Ericsson, Inc. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota and a New Frontier for the Waiver by Litigation Conduct Doctrine

Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity is one of the most confusing areas of constitutional law. The waiver by litigation conduct doctrine represents a particularly complex aspect of Eleventh Amendment immunity. Courts, for example, have not precisely defined the extent to which waiver in a prior proceeding might extend to a future one. The Patent Trial and Appeals Board recently considered this issue in a novel context. In Ericsson, Inc. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board applied the waiver by litigation conduct doctrine in an inter partes review proceeding. Combining the Eleventh Amendment, non-Article III courts, and patent law, Ericsson qualifies as an important ruling. This article explores the Ericsson decision and its implications

State Action on Appeal: Parker Immunity and the Collateral Order Doctrine in Antitrust Litigation

The collateral order doctrine is perhaps the most significant exception to the general rule that only final judgments are appealable. The doctrine is particularly important in antitrust litigation when a defendant asserts state action immunity, often referred to as Parker immunity. However, the circuit courts have struggled with the question of whether a denial of Parker immunity is immediately appealable as a collateral order. This unsettled procedural issue is further complicated by the fact that the substantive law on Parker immunity differs depending on the entity asserting state action. This Article argues that a governmental entity that is deemed part of a state should be able to use the interlocutory appeal process to obtain review of an order denying Parker immunity. On the other hand, government defendants deemed not part of the state, as well as private entities, should not be able to immediately appeal an adverse state action determination under the collateral order doctrine. In addition, this Article explores the collateral order doctrine’s applicability in FTC adjudicatory proceedings. Cases such as North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC and FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc. demonstrate the Supreme Court’s renewed interest in the scope of state action immunity. However, the question of whether a denial of Parker immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine is also an important issue and is addressed in this Article

Needle phobia: How to improve the child\u27s experience during blood drawing

Pediatric diseases, pain and hospitalization have an important impact on children and their families. This is especially significant when considering common invasive procedures, such as blood drawing. The objectives of the study were to assess the experience of children and families during the blood drawing procedure and suggest methods for improvement. The study was conducted in a children’s hospital in Barcelona, Spain, between 2018 and 2020. A mix-method design or combination of qualitative and quantitative methodologies was developed. We carried out a search of the literature, a design thinking approach, and a survey. Results from the qualitative approach identified areas for improvement, such as, the lack of information about the process of blood collection before testing, management of fear or pain, and characteristics of the physical space, among others. Regarding the quantitative approach, 277 persons (patients and families) were interviewed. And, although there were high levels of satisfaction among them about the blood drawing procedure, they also stressed the importance of the information received prior the test, the distraction techniques, and the physical space. From these results, we made different actions like information leaflets and fact sheets, distraction elements in the waiting room (wall vinyl, therapeutic dogs and clowns), and modification of the cabins. Although these results cannot be generalized to the population, they serve as an example of how to improve patient and family experience and include them in the decision-making process. In the current pandemic, further research should be done to adapt these results to the “new normal.” Experience Framework This article is associated with the Quality & Clinical Excellence lens of The Beryl Institute Experience Framework (https://www.theberylinstitute.org/ExperienceFramework). Access other PXJ articles related to this lens. Access other resources related to this lens

The PALM Technique: histological findings of masked phototherapeutic keratectomy on rabbit corneas

BACKGROUND: To compare the corneal healing response between conventional and phototherapeutic keratectomy through a masking agent, in rabbit corneas. METHODS: 24 adult rabbits underwent phototherapeutic keratectomy. Animals were divided in two groups: 12 received photoablation through a masking agent (PALM gel) and the remaining 12 received conventional phototherapeutic keratectomy of equal depth and served as control. Light and transmission electron microscopy was performed in specimens of both groups obtained: immediately after, four hours, one week, one, three and six months after treatment. RESULTS: Reepitheliazation was complete within five days in all eyes. Light and transmission electron microscopy did not reveal any differences of the healing process in the experimental eyes compared to the controls. CONCLUSION: Photoablation through the PALM technique did not result any evident alterations of the reepithelisation and stromal healing process

State Action on Appeal: Parker Immunity and the Collateral Order Doctrine in Antitrust Litigation

The collateral order doctrine is perhaps the most significant exception to the general rule that only final judgments are appealable. The doctrine is particularly important in antitrust litigation when a defendant asserts state action immunity, often referred to as Parker immunity. However, the circuit courts have struggled with the question of whether a denial of Parker immunity is immediately appealable as a collateral order. This unsettled procedural issue is further complicated by the fact that the substantive law on Parker immunity differs depending on the entity asserting state action. This Article argues that a governmental entity that is deemed part of a state should be able to use the interlocutory appeal process to obtain review of an order denying Parker immunity. On the other hand, government defendants deemed not part of the state, as well as private entities, should not be able to immediately appeal an adverse state action determination under the collateral order doctrine. In addition, this Article explores the collateral order doctrine’s applicability in FTC adjudicatory proceedings. Cases such as North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC and FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc. demonstrate the Supreme Court’s renewed interest in the scope of state action immunity. However, the question of whether a denial of Parker immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine is also an important issue and is addressed in this Article

Service Beyond Bars: How Correctional Chaplains Mediate the Movement of Religion in Prisons and Jails

This ethnography explores the movement and restriction of religion as mediated by prison and jail chaplains in correctional institutions. Spread across four chapters are conversations with eleven interlocutors, including nine correctional chaplains working across the country, the director of a nationwide nonprofit generating Islamic education for those incarcerated, and a currently incarcerated field minister in Louisiana. I found that given the broad freedom of movement enjoyed and essentialized by correctional chaplains across centuries, religion too, as propelled by chaplains, has a rare fluidity and permeability in prisons and jails. I term this twofold phenomenon dual movement. Simultaneously, this movement is restricted and controlled by the dual confinement of the incarcerated person’s body and spiritual direction by corrections administrators and chaplains alike. I contend that analyzing the mechanisms of dual movement and dual confinement inherent to these facilities is the key to understanding the fluidity of religion and the power structures between chaplains and the incarcerated people to whom they minister. These power structures are remade each day in either relational and reflective pastoral counseling conversations, material-rich or lacking religious services, or explicitly “rehabilitative” religious programs that reframe vintage rhetoric of religious salvation as attempts at molding imprisoned people into models of self-discipline. As long as these institutions are still widely regarded as indispensable and security remains the ultimate concern of the state, I argue that chaplains, positioned at the junction of penal and spiritual power, are most capable of introducing and sustaining life-affirming and dignifying care