This Spring, the Social Security Administration (SSA) began mailing Employer Correction Request Notices (known informally as “No-Match Letters”) to employers that submitted at least one Form W-2 where the name and Social Security Number (SSN) did not match SSA records. These letters contain specific instructions for employers, but employers should be cautious when responding to these letters.  Below are three reminders for employers to consider. Continue Reading Social Security No-Match Letters: Three Reminders

Myers DillHusch Blackwell attorney Myers Dill recently authored an article “Protecting Your Brand: Trademark Considerations for Startups” that appeared in Startup Missouri, a publication by Missouri Lawyers Weekly. The article shares some key tips on 1) choosing the right mark, 2) maintaining your IP rights, and 3) enforcing your trademarks. As Myers explains in the article, a company who creates a trademark strategy early will be able to distinguish themselves from competitors, provide guarantees to the quality of their goods or services, build goodwill, and prevent confusion in the marketplace.

Read the full article here.

 

The Trump Administration, through the EPA and Corps, announced its new regulatory definition for WOTUS on December 11, 2018. Shortly after the government shutdown ended earlier this year, the proposed rule appeared in the February 14, 2019, Federal Register and EPA held a public hearing in Kansas City, Kansas, on February 27th and 28th. Much like the CWR, the new rule is said to be intended to clarify the limits of the CWA’s authority. Unlike the CWR, the new rule streamlines rather than adds categories of waters.

Read the full post on our Emerging Energy Insights Blog and read the full Clean Water Act series of blog posts here.

The EPA has taken the position that long term exposure to these chemicals may result in birth defects, cancer, liver effects, immune effects, thyroid effects, and other health issues. Long chain PFAS don’t readily degrade, and thus build up in the environment and persist in the human body itself. Low levels of these chemicals have been found in drinking water and soil and, in one study, in the blood of almost every subject tested.

Read more about PFAs on our Emerging Energy Insights Blog.

Recently, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado recognized a defendant’s potential liability based on take-home exposure. In Mestas v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation et. al., No. 18-cv-01006, Plaintiff alleged direct exposure and take-home exposure. Plaintiff alleged that his father was exposed to asbestos-containing products while working as a plumber and pipefitter, and that his father then carried asbestos home on his clothing which in turn, exposed Plaintiff to asbestos. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that they owed no duty to Plaintiff based on take-home exposure. Continue Reading Toxic Tort Monitor: District Court of Colorado Recognizes “Take-Home” Exposure Claim

Shortly after the inauguration of Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, legislation was introduced in both the Illinois House and Senate to essentially override the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in Folta v. Ferro Engineering, 2015 IL 118070 (2015). In Folta, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the Worker’s Compensation Act and Occupational Diseases Act was the exclusive remedy to Illinois employees who suffered latent injuries such as mesothelioma. Continue Reading Toxic Tort Monitor: New Illinois Leadership Drives Passage of Legislation to Eliminate Workers’ Compensation Exclusivity Remedy Defense to Illinois Employers

In its decision Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court held, under maritime law, that manufacturers can be held liable for injuries caused by asbestos-containing parts manufactured and added to their products by third parties. The case, Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries, involved Navy sailors who were allegedly exposed to asbestos that was used with certain equipment on the Navy vessels to which they were assigned. The sailors claimed this exposure ultimately caused their cancer. The sailors brought suit against the manufacturers of equipment such as pumps, blowers, and turbines, alleging that the manufacturers were negligent in failing to warn them about the dangers of asbestos.

Continue Reading Toxic Tort Monitor: U.S. Supreme Court Narrows “Bare Metal Defense” for Maritime Asbestos Cases

Jake Brown Husch Blackwell Meghan Brennan Husch BlackwellWorking with startups recently inspired two Husch Blackwell attorneys to develop an innovation solution of their own. In 2018, Husch Blackwell hosted its first firmwide Legal Innovation Challenge. Approximately 20 teams submitted ideas and went through a rigorous selection process.

Associates Meghan Brennan and Jake Brown work with a variety of clients, including startups. When they came together for Husch Blackwell’s Legal Innovation Challenge, they found a mutual interest in streamlining the initial intake process for startup clients. Together they envisioned a diagnostic tool to assess the legal needs of growing companies. Clients can complete a quick 10-minute questionnaire that will help the attorney develop a road map for company growth and future legal needs. Continue Reading Startups Drive Firm Innovation

On February 26, 2019, in Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, the Supreme Court of the United States held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f)’s 14-day deadline to request permission to appeal a district court’s order regarding class certification cannot be equitably tolled. The Supreme Court’s opinion left open the possibility that the 14-day deadline under Rule 23(f) can begin to run after the disposition of a timely motion for reconsideration, because that reconsideration order itself may be an order granting or denying class certification. Read more on the Food & Ag Law Insights blog.

In Part 1 of our Clean Water Act (CWA) Series, we reported on the circuit split between the Fourth, Sixth, and Ninth Federal Circuit Court of Appeals regarding whether indirect discharges to Waters of the United States (WOTUS) through groundwater required a CWA permit. On February 19, 2019, the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments regarding “Whether the CWA requires a permit when pollutants originate from a point source but are conveyed to navigable waters by a nonpoint source, such as groundwater.” Read more about this case history and the legal arguments on the Emerging Energy Insights blog.