NC lawmakers don’t feel deadline pressure

RALEIGH (AP) — North Carolina lawmakers have no plans to meet a deadline to create a new one-stop shop to help individuals and small businesses find affordable health insurance despite a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

State Senate leader Phil Berger said Thursday that senators do not intend to take up legislation this year to create a health benefit exchange. The 2010 federal health care overhaul requires all states to have an exchange. Legislation passed the state House last year.

State plans for the markets are due to the federal government by this fall. The federal government will create exchanges for states that don’t have them by 2014. Only 14 states and Washington D.C. have adopted a plan for carrying out the law creating exchanges that steer middle-class households to private plans.

What are the effects of the Supreme Court ruling on health care legislation, and what is the response of attorneys in the Carolinas and beyond? Stay current with predictions, reactions and analysis with NCLW’s Storify story on the Court’s decision.

POST A COMMENT

Most Important Opinions

Environmental – Sedimentation Pollution Control Act – Private Action – Violation Required – Civil Practice – Standing – Administrative (access required)

Applewood Properties, LLC v. New South Properties, LLC Because the county Natural Resources Department never found the defendant-contractor to be in violation of any law, rule, order or erosion and sedimentation and control plan, plaintiff did not have standing to bring a civil action under the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act to seek redress for its injuries.

Tort/Negligence – Malicious Prosecution – Initiation – Restatement Standard — Giving Information to Police (access required)

North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Cully’s Motorcross Park, Inc. Even though defendant Volpe would probably never have been charged with obtaining property by false pretenses if the plaintiff-insurance company’s investigator had not told a police sergeant the results of his investigation, we reject this “but for” standard as the method for proving the initiation element of malicious prosecution.

Tort/Negligence – Personal Injury – Shooting – 52-Year-Old Shooter – Parents’ Gun (access required)

Bridges v. Parrish We reject plaintiff’s claim that defendants are liable for failing to secure their gun, thereby allowing their 52-year-old son to gain access to the gun and shoot plaintiff with it.