text:
New York Family Lawyer Stephen Bilkis & Associates Home
New York Family Court
Family Court Act, Article 3, Juvenile Delinquency Part 5, § 353.5: Designated Felony Acts; Restrictive Placement
A juvenile delinquency case has two major parts: the fact-finding hearing and the dispositional hearing. The fact-finding hearing is the phase during which the presentment agency submits evidence to a Family Court judge indicating that the minor committed acts that if committed by an adult would amount to a crime. It is analogous to a criminal trial. Should the Family Court judge conclude that by a preponderance of evidence the minor did in fact commit the acts described in the petition, the next step is the dispositional hearing. The dispositional hearing involves a determination of what type of treatment the minor should receive such as probation, placement or conditional discharge. Under New York Family Court Act, Article 3, Juvenile Delinquency, Part 5, § 353.5, an additional disposition is that the minor may be placed in restrictive placement. Restrictive placement means confinement for a period of 3-5 years.
If a minor has been found to have committed acts that amount to a felony, the court will determine whether or not a restrictive placement is required. In making such a determination, the court will consider the following:
The needs and best interests of the minor;
The minor's background;
The nature and circumstances of the offense, including whether any injury was inflicted by the minor;
The need for protection of the community; and
The age and physical condition of the victim.
If the minor committed a felony and also seriously injured another person, the minor must be ordered to restrictive placement.
A petition was filed alleging that 15-year-old Luis D. committed three designated felony acts as well as three non-designated felonies. After a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court found beyond a reasonable doubt, that Luis D. committed each crime charged. After a lengthy dispositional hearing, pursuant to Family Court Act § 353.5(4) Luis was sent to restrictive placement for the maximum five year period with credit for his time spent in detention. Luis D. was also ordered to complete 200 hours of community service and was required to complete vocational training.
Related Statutory Provisions
Order of disposition: New York Family Court Act, Article 3, Juvenile Delinquency, Part 5, § 352.2
Order of protection: New York Family Court Act, Article 3, Juvenile Delinquency, Part 5, § 352.3
Conditional discharge: New York Family Court Act, Article 3, Juvenile Delinquency, Part 5, § 353.1
Placement: New York Family Court Act, Article 3, Juvenile Delinquency, Part 5, § 353.3
Restitution: New York Family Court Act, Article 3, Juvenile Delinquency, Part 5, § 353.6
Family Court Act, Article 3, Child Protective Services, Part 5, § 353.5: Designated felony acts; restrictive placement
Where the respondent is found to have committed a designated felony act, the order of disposition shall be made within twenty days of the conclusion of the dispositional hearing and shall include a finding based on a preponderance of the evidence as to whether, for the purposes of this article, the respondent does or does not require a restrictive placement under this §, in connection with which the court shall make specific written findings of fact as to each of the elements set forth in paragraphs (a) through (e) in subdivision two as related to the particular respondent. If the court finds that a restrictive placement under this § is not required, the court shall enter any other order of disposition provided in § 352.2. If the court finds that a restrictive placement is required, it shall continue the proceeding and enter an order of disposition for a restrictive placement. Every order under this § shall be a dispositional order, shall be made after a dispositional hearing and shall state the grounds for the order.
In determining whether a restrictive placement is required, the court shall consider: (a) the needs and best interests of the respondent; (b) the record and background of the respondent, including but not limited to information disclosed in the probation investigation and diagnostic assessment; (c) the nature and circumstances of the offense, including whether any injury was inflicted by the respondent or another participant; (d) the need for protection of the community; and (e) the age and physical condition of the victim.
Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision two, the court shall order a restrictive placement in any case where the respondent is found to have committed a designated felony act in which the respondent inflicted serious physical injury, as that term is defined in subdivision ten of § 10.00 of the penal law, upon another person who is sixty-two years of age or more.
When the order is for a restrictive placement in the case of a youth found to have committed a designated class A felony act, (a) the order shall provide that: (i) the respondent shall be placed with the division for youth for an initial period of five years. If the respondent has been in detention pending disposition, the initial period of placement ordered under this § shall be credited with and diminished by the amount of time spent by the respondent in detention prior to the commencement of the placement unless the court finds that all or part of such credit would not serve the needs and best interests of the respondent or the need for protection of the community. (ii) the respondent shall initially be confined in a secure facility for a period set by the order, to be not less than twelve nor more than eighteen months provided, however, where the order of the court is made in compliance with subdivision five the respondent shall initially be confined in a secure facility for eighteen months. (iii) after the period set under clause (ii), the respondent shall be placed in a residential facility for a period of twelve months. (iv) the respondent may not be released from a secure facility or transferred to a facility other than a secure facility during the period provided in clause (ii) of this paragraph, nor may the respondent be released from a residential facility during the period provided in clause (iii). No home visits shall be permitted during the period of secure confinement set by the court order or one year, whichever is less, except for emergency visits for medical treatment or severe illness or death in the family. All home visits must be accompanied home visits: (A) while a youth is confined in a secure facility, whether such confinement is pursuant to a court order or otherwise; (B) while a youth is confined in a residential facility other than a secure facility within six months after confinement in a secure facility; and (C) while a youth is confined in a residential facility other than a secure facility in excess of six months after confinement in a secure facility unless two accompanied home visits have already occurred. An "accompanied home visit" shall mean a home visit during which the youth shall be accompanied at all times while outside the secure or residential facility by appropriate personnel of the division for youth designated pursuant to regulations of the director of the division. (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during the first twelve months of the respondent's placement, no motion, hearing or order may be made, held or granted pursuant to § 355.1; provided, however, that during such period a motion to vacate the order may be made pursuant to 355.1, but only upon grounds set forth in § 440.10 of the criminal procedure law. (c) During the placement or any extension thereof: (i) after the expiration of the period provided in clause (iii) of paragraph (a), the respondent shall not be released from a residential facility without the written approval of the director of the division for youth or his designated deputy director. (ii) the respondent shall be subject to intensive supervision whenever not in a secure or residential facility. (iii) the respondent shall not be discharged from the custody of the division for youth, unless a motion therefor under § 355.1 is granted by the court, which motion shall not be made prior to the expiration of three years of the placement. (iv) unless otherwise specified in the order, the division shall report in writing to the court not less than once every six months during the placement on the status, adjustment and progress of the respondent. (d) Upon the expiration of the initial period of placement, or any extension thereof, the placement may be extended in accordance with § 355.3 on a petition of any party or the division for youth after a dispositional hearing, for an additional period not to exceed twelve months, but no initial placement or extension of placement under this § may continue beyond the respondent's twenty-first birthday. (e) The court may also make an order pursuant to subdivision two of § 353.4.
When the order is for a restrictive placement in the case of a youth found to have committed a designated felony act, other than a designated class A felony act, (a) the order shall provide that: (i) the respondent shall be placed with the division for youth for an initial period of three years. If the respondent has been in detention pending disposition, the initial period of placement ordered under this § shall be credited with and diminished by the amount of time spent by the respondent in detention prior to the commencement of the placement unless the court finds that all or part of such credit would not serve the needs and best interests of the respondent or the need for protection of the community. (ii) the respondent shall initially be confined in a secure facility for a period set by the order, to be not less than six nor more than twelve months. (iii) after the period set under clause (ii), the respondent shall be placed in a residential facility for a period set by the order, to be not less than six nor more than twelve months. (iv) the respondent may not be released from a secure facility or transferred to a facility other than a secure facility during the period provided by the court pursuant to clause (ii), nor may the respondent be released from a residential facility during the period provided by the court pursuant to clause (iii). No home visits shall be permitted during the period of secure confinement set by the court order or one year, whichever is less, except for emergency visits for medical treatment or severe illness or death in the family. All home visits must be accompanied home visits: (A) while a youth is confined in a secure facility, whether such confinement is pursuant to a court order or otherwise; (B) while a youth is confined in a residential facility other than a secure facility within six months after confinement in a secure facility; and (C) while a youth is confined in a residential facility other than a secure facility in excess of six months after confinement in a secure facility unless two accompanied home visits have already occurred. An "accompanied home visit" shall mean a home visit during which the youth shall be accompanied at all times while outside the secure or residential facility by appropriate personnel of the division for youth designated pursuant to regulations of the director of the division. (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during the first six months of the respondent's placement, no motion, hearing or order may be made, held or granted pursuant to § 355.1; provided, however, that during such period a motion to vacate the order may be made pursuant to such §, but only upon grounds set forth in § 440.10 of the criminal procedure law. (c) During the placement or any extension thereof: (i) after the expiration of the period provided in clause (iii) of paragraph (a), the respondent shall not be released from a residential facility without the written approval of the director of the division for youth or his designated deputy director. (ii) the respondent shall be subject to intensive supervision whenever not in a secure or residential facility. (iii) the respondent shall not be discharged from the custody of the division for youth. (iv) unless otherwise specified in the order, the division shall report in writing to the court not less than once every six months during the placement on the status, adjustment and progress of the respondent. (d) Upon the expiration of the initial period of placement or any extension thereof, the placement may be extended in accordance with § 355.3 upon petition of any party or the division for youth, after a dispositional hearing, for an additional period not to exceed twelve months, but no initial placement or extension of placement under this § may continue beyond the respondent's twenty-first birthday. (e) The court may also make an order pursuant to subdivision two of § 353.4.
When the order is for a restrictive placement in the case of a youth found to have committed any designated felony act and such youth has been found by a court to have committed a designated felony act on a prior occasion, regardless of the age of such youth at the time of commission of such prior act, the order of the court shall be made pursuant to subdivision four.
If the dispositional hearing has been adjourned on a finding of specific circumstances pursuant to subdivision six of § 350.1 while the respondent is in detention, where a restrictive placement is subsequently ordered, time spent by the respondent in detention during such additional adjournment shall be credited and applied against any term of secure confinement ordered by the court pursuant to subdivision four or five.
The division for youth shall retain the power to continue the confinement of the youth in a secure or other residential facility beyond the periods specified by the court, within the term of the placement.
New York Juvenile Delinquency Lawyer
If your child is a respondent in a juvenile delinquency proceeding, it is important that he or she is represented by experienced counsel both during the fact-finding hearing and during the dispositional hearing. Should your child be adjudicated to be a juvenile delinquent an order of disposition will be issued. The specifics of the order could include the minor being sent to restrictive placement. The staff at Stephen Bilkis & Associates, PLLC has years of experience successfully representing juvenile clients in New York Family Court as well as in criminal court who have been accused of committing misdemeanors and felonies. Contact us at 800.696.9529 to schedule a free, no obligation consultation regarding your case. We serve those involved in juvenile delinquency matters in the following locations:
Brooklyn Family Lawyer
Long Island Family Lawyer
Manhattan Family Lawyer
Nassau County Family Lawyer
Queens Family Lawyer
Staten Island Family Lawyer
Suffolk County Family Lawyer
Westchester County Family Lawyer


text:
Subscribe to Mobile Apps's Posts
Access To Digital Health Applications And Digital Care Applications In Germany
By Stephan Rau on May 17, 2021
Posted In Data Privacy, Mobile Apps, Telehealth
On 20 January 2021, the German Federal Cabinet approved the draft law on the digital modernization of healthcare and nursing care. The draft has been criticized for not taking into account lessons learned from the implementation of the 2019 digital health applications law.
The legally enforceable right of patients insured in the Germany statutory healthcare system (SHI) to be able to access digital health applications (DiGAs) was included in the German SHI code (SGB V) at the end of 2019.
DiGAs are low-risk medical devices (risk class I and IIa) that are primarily based on digital technologies and support the detection, monitoring, treatment, or alleviation of diseases, injuries, or disabilities. Under the SGB V, DiGAs have to be approved by the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM) and included in the DiGA List before doctors can prescribe them to their patients on an individual basis and at the SHI's expense. Among the DiGAs listed by BfArM since the first listing in October 2020, are those that support patients with light depression, insomnia, obesity, or tinnitus.
Read more in our latest edition of International News.
Privacy Considerations for COVID-19 Digital Contact Tracing
Posted In Data Privacy, Mobile Apps
Generally, contact tracing refers to an effort by public health officials to identify individuals with whom a patient who has tested positive for an infectious disease has been in close proximity. Public health officials will inform these individuals that they were exposed to a contagious patient and encourage them to monitor their symptoms and quarantine for a period of time.
In response to COVID-19, governments around the world have explored using digital contact tracing, by which smartphone users download an application (app) to enable public health officials to track infected individuals' contacts. In addition, private sector companies are exploring how digital technologies can be used for contact tracing on employees as they reenter the workplace.
Uber Criminal Complaint Raises the Stakes for Breach Response
By Todd McClelland, Austin Mooney and McDermott Will & Emery on Sep 3, 2020
Posted In Big Data, Cybersecurity, Data breach, Data Privacy, Enforcement, Mobile Apps
On August 20, 2020, a criminal complaint was filed charging Joseph Sullivan, Uber's former chief security officer, with obstruction of justice and misprision of a felony in connection with an alleged attempted cover-up of a 2016 data breach. These are serious charges for which Mr. Sullivan has the presumption of innocence.
At the time of the 2016 data breach, Uber was being investigated by the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in connection with a prior data breach that occurred in 2014. According to the complaint, the hackers behind the 2016 breach stole a database containing the personal information of about 57 million Uber users and drivers. The hackers contacted Uber to inform the company of the attack and demanded payment in return for their silence. According to the complaint, Uber's response was to attempt to recast the breach as a legitimate event under Uber's "bug bounty" program and pay a bounty. An affidavit submitted with the complaint portrays a detailed story of deliberate steps undertaken by Mr. Sullivan to allegedly conceal the 2016 breach from the FTC, law enforcement and the public.
Contemporaneous with the filing of the complaint, the Department of Justice (DOJ) submitted a press release quoting US Attorney for the Northern District of California David L. Anderson:
"We expect good corporate citizenship. We expect prompt reporting of criminal conduct. We expect cooperation with our investigations. We will not tolerate corporate cover-ups. We will not tolerate illegal hush money payments."
The press release also quoted Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Deputy Special Agent in Charge Craig Fair:
"Concealing information about a felony from law enforcement is a crime. While this case is an extreme example of a prolonged attempt to subvert law enforcement, we hope companies stand up and take notice. Do not help criminal hackers cover their tracks. Do not make the problem worse for your customers, and do not cover up criminal attempts to steal people's personal data."
Collectively, the case and statements from the DOJ are probably a unicorn based on, if the facts as alleged are true, a case involving a deliberate cover-up of a data breach in the course of an active FTC investigation. However, many of the statements from the DOJ and the specific allegations in the complaint appear to have potentially far-reaching implications (for companies, their executives and cybersecurity professionals) that breach response counsel must seriously consider in future incidents.
A common question when responding to a ransomware or other cyberattack is whether and when to inform law enforcement. The criminal complaint has the potential to make this an even more difficult decision for future cyberattack victims. Further, while the alleged conduct at issue may seem particularly egregious, the DOJ's statements could cause a blurring of the lines between what the government may contend is illegal concealment of a security incident and activities generally thought to be legitimate security incident risk and exposure mitigation. We explore these and other key takeaways from the criminal complaint in more detail below.
The Toughest Problem Set: Navigating Regulatory and Operational Challenges on University Campuses
By Jennifer S. Geetter and Michael W. Ryan on Aug 27, 2020
Posted In Data Privacy, Mobile Apps, Workplace Privacy
When the academic year ended in the spring of 2020, many US university students assumed that a return to campus would be straightforward this fall. However, it is now clear—at least in the near term—that a return to the old "normal" will not be possible. Some universities have concluded that their best course of action is to offer only distanced learning for the time being. Other universities, however, are welcoming students back onto campus, and into residence and dining halls, classrooms, labs and libraries. Each of those universities is developing its own approach to retain the benefits of on-campus student life while reducing risk to the greatest extent possible; nevertheless, some have had to adjust their plans to pivot to remote learning when faced with clusters of positive cases on campus. One thing is clear: The fall semester will be a real-time, national learning laboratory.
Because widespread, rapid testing remains unavailable in many locations, universities have had to find innovative ways to implement testing, tracing and isolation protocols to reduce the risk of transmission among students, faculty and staff. There is no one perfect protocol—all universities are in unchartered waters. But there are a few key components university administrators may want to consider and address:
Apps: Symptom checkers, contact tracing and other apps can be useful in identifying and focusing attention on the onset of symptoms, fostering accountability and identifying high-risk exposure. In considering whether to incorporate apps and related technologies into their back to campus plans, universities must anticipate and address considerations related to privacy, security and reporting of results, and will need to consider how such apps are hosted (for example, through Apple's App Store) and whether any third parties will have access to the personal data collected.
Contact Tracing: In addition to the issues noted above, contact tracing efforts also present other challenges, including managing reliability, over/under inclusiveness and liability (for both false positives and false negatives). In addition, the effectiveness of contact tracing is closely tied to its speed and comprehensiveness; to implement a successful contact tracing program, universities will need to balance effectiveness with privacy and autonomy.
CLIA: The Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act (CLIA) will require that many of the tests be performed in CLIA-certified (and state-licensed, where required) space. Universities will need to consider how best to handle building out additional compliant space, creating additional "point of care" testing or specimen collection sites if needed to test students, faculty and staff where they are and validating the test(s) being offered. Tests that are not yet validated likely cannot be used to return patient-specific results that inform student and staff care or be used to prompt "official" testing.
FDA/Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA): In general, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expects developers of molecular, antigen and (in the case of test kit manufacturers) antibody tests to obtain an EUA. However, under FDA enforcement policies during the pandemic, many of these same tests—if validated and offered with appropriate agency-mandated disclaimers—can be offered before [...]
COVID-19 Causing a Surge in E-Commerce—Is Your Website Accessible?
Posted In Consumer Protection, Ecommerce, Mobile Apps
Stay-at-home orders and business closures during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic have led to a sharp increase in online shopping. While e-commerce has helped businesses stay afloat during this challenging economic time, there has also been a spike in litigation alleging that certain websites are not accessible to individuals with disabilities. In an article for Bloomberg Law, Jeremy White, Matthew Cin and Brian Long review the legal landscape governing accessibility of websites – including specific rules that apply to the healthcare industry, and explore best practices for companies to mitigate their risk of facing a website accessibility lawsuit.
Future Forward: Data Arrangements During and After COVID-19
By Stephen W. Bernstein on May 12, 2020
Posted In Big Data, Cybersecurity, Data Privacy, Data Transfers/Safe Harbor/Privacy Shield, General Interest, Mobile Apps, Telehealth
The need for speedy and more complete access to data is instrumental for healthcare providers, researchers, pharmaceutical, biotech and device companies and public health authorities as they work to quickly identify infection rates, disease trends, outcomes, including antibodies, and opportunities for treatments and vaccines for COVID-19.
A variety of data sharing and collaborations have emerged in the wake of this crisis, such as:
Requests and mandates by public health authorities, either directly or via providers' business associates requesting real time information on infections and bed and equipment availability
Data sharing collaborations among providers for planning, anticipating and tracking COVID-19 caseloads
Data sharing among providers, professional societies and pharmaceutical, biotech and medical device companies in search of testing options, treatment and vaccine solutions, and evaluation of co-morbidities
CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE FULL INFOGRAPHIC.
Is Your Software a Medical Device? FDA Issues Six Digital Health Guidance Documents
By Anisa Mohanty, Michael W. Ryan and Vernessa T. Pollard on Oct 4, 2019
Posted In General Interest, Mobile Apps
The 21st Century Cures Act, enacted in December 2016, amended the definition of "medical device" in section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) to exclude five distinct categories of software or digital health products. In response, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued new digital health guidance and revised several pre-existing medical device guidance documents. FDA also stated that it would continue to assess how to update and revise these guidance documents as its thinking evolved.
Late last week, FDA issued five final guidance documents and re-issued a draft guidance document to better reflect FDA's current thinking on software as a medical device (SaMD) and other digital health products:
Changes to Existing Medical Software Policies Resulting from Section 3060 of the 21st Century Cures Act – Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff
General Wellness: Policy for Low Risk Devices – Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff
Policy for Device Software Functions and Mobile Medical Applications – Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff
Medical Device Data Systems, Medical Image Storage Devices, and Medical Image Communications Devices – Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff
Off-The-Shelf Software Use in Medical Devices – Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff
Clinical Decision Support Software – Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff
Most of the guidance documents reflect modest changes to prior draft guidance documents that describe categories of low-risk health and wellness devices that FDA does not intend to regulate. FDA's new draft Clinical Decision Support (CDS) Software guidance, however, provides a new and more detailed analysis of risk factors that FDA will apply to determine whether a CDS tool is a medical device. FDA updated its previously issued draft CDS guidance without finalizing it. Although the new guidance does not explain why FDA is reissuing the CDS guidance in draft, the new draft guidance seems to reflect the agency's attempt to better align its definition of non-device software with the often misunderstood and misinterpreted statutory definition of CDS in section 520(o)(1)(E) of the Cures Act. The chart below summarizes the key provisions and changes to these guidance documents.
Digital health products can present a particular challenge for developers and regulators in assessing the appropriate regulatory pathways for a new product. The updated guidance documents reflect the need for a more flexible, risk-based approach to regulation that accommodates a rapidly evolving technological landscape. These documents also reflect what appears to be the new normal for digital health regulation—the need for iterative thinking and ongoing revisions to interpretive guidance documents to keep pace with a constantly changing marketplace.
Click here to read the full client alert on this issue.
Live Webinar: Developing and Procuring Digital Health AI Solutions: Advice for Developers, Purchasers and Vendors
By McDermott Will & Emery, Vernessa T. Pollard, Paul W. Radensky, MD, Michael W. Ryan, Jiayan Chen, Jennifer S. Geetter, Jeremy Earl, Dale C. Van Demark and Bernadette M. Broccolo on Jun 8, 2018
Posted In Cybersecurity, Data Privacy, Data Transfers/Safe Harbor/Privacy Shield, General Interest, Mobile Apps, Telehealth
Join McDermott next Wednesday for a live webinar on the unique considerations in developing and procuring AI solutions for digital health applications from the perspective of various stakeholders. We will discuss the legal issues and strategies surrounding:
Research and data mapping essential to the development and validation of AI technologies
Protecting and maintaining intellectual property rights in AI solutions
Risk management and mitigation for various contractual arrangements, including contracts with customers, vendors and users
We will also focus on the trends in US law for AI solutions in the digital health space, and present actionable advice that will help you develop an effective strategy for developing and procuring AI solutions for digital health applications.
Developing and Procuring Digital Health AI Solutions: Advice for Developers, Purchasers and Vendors
Wednesday, June 13, 2018 | 11:00 am CT | 12:00 pm ET
Recycle, Recycle, Recycle: Key Considerations for Research, Medical Education, and Other Secondary Uses of Data
By McDermott Will & Emery and Jiayan Chen on Jun 6, 2018
Posted In Big Data, Data Privacy, General Interest, Mobile Apps, Telehealth
The digitization of health care and the proliferation of electronic medical records is happening rapidly, generating large quantities of data with potential to provide valuable insights into disease and wellness and help solve challenging public health problems.
There is tremendous enthusiasm over the possibilities of leveraging this data for secondary use–i.e., a use of data that is distinct from the purpose for which it was originally collected. However, such secondary use is often subject to intersecting legal and regulatory regimes–including HIPAA, the Common Rule, and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and its implementing regulations–that are not fully harmonized. This lack of harmonization in requirements, coupled with the wide range of industry players involved–including regulators, academic medical centers, health systems, payers, technology companies, manufacturers and industry entities, research institutions, registries, and professional societies, to name a few– presents challenges that require careful planning and implementation. While regulators have recently taken significant steps to reconcile the differences among these laws and provide a path forward for harnessing the potential of big data, some specific requirements within these individual regulations continue to present challenges.
It is critical for academic medical centers and teaching hospitals, which stand at the intersection of government-funded research and industry-sponsored research, and are also paving the way in partnerships with non-traditional health care players—to understand the evolving legal framework and business and compliance imperatives behind the quest for digital health information.
During the AHLA Annual Meeting on Tuesday, June 26, McDermott partner Jiayan Chen will review trends and the value proposition relating to secondary use, with a particular focus on challenges presented by secondary use in the precision medicine and digital health context. Along with co-presenter Leah Voigt, she will explore key regulatory and sub-regulatory developments relating to the secondary use of data under FDA regulations, the Common Rule, and HIPAA, and will also use case studies to explore, in a practical context, the challenges and ambiguities that remain when pursuing internal secondary use initiatives and external collaborations, including implementation and contracting tips, insights, and strategies.
AHLA Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL | June 26, 2018 | 9:45 – 10:45 am | Registration and program details.
McDermott's Cocktail Reception during the AHLA Annual Meeting
The Art Institute of Chicago | June 26, 2018 | 6:00 – 8:00 pm
Following the programming on Tuesday, we invite you to join us for our annual cocktail reception at The Art Institute of Chicago. We look forward to an evening of networking, cocktails and private gallery tours with our colleagues, friends and fellow AHLA members. RSVP today!
Surfing "Tech's Next Big Wave": Navigating the Legal Challenges in Digital Health
By Bernadette M. Broccolo and Lisa Mazur on May 4, 2018
Posted In Big Data, Consumer Protection, Data Privacy, Mobile Apps
Fortune's April 2018 cover story, "Tech's Next Big Wave: Big Data Meets Biology," conveys loudly and clearly that technological innovation is transforming the health care continuum—changing the way care is delivered, as well as how patients manage their ongoing health—and as patient demand for health innovation increases, more companies seem eager to hop on the digital health bandwagon. The article provides a thoughtful, realistic (and somewhat sobering) perspective on digital health innovation's successes and other results to date. It also quite effectively uses real world stories to convey the human dimension of digital health. One is the story of a mother who manually sampled and recorded her son's glucose levels 20 times a day before an automated monitoring system connected to a mobile app allowed them both to live their lives without constant interruption by this critical care management function. Another describes use of an artificial intelligence "command center" to expedite access to life-saving surgery by a man with an aortic dissection. These real-world examples drive home the fact that digital health is already making a profound difference in our lives by removing barriers to care that are critical to saving lives and managing chronic diseases.
What the article does not touch on, however, are the myriad, complex legal challenges that must be addressed at the earliest stages of the planning process and the intensifying interest of government oversight and enforcement bodies, such as the Federal Trade Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the Office of Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, interested in protecting the safety and privacy of patients and consumers. Just last month, we saw the SEC charge Theranos' CEO Elizabeth Holmes with fraud for allegedly misleading investors about the company's ability to detect health conditions from a small sample of blood. Earlier this year, another "unicorn" start-up, Outcome Health, settled with the federal government after The Wall Street Journal reported that they allegedly misled advertisers with manipulated information. The United States has also brought claims against the private equity company investor of a compounding pharmacy that allegedly paid illegal kickbacks to marketing firms to induce prescriptions written by telemedicine providers for costly compounded drugs reimbursed by TRICARE.
Opportunities and Challenges of the Patient Data "Gold Rush"
Eric Topol, MD, director at the Scripps Research Institute, told Fortune that "the quest to retrieve, analyze and leverage" data "has become the new gold rush. And a vanguard of tech titans—not to mention a bevy of hot startups—are on the hunt for it." There is no doubt that harnessing and analyzing big data provide virtually limitless fuel for digital health innovation of the type patients and consumers are demanding and that tech companies are eager to develop and commercialize. While optimism about the quest for big data is certainly justified, it must be tempered by caution and careful consideration of complex, multi-dimensional legal [...]

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Hi, I am Amy Hedges, the founder of Forgotten Oklahoma which is the largest Oklahoma history group on Facebook! The goal of our group is to preserve Oklahoma history so it is not forgotten. I have recently acquired a 1902 bank building in Pawnee, OK that was in danger of being torn down. The building was previously damaged in the large earthquake a few years ago and recently more of the sandstone facade has fallen off and much of the building is in need of repair. The building is going to house the Worldwide Headquarters of Forgotten Oklahoma, as well as the Pawnee Tag Agency. Money raised will go directly to repairs on the building. Just the facade alone is going to cost around $30,000 and we are anticipating that the full restoration of the building (upstairs and downstairs) will cost around $100k. All of the major repairs are being done by licensed & insured contractors. When I acquired the building, the previous owner felt that our group was a great fit to restore it, and I will be scheduling work days soon when people can come and help clean and paint if they feel so inclined. I am excited to be saving this iconic piece of Pawnee history that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places! This will hopefully be the beginning of more group projects. Thank you for your wonderful support so far!


"For many, the (Olympics) Games don't start until they hear a gun and for some it also has to be accompanied by a bell."
-Seb Coe writing in an article about the start of track and field competition at the 2008 Olympics. In the article, he talks about Paula Radcliffe's chances and the passing of his father.
Paul Koech Won't Run Olympic Steeplechase The world leader will not be placed on the team even though he has the world's fastest time by 7 seconds. Koech was in China as an alternate and the Kenyans were apparently contemplating the removal of defending Olympic Champion Ezekiel Kemboi from the team as they were unhappy with his hurdling technique in practice. Kemboi isn't concerned and seems very confident. Kemboi: "I must retain the title or I won't return home. Believe me, I will retain the gold medal. I am in the best shape of my life."
*London Telegraph Previews Entire Track & Field Action - They tell you what to look for each day.


This is Pluto as it appeared to the New Horizons spacecraft during its approach of the dwarf planet in July 2015. NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Southwest Research Institute.
On February 18, 1930, Pluto was discovered by astronomer Clyde W. Tombaugh at the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona.
Compared with the major planets in our solar system, Pluto has had a shorter but rockier history. Originally hailed as our solar system's ninth planet, Pluto was reclassified as a dwarf planet by a 2006 vote of the International Astronomical Union — a move that remains controversial and challenged to this day.
Pluto, regardless of the category into which it is sorted, has played a vital role in our understanding of the formation and evolution of our solar system. We now know it is part of a family of objects called the Kuiper Belt, comprised of icy, rocky remnants from the solar nebula's earliest days. The Pluto system itself is larger than initially believed; its largest moon, Charon, wasn't discovered until 1978, and only in the past two decades have astronomers uncovered four more tiny moons using the world's most powerful telescopes.
An artist's concept shows New Horizons flying through the Pluto system. Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Southwest Research Institute.
Until 2015, Pluto remained a dim dot through Earthbound telescopes, and a mere few pixels on images taken by the orbiting Hubble Space Telescope. On July 14, 2015, the New Horizons spacecraft flew past the Pluto system, forever changing our view of this distant world. Astronomy celebrated the accomplishment with our Year of Pluto, a wealth of fascinating articles looking back over our past expectations, guesses, and dreams about Pluto, and highlighting the unrivaled success of and the wealth of information unlocked by New Horizons over the course of just a few short hours.
Circling the Sun on an elliptical orbit tilted relative to the plane of the planets, Pluto takes about 248 (Earth) years to make one trip; the tiny, icy world has not yet completed even a single orbit since its discovery. But despite its distance and its still-controversial status, Pluto remains one of the most beloved and fascinating objects in our solar system. Below, you can find links to some of our favorite articles on the history of Pluto, leading up to its discovery, its naming, and the 2015 flyby. Or we invite you to explore our full library of Pluto articles here: Year of Pluto.
And if, like many, you believe Pluto should regain its place among the rightful planets of our solar system, stay tuned — Astronomy will be featuring an exclusive on the definition of the word planet, and how we might rethink it, in an upcoming magazine issue and online bonus feature.


text:
Jorge Troiteiro Carrasco (born 9 April 1984) is a Spanish professional footballer who plays for CD Calamonte as an attacking midfielder.

Football career
Born in Almansa, Albacete, Castile-La Mancha, to fellow footballer Luis, Troiteiro emigrated at the age of two months to Mérida, Extremadura. Representing CP Mérida, he caught the eye of FC Barcelona at the age of 12 and attended the La Masia academy for five years, where he bunked with fellow Manchego Andrés Iniesta.

Already having a release clause of 350 million pesetas, Troiteiro left Barcelona for Atlético Madrid, making his senior debut in a couple of matches for the latter's C-team in Tercera División. At the end of his 18-month spell, he went back to his adopted home and joined Mérida UD in 2003. He never played any higher than Segunda División B, where he made 223 appearances and scored 21 goals for eight clubs, suffering four relegations including three in consecutive seasons. Abroad, he played for Doxa Katokopias FC and Enosis Neon Paralimni FC in Cyprus; the former was his career's only professional output, in the 2012–13 First Division.

References

External links

1984 births
Living people
People from Almansa
Sportspeople from the Province of Albacete
Spanish footballers
Footballers from Castilla–La Mancha
Association football midfielders
Segunda División B players
Tercera División players
Atlético Madrid C players
Mérida UD footballers
CD Linares players
UD Melilla footballers
Lucena CF players
CF Villanovense players
Extremadura UD footballers
Burgos CF footballers
Mérida AD players
Cypriot First Division players
Cypriot Second Division players
Doxa Katokopias FC players
Enosis Neon Paralimni FC players
Spanish expatriate footballers
Expatriate footballers in Cyprus
Spanish expatriate sportspeople in Cyprus

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia