DOCSLIB.ORG

The Right to Refuse Mental Health Treatment: a First Amendment Perspective

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Right to Refuse Mental Health Treatment: a First Amendment Perspective University of Miami Law Review Volume 44 Number 1 Article 2 9-1-1989 The Right to Refuse Mental Health Treatment: A First Amendment Perspective Bruce J. Winick Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr Part of the First Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Bruce J. Winick, The Right to Refuse Mental Health Treatment: A First Amendment Perspective, 44 U. Miami L. Rev. 1 (1989) Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol44/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Miami Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. University of Miami Law Review VOLUME 44 SEPTEMBER 1989 NUMBER 1 The Right to Refuse Mental Health Treatment: A First Amendment Perspective* BRUCE J. WINICK** I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................... 2 II. THE ORIGINS AND SCOPE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT ................... 9 III. CONSTRUING "FREEDOM OF SPEECH": DOES THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECT MENTAL PROCESSES? ............................................ 14 A. The Supreme Court's Methodology: Deriving Corollary Rights from Freedom of Speech ............................................... 14 B. Supreme Court Protectionfor "Freedom of Belief" "Freedom of Mind," and "Freedom of Thought" ... .................................... 17 C. Freedom to Believe Distinguishedfrom Freedom to Act ................ 19 D. When Government Attempts to Impose Orthodoxy of Belief ............. 22 E. First Amendment Protection of Private Thoughts ...................... 27 F. The First Amendment Right to Receive Information and Ideas .......... 29 G. Freedomfrom Intrusion into Mental Processes as an Indispensable Condition for Freedom of Expression ................................ 30 IV. MENTAL PROCESSES AND THE VALUES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT ....... 33 V. ARGUMENTS AGAINST FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION FOR MENTAL PROCESSES .............................................................. 41 A. Does the First Amendment Protect Insane or Disordered Thoughts? ...... 41 B. Is the First Amendment Implicated by Treatment that Restores Mental Processes to a "Normal" or "Healthy" State? ......................... 58 * Copyright 1989 by Bruce J. Winick. I am grateful to Ken Casebeer, Don Jones, Richard Mendales, Bernie Oxman, and Steve Winter for helpful comments and suggestions. ** Bruce J. Winick is a Professor of Law at the University of Miami School of Law. This Article is adapted from a chapter of the author's forthcoming book, THE RIGHT TO REFUSE TREATMENT: CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON MENTAL HEALTH AND CORRECTIONAL THERAPY. Professor Winick has previously addressed these issues in a number of published articles. See Winick, The Right to Refuse Psychotropic Medication: Current State of the Law and Beyond, in THE RIGHT To REFUSE ANTIPSYCHOTIC MEDICATION 7 (D. Rapoport & J. Parry eds. 1986); Winick, Legal Limitations on Correctional Therapy and Research, 65 MINN. L. REV. 331 (1981); Winick, A PreliminaryAnalysis of Legal Limitations on Rehabilitative Alternatives to Corrections and on CorrectionalResearch, in NEW DIRECTIONS IN THE REHABILITATION OF CRIMINAL OFFENDERS 328 (S. Martin, L. Sechrest & R. Redner eds. 1981) (National Academy of Sciences); Winick, PsychotropicMedication and Competence to Stand Trial, 1977 AM. B. FOUND. RES. J. 769, 810-14. 2 UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI LAW REVIEW [Vol. 44:1 VI.' JUDICIAL RECOGNITION OF A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO REFUSE TREATMENT: THE LOWER COURT DECISIONS ............................. 60 VII. MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT TECHNIQUES AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT: A CONTINUUM OF INTRUSIVENESS ..................................... 63 A . Psychosurgery ................................................... 64 B. Electronic Stimulation of the Brain ................................. 66 C. Electroconvulsive Therapy ......................................... 67 D. Psychotropic M edication .......................................... 68 1. ANTIPSYCHOTIC DRUGS ........................................ 69 2. ANTIDEPRESSANT DRUGS ......................................... 76 3. ANTIANXIETY DRUGS ............................................. 76 4. LITHIUM ..... ................................................... 77 E. Behavior Therapy ................................................ 80 1. POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT TECHNIQUES ......................... 81 2. AVERSIVE THERAPY ........................................... 82 3. OTHER BEHAVIORAL TREATMENT TECHNIQUES ................... 82 F. Psychotherapy and Other Verbal Techniques .......................... 83 1. PSYCHOTHERAPY ................................................. 83 2. COUNSELING PROGRAMS FOR OFFENDERS ........................ 84 VIII. THE BURDEN IMPOSED ON GOVERNMENT TO JUSTIFY ABRIDGMENTS OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS ............................................. 90 IX. CONCLUSION. ........................................................... 101 I. INTRODUCTION One of the most significant issues facing the United States Supreme Court in its 1989 Term is the extent to which the Constitu- tion recognizes a right to refuse mental health treatment.' Involun- tary treatment, provided in mental hospitals, prisons, and increasingly in the community as a condition for release from these institutions, has produced an expanding body of case law 2 and commentary3 con- 1. Washington v. Harper, 109 S. Ct. 1337 (1989), granting cert. to Harper v. State, 110 Wash. 2d 873, 759 P.2d 358 (1988) (en banc). 2. E.g., United States v. Charters, 863 F.2d 302 (4th Cir. 1988) (en banc) (antipsychotic drugs); Bee v. Greaves, 744 F.2d 1387 (10th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1214 (1985) (antipsychotic drugs); Lojuk v. Quandt, 706 F.2d 1456 (7th Cir. 1983) (electroconvulsive therapy); Rennie v. Klein, 653 F.2d 836 (3d Cir. 1981) (en banc), vacated and remanded, 458 U.S. 1119 (1982), on remand, 720 F.2d 266 (3d Cir. 1983) (en banc) (psychotropic drugs); Rogers v. Okin, 634 F.2d 650 (1st Cir. 1980), vacated and remanded sub nom. Mills v. Rogers, 457 U.S. 291 (1982), on remand, 738 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1984) (psychotropic drugs); Scott v. Plante, 532 F.2d 939 (3d Cir. 1976), vacated and remanded, 458 U.S. 1101, on remand, 691 F.2d 634 (3d Cir. 1982) (psychotropic drugs); Knecht v. Gillman, 488 F.2d 1136 (8th Cir. 1973) (aversive conditioning); Riese v. St. Mary's Hosp. & Medical Center, 196 Cal. App. 3d 1388, 243 Cal. Rptr. 241 (1987), appeal dismissed, 259 Cal. Rptr. 669, 774 P.2d 698 (1989) (psychotropic drugs); In re Mental Commitment of M.P., 500 N.E.2d 216 (Ind. 1986), superseded, 510 N.E.2d 645 (1987) (antipsychotic drugs); Kaimowitz v. Michigan Dep't of Mental Health, Civ. No. 73-19434-AW (Mich. Cir. Ct. [Wayne Cty.] July 10, 1973), excerpted at 42 U.S.L.W. 2063 (July 31, 1973), reprinted in A. BROOKS, LAW, PSYCHIATRY AND THE MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM 902 (1974) (psychosurgery); Rivers v. Katz, 67 N.Y.2d 485, 504 N.Y.S.2d 74, 495 N.E.2d 337 (1986) (antipsychotic drugs); Harper v. State, 110 Wash. 2d 873, 759 P.2d 358 (1988) (en banc), cert. granted, 109 S. Ct. 1337 (1989) (antipsychotic drugs). 3. Eg., R. SCHWITZGEBEL, LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE ENFORCED TREATMENT OF 1989] RIGHT TO REFUSE TREATMENT cerning the "right to refuse treatment." Psychotropic drugs, which by definition affect mental processes, intellectual functioning, and per- ception, mood, and emotion,4 is the treatment technique that usually provokes the controversy, and the one most easily administered on an involuntary basis. In 1982 the Supreme Court considered the right to refuse treatment in Mills v. Rogers,5 in which the Court reviewed a class-wide injunction restricting the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication at the Boston State Hospital. The Court, however, avoided resolving this difficult issue, remanding the case to determine whether an intervening state court decision grounded in state law had rendered unnecessary resolution of the federal constitu- tional questions.' Lower federal courts and state courts have contin- OFFENDERS, (DHEW Pub. No. (ADM) 79-831, 1979); Appelbaum, The Right to Refuse Treatment with Antipsychotic Medications.: Retrospect and Prospect, 145 AM. J. PSYCHIATRY 413 (1988); Brooks, The Constitutional Right to Refuse Antipsychotic Medications, 8 BULL. AM. ACAD. PSYCHIATRY & L. 179 (1980); Friedman, Legal Regulation of Applied Behavior Analysis in Mental Institutions and Prisons, 17 ARIZ. L. REV. 39 (1975); Plotkin, Limiting the Therapeutic Orgy: Mental Patients'Right to Refuse Treatment, 72 Nw. U.L. REV. 461 (1977); Shapiro, Legislating the Control of Behavior Control: Autonomy and the Coercive Use of Organic Therapies, 47 S. CAL. L. REV. 237 (1974); Wexler, Token and Taboo. Behavior Modification, Token Economies and the Law, 61 CALIF. L. REV. 81 (1973); Winick, Legal Limitations on CorrectionalTherapy and Research, 65 MINN. L. REV. 331 (1981); Winick, The Right to Refuse PsychotropicMedication: CurrentState of the Law and Beyond, in THE RIGHT TO REFUSE ANTIPSYCHOTIC MEDICATION 7 (D. Rapoport & J. Parry eds. 1986) [hereinafter The Right to Refuse Psychotropic Medication]; Note, Conditioning and Other Technologies Used to "Treat?" "Rehabilitate?" "Demolish?" Prisoners and Mental Patients, 45 S. CAL. L. REV. 616 (1972); Comment, Madness and Medicine: The Forcible Administration of Psychotropic Drugs, 1980 Wis. L. REV. 497. Some
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Resource Guide for Right to Know Training
    A RESOURCE GUIDE FOR RIGHT TO KNOW TRAINING ~NEW~~~ IERSlY DEPARTMENT OF Division of Epidemiology, HIAI.lH Environmental and Occupational Health Services A BETIER STATE OF HEALTH Christine Todd Whitman Len Fishman Governor Commissioner of Health A RESOURCE GUIDE FOR RIGHT TO KNOW TRAINING Prepared by: Karen Miles, Ph.D., CHES Juanita Bynum, M.Ed., CHES William E. Parkin, D.V.M., Dr.P.H., Assistant Commissioner Division of Epidemiology, EnvironmenW and Occupational Health Services Kathleen O'Leary, M.S., Director Occupational Health Service Richard Willinger, J.D., M.P.H., Manager Right to Know Program JUNE 1994 ..A Resource Guide For Right to Know Training" was written by Karen Miles, Ph.D., CHES, former Coordinator of the Education and Outreach Project in the Right to Know Program, New Jersey Department of Health. This Guide was developed to assist public employees who conduct Right to Know education and training at their facility by providing background information on occupational health principles, the New Jersey Worker and Community Right to Know Act, and the Public Employees Occupational Safety and Health Act. The Resource Guide was edited by Juanita Bynum, M.Ed., CHES, Coordinator of the Education and Outreach Project of the Right to Know Program and Nancy Savage, Education and Outreach Project to reflect the August 2, 1993 and Januacy 3, 1994 amendments to the Right to Know regulations. Special thanks are extended to Richard Willinger, Program Manager, Right to Know Program, and Kathleen O'Leacy, Service Director, Occupational Health Service, who reviewed and edited the Guide, and to Eva McGovern and Cynthia McCoy for their assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Medical Ethics and Law (Questions and Answers) Prof. Mahmoud
    EXAM QUESTIONS & ANSWERS LEGAL MEDICINE & MEDICAL ETHICs Prepared & Selected by Prof. Mahmoud Khraishi 1. You are a resident in the emergency department. An irate parent comes to you furious because the social worker has been asking him about striking his child. The child is a 5-year-old boy who has been in the emergency department four times this year with several episodes of trauma that did not seem related. Today, the child is brought in with a child complaint of “slipping into a hot bathtub” with a bum wound on his legs. The parent threatens to sue you and says “How dare you think that about me? I love my son!” What should you do? a. Admit the child to remove him from the possibly dangerous environment. b. Call the police. c. Ask the father yourself if there has been any abuse. d. Explain to the parents that the next time this happens you will have to call child protective services. e. Report the family to child protective services. Answer: (e) Report the family to child protective services. Comment: Although, in general, it is better to address issues directly with patients and their families, this is not the case when you strongly suspect child abuse. Reporting of child abuse is mandatory even based on suspicion alone. Although it is frightening to be confrontational with the family, the caregiver is legally protected even if there turns out to be no abuse as long as the report was made honestly and without malice. You do not have the authority to remove the child from the custody of the parents.
    [Show full text]
  • Student Registration Information Training Forms to Be
    First Name Last Name By placing my name here, I agree to be responsible for the content of this page. Your SSI Training Center will record your training progress. Upon successful completion of your SSI program, you will be issued an SSI certification that is internationally recognized and available anywhere with internet access. Your SSI Training Forms will be maintained at your registered SSI Training Center. If you change your SSI Training Center, then you will need to complete a new set of Training Forms. Student Registration Information First Name Last Name Date of Birth (DD/MM/YY) Mailing Address Email Address Phone Training Forms to be Completed ❏ Student Registration Student profile in MySSI created: Yes No Student Master ID (MID) _____________ Digital Kit(s) Issued: Yes No ❏ Privacy Policy Permanently valid. Needs to be completed once with each Training Center or if a formal request to have their personal information deleted from all SSI databases is submitted. ❏ Diver Medical Statement and Questionnaire Valid for 1 year. The addition of the Physician’s Approval Form is required if a “YES” is answered to any condition on the Diver Medical Questionnaire. If a student becomes Ill or Injured or has a significant medical condition change within 12 months that would conflict with their current Medical Statement & Questionnaire, they must complete a new form before continuing with any SSI training. ❏ Assumption of Risk/Liability Release (not to be used within the European Union) Valid for 1 year. The addition of the Youth Addendum Form is also required for all students under the age of 18 years old and it must be signed by a parent/guardian.
    [Show full text]
  • Major League Baseball Players, Big Data, and the Right to Know
    Marquette Sports Law Review Volume 28 Article 9 Issue 1 Fall Major League Baseball Players, Big Data, and the Right to Know: The Duty of Major League Baseball Teams to Disclose Health Modeling Analysis to Their lP ayers Michael Hattery Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/sportslaw Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, and the Privacy Law Commons Repository Citation Michael Hattery, Major League Baseball Players, Big Data, and the Right to Know: The Duty of Major League Baseball Teams to Disclose Health Modeling Analysis to Their Players, 28 Marq. Sports L. Rev. 257 (2017) Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/sportslaw/vol28/iss1/9 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HATTERY 28.1 FINAL.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 1/9/18 11:39 AM COMMENTS MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS, BIG DATA, AND THE RIGHT TO KNOW: THE DUTY OF MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL TEAMS TO DISCLOSE HEALTH MODELING ANALYSIS TO THEIR PLAYERS MICHAEL HATTERY* I. INTRODUCTION The big data frontier has brought with it nearly innumerable legal concerns, ranging from traditional privacy rights to messy and flawed data collection, as well as differing interests between those engaging in predictive modeling and those who are being used as data points.1 Major League Baseball teams are pioneers in the usage of big data, measuring players at a scale unseen in most other sectors of business.2 For Major League Baseball teams, players, and especially pitchers, are huge financial assets that come with significant risk of injury and depreciation.
    [Show full text]
  • Patient and Visitor Guide Preparing for Your Stay
    About NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital www.nyp.org NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, based in New York City, is one of the nation’s largest and most comprehensive hospitals, with some 2,600 beds. In 2013, there were more than 2 million inpatient and outpatient visits to the Hospital, including close to 15,000 deliveries and more than 310,000 emergency NewYork-Presbyterian department visits. Sloane Hospital for Women More than 6,500 affiliated physicians and 20,000 staff provide state-of-the-art inpatient, ambulatory, and preventive care in all areas of medicine at six campuses: Maternity Services NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center, NewYork-Presbyterian/Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital, NewYork-Presbyterian/The Allen Hospital, NewYork-Presbyterian/Westchester Division, and NewYork-Presbyterian/Lower Manhattan Hospital. Patient and Visitor Guide NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital ranks consistently among the top hospitals in the nation, according to U.S. News & World Report. One of the most prestigious Preparing For Your Stay health care institutions in the world, the Hospital is committed to excellence in patient care, research, education, and community service. NewYork-Presbyterian has academic affiliations with two of the nation’s leading medical colleges: Weill Cornell Medical College and Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons. www.nyp.org (212) 305-5904 (212) Administration Services Patient (212) 305-3101 (212) Information Patient (212) 305-3270 (212) Records Medical (212) 305-5437 305-5437 (212) Information General (877) 843-2229 (877) Pediatrics Prenatal for Center (212) 305-3388 (212) Department Admitting Important Phone Numbers Phone Important Welcome Welcome to Sloane Hospital for Women, a special part of NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center.
    [Show full text]
  • Patient Handbook
    Patient Handbook Welcome to Redlands Community Hospital Redlands Community Hospital is committed to focus on our “Patient’s-First” philosophy, and only a insuring an optimal patient experience for both you few are mentioned in this guide. We ask that you take and your family. This booklet is filled with important a moment to read our Mission, Vision, and Values information to help make your experience with us found on page 23 as we go through great steps to both stress free and pleasant. implement them with every encounter we have with you and your family. If you have any concerns or Inside you will find information from how to order questions, please “Speak Up” and let us know so that meals to appointing someone to make medical we may immediately address them for you. decisions regarding your care. Here at Redlands Community Hospital we have many programs that Table of Contents Phone Numbers and Hospital Hours General Information: . 2-4 Main Hospital Number: • Social Services (909) 335-5500 • How To Identify Your Care Team Rapid Response Team: • Interpreter Services Dial 2000 • Pastoral Care Services and Chapel • Patient Experience Liaison To Place a Local Outside Call: • Billing Inquiries Dial 9, then the phone number . • Financial Assistance To Direct Dial a Patients Room: • Smoking Policy Dial (909) 335-5502 then enter the • Patient Password room number • Personal Belongings • Visitation Information Desk: • Our C .A R. .E . Channel 42 Extension 5545 • Our C .A R. .E . Channel 44 General Visiting Hours: • Free WiFi Service/Charging Stations Are Available 10 a .m . - 8 p .m .
    [Show full text]
  • Patients' Rights to Access Their Medical Records: an Argument for Uniform Recognition of a Right of Access in the United States and Australia
    Fordham International Law Journal Volume 21, Issue 4 1997 Article 7 Patients’ Rights to Access their Medical Records: An Argument for Uniform Recognition of a Right of Access in the United States and Australia Hayley Rosenman∗ ∗ Copyright c 1997 by the authors. Fordham International Law Journal is produced by The Berke- ley Electronic Press (bepress). http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj Patients’ Rights to Access their Medical Records: An Argument for Uniform Recognition of a Right of Access in the United States and Australia Hayley Rosenman Abstract This Note addresses the issue of a patient’s right to access her own medical records in the United States and Australia. Part I discusses the background of a right of patient access to medical records through case law in the United States. Part I gives a historical perspective on US and Australian legislation regarding access to medical records. Part II reviews commentary both for and against access in the United States and in Australia. Part II focuses on legal arguments from the recent decision concerning patient access to medical records by the Australian courts in Breen v. Williams. Further, Part II also briefly examines jurisprudence with respect to access rights in Canada and the United Kingdom. Part III argues that the United States and Australia should follow the international trend and grant access to medical records through legislation. Finally, this Note concludes that a right of access would not only be fairer to patients and improve the physician- patient relationship, but also would facilitate transnational legal actions where medical records are required but the countries’ laws differ on the right of access.
    [Show full text]
  • 0460-01.20141229.Pdf
    RULES OF TENNESSEE BOARD OF DENTISTRY CHAPTER 0460-01 GENERAL RULES TABLE OF CONTENTS 0460-01-.01 Definitions 0460-01-.10 Clinical Techniques-Teeth Whitening 0460-01-.02 Fees 0460-01-.11 Infection Control 0460-01-.03 Board Officers, Consultants, Meetings, Declaratory 0460-01-.12 Unprofessional Conduct Orders, and Screening Panels 0460-01-.13 Ethics 0460-01-.04 Application Review, Approval, Denial, and 0460-01-.14 Mobile Dental Clinics Interviews 0460-01-.15 Treatment of Nursing Home Patients 0460-01-.05 Continuing Education and C.P.R. 0460-01-.16 Patient Rights 0460-01-.06 Disciplinary Actions, Civil Penalties, Procedures, 0460-01-.17 Consumer Right-To-Know Requirements Assessment of Costs, and Subpoenas 0460-01-.18 Restraint of Pediatric and Special Needs 0460-01-.07 Working Interviews Patients 0460-01-.08 Dental Professional Corporations and Dental Professional Limited Liability Companies 0460-01-.09 Repealed 0460-01-.01 DEFINITIONS. As used in Chapters 1 through 5 of Rule 0460, the following terms and acronyms shall have the following meanings ascribed to them: (1) Associated Structures - Any structures grouped by some common factor. Structures can be associated with the oral cavity and/or maxillofacial area by anatomic and/or functional factors (e.g., the oral cavity and maxillofacial area are associated with the major and minor muscles of mastication and all of their attachments; the oral cavity and maxillofacial area are associated with the oral pharynx, nasal pharynx and the airway including the trachea). All structures adjacent, attached, or contiguous with the oral cavity and/or maxillofacial area are associated structures (e.g., the oral cavity and maxillofacial area are associated with the head and neck, including the face and its components orbital, nasal, aural, etc.).
    [Show full text]
  • You Have the Right to Know
    123456789 123456789 The following three agencies work together to imple- 123456789 123456789 123456789 123456789 ment the Worker and Community Right to Know Act: 123456789HOW TO OBTAIN INFORMATION LOCALLY New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services You can obtain copies of the Right to Know Survey, Right to Know Program YOU HAVE THE PO Box 368 Community Right to Know Survey, and Hazardous Trenton, NJ 08625-0368 Substance Fact Sheets from your designated Right to (609) 984-2202 Know county agency listed below: RIGHT TO www.state.nj.us/health/eoh/rtkweb Atlantic ................................. (609)645-5971 Ext. 4295 Enforces all provisions of the RTK Act in public work- Bergen................................. (201)634-2786 KNOW places and RTK labeling in private workplaces. The Burlington ............................ (609)265-5521 Ext. 5521 Program prepares Hazardous Substance Fact Sheets, Camden............................... (856)374-6046 the RTK brochure, and other materials to increase Cape May ............................ (609)463-6413 awareness of hazardous chemicals and help employ- Cumberland ........................ (856)453-2156 ers comply with the RTK Act. Printed materials are Essex ................................... (973)497-9401 available upon request. Many are translated into Spanish. Gloucester........................... (856)307-4805 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Hudson ................................ (201)223-1133 Office of Pollution Prevention and Right to Know Hunterdon ........................... (908)788-1110 PO Box 405 Mercer ................................. (609)278-7165 Trenton, NJ 08625-0405 Middlesex ............................ (732)745-8480 (609) 292-6714 Monmouth ........................... (732)431-7456 www.nj.gov/dep/opppc/crtk/ Morris .................................. (973)631-5485 Ocean .................................. (732)341-9700 Ext. 7477 Enforces the community provisions of the RTK Act in the private sector (except for labeling).
    [Show full text]
  • Outline of Coverage Cherry Gulch Link HDHP $4200
    Outline of Coverage Cherry Gulch Link HDHP $4200 Outline of Coverage | 2020 Benefit Plan Year December 1, 2020 – December 31, 2021 Benefit Accrual Period Calendar Year Deductible In-Network: Individual $4,200 Family $8,400 *Copayments and coinsurance do not accumulate to deductible. Out-of-Network: Individual $8,400 Family $16,800 In-Network: Individual $4,200 Family $8,400 Annual Out-of-Pocket Maximum Out-of-Network: Individual $8,400 Family $16,800 Coinsurance In-Network: 0% Out-of-Network: 0% Copayments are in addition to deductible and coinsurance. Once the Out-of-Pocket Copayment Maximum is satisfied; deductible, coinsurance and copayments do not apply. Deductible and coinsurance apply to all services as noted below. There is no lifetime maximum benefit limit for this plan. This is only a summary of benefits. Benefits and general provisions described herein are subject to the terms of the Member Guide and Group Contract. Prior Authorization is not a guarantee of payment but is recommended for some services, supplies, treatments, and prescription drugs to help the Member identify potential expenses, payment reductions, or claim denials that may occur if these proposed services are not Medically Necessary or not a Covered Medical Expense. Refer to your Member Guide. The member is responsible for the above deductible and the following copays and coinsurance: Services In-Network: Out-of-Network: Preventive Care Preventive Health Care Services for health care screenings or preventive purposes submitted with a routine diagnosis will be covered at 100% of the Allowable Fee. This 0% after Deductible means that these Benefits are not subject to the Deductible, Coinsurance, Copayments, or Annual Out-of- Pocket Maximum when services are provided by an In-Network (Out of network-Well Child Care visits provider.
    [Show full text]
  • Unions' Right to Information About Occupational Health Hazards Under the National Labor Relations Act*
    COMMENT Unions' Right to Information About Occupational Health Hazards Under the National Labor Relations Act* Michelle C. Mentzert Recent union efforts to gain disclosure of the identity of workplace chemicals under the NLRA section 8(a)(5) duty to supply information have been met with a number of employer defenses, including trade se- crecy. After a criticalanalysis of a trilogy of recent Boardopinions in this area, the authorproposes first, that health hazardinformation be consid- eredpresumptively relevant to unions' representationalfunctions,and sec- ond, that employers be requiredthoroughly to substantiateclaims of trade secrecy before unions are required to bargain over methods of disclosure to protect that secrecy. The identity of chemicals to which workers are exposed should always be obtainablein some manner or another. I INTRODUCTION A. The Importance of Being Informed The issue of workers' right to know about occupational health hazards has received much legislative' and administrative2 attention in * The author wishes to thank Professor Jan Vetter and Larry Drapkin for their advice and assistance in the preparation of this comment. t J.D., 1984, University of California (Berkeley), B.A., 1977, Wesleyan University. 1. At least seven state legislatures have passed some form of worker right-to-know law since 1980: California, CAL. LAB. CODE §§ 6360-6399.9 (West 1982); Connecticut, CONN. GEN. STAT. ANN. § 31-40c (West 1972); Maine, ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 26, § 1701-1707 (1974); Michi- gan, MICH. COMp. LAWS ANN. § 408.1011 (1967); New York, N.Y. LAB. LAW § 875-883 (McKin- ney 1977); West Virginia, W. VA. CODE § 21-3-18 (1982); Wisconsin, WIs.
    [Show full text]
  • Occupational Health Risks and the Worker's Right to Know
    Occupational Health Risks and the Worker's Right to Know The cost of a thing is the amount of what I will call life which is required to be exchanged for it, immediately or in the long run. Henry David Thoreau, Walden Occupational disease' is a major national health problem;2 an estimated 390,000 new cases of occupational illness and 100,000 work-related deaths occur each year.' Occupational exposure to carcinogens may be a factor in more than twenty percent of all cancer cases in the United States.' The health hazards posed by occupational disease are largely hid- den from the workers whose health is at risk, and current Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)' regulations fall far short of 1. An occupational disease is one that results from conditions of employment. Classic examples include respiratory diseases such as asbestosis, which results from inhalation of asbestos fibers, and the liver cancer angiosarcoma, which results from exposure to vinyl chloride. 2. See N. ASHFORD, CRISIS IN THE WORKPLACE: OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE AND INJURY 92-96 (1976) (available statistics seriously underestimate enormity of America's health problem and attend- ant social costs of hazardous working conditions); U.S. DEP'T OF LABOR, AN INTERIM REPORT TO CONGRESS ON OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES 11-53 (1980) (assessment of magnitude and severity of occu- pational disease problem). A report issued by a panel of the Center for Disease Control concluded: "Our knowledge of disease and death caused by substances in the workplace, while very incomplete, is sufficient to suggest that we are on the threshold of 'an epidemic' of occupationally related disease." CDC Advisory Group Lists Hazards in Workplace as Top Priority Problem, [ 1978] OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REPORTER (BNA) 540 [reporter hereinafter cited as O.S.H.
    [Show full text]