GLCBusinessLaw Archives - Campanella Law Office

What New York’s Medical Spa Crackdown Teaches About the Importance of Hiring a Healthcare Lawyer

Administrator — Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:07:33 +0000

Medical spa owners throughout the country should pay attention to recent enforcement actions taking place in New York. Last month, the New York Department of State reported that regulators conducted sweeping inspections of medical spas. Out of 223 facilities inspected so far, 87 received citations for violations that included the unlawful practice of medicine, improper supervision, and unsanitary conditions. The consequences were significant—fines, license suspensions, and even business closures. This is why working with an attorney on formation and compliance is critical. A business attorney (ideally one experienced in healthcare law) does not just protect you, they help you build the business correctly from the start.

Opening and operating a medical spa is one of the most legally complex small business ventures you can undertake. Unlike a traditional spa or salon, a medical spa operates at the intersection of healthcare and aesthetics – providing both medical and traditional cosmetic procedures. As such, it must be a licensed medical facility, and licensed professionals must be performing the services.

Moreover, medical spas are subject to the same heightened regulatory oversight, strict practice rules, and liability exposure as any other health care practice. Corporate practice of medicine laws may limit who can own the entity and how it must be structured. Proper entity formation must align with state ownership rules. Also, medical director and employee agreements, practice policies, HIPAA compliance, and carefully drafted patient consents and liability waivers are not optional—they are foundational safeguards.

A business lawyer helps protect your personal assets, draft enforceable contracts and policies, and position your company for growth. A health law attorney helps ensure your operations comply with medical board regulations and healthcare statutes. Together, they provide the legal infrastructure necessary to build a compliant, scalable, and defensible medical spa.

(This blog, prepared by Campanella Law Office, is for general informational purposes only and is not intended to convey specific legal advice, nor is it intended to create or constitute an attorney-client relationship.)

The post What New York’s Medical Spa Crackdown Teaches About the Importance of Hiring a Healthcare Lawyer appeared first on Campanella Law Office.

New York’s Medical Aid in Dying Act: What Health Care Professionals Need to Know

Administrator — Wed, 19 Nov 2025 15:04:44 +0000

New York’s Medical Aid in Dying Act (A136/S138) is currently awaiting Governor Kathy Hochul’s signature. If signed, it marks a tremendous moment in the state’s approach to end-of-life care and adds New York to the growing number of states that already allow terminally ill, mentally competent adults to end their lives with the assistance of prescribed medication.

Designed for individuals facing a terminal diagnosis, with six months to live, and no remaining options for a cure, the Act seeks to provide a compassionate choice while incorporating strict safeguards to ensure dignity, autonomy, and informed consent. Among the guardrails in place is the requirement that the patient submit a witnessed request and that two healthcare professionals (in addition to the witnesses of the request) determine the individual’s mental capacity for informed consent. Thereafter, the individual may request a prescription from their healthcare provider for a medication they can self-administer to die peacefully.

In addition to the multi-step request process, the legislation also ensures that healthcare providers who deliver care or choose not to participate in the provision of medication, are legally protected from professional, civil or criminal liability for acting so long as their actions do not constitute negligence, recklessness, or intentional misconduct. Nor shall any health care provider be under any duty, by law or by contract, to participate in the provision of medication should they be unable or unwilling to do so.

Once enacted, the new law will introduce significant changes for healthcare providers in New York as far as professionals will need to navigate new responsibilities, including verifying eligibility, documenting requests, and ensuring compliance with strict procedural safeguards. Among the legal implications for New York practices will be the need to update policies and train staff related to the many complex questions that will arise. Therefore, it is important to seek legal counsel on compliance and risk management, as well as the preparation of internal policies that align with the Act’s requirements.

The post New York’s Medical Aid in Dying Act: What Health Care Professionals Need to Know appeared first on Campanella Law Office.

The States Rule: FTC Ends Attempt to Broadly Ban Noncompete Agreements.

Administrator — Tue, 30 Sep 2025 16:22:18 +0000

Earlier this month, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) abandoned its attempt to enforce a nationwide ban on noncompete agreements. The federal rule at issue was grounded in Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act which empowers the FTC to prevent businesses from using unfair methods of competition.

Proponents believed noncompete clauses to be exploitative of the average worker and harmful to American innovation. Therefore, the FTC rule not only sought to prevent employers from entering noncompete agreements with their workers and independent contractors, but it also required employers to rescind existing noncompete clauses; informing their employees that their noncompete agreements were no longer in effect.

Dissenting voices argued that the FTC did not have the authority to promulgate legislative rules for unfair methods of competition and this argument prevailed in Texas federal court – a decision that the FTC appealed. Nevertheless, amid mounting challenges and the change in executive branch administration, the FTC has withdrawn the pending appeals and vacated the rule.

Non-compete clauses are still subject to case-by-case scrutiny under Section 5 of the FTC Act and are also subject to a complex and continually shifting landscape of state laws. Some states have already enacted outright bans on such agreements, while others have taken a more nuanced approach based on factors like employee income levels, job type, or industry. Therefore, because of the significant variation in how noncompete agreements are regulated and enforced among the states, it is essential that employers consult with qualified legal counsel before drafting or implementing noncompete clauses to ensure compliance and to protect legitimate business interests.

(This blog, prepared by Campanella Law Office, is for general informational purposes only and is not intended to convey specific legal advice, nor is it intended to create or constitute an attorney-client relationship.)

The post The States Rule: FTC Ends Attempt to Broadly Ban Noncompete Agreements. appeared first on Campanella Law Office.

Ohio Client Alert: Sixth Circuit Limits Employer Liability for Harassment by Customers

Administrator — Wed, 10 Sep 2025 12:03:06 +0000

In a recent decision, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals clarified when employers can be held liable for harassment committed by customers in the workplace. It ruled that an employer is only liable for a customer’s behavior if the employer intentionally caused the harassment to occur or was substantially certain that it would occur.

In Bivens v. Zep, Inc., a former employee sued her employer, under state and federal law, for harassment after losing her job due to a company-wide reduction in force. While employed with the company, she reported that a manager from one of the company’s clients had asked her out. Immediately after she reported the unwanted overture, her supervisor acted to prevent further contact. Nevertheless, she later included a harassment claim in her lawsuit for wrongful termination, arguing, among other things, that the company created a hostile work environment based on the actions of the company’s client.

In determining that the employee’s claims lacked merit, the Sixth Circuit explained that the two ways an employer can be held liable for the actions of individuals within its organization are directly and vicariously. Direct responsibility occurs when someone in a leadership or official role within the company engages in harassment whereas vicarious liability occurs when a lower-level employee or someone else that might be considered an “agent” of the company behaves inappropriately and the employer fails to take reasonable steps to prevent or stop the harassment (i.e., the company was negligent). Therefore, the court concluded that the employer could not be responsible for the harassment at issue because the client who committed the act was not an agent of the company.

This ruling stands apart from most other federal appellate court opinions where employer liability for client harassment is subject to a negligence standard like that assigned to cases involving harassment by co-workers. As such, the Sixth Circuit has narrowed the circumstances under which employers in Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan, and Kentucky can be held responsible for harassment by non-employees.

While this case has potential for Supreme Court review, the timing of if or when that might happen is currently unknown. Therefore, it is important that employers in Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan, and Kentucky review their internal reporting and investigation procedures to align with this heightened standard and ensure timely and appropriate responses to employee harassment claims.

The post Ohio Client Alert: Sixth Circuit Limits Employer Liability for Harassment by Customers appeared first on Campanella Law Office.

COBRA & Mini-COBRA: What Employers and Employees Need to Know about Federal and State Compliance

Administrator — Wed, 27 Aug 2025 01:16:49 +0000

The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) is a federal law that allows employees to continue group health coverage after a covered employee experiences a specific qualifying event, such as job loss. Yet, Federal COBRA only applies to employers with 20 or more employees, leaving employees of smaller businesses ineligible for continued coverage.

Fortunately, most states have their own mini-COBRA or Continuation Coverage laws which fill the regulatory void for smaller businesses with 20 or fewer employees. However, because these laws may impose more strict requirements, it is important for employers and employees to be familiar with both their state and federal continued coverage laws.

The chart below is a general, non-exhaustive comparison of Mini-COBRA laws in New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Vermont, and Pennsylvania to the federal requirements.

Jurisdiction	Size Covered	Duration of Coverage	Qualifying Event	Election Period
Federal COBRA	20+ employees	18 months (job loss); 29 months (disability); 36 months (other events)	Job loss, reduction in hours, divorce/legal separation, death of the covered employee, Medicare eligibility, dependent aging out	60 days to elect after notice of qualifying event
New Jersey	2–50 employees	Up to 18 months (employees); up to 36 months (dependents in certain circumstances); 29 months (if disabled)	Job loss, reduction in hours, death of the covered employee, divorce or legal separation, or a dependent child ceasing to be eligible under the plan.	30 days to elect from the qualifying event
New York	Employers of all sizes	Up to 36 months	Job loss, reduction in hours, death of the covered employee, divorce or legal separation, or a dependent child ceasing to be eligible under the plan.	60 days to elect from qualifying event or notice of qualifying event (whichever is later)
Pennsylvania	2-19 Employees	Up to 9 months	Job loss, reduction in hours, death of the covered employee, divorce or legal separation, or a dependent child ceasing to be eligible under the plan.	30 days to elect after notification
Ohio	Up to 20 employees	Up to 12 months	Involuntary termination without access to other coverage	The earliest of: · 31 days after previous coverage terminates. · 10 days after your coverage terminates if previously notified of the right to continue coverage. · 10 days after notice sent after termination date.
Vermont	Up to 20 employees	Up to 18 months	Job loss, reduction in hours, death of the covered employee, divorce or legal separation, or a dependent child ceasing to be eligible under the plan.	60 days to elect after notification

The post COBRA & Mini-COBRA: What Employers and Employees Need to Know about Federal and State Compliance appeared first on Campanella Law Office.

Spotlight on the Federal No Surprises Act: What the Kennedy v. UnitedHealthcare Ruling Means for Out-of-Network Providers

Administrator — Wed, 06 Aug 2025 13:13:27 +0000

Recently, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in favor of emergency physician Dr. William A. Kennedy III in his case against UnitedHealthcare. The case, Kennedy v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., centered around a critical question: Does the federal No Surprises Act (NSA) prevent out-of-network providers from suing insurers over unpaid emergency medical services? The answer was “no.”

Since going into effect in January 2022, the NSA has required that insurers who cover emergency services bill plan holders no more than the median in-network rate for a particular service, even if the provider is out-of-network; ensuring that most emergency care is covered as if it were in-network without any requirement for prior authorization. Therefore, when UnitedHealthcare refused to pay for care rendered to its members, Dr. Kennedy and his group sued.

Dr. Kennedy specifically argued that he was required by federal and state law to provide emergency medical treatment which resulted in unjust enrichment when United Healthcare refused to pay. UnitedHealthcare argued that the doctor’s claims were barred from state court because the NSA, a federal law, created an “exclusive remedy” for such matters.

Ultimately, Judge Paul Engelmayer determined that while the NSA protects patients from surprise billing, it does not strip providers of their ability to bring state-level claims when insurers deny payment.

Considering this case, others like it, and ongoing regulatory updates, it is important providers and insurers stay informed and seek legal guidance when questions arise. You can find additional background information in the Campanella Law Office Blog:

The post Spotlight on the Federal No Surprises Act: What the Kennedy v. UnitedHealthcare Ruling Means for Out-of-Network Providers appeared first on Campanella Law Office.

Is Your Contract Enforceable? Three Key Reasons to Put it in Writing

Administrator — Thu, 26 Jun 2025 15:43:12 +0000

In business, not every deal needs to be in writing, but knowing when you do need a written contract can mean the difference between an agreement that holds up in court or falls apart. Therefore, it is advisable that contracts be in writing, for three key reasons.

First, and most importantly, the law may require it. The Statute of Frauds is a legal principle that requires certain contracts to be in writing to be legally enforceable. It exists in most states but can vary in its specific requirements. Nevertheless, states do adhere to several core categories such as contracts dealing in real estate and those that cannot be performed within one year. Most states have also adopted the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)– a collection of laws and rules for businesses governing commercial contracts for the sale of goods. The UCC requires that, in the commercial context, the purchase and sale of goods involving a value of $500 or more must be in writing.

Second, while oral contracts can be valid in certain situations, they are exceedingly difficult to defend when it becomes one business owner’s word against another entrepreneur or client. A written contract is not only proof that the agreement exists but also provides a clear record of the terms of the agreement and reduces the risk of disputes.

Third, reducing an agreement to writing forces each party to carefully consider their roles and responsibilities before becoming legally bound. It is far too easy to shake hands on a venture without thinking it through. The act of writing down the particulars and taking the time to consider each term offers room for important and necessary reflection on the deal.

For these reasons, and more, oral contracts should be entered into with caution. Only a written contract can truly secure an individual’s interests and strengthen enforceability under the law.

The post Is Your Contract Enforceable? Three Key Reasons to Put it in Writing appeared first on Campanella Law Office.

License to Style: What New Jersey Salon Professionals Need to Know about Recent Booth and Chair Rental Legislation.

Administrator — Wed, 11 Jun 2025 14:49:01 +0000

If you are a salon owner in New Jersey, there is a new law that might change how you do business. Assembly Bill No. 1507 (P.L.2023, c.231) went into effect this past January, establishing new license requirements for chair and booth rentals for cosmetologists, hairstylists, barbers, manicurists, skin care specialists, and other licensed personal care practitioners.

Under the new law, licensed shop and salon owners may not have a chair or booth rental arrangement with a practicing personal care practitioner unless that individual holds a chair or booth rental license. Effectively distinguishing independent personal care practitioners from shop employees, the law strengthens their classification as independent contractors for compensation, tax, insurance, and liability claim purposes.

Individuals applying for a chair or booth rental license must be have a practitioner’s license in good standing, apply to the New Jersey State Board of Cosmetology and Hairstyling (the “Board”) and pay the associated fee. Among the information needed for the application will be a copy of a written contract or agreement between the personal care practitioner and shop or salon owner. In addition, the Board is authorized to inspect shops and salons where chair and booth rental arrangements exist, and licenses shall be renewable on a biennial basis. Furthermore, the new law requires the Board to maintain a record of all individuals holding chair or booth rental licenses.

Whether you are a salon owner who is leasing space or a hairstylist or cosmetologist that is working as an independent contractor, understanding this change, and remaining compliant can help you to avoid future penalties.

The post License to Style: What New Jersey Salon Professionals Need to Know about Recent Booth and Chair Rental Legislation. appeared first on Campanella Law Office.

New Jersey Senators Seek to Codify Savage Decision: No More Non-Disparagement Clauses

Administrator — Wed, 28 May 2025 12:53:17 +0000

On May 7, 2024, in the case of Savage v. Township of Neptune, the New Jersey Supreme Court determined that a non-disparagement clause relating to claims of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment in an employment agreement is against public policy and cannot be enforced. Less than one year later, Senate Bill No. 1688 (S1688), previously introduced in January 2024 as A4521, took another step forward in the legislative process; receiving approval by the senate committee.

Even though non-disparagement clauses have been commonly recognized by employers as an instrument to protect the value of a business’ reputation and goodwill, S1688 reinforces the decision in Savage to render these provisions unenforceable due to the chilling effect on pursuing claims of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment.

The proposed legislation seeks to ensure that no rights or remedies under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination can be prospectively waived, stating:

A provision in any employment contract that waives any substantive or procedural right or remedy relating to a claim of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment, including, but not limited to, a non-disclosure or non-disparagement provision, or other similar agreement, shall be deemed against public policy and unenforceable.

The new legislation also extends the applicability of the prohibition to the terms of any collective bargaining agreement between an employer and the collective bargaining representative of the employees.

If enacted, the bill will take effect immediately, and apply to all agreements entered, renewed, modified, or amended on or after the effective date.

Campanella Law Office will be carefully monitoring S1688 as it progresses through the New Jersey legislative process. However, in anticipation of its enactment, if your business has not already reviewed its employment agreements in response to the Savage decision, it should be a priority to do so.

The post New Jersey Senators Seek to Codify Savage Decision: No More Non-Disparagement Clauses appeared first on Campanella Law Office.

Ohio’s New Pay Stub Protection Act: Important Reminder for Small Business Owners

Administrator — Tue, 06 May 2025 23:07:52 +0000

Four weeks ago, on April 9th, Ohio’s new Pay Stub Protection Act (PSPA) went into effect. In a continued effort to espouse workers’ rights, the PSPA adds an extra level of transparency to employee compensation.
Simply put, the new law requires that employers provide their employees with written, electronic, or access to earnings and deductions statements for each pay period on regular pay days. Those statements must include the following information:
• The employee’s name.
• The employee’s address.
• The employer’s name.
• The total gross wages earned by the employee during the pay period.
• The total net wages paid to the employee for the pay period.
• A listing of the amount and purpose of each addition to/deduction from the wages paid to the employee during the pay period.
• The date the employee was paid and the pay period covered by that payment.
In addition, if an employee is paid on an hourly basis, the statement must indicate the total number of hours worked in the pay period, the hourly wage rate, and the hours worked beyond forty (40) hour workweek.
If an employer fails to comply with the new mandate, an employee may request the required statement. Thereafter, if the employer does not provide the statement within ten (10) days of the request, an employee can report the violation to the Director of Commerce, who must notify the employer in writing of the violation. That notice must then be posted on the employer’s premises in a conspicuous location for ten (10) days.
Additional information about the Ohio Paystub Protection Act and procedures for filing a complaint can be found on the Ohio Department of Commerce’s website.
(This blog, prepared by Campanella Law Office, is for general informational purposes only and is not intended to convey specific legal advice, nor is it intended to create or constitute an attorney-client relationship.)

The post Ohio’s New Pay Stub Protection Act: Important Reminder for Small Business Owners appeared first on Campanella Law Office.