DePuy ASR Hip Recall Fallout Illustrates Need For New Legislation

In 2007, DePuy agreed to pay $84.7 million in fines to settle criminal charges, alleging that the company paid kickbacks to doctors who used their hips and knees.** In the aftermath of that settlement, DePuy agreed to publicly disclose payments made to doctors. According to Bloomberg Businessweek, one orthopedic surgeon who helped design the ASR hip replacements was paid more than $3 million “in royalty income for intellectual property and/or product development” in 2009 and 2010; another doctor compensated by DePuy was paid $552,000 for similar services. In addition to receiving payments for product development, these doctors frequented DePuy meetings in support of the ASR products and actively promoted them to their peers. During these meetings, attendees raised issues regarding the high failure rate of the ASR hips, the metal debris generated by the ASR hips, and severe complications caused artificial hip implants. In response, the handsomely compensated doctors assured other orthopedic surgeons that the ASR implants were not only safe, but the best artificial hips available on the market. Thus, other orthopedic surgeons attending these conferences, who were not receiving compensation from DePuy, were often victims of these practices as well.

In August 2010, DePuy Orthopeadics, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, issued a voluntary worldwide hip replacement recall of its ASR hip implant systems, after receiving data from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales that 1 out of every 8 patients (12%-13%) who received the ASR hip implants had to undergo revision surgery within five years of implant.*** The recall affected approximately 37,000 Americans.

Bernstein Liebhard LLP Partner Felecia L. Stern commented, “Many of our clients ask if there is some way of determining whether their doctor received payments from DePuy for recommending the ASR hip implant. This new law will help patients received the full information they deserve.”

According to the New York Times, at least 3,500 hip replacement lawsuits have been filed over the hip implants that were subject to the ASR hip recall.**** The lawyers at Bernstein Liebhard LLP are actively filing cases on behalf of individuals allegedly injured by the artificial ASR metal-on-metal hip implants in In re: DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. ASR Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation (“MDL No. 2197”).

Since Johnson & Johnson issued its hip replacement recall 2010, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has provided a wealth of consumer information concerning the ASR hip systems on its website, http://www.consumerinjurylawyers.com. If you or a loved one received a DePuy ASR hip implant during hip surgery and have experienced hip replacement pain or had to undergo revision surgery, you may be entitled to compensation for medical bills, pain and suffering, lost wages and other injuries.

Bipartisan legislation known as the STANDUP Act (Safe Teen And Novice Driver Uniform Protection Act) (H.R. 1515/ S.528) has been introduced in the House by Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY) and Rep. Hultgren (R-IL) and in the Senate by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand(D-NY) as well as Senator Klobuchar (D-MN).  A letter, signed by 28 parents from across the country, was sent to each Member of Congress, calling for quick action on this lifesaving legislation. (Parents’ letter is available at www.saferoads4teens.org).

“More than 70 teens will needlessly die in crashes this week,” said Jackie Gillan, president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety.  ”There is no better way for each Member of Congress to acknowledge National Teen Driver Safety Week than by co-sponsoring and working to pass the STANDUP Act.”

The STANDUP Act would set minimum standards for state graduated driver licensing (GDL) laws for beginning teen drivers. The STANDUP Act would encourage states to adopt teen driving laws that include a minimum age of 16 for learner’s permits and restrictions on the number of teen passengers, cell phone use, and nighttime driving until drivers reach age 18.

Alan Brown of Kennesaw, Georgia, lost his 17-year-old son, Joshua, in a 2003 crash.  ”Since Joshua’s death, every week has become teen driver safety week to me.  I have dedicated my life to ensuring that other parents are spared the tragic loss of a child, and I believe the STANDUP Act will go a long way to making every teen in every state safer.”

Nearly eight years ago, Jim Portell‘s 15-year-old daughter, Jamie, died in a car full of teens that rolled over, ejecting all five unbelted occupants. Portell believes that his daughter would be alive today if STANDUP had been enacted. “I want to use Jamie’s death to protect teens and spare parents and families my profound loss,” he said from his home in Davenport, Florida. “No one should have to suffer such pain and suffering and they don’t have to if we have strong laws.  Jamie was not just my daughter, she was my best friend.”

Eilene and Bob Okerblom of Santa Maria, California, lost their 19-year-old son Eric in 2009 when the bicycle he was riding was struck by a distracted teen driver.  ”We vaccinate our children to keep them safe and healthy from disease.  But car crashes are the number one killer of teens, more than any disease.  STANDUP is the vaccine against teen crashes, and every teen should get its benefit.”

Numerous studies have shown that comprehensive GDL laws are effective at preventing crashes among novice teen drivers, reducing injuries, and saving lives.  States that have implemented strong laws have experienced reductions in the number of teen driver crashes by as much as 30 percent, as well as decreases in the number of teen motor vehicle fatalities, some by more than 40 percent.

The STANDUP Act is supported by the Saferoads4teens Coalition, a diverse group of consumer, safety, medical, law enforcement, teen, and parent organizations, as well as insurance companies and automotive industry representatives.

National Teen Driver Safety Week, established by Congress in 2007, is dedicated to raising awareness and seeking solutions to unnecessary teen deaths on the road. Held during the third week of October, this year’s theme is supporting parents in teaching their teens to drive. 

“Last year showed states’ strong commitment to traffic safety as nearly a dozen states enacted laws banning texting while driving, but there were also real safety improvements on core needs like teen driver safety, primary seat belt laws, and child passenger safety,” said AAA Vice President of Public Affairs Kathleen Marvaso. “AAA is working with legislators and other safety advocates in statehouses across the country to draft and pass legislation in 2011 that will make roads safer.

“As state legislatures grapple with another year of severe budget challenges, safety improvements are a low or no cost way that legislators can make their states better places to live. Laws that reduce crashes, injuries and deaths can help reduce governments’ medical and emergency response costs. In fact, some states could receive millions of dollars in financial incentives for passing some of these laws.”

AAA’s main traffic safety priorities in the states include:

Texting while driving bans: AAA in 2009 launched a national campaign to pass laws banning text messaging while driving in all 50 states. With 11 states having enacted these laws in 2010, there are now 30 states with laws prohibiting drivers of all ages from texting. AAA expects nearly every one of the 20 remaining states to consider this legislation in 2011.

Teen driver safety: Although every state has some form of graduated driver licensing for new teen drivers, nearly every state still has opportunities to improve these lifesaving laws, according to AAA. States such as Alabama, Louisiana, Michigan, and Oklahoma made significant improvements in 2010, such as increasing the age and requirements for getting a license, banning the use of wireless communications devices for novice drivers, and adding or improving limits on teen passengers and nighttime driving for newly licensed teens. Just five states (Delaware, Indiana, New York, Oklahoma and West Virginia) have graduated driver licensing systems that meet AAA’s guidelines for nighttime limits, passenger limits, and practice requirements.

Booster seat laws: Three states (Arizona, Florida and South Dakota) lack booster seat requirements, which have been shown to improve safety for young passengers. Colorado enacted a law in 2010 to allow the primary enforcement of its booster seat requirement. Booster seat laws in 21 states still fall short of meeting safety experts’ guidelines, which includes all children under age 8.

Primary seat belt laws: After a record-setting year in 2009, 2010 saw modest gains as Kansas improved its seat belt law to allow primary enforcement by police and Georgia closed a loophole in its law that exempted pickup truck occupants from the state’s seat belt requirement. AAA and other safety advocates will continue to work to improve laws in the remaining 19 states without a primary belt law, as well as attempt to increase fines in some states with weak penalties. Primary seat belt laws have repeatedly been shown as a low cost way for states to quickly increase belt use, reduce traffic deaths, and lower the cost of crashes.

Move over laws: Nearly every state (49 states) has a law that requires drivers to slow down and, if safe, “move over” when passing an emergency vehicle that is actively working on a roadway. Virginia improved its law in 2010 to include tow trucks and other road service vehicles, increasing the number of states with these more comprehensive laws to 39. AAA will continue to promote these laws that have been shown to improve safety for police, tow truck operators, and others who work on our roadways.

As North America’s largest motoring and leisure travel organization, AAA provides more than 52 million members with travel, insurance, financial and automotive-related services. Since its founding in 1902, the not-for-profit, fully tax-paying AAA has been a leader and advocate for the safety and security of all travelers. AAA clubs can be visited on the Internet at AAA.com.

Joined by family members of distracted driving victims, including FocusDriven President Jennifer Smith, and representatives from Safeway and the Network of Employers for Traffic Safety (NETS), Secretary LaHood unveiled a number of new public education initiatives and discussed the important leadership role businesses play in promoting safe driving behavior.

“Distracted driving is a deadly epidemic and when it comes to road safety, we will not take a backseat to anyone,” said Secretary LaHood. “That’s why distracted driving will continue to be a major part of DOT’s robust safety agenda. Together with advocates like FocusDriven and NETS, and employers like Safeway, we can put an end to this deadly behavior and save lives.”

To show the devastating, real-life effect of distracted driving, the Department unveiled the latest in its “Faces of Distracted Driving” video series, which explores the tragic consequences of texting and cell phone use while driving. The video features people from across the country who have been injured or lost loved ones in distracted driving crashes. This week’s video features 17-year-old Emily Reynolds. Emily’s older sister Cady was killed in 2007 when a teen driver texting on her cell phone struck Cady’s car in Omaha, Nebraska. To watch, or find out how to submit a video, visit: www.distraction.gov/faces.

Also at today’s event, FocusDriven President Jennifer Smith launched a new anti-distracted driving PSA. Titled the “5500 campaign,” the 30-second public service announcement includes pictures of hundreds of distracted driving victims, putting faces to the fatalities that occur on American roadways.

“In our new PSA, we want to remind people that each and every distracted driving fatality is someone’s loved one, and that person’s family is in tremendous pain,” said Smith. “Our new campaign will urge the public to put down the phone and focus on the drive. We cannot wait until others are killed or injured to take action. The statistics show that it’s no longer ‘if’ someone you know will be affected by distracted driving, it’s ‘when.’”

On the employer side, Shannon Campagna, Vice President of Federal Government Relations for Safeway grocery stores, spoke about the company’s decision to institute an anti-distracted driving policy for all Safeway truck drivers. The policy prohibits Safeway’s 1,525 truck drivers from talking or texting on cell phones, or from using hands-free devices while driving.

“The safety of our employees, customers and residents in the communities where we operate is and always has been of the utmost importance to Safeway,” said Campagna. “This policy not only helps keep our employees and customers safe, but we believe it is a good business practice as it ensures that our products arrive safely and on-time. Implementation of policies limiting use of phones and mobile devices by more private companies will help minimize distractions for drivers and keep Americans on the road safe and healthy.”

Bill Windsor, Chairman of the Network of Employers for Traffic Safety (NETS), also announced the results of their 2010 Drive Safely Work Week (DSWW) campaign. The campaign, which promoted anti-distracted driving employer policies, reached a record-breaking 5,000 unique public and private organizations representing more than 20 million U.S. employees. Of the 4,690 unique organizations that downloaded the NETS electronic tool kit, 88 percent currently have or expect to have a cell phone policy in place within the next 12 months.

“Employers can make a real difference in keeping their associates safe both on and off the job by educating them about the dangers of distracted driving and adopting policies to prevent it,” said Windsor.

While public awareness about America’s distracted driving epidemic has grown in recent years, the problem still looms large. In 2009, nearly 5,500 people died and half a million were injured in accidents involving a distracted driver.

To learn more about the U.S. Department of Transportation’s efforts to stop distracted driving, please visit www.distraction.gov.

The undersigned consumer and patient safety organizations are writing to express great concern about one section of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform November 2010 Co-Chair’s Proposal (“Co-Chair’s Proposal”).  While the Co-Chair’s Proposal may be considered alarming for a number of reasons, this letter addresses one section in particular:

“Pay lawyers less and reduce the cost of defensive medicine

• Enact comprehensive medical malpractice liability reform to cap non-economic and punitive damages and make other changes in tort law.”

While we are somewhat hampered in our response due to the vagueness of this paragraph, we assume it is based at least in part on the Congressional Budget Office analysis presented in a 7-page, October 9, 2009 letter to Senator Hatch discussing health care savings from restricting patients’ rights.  In this letter, CBO identified a health care cost savings of about 0.5% (with 0.3% attributed to “defensive medicine”) if Congress enacted restrictions on the legal rights of patients that are so extreme that no single state in the nation has imposed all of them collectively on patients.  Two of the items – a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages and one-year statute of limitations – have been rejected by the vast majority of states.  The $250,000 cap was also considered and rejected by the U.S. Senate on Motions to Proceed five times between 2003 and 2006. Many states have also declared unconstitutional many of these so-called “tort reforms.”

To find this small 0.5% in health care cost savings, CBO looked at a handful of studies, several of which are noted to contradict each other.  Some of these same studies indicate that the cost of achieving such minor savings would be a significant increase in medical errors resulting in injury or death.  One of them suggests that 50,000 more people could die in the next ten years (beyond the 98,000 that already die annually from medical errors) should Congress further limit the legal rights of patients.  Based on these same numbers, another 400,000 or more could be injured (given that one in 10 injured patients die.)  The costs of these errors, which the Institute of Medicine already puts between “$17 billion and $29 billion, of which health care costs represent over one-half,” would clearly increase given that the average length of stay per hospitalization is around 4.4 days and the average cost per day in the hospital is around $2,000 per day per injury.  Consider those expenses on top of physician utilization inherent in caring for these new patients, and the cost increase due to more injuries is significant.

Also completely ignored by both CBO and the Co-Chair’s Proposal are direct financial burdens on the government should liability limits be enacted.  Limiting liability ends up shifting the costs away from those who should pay – insurance companies for health care providers who have committed malpractice – onto the government and taxpayer.  Among these additional costs are:

New Burdens on Medicaid. If someone is brain damaged, blinded, mutilated or rendered paraplegic as a result of medical negligence but cannot obtain compensation from the culpable party through the tort system, he or she may be forced to turn elsewhere for compensation, particularly Medicaid. We are aware of families with children severely injured by medical malpractice who had to seek government assistance to survive because “tort reform” reduced their compensation, burdening their own state Medicaid system.  None of these increased costs are considered by the CBO or in the assumption of the Co-Chair’s Proposal that this would save funds.

Liens and Subrogation. Whenever there is a successful medical malpractice lawsuit, Medicare and Medicaid can both claim either liens or subrogation interests in whatever the patient recovers, reimbursing the government for some of the patients’ health care expenditures.  Without the lawsuit, Medicare and Medicaid will lose funds that the government would otherwise be able to recoup.  Again, none of these lost funds are factored in by the CBO or the Co-Chair’s Proposal.

Other Countervailing Tort System Benefits Are Overlooked. Any legitimate analysis of tort system costs must consider the countervailing cost benefits of the legal system due to its deterrence function – future injuries and deaths prevented, health care costs not expended, wages not lost. For example, in one August 2009 study, researchers found that in 86 percent of obstetrical cases they examined, “improved health outcomes associated with medical malpractice pressure” led to cost-savings in the health sector and these cost-saving exceeded any marginal costs of defensive medicine, leading also to “an improvement in net social benefits rather than a decline, as should be the case for defensive medicine.”

It should also be noted that despite much heated rhetoric about so-called “defensive medicine,” CBO found little evidence of this in private managed care systems, which, unlike Medicare’s emphasis on “fee-for-service” spending, “limit[s] the use of services that have marginal or no benefit to patients (some of which might otherwise be provided as ‘defensive medicine’).”  In other words, CBO virtually admitted that to the extent defensive medicine exists at all, it can be controlled through simply managing care correctly as opposed to taking away patients’ rights and possibly killing and injuring more people.

Finally, there is already a wealth of evidence and experience at the state level proving with certainty that enacting even the most draconian “tort reform” measures results in no reduction in health care costs.  In Texas, for example, “Medicare spending has risen 16% faster than the national average since Texas restricted the legal rights of patients” and “4 of the nation’s 15 most expensive health markets as measured by Medicare spending per enrollee are in Texas.” Yet many patients in Texas have been left without any remedy regardless of the severity of their injuries or the degree of negligence that may have occurred.

In sum, not only would the tort “reform” provision in the Co-Chair’s Proposal fail to reduce the government’s debt, it would increase it.  And it would do so by taking away the legal rights of patients who are injured through no fault of their own, and reducing the accountability of those who commit wrongdoing.  The recommendations of your Co-Chairs are only that, recommendations. We urge you to reject this measure, and when coming out with a substantive final plan instead focus on reforms that would reduce cost by reducing the incidents of medical malpractice.

SOURCE Center for Justice & Democracy

In 2008, a worker was trampled to death while a mob of shoppers rushed through the doors of a large store to take advantage of an after-Thanksgiving Day Black Friday sales event. The store was not using the kind of crowd management measures recommended in OSHA’s fact sheet, which is available online at https://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/data_General_Facts/Crowd_Control.html.

“Crowd-related injuries during special retail sales and promotional events have increased during recent years,” said Assistant Secretary for OSHA Dr. David Michaels. “Many of these incidents can be prevented by adopting a crowd management plan, and this fact sheet provides retail employers with guidelines for avoiding injuries during the holiday shopping season.”

The fact sheet provides employers with recommended elements for crowd management plans. Plans should include having trained security personnel or police officers on-site, setting up barricades or rope lines for pedestrians and crowd control well in advance of customers arriving at the store, making sure that barricades are set up so that the customers’ line does not start right at the entrance of the store, having in place emergency procedures that address potential dangers, and having security personnel or customer service representatives explain approach and entrance procedures to the arriving public.

OSHA also recommends not allowing additional customers to enter the store when it reaches its maximum occupancy level and not blocking or locking exit doors.

For a copy of the letter sent to the CEOs and a list of the retailers they represent, visit http://www.osha.gov/ooc/blackfridayletter.pdf.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, OSHA’s role is to promote safe and healthful working conditions for America’s men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, outreach and education. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov.

U.S. Department of Labor releases are accessible on the Internet at http://www.dol.gov.  The information in this news release will be made available in alternate format (large print, Braille, audiotape or disc) from the COAST office upon request.  Please specify which news release when placing your request at 202-693-7828 or TTY 202-693-7755.  The Labor Department is committed to providing America’s employers and employees with easy access to understandable information on how to comply with its laws and regulations.  For more information, please visit http://www.dol.gov/compliance.

The program offers a bare bones policy that is often half the price of the least expensive insurance coverage otherwise available in many communities. The CLCA premium can be as low as $161 per year (in Imperial County) and up to $368 per year (in Los Angeles County.) The prices are set by the Insurance Commissioner to ensure that there is no taxpayer cost for the program and that it does not require a subsidy from drivers who purchase standard auto insurance. To date, an estimated 85% of drivers who have purchased the CLCA policy were previously uninsured motorists.

“The low-cost auto insurance program is an example of government finding an innovative way to address a serious problem and doing it without stretching taxpayer dollars,” said Douglas Heller, Executive Director of Consumer Watchdog.

Consumer Watchdog (http://www.consumerwatchdog.org), which sponsored the 1999 legislation creating the program, has been working with community groups, insurance agents, the City of Los Angeles and the California Department of Insurance to raise awareness about the program. Lack of knowledge of the program among many qualifying drivers combined with a failure of many insurance agents to inform customers about the program, as required by law, has meant that there are thousands of uninsured drivers who could enroll if they were aware of the program. Consumer Watchdog’s outreach efforts and newly-created alliances aim to provide more motorists the opportunity to sign up for this critical program.

A 2008 report by the Insurance Research Council estimated that about 18% of California drivers lacked coverage. And according to new census figures, about 5.6 million Californians now live below the poverty line, which is about $22,000 for a family of four.

Douglas Heller continued, “Millions upon millions are struggling in this economy– and the Low Cost Auto Insurance program allows cash-strapped motorists a chance to drive legally. That’s not just better for low-income drivers, but it’s a relief to everyone on the road when fewer people drive uninsured.”

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.