‘Can I really be sued there?’ If you have ever asked that question, you’re not alone—many defendants sued outside of their home state wonder the same thing. For example, if a small family-owned Wisconsin business is sued in a Nevada court, its owners may rightly question whether that is proper.

The answer likely depends on the jurisdiction of the court in question. Personal jurisdiction—that is, a court’s authority over parties to a lawsuit—can be broad, but it is not unlimited. Without jurisdiction over a party, the court does not have authority to decide the dispute. However, if a defendant does not challenge personal jurisdiction at the beginning of a case, that party may forfeit its right to do so, and the case may proceed anyway.

Whether a court has personal jurisdiction depends on an analysis of the United States Constitution, applicable statutes, and the many cases interpreting those sources. As a result, there is not always an easy answer to whether a given court has personal jurisdiction over a party.

In general, a court will typically have personal jurisdiction over an individual whose permanent residence is in the state where the court is located or a corporation incorporated in that state. Beyond those relatively straightforward situations, a court may still have jurisdiction over a party who has sufficient contacts with that state, which depends on many factors.

Because courts can dismiss lawsuits if they do not have personal jurisdiction over a party, this is an important consideration in the early stages of a dispute. Whether you’re contemplating bringing a lawsuit, defending a claim, or negotiating a contract and considering including a clause addressing where parties must resolve any disputes, it is important to keep the principles of personal jurisdiction in mind.

If you are faced with a lawsuit, or need an analysis of jurisdictional issues before a dispute arises, contact Christa Wittenberg at 414-276-5000 or christa.wittenberg@wilaw.com.

Grant Killoran of O’Neil, Cannon, Hollman, DeJong and Laing was elected to the Board of Governors of the American Bar Association at the ABA’s Annual Meeting in Chicago in August 2021. Grant will serve a three-year term and represent District 9, which includes the states of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Missouri.

The 43-member Board of Governors is comprised of 19 District representatives, 18 members-at large, and the following officers of the ABA (serving ex-officio): the ABA President, President-Elect, Chair of the House of Delegates, Secretary, Treasurer, and Immediate Past President. The Board of Governors oversees the general operation of the ABA and develops specific plans of action. Grant also has been appointed as the Board of Governors’ liaison to the ABA’s Section of Health Law, Commission on the American Jury, and Forum on Housing and Community Development Law.

With his election to the ABA Board of Governors, Grant also becomes a member of the ABA House of Delegates. The House of Delegates is the ABA’s policymaking body and is responsible for control and administration of the ABA. Grant previously served in the House of Delegates for many years as a representative of the State Bar of Wisconsin.

Attorneys Seth Dizard (Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization), Pete Faust (Mergers and Acquisitions), Greg Lyons (Litigation – Insurance), and Steve Slawinski (Construction) have been named by Best Lawyers® as the 2022 “Lawyer of the Year” in Milwaukee for their area of practice.

Only one lawyer in each practice area and designated metropolitan area is honored as the “Lawyer of the Year.”  Lawyers are selected based on the assessments of other leading lawyers in the same category.

This designation reflects the high level of respect lawyers have earned for their abilities, professionalism, and integrity.

We are pleased to announce 19 of our lawyers have been included in the 2022 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America, and an additional five have been selected as 2022 Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch.

The following are the O’Neil, Cannon, Hollman, DeJong and Laing lawyers named to the 2022 lists:

Best Lawyers in America

• Douglas P. Dehler – Litigation – Insurance

• James G. DeJong – Corporate Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law, and Securities / Capital Markets Law

• Seth E. Dizard – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law and Litigation – Bankruptcy

• Peter J. Faust – Corporate Law and Mergers and Acquisitions Law

• John G. Gehringer – Commercial Litigation, Construction Law, Corporate Law, and Real Estate Law

• Joseph E. Gumina – Employment Law – Management and Litigation – Labor and Employment

• Dennis W. Hollman – Corporate Law and Trusts and Estates

• Grant C. Killoran – Commercial Litigation and Litigation – Health Care

• JB Koenings – Corporate Law

• Dean P. Laing – Commercial Litigation, Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs, and Product Liability Litigation – Defendants

• Gregory W. Lyons – Commercial Litigation and Litigation – Insurance

• Patrick G. McBride – Commercial Litigation

• Joseph D. Newbold – Commercial Litigation

• Chad J. Richter – Business Organizations (including LLCs and Partnerships) and Corporate Law

• John R. Schreiber – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law and Litigation – Bankruptcy

• Jason R. Scoby – Corporate Law

• Steven J. Slawinski – Construction Law

Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch

• Trevor C. Lippman – Litigation – Trusts and Estates

• Erica N. Reib – Labor and Employment Law – Management and Litigation – Labor and Employment

• Kelly M. Spott – Trusts and Estates

• Christa D. Wittenberg – Commercial Litigation

About Best Lawyers

Best Lawyers has published their list for over three decades, earning the respect of the profession, the media, and the public as the most reliable, unbiased source of legal referrals.

Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch recognizes associates and other lawyers who are earlier in their careers for their outstanding professional excellence in private practice in the United States.

Lawyers on The Best Lawyers in America and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch lists are divided by geographic region and practice areas. They are reviewed by their peers on the basis of professional expertise, and they undergo an authentication process to make sure they are in current practice and in good standing.

Health care providers should be aware of new regulations the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and other agencies issued in July that relate to medical billing practices.

Part I of the long-awaited regulations to implement the federal No Surprises Act was published on July 13, 2021. The regulations are applicable for plan or policy years beginning on or after January 1, 2022. HHS, along with the Department of the Treasury and Department of Labor, issued rules that implement the statutory provisions in the No Surprises Act. This federal law, enacted in 2020, was discussed in an earlier blog article. The new regulations mirror the statutory provisions and provide guidance on interpreting and applying the No Surprises Act. In particular, the new regulations clarify the methodology for calculating the qualifying payment amount (QPA)—a calculation that will often be used to evaluate the amount health plans pay providers for treatment that falls under the No Surprises Act, including out-of-network emergency care. The regulations also outline requirements for certain health care providers to post and provide consumers with a notice related to balance billing restrictions, and the criteria for providers to obtain the consent necessary to balance bill for non-emergency out-of-network services.

The new regulations do not yet address the independent dispute resolution (IDR) process applicable when health plans and providers do not agree on the amount to be paid for out-of-network care that falls under the Act. This IDR process is an important aspect of the No Surprises Act, and the continued uncertainty may make it difficult for health care providers to plan for the coming year. Regulations on this topic are expected to be issued soon.

The federal government is accepting public comments through September 7, 2021, and may modify the regulations based on those comments.

The attorneys who contribute to the Health Care Law Advisor are available to assist health care providers with a variety of legal matters. Please contact us if you need assistance navigating the new regulations.

Newsletter Article Highlights:

• A Recent Supreme Court Decision Narrows the Scope of Trespasser Immunity
• Wisconsin Landlord Subjected to Tenancy in Jail
• Estate Planning Considerations for Second Marriages
• What Does President Biden’s Executive Order on Non-Competes Mean for Wisconsin Employers?
• Did the United States Supreme Court Just Suggest a Change to the Established Public Health Constitutional Framework?

Firm News:

• Attorney Greg Lyons Named Fellow with the American Bar Foundation
• Attorney Grant Killoran Published in the Wisconsin Lawyer

Click the image below to read more.

On Friday, July 9, 2021, President Biden signed an Executive Order that, among other things, instructed the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) to ban or limit non-compete agreements and other clauses or agreements that “unfairly limit worker mobility.” This is not a federal ban on non-compete agreements and does not change any current law. It is important to note, however, that the FTC and the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, through civil and criminal enforcement actions, have already been looking at no-poach agreements between employers and other competitive restrictions through the lens of antitrust and consumer protection laws and have begun to indict those employers who have entered into anti-competitive agreements that adversely affect America’s labor market.  To comply with President Biden’s Executive Order, the FTC will likely go through a notice and comment period and eventually issue regulations governing the enforceability of restrictive covenants. Although a full federal ban on restrictive covenants is unlikely and any FTC rule would be subject to legal challenges, there may be limitations for certain workers (e.g., those in lower wage positions) or those in certain industries (e.g., retail, hospitality). Therefore, employers will need to stay informed on the progress of these regulations.

This is also a good reminder for Wisconsin employers to review their employee restrictive covenants, including non-disclosure, non-solicitation, and non-compete agreements. Regardless of any potential updates to federal law, Wisconsin has its own state statute regulating restrictive covenants – Wis. Stat. § 103.465. Wisconsin’s statute imposes certain requirements for a restrictive covenant to be valid, including reasonable time and geographic limitations. Given the new focus on non-competes by the federal government, it is worthwhile for employers to have their restrictive covenants reviewed to evaluate enforceability and ensure that they’re being appropriately used to protect those legitimate business interests recognized by law. As always, O’Neil Cannon is here for you. We encourage you to reach out to our labor and employment law team with any questions, concerns, or legal issues you may have, including those regarding restrictive covenants and related issues.

Grant Killoran authored an article in the June, 2021 edition of the Wisconsin Lawyer magazine, entitled “The Legal Treatment of Vaccine Injury Claim.” Their article analyzes how claims for vaccine injury, including claims related to the newly-developed COVID-19 vaccines, are handled under existing law, including the statutory processes applicable to such claims.

Read the full article here.

Grant Killoran is featured in the June/July edition of the ABA Journal along with the other nominees for the American Bar Association’s Board of Governors. Grant is the nominee for the District 9 seat on the ABA Board of Governors, which includes the states of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Missouri. The election for the ABA Board of Governors will take place at the ABA’s Annual Meeting in Chicago in August, 2021.

You can read the full article here.

The U.S. Internal Revenue Service has issued a reminder to taxpayers who pay estimated taxes that they have until June 15 to pay their estimated tax payment for the second quarter of tax year 2021 without incurring a penalty.

Estimated tax is the method used to pay tax on income that isn’t subject to withholding, including income from self-employment, interest, dividends, rent, gains from the sale of assets, prizes, and awards. Taxpayers may also have to pay estimated tax if the amount of income tax withheld from a salary, pension, or from other income isn’t sufficient to cover their entire tax liability.

Additional information regarding who needs to make Federal and Wisconsin estimated tax payments and how to make such payments can be found here.

For questions or further information relating to estimated tax payments, please contact Attorney Britany E. Morrison.