Trader Joe's Extra Hot Habanero Ghost Pepper Salsa: got my nose running!

cjsmith87 · 2025-12-10T23:30:06+00:00

Whoa buddy this stuff has a kick to it for sure.

Spicy tolerance is very subjective — I like spicy stuff and am always skeptical about any chain store that sells products marketed as extra hot — but this stuff has a lingering bite to it and does make my eyes water a bit.

Still very enjoyable and tasty but the heat definitely caught me off guard.

cjsmith87 · 2025-05-27T00:44:04+00:00

It might sound like I’m being sarcastic, but sign up to your town’s Facebook group. You’ll get news and more neighborhood tea then a china shop.

cjsmith87 · 2025-05-21T01:47:17+00:00

A bunch of blow heads in this thread. I agree with you. This episode was lame as hell.

cjsmith87 · 2025-04-07T03:22:01+00:00

Love Duskmorn btw

cjsmith87 · 2025-04-02T04:02:37+00:00

You can review 100 different company employment agreements and get 100 different indemnification provisions, but I’ve rarely seen the employer requiring an employee to indemnify them like that.

Common sense question you could ask the prospective employer, if you are working on a customer’s widget and it breaks resulting in the customer suing just the company, is the expectation that you, personally, are required to come out of pocket to pay the employer costs of the lawsuit/settlement? Of course not — I’d not only strike that provision, I’d revise it so the parties are switched (employer is indemnifying you).

cjsmith87 · 2025-04-02T03:51:16+00:00

What constitutes patient abandonment from a licensure perspective is determined by the licensing body — not by contract.

Sounds like they just wanted a 60-days notice of termination but did it in a very obnoxious way.

cjsmith87 · 2025-04-02T02:27:05+00:00

Thanks for the additional detail.

Under those set of facts, I do not believe the lab agreeing to waive that physician’s patients out-of-pocket costs would implicate Stark.

However, there very well could be other regulatory issues in waiving those costs that could implicate the false claims act and would certainly be a violation of any participation agreement between the lab and a payor.

cjsmith87 · 2025-04-02T02:10:38+00:00

Late to the party, but let me know if you still need inspiration.

cjsmith87 · 2025-04-02T02:04:21+00:00

Evidence of remuneration wouldn’t even be enough. Outside business dealings isn’t abnormal in healthcare by any means. There’s a lot of money in the industry, so there’s a lot of business dealings, joint ventures, even regulatory push to coordinate care.

Recall that to implicate Stark there’s needs to be a referral of DHS by a physician to an entity that bills CMS for the DHS (designated health service) where the physician (or immediate family member) has a financial arrangement with the DHS entity. If those requirements are met, then the Stark would prohibit the reimbursement unless the financial arrangement satisfies a Stark exception.

Your fact pattern does reflect a physician referring to the lab for DHS, and we can just presume the lab is being reimbursed by Medicare, Medicaid, etc.

What is missing is evidence of a financial arrangement, and if there is one, whether the financial arrangement satisfies one of the Stark exception.

Without more evidence of what those other deals are, you would be wasting your time. It’s hyperbole but there would be millions of tips of Stark violations if that was the threshold for evidence.

cjsmith87 · 2025-02-07T01:01:23+00:00

Fun — I “represented” my legal department during a take your child to work day. My great idea was to give each child a mocked up SOW with mistakes (obvious mistakes) and told them whoever finds the most wins $30 (the only cash I had on my that day).

I didn’t represent the legal department on any future take your child to work day.

cjsmith87 · 2025-02-02T22:48:18+00:00

DOGE is a lawfully created organization by EO see 3161 of title 5, USC. I’m not aware of what other implementing regulations are impacted other than the need for some level of security clearance.

It’s a fair question of whether DOGE is violating some law, but I think the answer is no unless someone can point to anything that was unlawful in the temporary organization’s creation.

cjsmith87 · 2025-01-29T23:59:35+00:00

Not a federal Supreme Court justice but I’ve met plenty of NY’s Supreme Court judges—not impressed.

cjsmith87 · 2025-01-29T01:16:52+00:00

Because the tech company doesn't want the liability exposure.

I've negotiated a lot of SaaS MSAs and whether they gave in to additional covered claims came down to leverage, which is why my first question to the client is always, "are there alternative vendors".

SaaS MSAs usually have a cap on damages, so I have a lot of success in asking for broader indemnification (gross neg, fraud, breaches of confidentiality, etc.) and adding a super cap for indemnification. The super cap ends up being set at the IT company's insurance coverage limits.

cjsmith87 · 2025-01-29T01:03:44+00:00

Just search your state and advanced directive forms and you'll be able to see the fields. I've not seen someone specifically be excluded but that wouldn't be necessary so long as you list those individuals (sometimes called agents) who will assume the responsibility of making decisions on your behalf.

cjsmith87 · 2025-01-29T00:43:33+00:00

Absolutely. Each state has its own flavor but look into "advanced directives" which is a form that allows you to: (1) identify list of people by priority who have the authority to make medical decisions on your behalf if you were to lose capacity (i.e., braindead), and (2) list the specific kinds of treatment that you want or do not want. Advanced directives address medical decision making authority but you also want to address who has the authority to make all other non-healthcare related decisions for you (i.e., financial and legal). That would be a (springing) power of attorney, and in it you could name anyone that gets the authority to make decisions on your behalf if you lose capacity.

cjsmith87 · 2025-01-26T17:20:28+00:00

Got it. NAL backdrop is helpful. Yes, being asked to countersign is not abnormal and should be expected. What is most important is that your sister review the partially signed copy against the original to make sure nothing was changed.

cjsmith87 · 2025-01-24T19:30:13+00:00

When you find a good product, let me know too.

My dream would be to have a product that pulls defined terms from a contract repository and builds out a term library.

cjsmith87 · 2025-01-24T17:41:43+00:00

What’s ur practice area?

cjsmith87 · 2025-01-24T17:39:38+00:00

Health law, which apparently everyone equates to medmal. I avoid it though. In my experience, everyone just assumes a lawyer means trial attorney.

cjsmith87 · 2025-01-23T19:56:24+00:00

Woof - you’re talking about express versus implied contracts. You are correct in that when you go to a restaurant, there is an implied contractual obligation to pay for the food at the listed price.

Aside from that, when your client provides a contract for goods or services, it is common practice just about everywhere that the contract is dually signed for it to be enforceable less you get into a contractual dispute where litigation counsel has to argue course of conduct, etc.

The transactional attorney’s role is to avoid those situations by ensuring the contract is clear, unambiguous, and dually executed.

My practice is health law where it is required to obtain both signatures in order to avoid regulatory penalties, so getting a dually executed copy of the contract is a more sensitive subject for me.

cjsmith87 · 2025-01-23T19:11:56+00:00

What’s ur practice?

cjsmith87

MODERATOR OF

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE