United States: The Fines They Are a-Changin’: New Regulations Herald Increased Fines for California Hospitals

Last Updated: April 23 2014
Article by Mark A. Kadzielski and Dayna Nicholson

As of April 1, 2014, California hospitals are subject to a significantly increased risk of being fined when state authorities find deficiencies in their compliance with licensing requirements and other health care-related laws.

In 2006, the California Legislature enacted legislation authorizing the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) to issue administrative penalties if it determined that a licensed hospital's "noncompliance with one or more requirements of licensure has caused, or [was] likely to cause, serious injury or death."1 Initially, the fines for such violations (known as "Immediate Jeopardies" or "IJs") were capped at $25,000, but they were later increased and changed to a three-strikes scheme, such that the maximum fines were $50,000 for the first IJ, $75,000 for the second, and $100,000 for the third or any subsequent violation.2

Between October 2007 and January 2014, CDPH issued 283 such penalties, which totaled $12,835,000. But that was just the warm-up act. Now, hospitals can expect to see increased activity in this area due to new regulations that became effective on April 1, 2014. These regulations, which drastically expand the circumstances in which a penalty may be issued and increase the maximum penalties by another $25,000 each, are complex and confusing, and provide no additional transparency with regard to when a fine might be imposed.

The Regulations Are Seven Years Overdue

When enacting the administrative penalty legislation, the Legislature instructed CDPH to promulgate regulations setting forth criteria for penalty assessment, which must include, at a minimum:

  1. the patient's physical and mental condition
  2. the probability and severity of the risk that the violation presents to the patient
  3. the actual financial harm to patients, if any
  4. the nature, scope, and severity of the violation
  5. the facility's history of compliance with related state and federal statutes and regulations
  6. factors beyond the facility's control that restrict the facility's ability to comply with applicable licensing laws and regulations
  7. the demonstrated willfulness of the violation
  8. the extent to which the facility detected the violation and took steps to immediately correct the violation and prevent the violation from recurring.3

However, CDPH was not required to promulgate these regulations before exercising its fining authority. The first 11 administrative penalties issued were publically announced on October 25, 2007, and CDPH has issued between eight and 22 penalties every few months since.4 In each instance, CDPH imposed the maximum penalty regardless of the nature and scope of harm to the patient or any other factor, taking the position that it was not permitted to impose a lesser penalty because there were no applicable regulations despite the statutory language (1) authorizing CDPH to issue fines "up to" the specified amounts, and (2) granting CDPH "discretion to consider all factors when determining the amount of an administrative penalty."5

Over the last seven years CDPH provided absolutely no guidance as to how it determines which incidents warrant administrative penalties; neither has there been any discernible pattern in its fining practices. For example, from July 2007 to May 2010, hospitals self-reported the post-surgical retention of a foreign object 461 times.6 Of those reported incidents, only 28 resulted in an administrative penalty, and a review of those cases suggests that no consistent criteria were applied. To compound matters, CDPH's practice has been to inform a hospital that an Immediate Jeopardy finding will be issued months after conducting a survey, and to assess penalties years after the incident occurred. Thus, hospitals have been in constant limbo, waiting to find out if or when a penalty might be assessed for alleged violations of licensure requirements.

Now that the final regulations have taken effect,7 facilities might expect to have a clear roadmap of the circumstances that will result in a penalty being issued, and the approximate amount of any such penalty. In reality, the final regulations raise many more questions than they resolve.

New Regulatory Criteria: Vague, Ambiguous and Confusing

Along with the issuance of the final regulations, the maximum penalties for Immediate Jeopardies have increased by $25,000 (i.e., up to $75,000, $100,000 and $125,000 for the first, second, and third IJ, respectively), and CDPH may begin issuing penalties of up to $25,000 for non-minor violations that do not rise to the level of an Immediate Jeopardy.8 The determination of an administrative penalty amount requires a number of intricate steps. In brief, those steps are:

  1. Calculate the "Initial Penalty" by multiplying the maximum statutory penalty by a percentage amount obtained from a "Severity/Scope of Noncompliance" matrix;
  2. Apply "adjustment factors" to the Initial Penalty to derive the "Base Penalty" (which may be higher than the statutory maximum); and
  3. Apply additional "adjustment factors" to the Base Penalty to derive the "Final Penalty."
  4. Assess the lesser of the Final Penalty or the statutory maximum.

Each of these steps involves multiple vaguely defined decision points that will be subject to interpretation and dispute. In response to concerns about the significant risk that the new regulatory scheme will be inconsistently applied, CDPH has stated that it "intends to implement a universal electronic penalty assessment tool that will be used by all District Offices and surveyor staff ... which will provide transparency and consistency throughout the state."9 However, in all likelihood, there will be variations in the manner in which the analysis is conducted by different District Offices, which will lead to widely varying outcomes, both in the types of situations in which a fine is levied, and the amount of the fines that are imposed.

Levels of Severity

The first step in applying the new criteria is to determine the "severity of the deficiency."10 There are six "Severity Levels," not including "minor violations," which the Legislature explicitly excluded from the penalty scheme but left up to CDPH to define. Given that Immediate Jeopardies are grounded in an alleged failure to comply with a "requirement of licensure," one would expect that "minor violations" would have a similar touchstone. To the contrary, a "minor violation" has been defined as: "Any violation of law relating to the operation or maintenance of a hospital that the department determines has only a minimal relationship to the health or safety of hospital patients" (emphasis added). This definition is both over-inclusive and significantly limiting. It is over-inclusive because it applies to all "laws relating to the operation or maintenance of a hospital," which is certainly more expansive that the "requirements of licensure." It is limited because it gives CDPH the room to assert that any violation has "more than a minimal relationship to the health or safety of hospital patients." Thus, the fact that no administrative penalties are permitted for "minor violations" will not impede CDPH's fining authority to any measurable extent.

As to the six Severity Levels for non-minor violations, the categories for the degree of "severity of the deficiency"11 are convoluted and confusing. In the table that follows, we provide a possible interpretation of each Severity Level.

After defining each of the six Severity Levels, the regulation explicitly states that the first two criteria required by the Legislature (the patient's physical and mental condition, and the probability and severity of the risk that the violation presents to the patient) "shall be considered" in determining the level of severity.12 Since both of those factors are actually included in each of the Severity Level definitions, the purpose of the follow-up provision is not clear.

Scope of the Noncompliance

In promulgating the final regulations, CDPH replaced its initially proposed "extent of noncompliance" measure, which "would assess the extent to which a hospital deviated from hospital licensure requirements," with a "scope of the noncompliance" measure, which measures "the scope to which the patients have been affected by, or the number of staff or locations involved in, the noncompliance."13 The three "scope" categories are:

  • Isolated (one or a very limited number of patients affected/staff involved; situation occurred occasionally, or in a very limited number of locations)
  • Pattern (more than a very limited number of patients affected/staff involved; situation occurred in several locations or repeatedly), and
  • Widespread (situation was pervasive; represents a systemic failure that affected or could affect many/all of the hospital's patients).

CDPH has stated that its final "Scope/Severity Matrix" is "modeled on the federal long-term care assessment matrix used by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services," and that its intent "is to assess the scope level of a noncompliance in a manner that is consistent with the federal assessment process."14 Multiple commenters took issue with the application of a long-term care approach in an acute care setting stating, for example, that the underlying federal model "has proven hugely defective and ineffective in promoting quality and change."15 However, CDPH consistently asserted that the model was effective and would support consistency in assessing penalties.

The Matrix for Determining the Initial Penalty

Once the Level of Severity and Scope of Noncompliance are identified, CDPH will consult its Matrix to determine the multiplier that is to be used in calculating the Initial Penalty. The Matrix is as follows:

Thus, if a non-IJ violation is determined to be a Severity Level of 2 with an Isolated Scope, the Initial Penalty will be $5,000 ($25,000 x 20 percent). At the other end of the spectrum, if a "third" Immediate Jeopardy penalty is based on a determination that the violation caused the patient's death, the Initial Penalty will be $125,000 (100 percent of the maximum statutory amount).

Although the regulations are "new," the regulatory structure is not; CDPH has been issuing IJ penalties since October 2007. Thus, CDPH intends to continue relying on the history of those penalties in determining whether or not an Immediate Jeopardy is a first, second, etc. penalty. Comments to the proposed regulations included that such a decision would violate due process, because the prior penalties were not issued on the basis of these regulations. However, CDPH did not make any changes to the final regulations as a result of those comments.

In addition, if a facility has been issued IJ administrative penalties in the past, a newly issued penalty may be designated as a "first administrative penalty" (and thus be subject to the lower fines), if the date the violation occurred is more than three years from the date of any prior Immediate Jeopardy for which a penalty was issued, and if the hospital was in "substantial compliance" with both state licensing requirements and the Medicare Conditions of Participation. For the purpose of the regulations, "substantial compliance" means that "any identified deficiencies pose no greater risk to patient health and safety than the potential for causing minimal harm."16

Adjusting the Initial Penalty

The Initial Penalty may be adjusted downward by as much as 5 percent or upward by as much as 21 percent, based on four specific factors: the patient's physical and mental condition post-incident; whether the patient suffered any financial harm; factors beyond the hospital's control, limited to circumstances that are caused by a disaster or emergency; and whether the alleged violation is determined to be "willful."

  • Patient's Physical and Mental Condition

As noted above, the determination of the Level of Severity of an alleged deficiency includes (not once, but twice) "the patient's physical and mental condition," which is one of the eight assessment criteria required by the Legislature. That factor is to be considered yet a third time when adjusting the Initial Penalty. Specifically, for the two Severity Levels that encompass patient harm,17 the Initial Penalty is to be adjusted upward by 10 percent if the harm resulted in "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of a patient, or the loss of bodily function, if the impairment or loss lasts more than seven days or is still present at the time of discharge from the hospital, or the loss of a body part."18 If an impairment or loss of bodily function lasts more than three days (but, presumably, less than eight days), the Initial Penalty will be adjusted upward by only 5 percent rather than 10 percent.19

Although not clearly identified as such, this terminology is pulled from the definition of a "Serious Disability" set forth in the statute governing self-reporting of adverse events.20 Thus, in drawing these distinctions, CDPH appears to be attempting to assess a graduated penalty based on the severity of the harm that has occurred. The actual operation of this provision will be problematic, as it sets up this unworkable ladder:

  • Level 3: actual harm that is not serious injury or death
  • Level 3 plus: actual harm that is not serious injury or death, but is a Serious Disability
  • Level 5: serious injury
  • Level 5 plus: serious injury that is also a Serious Disability.

With regard to Severity Level 3, it defies logic to assert that there will be actual patient harm that is not an Immediate Jeopardy (thus, not "serious injury or death"), but at the same time is a Serious Disability. As to Severity Level 5, there is quite a bit of room for interpretation in drawing a distinction between a serious injury and a Serious Disability.

  • Actual Financial Harm

Another criterion required by the Legislature is whether there was actual financial harm to any patient.21 CDPH thus has included it as an adjustment factor, but has drastically restricted its impact on the overall calculation. Thus, if an alleged violation caused a patient "actual financial harm," which means "concrete financial loss for medical costs incurred by a patient, where the loss was not covered or reimbursed by health insurance,"22 the Initial Penalty will be adjusted upward by one percent.23

  • Factors Beyond the Hospital's Control

The Legislature also specifically directed CDPH to consider whether there were "factors beyond the facility's control that restrict the facility's ability to comply" with applicable licensing laws and regulations."24 A fair reading of this provision would give hospitals some relief from the assessment of administrative penalties when the circumstances underlying the alleged deficiency were unforeseeable or could not be guarded against. For example, if an employee who is a licensed provider deviates from the acceptable scope of practice to an extent that could not be imagined (as has often been the case for past administrative penalties), such actions are clearly beyond control by the hospital.

Rather than recognizing that there are many different circumstances that are truly uncontrollable, CDPH elected to limit the scope of this factor to disaster or emergency circumstances only. Thus, IF and ONLY IF: (1) a disaster were to occur; (2) the hospital previously had developed and maintained legally required disaster and emergency programs; (3) such program were implemented during a disaster; and (4) despite all such efforts the disaster or emergency restricted the hospital's ability to comply with licensure requirements, THEN CDPH will decrease the amount of the Initial Penalty by 5 percent.

  • Willful Violations

The Legislature also included as a required factor "the demonstrated willfulness of the violation."25 Again, the plain language of this provision calls for an interpretation that recognizes the complex nature of health care, and the human factors attendant to operation of a hospital. Again, however, CDPH has taken the more draconian approach, using this factor to turn the statute into a strict-liability, medical-error statute, rather than a balanced set of rules designed to protect patient safety.

Specifically, the regulations define "willfully," as "that the person doing an act or omitting to do an act intends the act or omission, and knows the relevant circumstances connected with the act or omission," and a "willful violation" as a situation in which the hospital, "through its employees or contractors, willfully commits an act or makes an omission with knowledge of the facts, which bring the act or omission within the deficiency that is the basis for the administrative penalty."26 In such circumstances, the Initial Penalty will be increased by 10 percent. Unfortunately, these definitions are written so broadly that this adjustment factor can be applied against a hospital every time that a hospital employee takes an action or refrains from acting and the result is an adverse outcome.

The Base Penalty

After each of the adjustment factors listed above are applied to an Initial Penalty, the resulting calculation is denominated the "Base Penalty." Depending on the starting point, if the Initial Penalty has been adjusted upwards, it is possible for the Base Penalty to be greater than 100 percent of the statutory maximum. The regulations explicitly permit such a circumstance, "so long as the final penalty does not exceed the statutory maximum."

Adjusting the Base Penalty

The Base Penalty for NON-Immediate Jeopardies may be adjusted downward by as much as 25 percent or upward by 5 percent, based on whether the violation was corrected immediately, as well as the hospital's history of compliance or non-compliance with state licensure requirements and federal Medicare Conditions of Participation in the prior three years. The Base Penalty for Immediate Jeopardies may be adjusted downward or upward by 5 percent based on the hospital's compliance history.

  • Immediate Correction

The Legislature's required criteria included the extent to which the facility detected the violation and took steps to immediately correct the violation and prevent the violation from recurring. The statute does not limit the application of this factor in any way, and it arguably should apply to all alleged deficiencies. However, CDPH has limited this factor to violations that "did not constitute immediate jeopardy or result in the death of the patient" (which is redundant, because a patient's death would be categorized as an immediate jeopardy). In such non-IJ circumstances, the Base Penalty may be adjusted downward by 20 percent if all of the following apply:

  1. The hospital identified and corrected the noncompliance before it was identified by the department. Thus, the incident must be discovered by the hospital, rather than by a CDPH surveyor.
  2. The hospital completed all corrective action to prevent recurrence within 10 calendar days of the date the noncompliance was identified, and detailed documentation of such actions. Note that the regulations do not set forth any guidance regarding when a noncompliance is "identified;" CDPH is likely to take the position that such identification is immediate once any adverse outcome is discovered, whether or not the facility is able to determine the exact cause of the outcome without first conducting an investigation.
  3. The hospital reported the incident as required before the incident was identified by CDPH.
  4. "A penalty was not imposed for a repeat deficiency that received a penalty reduction under this article within the 12-month period prior to the date of violation." This appears to indicate that any noncompliance that recurs within 12 months cannot receive this reduction, if the reduction was applied to an initial administrative penalty.
  • History of Compliance with Related State and Federal Laws

Yet another of the Legislature's enumerated criteria is "the facility's history of compliance with related state and federal statutes and regulations."27 The regulations state that such compliance history refers to a hospital's "record of compliance with licensure requirements under [HSC], and the regulations adopted thereunder, and with federal laws that set forth the conditions of participation for hospitals in the Medicare program, for a period of three years prior to the date the administrative penalty is issued."28 For both IJ and non-IJ penalties, the base penalty will be adjusted downward by 5 percent if the hospital did not have any state or federal deficiencies rising to a Severity Level 3-6 in the prior three years, and will be adjusted upward by 5 percent if there were three or more repeat deficiencies at Severity Levels 2-6 in the prior three years.

The Final Penalty

Once all of the adjustments are made to the Base Penalty, the Final Penalty will be the lesser of (1) the penalty with all adjustments or (2) the statutory maximum. Based on all of these factors, we have determined that the range of possible penalty assessments is between $4,513 and $125,000. In addition, if an administrative penalty would cause a financial hardship for a small and rural hospital, the hospital may request that the penalty be paid over an extended period of time, or that the penalty be reduced, or both.

Appealing a Penalty

The strict time deadline for appealing the assessment of an administrative penalty has not changed; a hospital that disputes a finding of a deficiency or the imposition of a penalty may request a hearing to challenge CDPH's decision.29 All such appeals must be submitted within 10 working days of notification of the penalty.30 Penalties that are appealed do not have to be paid until after the hearing process is complete, and only if CDPH prevails. We have handled and are handling many appeals of these penalties, and have been successful in getting them dismissed or significantly reduced.

Conclusion

In the last seven years, some IJs have resulted in administrative penalties and others have not, and there has been no discernible distinction between the two groups. These new regulations simply fail to clarify the administrative penalty process: they provide no guidance as to what types of IJ and non-IJ deficiencies will trigger a penalty; they promulgate a complicated penalty matrix for determining the amount of any fine; and they create a whole new set of confusing issues. What is crystal clear, however, is that CDPH has no intention of letting up on its drive to raise money by penalizing hospitals under this regulatory scheme. The forecast for hospitals is bleak, as the regulations are designed to result in the now-increased maximum penalties for alleged IJs, and the likelihood of non-IJ penalties being assessed also is very high.

Now more than ever, California hospitals need knowledgeable and experienced counsel to determine whether to appeal and on what basis to challenge these administrative penalties. When the possibility of administrative penalties are noted by CDPH, during or after a survey, California hospitals need to act quickly to assess the facts and to consider filing an appeal should fines be imposed.

Footnotes

1 Senate Bill 1312; California Health and Safety Code (HSC) § 1280.1.

2 Id. The impetus for the increased fines and "three-strikes" approach was CDPH's "belief" that the "existing penalty amount [was] too low." SB 541 Bill Analysis: Assembly Committee on Health, Hearing (Aug. 18, 2008).

3 HSC § 1280.3(b).

4 CDPH publishes IJ penalties on its Web site at: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/facilities/Pages/Counties.aspx.

5 HSC § 1280.1(d).

6 This analysis is based on the data available on the Health Facilities Consumer Information system Web site and in the 2567 forms published on CDPH's Web site.

7 22 California Code of Regulations (CCR) §§ 70951, et seq., for General Acute Care Hospitals, and §§ 71701, et seq. for Acute Psychiatric Hospitals.

8 Id.

9 Addendum II to Final Statement of Reasons, Department Response to Comment 2-5 (October 15, 2013).

10 22 CCR § 70954(b).

11 A "deficiency" means "a licensee's failure to comply with any law relating to the operation or maintenance of a hospital as a requirement of licensure under" applicable licensing laws and regulations. 22 CCR § 70952(a)(2).

12 22 CCR § 70954(2).

13 Addendum II to Final Statement of Reasons, Department Commentary on Section 70954(c) (October 15, 2013).

14 Id.

15 Addendum IV to Final Statement of Reasons, Comment 2.22 (October 15, 2013).

16 22 CCR § 70952(a)(6).

17 Level 3–actual harm, not serious injury or death, and Level 5–serious injury.

18 22 CCR § 70955(a)(1)(A).

19 Id.

20 HSC § 1279.1.

21 HSC § 1280.3(b)(3).

22 22 CCR § 70952(a)(1).

23 22 CCR § 70955(a)(2).

24 HSC § 1280.3(b)(6).

25 HSC § 1280.3(b)(7).

26 22 CCR §§ 70952(7) and (8).

27 HSC § 1280.3(b)(5).

28 22 CCR § 70957(a)(2).

29 HSC § 1280.3(f).

30 Id.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Dayna Nicholson
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions