rd, 2015

On November 19, 2015, in Sierra Cub v. Village of Painted Post, New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, reversed a decision by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, which had found that an individual petitioner lacked standing to challenge actions of the Village of Painted Post on State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) grounds.  In so doing, the Court continued a trend towards loosening restrictions on people to gain relief from the courts based on claims of environmental harm.  The question of standing when it comes to SEQRA challenges asks whether the petitioner has a sufficient interest in the environmental issues to be permitted to ask the court for help.

In 1991, the Court of Appeals decided Society of Plastics Industries v. County of Suffolk.  A trade organization sought to challenge a Suffolk County ban on plastic bags on the ground that the County failed to comply with SEQRA.  The Court of Appeals dismissed the challenge, stating, in part, that “[i]n land use matters … the plaintiff, for standing purposes, must show that it would suffer direct harm, injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large.”  Because there was no showing of direct environmental (as opposed to economic) harm to the members of the trade organization, the Court of Appeals found they lacked standing to challenge the County law.

In 2009, in Matter of Save the Pine Bush Inc. v. Common Council of City of Albany, the Court of Appeals took up the standing question again, exploring whether members of an environmental group concerned with protecting the Pine Barrens in Albany County had a sufficient interest different from the public at large to claim they were directly injured by the challenged municipal actions.  The Court of Appeals agreed the petitioners had standing because they alleged “repeated, not rare or isolated use” of the pine barrens recreational area, so they suffered harm different that “the public at large.”

In the Village of Painted Post case, the Village entered into a lease to permit a railroad company to construct a water transloading facility on an 11.8 acre parcel of land.  It also entered into an agreement with a subsidiary of Shell Oil to sell it up to 1.5 million gallons of water per day, which would be loaded onto trains at the new transloading facility.   A number of environmental groups and individuals who resided along the railroad tracks challenged the lease and bulk water sales agreement on the ground that the Village failed to comply with SEQRA’s strict procedural requirements.  The lower court found that none of the environmental groups had standing, in part, because none of the individual petitioners claimed to be members and the organizational interest was too generalized to establish standing.  Further, the lower court found that all but one of the individual petitioners lacked standing because the noise they encountered from trains on the tracks and their concern about water quality from the sale of water was general harm of concern to the public at large.  One petitioner, however, Marvin, was found to have standing.  Marvin alleged he could see the loading facility from his house, and that noise from the trains kept him up at night.  The Appellate Division disagreed, finding that Marvin’s concern about the noise of the trains was no different from those of all the residents of the Village who resided near the tracks.

The Court of Appeals addressed only Marvin’s standing.  It found that it does not matter that more than one person is directly impacted by the noise created from increased train traffic.  It quoted with approval a 1973 US Supreme Court case [United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP)], where the Supreme Court said:

“[W]e have … made it clear that standing is not to be denied simply because many people suffer the same injury … To deny standing to persons who are in fact injured simply because many others are also injured, would mean that the most injurious and widespread Government actions could be questioned by nobody.” )

The Court of Appeals thus rejected the reasoning of the Appellate Division that, “because there are multiple residents who are directly impacted, no resident of the Village would have standing to challenge the actions of the Village”.  Because Marvin alleged that increased train traffic kept him awake at night, even without differentiating between train traffic on the tracks and noise form the loading facility, he had standing to challenge the actions of the Village pursuant to SEQRA.

It thus appears that, as long as an individual can assert direct harm from the challenged municipal action of the type that falls within the interests that SEQRA is intended to protect, he or she will be found to have standing, even though many others suffer the same direct harm.

The result will be that more challenges to municipal actions will be decided on their merits.

Takedown Notices under the DMCA

Posted: November 20th, 2015

Tags: ,

A “Takedown Notice” under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) exempts certain online service providers (“OSPs”) from liability for copyright infringing acts by its users, provided they meet certain conditions.

The definition of an OSP for purposes of the DMCA is quite broad: “a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities therefor.” 17 USC §512(k)(1)(B).  This would include most sites that offer user-generated content such as web hosting companies, blogging platforms, discussion forums, and so on.

Among the conditions that an OSP must meet to be exempt from liability are:

  1. No actual or constructive knowledge of infringing behavior;
  2. No financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity;
  3. When given a proper notice of infringing material being posted on its network, the OSP “responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing.”

17 USC §512(c)(1).

The notification referred to in (3) above has become known as the “DMCA Takedown Notice.” In brief, when an OSP receives such a notice from a copyright holder, it is required to remove or disable access to the accused material in order to avoid being held liable itself.

Compliance with the Takedown Notice will shield the OSP from being held as a contributory or vicarious infringer, and it also shields the OSP from liability to its members if the material is ultimately held not to be infringing.  See 17 USC §512(g)(1) (“a service provider shall not be liable to any person for any claim based on the service provider’s good faith disabling of access to, or removal of, material…regardless of whether the material or activity is ultimately determined to be infringing”).

The DMCA Takedown Notice can be posted on an OSP’s website, blog, or included in the Terms of Use.  Therefore, if you are an OSP or operate a blog or website with member-posted content, you should consider having a DMCA Takedown Notice on your website to help protect yourself.

The information contained in this article is provided for informational purposes only and is not and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. The firm provides legal advice and other services only to persons or entities with which it has established an attorney-client relationship.