Ten New Jersey Bills That Became Law, a Proposal to Expand New Jersey’s Cannabis Program to Telemedicine, and MedPac’s Recommendation to Congress About Physician and Facility Payments Banner Image

Ten New Jersey Bills That Became Law, a Proposal to Expand New Jersey’s Cannabis Program to Telemedicine, and MedPac’s Recommendation to Congress About Physician and Facility Payments

Ten New Jersey Bills That Became Law, a Proposal to Expand New Jersey’s Cannabis Program to Telemedicine, and MedPac’s Recommendation to Congress About Physician and Facility Payments

For more information about this blog post, please contact Khaled J. KleleLatoya Caprice Dawkins, Ryan M. Magee, or Labinot Alexander Berlajolli.

New Jersey Statutes

This past month, the New Jersey Legislature approved ten additional statutes impacting healthcare. These bills have already been approved and become law. The statutes are as follows:

A1277 – Approved – This bill requires general acute care hospitals and emergency shelters for the homeless to provide information about special services and resources to certain individuals receiving services from the hospital or shelter. Such hospitals will be required to inquire, as part of the intake process, whether the individual seeking services is homeless or is a military veteran.  In the event that the individual responds in the affirmative, the hospital is to provide the individual with information concerning special services and resources that are available to the individual based on the individual’s status as homeless or as a military veteran. 

A5500 – Approved – This bill expands the rate review process in the Department of Banking and Insurance for certain individual and small employer health benefits. Currently, under the Affordable Care Act, New Jersey is required to maintain a process to review health insurance rate increases according to certain criteria that identifies “unreasonable” rate increases, and requires health insurance carriers to provide justifications for them. This bill makes those federal requirements a part of New Jersey statutory law, so that consumers in the state will have those protections in the event that the ACA is repealed or modified.   

A5503 – Approved – This bill establishes one limited open enrollment period in the New Jersey Individual Health Coverage Program.  The bill provides the open enrollment period to be set by the program’s board consistent with federal law, unless the State operates a State-based exchange, in which case the open enrollment period may be set by the exchange.  The bill takes effect immediately and would apply to individual health benefits plans issued or renewed on or after that date.

A5504 – Approved – This bill applies an 85 percent loss ratio requirement to insurers that provide large group health insurance plans in the state, beginning with the calendar year starting on January 1, 2020, and in each calendar year thereafter. The bill requires the insurer to annually report to the Commissioner of Banking and Insurance, no later than August 1 of each year, the loss ratio calculated for all of the policy forms for the previous calendar year. In each case in which the loss ratio fails to substantially comply with the 85 percent loss ratio requirement, the insurer shall issue a dividend or credit against future premiums for all policyholders in an amount sufficient to assure that the aggregate benefits paid in the previous calendar year plus the amount of the dividends and credits shall equal 85 percent of the premiums collected in the previous calendar year. 

A5506 – Approved – This bill repeals the statute authorizing the offering of “Basic and Essential” health benefits plans (“B&E” Plans) under individual health benefits and small employer health benefits plans and other statutes concerning basic health plans.  The B&E Plan was designed as a reduced benefit plan to encourage additional individuals to purchase at least an “entry level” health benefits plan.  It was repealed because it fails to meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) Essential Health Benefits in multiple ways. 

S974 – Approved –  This bill requires all infants born in New Jersey to be tested for the genetic markers associated with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), which is a progressive neurodegenerative disease that is caused by abnormally functioning motor neurons that control voluntary movement, such as walking, talking, and swallowing.  In December 2016, the Food and Drug Administration approved Spinraza as the first drug approved to treat SMA.  Early testing has suggested that diagnosing and treating infants with SMA before they become symptomatic may be the key to successful treatment outcomes.

S1032 – Approved – This bill provides for the Commissioner of Human Services to accept an application from a screening service to provide expanded mental health services to meet the needs of the persons in its geographic area and may include establishing a satellite program that is situated in a location separate from a screening service and provides services that emphasize outreach and early intervention.  Screening services are public or private ambulatory care services that provide mental health services including assessment, emergency, and referral services to persons with mental illness in a specified geographic area. The bill also revises the existing statutory definitions of “mental health screener” and “treatment team” to expressly include a licensed marriage and family therapist, and it revises the existing definition of “screening service” to clarify that a screening service may, but need not be, affiliated with a hospital.

S3036 – Approved – This bill prohibits a provider to an injured worker of medical, surgical, or other treatment under the Workers' Compensation Law from reporting any portion of their charges which are alleged to be unpaid, to any collection or credit reporting agency, bureau, or data collection facility.  A provider may only report such charges when a judge within the Division of Workers’ Compensation has fully adjudicated the rights and liabilities of all parties, including the rights of the claimant regarding the payment of these charges, or when a notice of a stipulation settlement or an order approving settlement regarding the payment of these charges has been filed with the court. 

S3270 – Approved – This bill provides that, in order to be sold to a small employer in this state, a stop loss policy must establish a per person attachment point or retention or aggregate attachment point or retention, or both, which meet the following requirements:   (1) If the policy establishes a per person attachment point or retention, that specific attachment point or retention may not be less than $40,000 for all stop loss insurance policies written, issued, administered or renewed on or after April 1, 2020; and (2) If the policy establishes an aggregate attachment point or retention, that aggregate attachment point or retention may not be less than 140% of expected claims per plan year.  The bill also makes additional changes for 2021.

S4188 – Approved – This bill provides tax benefits to people that donate an organ or bone marrow, and paid time off to donors who are State or local government employees. In addition, the bill provides a tax credit to employers of donors who miss time from work.

S619 – Proposed – This proposed statute allows physicians participating in the medical cannabis program to issue patient prescriptions through telemedicine to improve patient accessibility to medical cannabis, particularly for those patients with physical limitations or restricted mobility.  If enacted, for the first 270 days after the bill is signed, patients who cannot physically travel to a physician’s office will be permitted to receive telemedicine prescriptions, including children, residents of long-term care facilities, developmentally disabled patients, hospice care patients, those terminally ill, and those who can show that they are homebound.  After that 270-day window, all other patients will be permitted to receive a telemedicine prescription provided they first make an in-person visit to the doctor’s office.

New Jersey Regulations

51 N.J.R. 1841(a) -- Proposed -- The State Board of Physical Therapy Examiners is proposing to modify the rules governing physical therapists entering the New Jersey through the Physical Therapy Licensure Compact.  Under the proposed rule, physical therapists and physical therapist assistants working in New Jersey through the Compact must comply with Board rules, except for those governing credentialing of applications, license renewal, and continuing education.  Such physical therapists, however, will have to pass the New Jersey State jurisprudence examination.  Comments are due by February 14, 2020.   

Federal Regulations

85 FR 2860 – Final Rule – The HHS has updated its regulations to reflect required annual inflation-related increases to the civil monetary penalties in its regulations, pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, and to make changes to reflect an amendment to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020. This rule is effective January 17, 2020.  HHS lists the civil monetary penalty authorities and the penalty amounts administered by all of its agencies in tabular form in 45 CFR 102.3

85 FR 2974 – Proposed – The HHS has proposed this rule to implement changes to provide clarity about the rights and obligations of faith-based organizations participating in HHS programs, clarify the  guidance documents for financial assistance with regard to faith-based organizations, and eliminate certain requirements for faith-based organizations that no longer reflect executive branch guidance or Supreme Court precedent.  Comments are due by February 18, 2020.

85 FR 3330 – RFI – CMS is seeking public comments regarding the coordination of care from out-of-state providers for Medicaid-eligible children with medically complex conditions. In seeking these comments, CMS wishes to identify best practices for using out-of-state providers to provide care to children with medically complex conditions, determine how care is coordinated for such children when that care is provided by out-of-state providers, including when care is provided in emergency and non-emergency situations, reduce barriers that prevent such children from receiving care from out-of-state providers in a timely fashion, and identify processes for screening and enrolling out-of-state providers in Medicaid, including efforts to streamline such processes for out-of-state providers or to reduce the burden of such processes on them. CMS intends to use the information received in response to this request to issue guidance to state Medicaid directors on the coordination of care from out-of-state providers for children with medically complex conditions.  Comments are due by March 23, 2020.

Med PAC Payment Recommendations

MedPAC has approved several payment recommendations, which includes basing hospital reimbursements more on value in the same vein as independent physician treatments. It also recommends that Congress provide a 2% market-basket update for the hospital inpatient and outpatient prospective payment systems in 2021, reduce the 2020 base payment rate for inpatient rehabilitation facilities by 5%, reduce the 2020 base payment rate for home health agencies by 7%, and eliminate the 2021 update to the payment rates for SNFs. MedPac did not recommend a payment increase for physicians for 2021 other than what is specified in current law.  This annual recommendation will be sent to Congress in March.

Idaho Supreme Court Affirms Dismissal of Lender’s Claims Against Title Company and Holds Non-Judicial Foreclosure Extinguished Underlying Debt

The Idaho Supreme Court recently held that a lender’s claims against a title company should be dismissed because the lender’s full-credit bid at a non-judicial foreclosure extinguished the underlying debt, and the lender therefore had no damages to allege.  The Court further found that there could be no negligence claim because there was no relationship between the parties.  See First Bank of Lincoln v. Land Title of Nez Perce Cty., Inc., 165 Idaho 813 (2019).  In 2011, the plaintiff lender loaned the borrower $440,000 to purchase a property, and the loan was secured by a deed of trust on the property.  The borrower also assigned his interest in a note and deed of trust on a bowling alley to plaintiff.  However, unbeknownst to plaintiff, the bowling alley was later sold, and the defendant title company disbursed the proceeds to the borrower and other parties rather than plaintiff.  The borrower later defaulted and plaintiff held a non-judicial foreclosure sale of the property.  It placed a full-credit bid of $425,000, and later sold the property for $190,000.  Plaintiff then brought this lawsuit against the title company alleging negligence and breach of contract, and sought the deficiency.  The parties cross-moved for summary judgment, and the district court granted the title company’s motion.  Applying Montana law based on the choice of law provision in the loan documents and the fact that the property was in Montana, the trial court held that the full-credit bid and sale extinguished the borrower’s debt, and plaintiff accordingly had no damages to recover as against the title company.

On appeal, the Court affirmed.  First, the Court found that when a lender forecloses on a property via a non-judicial foreclosure, it is prohibited from seeking any deficiency against the borrower under Montana law.  “If no deficiency can exist against [the borrower] then [plaintiff] subsequently has no action against [the title company] because its action against [the title company] exists solely based on the deficiency it claims against [the borrower].”  Second, the Court found that, even if plaintiff were to have damages, it could not claim negligence against the title company.  Citing Idaho law for this negligence claim, the Court found that there is a general rule prohibiting “purely economic losses in . . . negligence actions” with three exceptions: (i) when loss is “parasitic to an injury to person or property”; (ii) when “unique circumstances require a different allocation of the risk”; or (iii) “in cases involving a ‘special relationship’ between the parties.”  Here, the Court found that plaintiff and the title company had no relationship, and that the only relationship was between the title company and the borrower, for whom the title company held the proceeds in escrow.

For a copy of the decision, please contact Michael O’Donnell at modonnell@riker.com or Anthony Lombardo at alombardo@riker.com.

New Jersey Expands Solid Waste Licensing Regime to Soil and Fill Recyclers

Update as of May 2, 2020: Through Executive Order 136, Governor Murphy has extended the deadlines applicable to soil and fill recycling registrations and licenses as recited in this blog post by the number of days of the Public Health Emergency declared in Executive Order No. 103 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic plus an additional 60 days.

New Jersey continues to crack down on illegal dumping of contaminated soil by increasing regulation of soil and fill recycling businesses.  A law signed into effect by Governor Murphy on January 21, 2020, requires soil and fill recycling businesses to go through the A-901 solid waste licensing program, which was adopted many years ago in response to the infiltration of organized crime into the solid waste business, and ensures through an in-depth licensing regime that those engaged in the business of solid waste in New Jersey have the requisite integrity, reliability, expertise and competence.

The A-901 licensing program typically requires that businesses apply for and obtain an A-901 license before operating, but in order to avoid interfering with ongoing business operations, the new law sets out a two stage process to expand the A-901 licensing program to businesses that are already engaged in soil and fill recycling.

  • Soil and fill recycling businesses first will need to register with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection by April 20, 2020; while the registration form has not yet been made available, the information that will need to be included on the form includes basic information, such as the name of the business and its address, although it is possible that complex issues will arise for certain businesses at this stage based on specific circumstances.  Any business that submits the registration form will receive a registration from the State within 90 days.  This registration is non-transferable and temporarily authorizes the registered business to continue operating its soil and fill recycling business while the business applies for a soil and fill recycling license.
  • Businesses then will need to submit an application for a soil and fill recycling license, which is akin to an A-901 license.  If the business has a soil and fill registration and it submits the license application by October 17, 2020, it may continue operating until it receives a decision on the license, which is likely to take 12 months or more.  If the business does not obtain a registration by April 20th, it will need to submit an application and obtain a license before it can operate or continue to operate.  As with the registration form, the details of the application have not yet been released, but it is anticipated that the license application will be consistent with the current A-901 license application.  The A-901 application is a detailed disclosure form with many questions that cover a wide variety of topics.  As explained in our June 25, 2019 blog post titled “Expanded A-901 Requirements Coming Soon? Sales Persons, Consultants and Soil Recyclers Should Prepare”, it is important to answer all application questions thoroughly and completely, as the State will follow up on any incomplete questions, which could delay issuance of the license.

The soil and fill recycling businesses that must comply with these new requirements include, with certain exceptions, all businesses engaged in the collection, transportation, processing, brokering, storage, purchase, sale or disposition of soil and fill recyclable materials.  Soil and fill recyclable materials are defined, in turn and again with certain exceptions, as “non-putrescible aggregate substitute, including, but not limited to, broken or crushed brick, block, concrete, or other similar manufactured materials; soil or soil that may contain aggregate substitute or other debris or material, generated from land clearing, excavation, demolition or redevelopment activities that would otherwise be managed as solid waste . . . .”

The new law clarifies that the A-901 solid waste licensing program applies to brokers, and provides a new definition of a broker (i.e., a person who for direct or indirect compensation arranges for certain services involving solid waste, hazardous waste, or soil and fill recycling).  According to an NJDEP Enforcement Alert from 2014 focusing on solid and hazardous waste: “A broker does not transport solid or hazardous waste and does not assume responsibility for its transport. Examples of brokers include shipping agents and management companies that coordinate cleaning and maintenance services for ships, apartments, condo associations and retail establishments.”  This Enforcement Alert shows just how broadly NJDEP is likely to interpret the definition of a broker.

The new law also specifies that consultants are included within the A-901 licensing program if the consultant assists a business engaged in services relating to solid and hazardous waste or soil and fill recycling, unless the consulting services being provided require the consultant to hold another professional license from the State.  For instance, a licensed site remediation professional assisting a soil and fill recycling business by conducting soil sampling should not be required to obtain an A-901 license.

These changes increase the burden on new applicants for soil and fill recycling licenses, and businesses that already have an A-901 license should prepare to include information regarding associated brokers and consultants in their next annual disclosure update.  The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection is likely to update its rules and regulations regarding solid waste licensing as a result of the new legislation; these regulatory updates, along with the forthcoming registration form and application will provide further clarity regarding the implementation of the new legislation.

For more information, please contact any attorney in our Environmental Practice Group.

Extension for Licensure of One Room Centers

For more information about this blog post, please contact, Khaled J. Klele or Latoya Caprice DawkinsRyan M. Magee, or Labinot Alexander Berlajolli.

The New
Jersey Assembly recently proposed Bill
No.1989
extending the effective date for one room centers to become
licensed to July 1, 2020, citing staffing and resource limitations.  We
will keep track of this bill along the legislative process, and inform you if
and when the bill passes both houses and is approved by the Governor.

New Jersey Federal Court Holds Rooker-Feldman and Entire Controversy Doctrines Did Not Apply to Post-Foreclosure Action, but That Plaintiff Still Failed to State a Claim

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey recently held that a post-foreclosure action alleging claims under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) were not barred by the Rooker-Feldman or entire controversy doctrines, but that these claims nonetheless should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.  See Mensah v. Manning, 2020 WL 91089 (D.N.J. Jan. 8, 2020).  In 2009, a lender commenced a foreclosure action against plaintiff-borrower after plaintiff defaulted on her loan.  In 2017, the state court entered a final judgment of foreclosure, and denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate and motion to stay the sheriff’s sale.  In 2018, plaintiff brought this action, but the Court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.  In 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the lender and any one else remotely involved in the mortgage or foreclosure, alleging claims of RESPA and the FDCPA, among other claims.  The defendants again moved to dismiss the federal law claims.

The Court granted the motions to dismiss.  First, the Court found that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not apply.  Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.”  Here, the Court found that Rooker-Feldman did not apply because “[t]his injury is not one caused by the state-court judgment, but rather by alleged noncompliance with federal regulations under RESPA” and “alleged wrongful conduct in connection with the collection of debt.”  Second, the Court found that New Jersey’s entire controversy doctrine did not apply to bar these claims because most of the defendants in this action were not parties in the foreclosure action, and the only overlapping party—the lender—failed to raise the doctrine in its motion to dismiss.  Nonetheless, the Court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8(a).  The Court found that “each count of the Amended Complaint refers to actions taken by ‘Defendant,’ ‘the Defendant’ or ‘Defendant(s)’ interchangeably, without specifying which named defendant or defendants undertook which action” and that “the Amended Complaint provides no other factual allegations of any acts specifically undertaken by any Defendant that would connect them to Plaintiff’s alleged injuries, much less that would give rise to a plausible claim for relief.”  Accordingly, because the Court had previously given plaintiff the opportunity to amend, the Court dismissed the federal claims with prejudice, and dismissed the remaining state law claims without prejudice on jurisdictional grounds.

For a copy of the decision, please contact Michael O’Donnell at modonnell@riker.com or Anthony Lombardo at alombardo@riker.com.

Sixth Circuit Holds That Debtor’s Anxiety Caused by Receiving Debt Collection Letters Was Insufficient to Confer Standing

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that the anxiety felt by a debtor upon receiving a dunning letter was insufficient to bring a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”).  See Buchholz v. Meyer Njus Tanick, PA, 2020 WL 35431 (6th Cir. Jan. 3, 2020).  In the case, plaintiff received two debt collection letters from the defendant law firm.  The letters did not threaten any legal action but explained that defendant was “retained to collect the above-referenced debt.”  Plaintiff brought this action alleging that the letters violated the FDCPA because they falsely implied meaningful attorney review, and that receiving the letters caused plaintiff to feel “an undue sense of anxiety that he would be subject to legal action if prompt payment was not made.”  The debt collector moved to dismiss the action, and the District Court granted the motion, finding that plaintiff lacked standing.

On appeal, the Court affirmed.  In order to have standing, the Court found that plaintiff must allege an injury that is both concrete and particularized.  Citing to the Supreme Court, the Court here found that a concrete injury must be “real and not abstract” and that a plaintiff cannot “allege a bare procedural violation, divorced from any concrete harm, and satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III.”  See Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016).  The Court then found that, under Spokeo, there are two ways plaintiff could allege an injury in fact here:  either that the anxiety itself was a concrete harm, or defendant’s alleged FDCPA violation in and of itself was an injury.

First, the Court stated that it could find no case holding that anxiety alone is an injury in fact.  Moreover, even if it could find that the anxiety was an injury, the Court found that it could not trace the injury here to defendant’s conduct.  Defendant’s letters did not make any threats, so “even if anxiety is a cognizable injury—and we have our doubts—the anxiety that [plaintiff] alleges is not traceable to anyone but him” for failing to pay these debts.

Second, the Court found that the alleged procedural violation—the false implication of attorney review—also was not an injury in fact.  The Court found that plaintiff did not allege that he does not owe the debt, nor does he allege that the debt is uncollectable or that defendant’s letter contained any misstatement or omission.  “The letters simply informed [plaintiff] of the two debts and contained boilerplate language—required under the FDCPA—about how to pay or challenge the debts. . . . We are at a loss for how [defendant’s] letters caused any harm, much less harm that Congress intended to prevent when it enacted the FDCPA.”  Accordingly, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the action.  Finally, one judge issued a concurrence in which he stated that he believed anxiety alone could be an injury in fact but that, in this case, he agreed that the anxiety was not traceable to defendant’s conduct.

For a copy of the decision, please contact Michael O’Donnell at modonnell@riker.com or Anthony Lombardo at alombardo@riker.com.

Twenty-Five New Jersey Bills That Passed or Were Approved on Top of Nine From Last Month

If you have any questions about the issues discussed in this Update, please contact Khaled J. Klele or Latoya Caprice DawkinsRyan M. Magee, or Labinot Alexander Berlajolli.

This past month or so, the New Jersey Legislature passed twenty-five new statutes impacting healthcare, on top of the nine from the previous month. Mostly all of these bills have already been approved and become law. The statutes are as follows:

A1576 – Approved – This bill requires all employees of a healthcare facility to receive influenza vaccinations on or before December 31 of each year. The final version of this bill removed earlier provisions allowing employees to decline the vaccine, and instead, permits only a medical exemption based upon medical contraindications.

A1604 – Passed – This bill, entitled the “Recreational Therapists Licensing Act,” imposes regulation of persons offering recreational therapy services and devises professional licensing and certification standards to apply to persons practicing recreational therapy as well as those seeking to practice.

A1991 – Approved – This bill requires all students enrolling in an institution of higher education in the state to have received immunization for meningococcal disease as recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It does not, however, make any changes to the existing provision of law that allows medical and religious exemptions to the immunization requirement.

A3670 – Passed – This bill provides for designation of acute stroke ready hospitals, establishes a Stroke Care Advisory Panel and statewide stroke database, and requires development of emergency medical services stroke care protocols.

A5031 – Passed – This bill requires hospital emergency departments to ask a person of childbearing age about recent pregnancy history, including specifically, whether or not that person has had a pregnancy that was ended within the past 365 days.

A5248 – Approved – This bill requires individual and small employer health benefits plans to provide coverage under every plan delivered, issued, executed or renewed in this state that meets the essential health benefits requirements provided by the bill.

A5501 – Approved – This bill requires health insurers and group health plans that provide dependent coverage of children to continue to make that coverage available for adult children until the children turn 26 years of age. The bill also provides that health insurers and group health plans may not deny coverage for a covered individual’s child on the grounds that the child is married, the child has or adopts a child, or the child starts or leaves school.

A5507 – Approved – This bill requires health insurers to provide coverage, without requiring any cost sharing, for expenses incurred in the provision of the following preventive services: (1) “A” or “B” rated services in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force; (2) immunizations recommended from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices; and (3) preventive care and screenings for infants, children, adolescents, and women provided for in the Health Resources and Services Administration guidelines.

A5508 – Approved – This bill amends a previous statute requiring health insurance carriers and the State health benefits programs to cover prescription female contraceptives, by prohibiting insurers from imposing a deductible, coinsurance, copayment, or any other cost sharing requirement on this coverage. The bill also removes an exemption in the current law for religious employers to deny coverage if covering female contraceptives conflicts with the employer’s bona fide religious beliefs and practices.

A5916 – Passed – This bill authorizes the Department of Health to notify elected officials of financial distress of certain hospitals. It further authorizes the commissioner in those instances to appoint a monitor who shall oversee hospital administration, management, and/or operations.

A5667 – Passed – This bill, entitled “Charlie’s Law,” requires pharmacy practice sites and hospice programs to furnish patients with information and means to safely dispose of unused prescription drugs and medications.

A5917 – Approved – This bill expands the Department of Health’s Early Warning System, which is designed to detect signs that a hospital may be in or is approaching financial distress, to require consideration of the amount of management fees, allocations, and other payments made to third party entities, and the extent to which those fees, allocations, and payments reflect services actually rendered, with a particular focus on fees, allocations, and other payments made to a related or affiliated entity that does business with, or otherwise transfers assets to or from, the hospital.

A5918 – Passed – This bill requires hospitals to post on their Internet websites Internal Revenue Service Form 990 and all schedules and supporting documentation required to be submitted to the Internal Revenue Service in conjunction with Form 990 for the prior tax year. If the hospital does not file a Form 990 with the Internal Revenue Service, the bill requires hospitals to post on their Internet website all governance, financial, and operating information that would otherwise be reported on Form 990 for the prior tax year, including the information that would be required to be submitted in the schedules and supporting documentation in conjunction with Form 990, to the extent that such information exists with respect to a for profit hospital.

A5977 – Passed - This bill requires the Department of Human Services (DHS) to establish a Regional Health Hub Program and, in consultation with the Department of Health, designate Regional Health Hubs in appropriate areas of the state. The new Regional Health Hub Program will replace the Medicaid Accountable Care Organization Demonstration Project, which is now subject to expiration by law.

A6007 – Approved – This bill requires insurers or insurance groups to submit an annual report to the Commissioner of Banking and Insurance summarizing its corporate governance structure, policies, and practices, on or before June 1 of each calendar year.

S484 – Approved – This bill revises the State’s newborn screening program for congenital disorders by requiring the Commissioner of Health to establish a Newborn Screening Advisory Review Committee, consisting of medical, hospital, and public health professionals, scientific experts and consumer representatives, which would be authorized to make recommendations on the disorders to be screened for by the department, as well as on screening technologies, treatment options, and educational and follow-up procedures, to be used in the State’s newborn screening program.

S626 – Approved – This bill clarifies that a health insurer shall not impose, or include in its insurance policies, any provision excluding coverage for a preexisting condition. The bill also provides that an insurer shall not include any preexisting condition as a factor in calculating the premium.

S834 – Passed – This bill requires that a manufacturer of a non-prescription diabetes test device that is distributed within New Jersey must make the names of its authorized distributors available on its Internet Web site, and provide the Board of Pharmacy with the names of its authorized distributors, and update that list within 30 days of making any change in its authorized distributors. The bill also provides that a pharmacy that dispenses nonprescription diabetes test devices pursuant to prescriptions shall retain records of its acquisition, inventory, and sale of those non-prescription diabetes test devices.

S974 – Passed – This bill requires all infants born in this state to be tested for the genetic markers associated with spinal muscular atrophy, which is a progressive neurodegenerative disease that is caused by abnormally functioning motor neurons that control voluntary movement, such as walking, talking, and swallowing.

S3116 – Passed – This bill requires certain medical facilities to undertake end-of-life planning and training as condition of the facility’s licensure. Specifically, assisted living facilities, dementia care homes, nursing homes, assisted living residences, comprehensive personal care homes, residential healthcare facilities, hospitals, and long-term care facilities shall require all administrative personnel and professional staff to complete an annual training on advance care planning, end-of-life care, and the use of advance directives and Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) forms. These facilities are additionally to provide patients, residents and their families with educational materials on POLST forms, advance directives, and hospice and palliative care, and develop and implement policies to identify and address end-of-life care issues for patients and residents upon admission to the facility.

S3117 – Passed - This bill requires emergency departments of general hospitals in the state to develop and implement a plan to integrate the provision of palliative care services for patients treated in the emergency department for whom palliative care is appropriate, including: adopting a standardized screening tool, as recommended by the Department of Health, for use by healthcare professionals in the emergency department to facilitate the identification of patients who would benefit from palliative care services; providing patient-centered information, as developed by the Department of Health, concerning the benefits of palliative care; and considering the unique needs of patients with intellectual or developmental disabilities or behavioral health issues who present to the emergency department and for whom palliative care may be indicated.

S3159 – Approved – This bill provides for an expansion of the State Medicaid program to include coverage for pasteurized donated human breast milk under certain circumstances. Specifically, this bill provides that coverage under the Medicaid program includes expenses incurred for the provision of pasteurized donated human breast milk, which are required to include human milk fortifiers if indicated in a medical order provided by a licensed medical practitioner, to an infant under the age of six months.

S3270 – Passed – This bill amends the statutes that govern the New Jersey Small Employer Health Benefits Program to prohibit health insurance carriers and other insurers from offering stop loss insurance policies to small employers in the state. The bill does not prohibit a carrier or any other insurer from offering, issuing, or renewing a stop loss insurance policy to a multiple employer arrangement.

S3348 – Approved – This bill requires each home health agency and specialty pharmacy that provides services to individuals with hemophilia, when those services include treatment services for bleeding episodes associated with hemophilia, to comply with certain standards. These standards include a prohibition against making substitutions for prescribed blood products; providing a broad range of clotting factor products and ancillary supplies; having the ability to promptly deliver prescribed blood products, medications, and nursing services in an emergency, and maintaining a 24-hour on-call service; meeting certain requirements concerning relevant knowledge and experience, recordkeeping and documentation, and hazardous waste removal; and providing covered individuals with certain information concerning health benefits coverage.

S4165 – Passed – This bill expands the membership of the University Hospital board of directors from 11 to 13 members by adding the Mayor of Newark as an ex officio member and by adding an additional public member, to be appointed by the Governor. The new public member will be required to have experience in a healthcare field, such as medicine, dentistry, pharmacology, nursing, or physical or occupational therapy, or to have experience in a hospital management field such as finance, planning, human resources, research, or population health.

New York Federal Court Grants Lender Summary Judgment on Strict Foreclosure Claim

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York recently granted a lender’s motion for summary judgment on a strict foreclosure claim against a junior lienholder not named in a foreclosure action.  See U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass'n as Tr. for Structured Adjustable Rate Mortg. Loan Tr., Mortg. Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-23 v. Haskins, 2019 WL 6888654 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2019).  The original lender holding a mortgage on a property commenced a foreclosure action and, in connection with the action, recorded a notice of pendency in February of 2011.  The notice expired after three years, and the lender did not refile a notice until April of 2014, creating a gap in the notice period from February of 2014 through April of 2014.  In March of 2014, the defendant filed a judgment lien against the property.  The mortgage eventually was assigned to plaintiff, who finalized the foreclosure and purchased the property at the referee sale.  Plaintiff then brought this strict foreclosure action against defendant under RPAPL 1352, seeking an order that defendant must redeem its right to the property or have its lien extinguished.  The parties cross-moved for summary judgment.

The Court granted plaintiff’s motion.  First, the Court found that there was no question that defendant’s lien was junior to plaintiff’s mortgage, but that defendant’s lien survived the foreclosure sale and remained a lien on the property due to the fact it was recorded during the gap period.  Second, it found that a strict foreclosure action under RPAPL 1352, unlike a reforeclosure under RPAPL 1503, does not require the plaintiff to prove the absence of fraud or willful neglect.  Thus, defendant’s claims that plaintiff was negligent in failing to re-record the notice of pendency were irrelevant in this strict foreclosure action.  The Court therefore granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, denied defendant’s cross-motion, and ordered that defendant had a “60-day period from the date of this Opinion & Order within which Defendant must notify Plaintiff of his intent to exercise his right of redemption and pay the mortgage debt, along with the value of improvements made to the Property, to maintain his interest in the Property.”

For a copy of the decision, please contact Michael O’Donnell at modonnell@riker.com or Anthony Lombardo at alombardo@riker.com.

Nevada Appellate Court Holds Deed of Trust Survived HOA Lien Sale After Tender of Amount Due

The Court of Appeals of Nevada recently found that a lender’s deed of trust survived an HOA foreclosure because the lender had tendered the delinquent payments before the sale, even if it had not tendered allegedly-owed maintenance fees.  See Williston Investment Group, LLC, v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, 2019 WL 7161724 (Nev. App. Dec. 20, 2019).  In the case, the original homeowner defaulted on his HOA fees.  The HOA’s foreclosure agent then filed a notice of delinquent assessment lien against the property.  The defendant lender holding a deed of trust on the property tendered payment for nine months of delinquent payments, which the agent accepted.  The HOA nonetheless foreclosed, and plaintiff purchased the property at the sale.  Plaintiff brought this action seeking to extinguish the deed of trust held by defendant.  Defendant counterclaimed for quiet title and the parties cross-moved for summary judgment.  The trial court found that the HOA’s foreclosure agent failed to properly serve the original property owner, quieted title in favor of that owner, and found that the property remained subject to defendant’s deed of trust because the foreclosure was void.

On appeal, the Court partially reversed and partially affirmed the trial court’s order.  First, the Court found that there was no evidence that the original owner was prejudiced by the apparent lack of notice, and reversed the decision vacating the foreclosure sale.  Thus, it found that plaintiff owned the property.  Nonetheless, the Court found that defendant’s deed of trust survived the sale due to defendant’s tender.  Although plaintiff argued that defendant’s tender did not satisfy the HOA’s superpriority lien because the tender did not include a reserve for “later maintenance and nuisance-abatement charges,” the Court found that there was no evidence of such charges, and that there was no law saying that a lender paying off HOA liens also needs to pay for such unincurred charges.  Accordingly, the Court found that defendant’s deed of trust survived the sale.

For a copy of the decision, please contact Michael O’Donnell at modonnell@riker.com or Anthony Lombardo at alombardo@riker.com.

Illinois Federal Court Dismisses Slander of Title Claim, Finds the Filing of Lis Pendens Was Protected by Privilege

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently dismissed a counterclaim for slander of title arising out of the filing of lis pendens, finding that the act was protected by an absolute privilege.  See Steelcast Ltd. v. Makary, 2019 WL 4934697 (N.D. Ill. 2019).  Plaintiff brought an action on behalf of an LLC for which plaintiff and defendant were the only members.  Plaintiff claimed that defendant, as the LLC manager, breached its fiduciary duties by not paying certain receivables to plaintiff.  As part of the lawsuit, plaintiff filed constructive trusts claims and lis pendens against defendant’s properties based on the claim that defendant diverted LLC funds to renovate these properties, and “to apply pressure in this litigation.”  Defendant then counterclaimed for slander of title and abuse of process based on the filing of the lis pendens, arguing that the claim that defendant diverted funds to renovate properties was “knowingly baseless.”  Defendant further argued that the filing of the lis pendens was malicious because plaintiff’s claim was for breach of fiduciary duty, not a fraudulent transfer of funds, and the claim had nothing to do with the properties.  Plaintiff moved to dismiss the counterclaim.

The Court granted the motion and dismissed the counterclaim.  First, the Court found that the act of filing the lis pendens was shielded by an absolute privilege because it was related to plaintiff’s claim in the litigation that defendant diverted funds to these properties, regardless of how “baseless” defendant thought the claim was.  The Court further found that a slander of title claim requires that the statements be both false and malicious, and “[u]nder Illinois law, a mere recitation of a party’s claims in a lawsuit cannot be ‘false’ or capable of ‘form[ing] the basis of liability’ for a slander claim.”  Second, the Court dismissed the counterclaim for abuse of process, finding that the filing of a lis pendens was not an “act in the use of legal process not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceedings.”

For a copy of the decision, please contact Michael O’Donnell at modonnell@riker.com or Anthony Lombardo at alombardo@riker.com.

Get Our Latest Insights

Subscribe