1.  That § 54.1-2972 of the Code of Virginia is amended and reenacted as follows:

§ 54.1-2972. When person deemed medically and legally dead; determination of death; nurses’ or physician assistants’ authority to pronounce death under certain circumstances.

A. A person shall be medically and legally dead if:

1. In the opinion of a physician duly authorized to practice medicine in this Commonwealth, based on the ordinary standards of medical practice, there is the absence of spontaneous respiratory and spontaneous cardiac functions and, because of the disease or condition which directly or indirectly caused these functions to cease, or because of the passage of time since these functions ceased, attempts at resuscitation would not, in the opinion of such physician, be successful in restoring spontaneous life-sustaining functions, and, in such event, death shall be deemed to have occurred at the time these functions ceased; or

2. In the opinion of a physician, who shall be duly licensed and a specialist in the field of neurology, neurosurgery, or electroencephalography, or critical care medicine, when based on the ordinary standards of medical practice, there is the absence of brain stem reflexes, spontaneous brain functions and spontaneous respiratory functions and, in the opinion of another physician and such neurospecialistspecialist, based on the ordinary standards of medical practice and considering the absence of brain stem reflexes, spontaneous brain functions and spontaneous respiratory functions and the patient’s medical record, further attempts at resuscitation or continued supportive maintenance would not be successful in restoring such reflexes or spontaneous functions, and, in such event, death shall be deemed to have occurred at the time when these conditions first coincide.

B. A registered nurse or a physician assistant who practices under the supervision of a physician may pronounce death if the following criteria are satisfied: (i) the nurse is employed by or the physician assistant works at (a) a home health organization as defined in § 32.1-162.7, or (b) a hospice as defined in § 32.1-162.1, or (c) a hospital or nursing home as defined in § 32.1-123, including state-operated hospitals for the purposes of this section, or (d) the Department of Corrections; (ii) the nurse or physician assistant is directly involved in the care of the patient; (iii) the patient’s death has occurred; (iv) the patient is under the care of a physician when his death occurs; (v) the patient’s death has been anticipated; (vi) the physician is unable to be present within a reasonable period of time to determine death; and (vii) there is a valid Do Not Resuscitate Order pursuant to § 54.1-2987.1 for the patient who has died. The nurse or physician assistant shall inform the patient’s attending and consulting physicians of his death as soon as practicable.

The nurse or physician assistant shall have the authority to pronounce death in accordance with such procedural regulations, if any, as may be promulgated by the Board of Medicine; however, if the circumstances of the death are not anticipated or the death requires an investigation by a medical examiner, the nurse or physician assistant shall notify the chief medical examiner of the death and the body shall not be released to the funeral director.

This subsection shall not authorize a nurse or physician assistant to determine the cause of death. Determination of cause of death shall continue to be the responsibility of the attending physician. Further, this subsection shall not be construed to impose any obligation to carry out the functions of this subsection.

This subsection shall not relieve any registered nurse or physician assistant from any civil or criminal liability that might otherwise be incurred for failure to follow statutes or Board of Nursing or Board of Medicine regulations.

C. Death, as defined in subdivision A 2, shall be determined by one of the two physicians and recorded in the patient’s medical record and attested by the other physician. One of the two physicians determining or attesting to brain death may be the attending physician regardless of his specialty so long as at least one of the physicians is a neurospecialistspecialist, as set out in subdivision A 2.

D. The alternative definitions of death provided in subdivisions A 1 and A 2 may be utilized for all purposes in the Commonwealth, including the trial of civil and criminal cases.

GINA, signed into law in May 2008, prohibits discrimination by health insurers and employers based on individuals’ genetic information. Genetic information includes the results of genetic tests to determine whether someone is at increased risk of acquiring a condition (such as some forms of breast cancer) in the future, as well as an individual’s family medical history.“

The interesting aspect of this act is the impact it may have on social networking groups like Facebook and MySpaace. Since individuals may divulge information that could be used by employers to make determinations about an employee.

The law contains exceptions for managers who overhear an employee discussing a medical condition
at work – called the “watercooler exemption” – or from learning about a worker’s family medical history through commercially and publicly available means, such as a newspaper obituary.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which is in charge of enforcing the law, has sought input on whether to treat information on Web sites as commercially and publicly available data.

GINA, signed into law in May 2008, prohibits discrimination by health insurers and employers based on individuals’ genetic information. Genetic information includes the results of genetic tests to determine whether someone is at increased risk of acquiring a condition (such as some forms of breast cancer) in the future, as well as an individual’s family medical history.“

GINA affirms the principle central to all employment discrimination laws – that all people have the right to be judged according to their ability to do a job, not on stereotypical assumptions,” said Acting EEOC Chair Stuart J. Ishimaru. “No one should be denied a job or the right to be treated fairly in the workplace based on fears that he or she may develop some condition in the future.”

Specifically, the law prohibits the use of genetic information in making employment decisions, restricts the acquisition of genetic information by employers and others, imposes strict confidentiality requirements, and prohibits retaliation against individuals who oppose actions made unlawful by GINA or who participate in proceedings to vindicate rights under the law or aid others in doing so. The same remedies, including compensatory and punitive damages, are available under Title II of GINA as are available under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the ADA.

Acting Vice Chair Christine Griffin said, “Title II of GINA is an ideal complement to the ADA Amendments Act. With both laws now effective, American workers are protected if they experience discrimination because of their disability or because of impairments they may develop.”

The EEOC is charged with issuing regulations implementing Title II of GINA. On March 2, 2009, it published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to implement Title II with proposed regulations and received over 40 public comments in response. The final regulations implementing Title II are currently under review by the Office of Management and Budget and will be issued as soon as the review process is concluded.

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

via Historic Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act Takes Effect.

CPSC staff’s preliminary evaluations indicated that the vehicles may exhibit inadequate lateral stability, undesirable steering characteristics, and inadequate occupant protection during a rollover crash. The staff reviewed the Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association ROHVA draft proposed American National Standard for Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles, ANSI/ROHVA 1-200X and found preliminarily that it does not adequately address the deaths and injuries associated with ROV rollovers and collisions.

The ANPR invites written comments from the public regarding the risks of injury associated with ROVs and ways in which these risks could be addressed. Following publication of the ANPR, the public will have 60 days to provide comments to the Commission. Comments can be submitted at www.regulations.gov

A statement on this vote by Chairman Inez Tenenbaum is in portable document format PDF.

Read full story via CPSC

In a 4-3 order released Friday, the court decided to reconsider the case of man whose ankle was broken when a co-worker at a Flint auto plant backed a truck over it.

Read full story via chicagotribune.com.

A primary finding uncovered in the survey identifies the proliferation of plaintiff-unfriendly legal practices as one of the major problems facing the civil justice system today. Major corporations, such as insurance companies, drug manufacturers, US Chamber of Commerce, in conjunction with other pro-business proponents of tort reform legislation, have systematically engaged in a deliberate and persistent campaign against plaintiffs, their lawyers, and consumer protection laws.

Read full release via PRNewswire

The Iowa Supreme Court struck down a centuries-old provision that distinguishes between people who are invited onto private property and those who were merely allowed to visit.

Lawyers said the decision eliminates an outdated rule that has led to confusion among jurors and conflicting results in courtrooms.

Read full article via The Des Moines Register.

The second interesting point to draw from this article is that if you are a Personal Injury attorney who engages in internet marketing using Google AdWords you know how expensive your keywords can get for dominant positions. What’s interesting is the hollow nature of the “lawsuit magnet” scare tactic. “Personal Injury Lawyer Michigan” has been one of the highest priced keyword sets we have seen, going as high as $58 per click. This means that there is already a significant amount of PI woork in the state of Michigan.

Another example of bad leadership by the Chambers of Commerce in tough economic times.

House-Passed Legislation Crafted to Line the Pockets of Personal Injury Lawyers, Says Michigan Chamber of Commerce

Legislation passed today by the Democratically-controlled Michigan House of Representatives is a blatant attempt to line the pockets of personal injury lawyers at the expense of Michigan citizens, says the Michigan Chamber of Commerce.

“By repealing Michigan’s lawsuit abuse protections, the supporters of House Bills 4316-18 are ensuring that Michigan becomes a lawsuit magnet,” said Wendy Block, Director of Health Policy & Human Resources for the Michigan Chamber.

Read full story via  – FOXBusiness.com.

“This is a consensus bill. Senator Bell, myself, Senator Knudson, members of the trial lawyers, members of the medical community all sat in a room last Friday, and for nearly two hours, hammered out the respective positions that you see in the substitute,” he said.

Read full story via  KCPW.