Shackling the Secretary\u27s Hands: Limits to Authorizing Whistle-Blower Settlements under Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act - Macktal v. Secretary of Labor

In seeking to encourage nuclear industry employees to report safety concerns, Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (ERA) acts to protect such whistle-blowers in the event they are terminated or discriminated against because of their whistle-blowing activities.2 When an employee and an employer negotiate a Section 210 whistle-blower complaint and subsequently submit the settlement for approval, the Secretary of Labor faces certain encumbrances when reviewing the agreement . This limitation on review arises when certain provisions may be in violation of public policy.4 In Macktal v. Secretary of Labor, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit compared the Secretary\u27s Section 210 powers to those held by any judge considering civil suit settlements and held that the Secretary may either accept the entire negotiated settlement, reject it, or modify the settlement subject to input from the original parties.5 This Note compares the Section 210 powers of the Secretary to review whistle-blower settlements with similar powers found in the judiciary. This Note also examines the lack of guidance other circuits offer when deciding similar cases in light of a silent United States Supreme Court

Negotiating in Good Faith: Management\u27s Obligation to Maintain the Status Quo during Collective Bargaining under the Railway Labor Act - International Ass\u27n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Transportes Aereos Mercantiles Pan Americandos, S.A.

When an employer and employee-representative union engage in collective bargaining negotiations, their negotiating activities are covered under the auspices of the Railway Labor Act.2 The Act, particularly applicable today in the tumultuous airline industry, established a rather elaborate mechanism for negotiation, mediation, voluntary arbitration, and conciliation to avoid interruptions to interstate commerce, to protect employees\u27 freedom of association with respect to labor unions, and to provide prompt and orderly dispute settlements. 3 Indispensable to this scheme, Section 152, First of the Act imposes a statutory obligation upon the parties to such negotiations to bargain in good faith.4 In International Ass \u27n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Transportes Aereos Mercantiles Pan Americandos, S.A., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit determined that the RLA precluded the airline from making unilateral changes in working conditions at the outset of collective bargaining negotiations in that to hold otherwise would be to allow the airline an unbargained-for advantage against its counterpart union.5 This Note examines to what extent the duty imposed by Section 2, First affects the relative positions of the negotiating parties and how the goals of the Act were affected by the court\u27s holding

Observation Versus Intervention for Low-Grade Intracranial Dural Arteriovenous Fistulas

Abstract BACKGROUND Low-grade intracranial dural arteriovenous fistulas (dAVF) have a benign natural history in the majority of cases. The benefit from treatment of these lesions is controversial. OBJECTIVE To compare the outcomes of observation versus intervention for low-grade dAVFs. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed dAVF patients from institutions participating in the CONsortium for Dural arteriovenous fistula Outcomes Research (CONDOR). Patients with low-grade (Borden type I) dAVFs were included and categorized into intervention or observation cohorts. The intervention and observation cohorts were matched in a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores. Primary outcome was modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at final follow-up. Secondary outcomes were excellent (mRS 0-1) and good (mRS 0-2) outcomes, symptomatic improvement, mortality, and obliteration at final follow-up. RESULTS The intervention and observation cohorts comprised 230 and 125 patients, respectively. We found no differences in primary or secondary outcomes between the 2 unmatched cohorts at last follow-up (mean duration 36 mo), except obliteration rate was higher in the intervention cohort (78.5% vs 24.1%, P < .001). The matched intervention and observation cohorts each comprised 78 patients. We also found no differences in primary or secondary outcomes between the matched cohorts except obliteration was also more likely in the matched intervention cohort (P < .001). Procedural complication rates in the unmatched and matched intervention cohorts were 15.4% and 19.2%, respectively. CONCLUSION Intervention for low-grade intracranial dAVFs achieves superior obliteration rates compared to conservative management, but it fails to improve neurological or functional outcomes. Our findings do not support the routine treatment of low-grade dAVFs