The 2026 edition of Best Lawyers' "Best Law Firms" Directory has been published, with Hinshaw picking up 13 national and 56 metropolitan rankings in the guide.

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that 80 lawyers are recognized in the 2026 edition of The Best Lawyers in America, with ten receiving this honor for the first time. Additionally, 22 Hinshaw lawyers are included in The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch.

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that Jill Eckhaus has been re-elected to a new three-year term on the Illinois Defense Counsel (IDC) Board of Directors.

Adam Guetzow recently spoke to McKnights Long Term Care News about a reported increase in involuntary nursing home discharges amid mounting fiscal and liability pressures. In an article published earlier this week, the AARP suggested nursing homes are eager to move out needy residents, and urged family caregivers to work with a local long-term care ombudsman to appeal and spot “illegal violations.”

Read Michael Dowell’s BioXconomy interview, where he explains California SB 41 PBM reforms—rebate pass-throughs, fiduciary duties, and transparency—and offers practical compliance steps.

Read Akeela White’s analysis of a debt collector’s petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify three Fair Debt Collection Practices Act questions.

Hinshaw partners Roy Bossen, Frank A. Mazzagatti, William Schiller, and Ian Wagreich are each scheduled to present at the 2025 Illinois Association of Healthcare Attorneys (IAHA) 43rd Annual Health Law Symposium on November 6, 2025. 

Hinshaw is pleased to sponsor the Illinois Critical Access Hospital Network's (ICAHN) Annual Conference on November 4, 2025, at the I-Hotel and Conference Center in Champaign, Illinois. This premier event is ICAHN’s largest member gathering of the year. 

Frank A. Mazzagatti will present at the annual conference of The New York State Pain Society on November 2, 2025, at One World Trade Center, New York City. 

Chicago-based partner Ian Wagreich will present at the 2025 American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) Hot Topics and Survival Skills Virtual Conference on March 3, 2025.

Learn the new employer obligations under the Illinois Family Neonatal Intensive Care Leave Act, taking effect on June 1, 2026.

In the spirit of the season, we are using our annual "12 Days of California Labor and Employment" blog series to address new California laws and their impact on employers. On the sixth day of the holidays, my labor and employment attorney gave to me six geese a-laying and AB 2975, AB 1976, and SB 1350.

The IRS adopted final regulations on December 29, 2014, implementing the new Internal Revenue Code Section 501(r) requirements for hospitals to maintain 501(c)(3) federal tax-exempt status. The final regulations apply to taxable years beginning on or after December 29, 2015. In the interim period, compliance with 501(r) requires a hospital to operate with a reasonable, good faith interpretation of the law, which is defined to mean compliance with the proposed or final regulations. Now is the time for hospitals to review their financial assistance policy and application form, to develop a plain language summary of the policy, and to update billing and collection policies. The final regulations affirm hospitals must proactively determine whether patients qualify for financial assistance including directing patients to resources for assistance in completing the application process. 

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requires that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) establish the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program (the Program), which is designed to provide federal reimbursement to participating plan sponsors for a portion of the costs of providing health coverage to qualifying early retirees. This Alert summarizes the key elements of the Program and reviews the steps that plan sponsors must take in order to apply for Program reimbursements. On June 7, 2010, an application for participation in the Program was published in draft form on the HHS website. The application process has not yet been opened, but will begin sometime prior to June 30, 2010. The date on which applications will begin to be accepted, along with information as to how and where to send completed applications, will be posted on the HHS website in the coming weeks. Applications will be processed in the order in which they are received, and incomplete applications will be denied and must be resubmitted. Overview of the Program

Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hosp.  

Keep Calm and Gobble On as you read our November edition of Hinshaw’s Privacy, Cyber and AI Decoded.

Explore compliance implications of California’s finalized CCPA rules and Colorado’s new regulations, including insurance privacy requirements, ADMT notices, risk assessments, and phased cyber audits.

Learn about the requirements for healthcare businesses to comply with Florida’s new mandate on timely refunds for patient overpayments, effective January 1, 2026.

Read our latest alert on California’s SB 41 for a practical compliance roadmap—implementation timeline, immediate next steps, a 30-day action checklist, and ongoing planning guidance to align PBM practices by January 1, 2026.

Read about the key revisions to Illinois’ amended Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act (MHDDCA), which removes the longstanding requirement for a witness signature on consent and revocation forms.

The use of a loan receipt agreement to fund the defense of an insured when more than one insurer owes a defense was common practice in Minnesota following the Minnesota Supreme Court's ruling in Iowa National Mutual Ins. Co. v. Univ. Underwriters Ins. Co., 150 N.W.2d 233 (1967). Under the Iowa National rule, if a primary insurer had a duty to defend, it was non-delegable and a primary insurer was barred from seeking contribution against another primary insurer for defense fees and costs it paid to defend a mutual insured. Insurers adopted the practice of obtaining a loan receipt agreement from the insured, which would secure the insurer’s right to recover defense fees and costs in a subsequent action brought against the other primary insurers under the name of the insured. This worked quite well, except when an insured, such as Cargill, Incorporated for example, refused to sign a loan receipt agreement. Recognizing that it was in the minority on this issue, the Minnesota Supreme Court took the opportunity to change the rules in Cargill, Incorporated v. Ace Am. Ins. Co., et al., 784 N.W.2d 341 (2010). Cargill was sued by the state of Oklahoma in 1995 for allegedly polluting land and water in the Illinois River Watershed as a result of its poultry waste practices. Cargill tendered the case to its insurers, including Liberty Mutual, and requested a defense and indemnity. Not liking the responses it received from the insurers, Cargill chose to defend itself and sued the insurers. Several insurers offered to pay their reasonable share of defense fees and costs if Cargill executed a loan receipt agreement. Cargill refused to sign, concerned that if it did so, the insurers would have the right of contribution against Cargill because some of its primary liability policies were "fronted." Under these policies, Cargill would owe as a retrospective premium the amount that some of its primary insurers paid to defend Cargill. The case went up to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which ultimately overruled its opinion in Iowa National and held that "where more than one primary insurer covers the same risk and an insurer discharges a common obligation also belonging to another insurer . . . a right to equitable contribution should exist in these circumstances." The Court adopted an equal shares approach to apportioning defense fees and costs amongst co-primary insurers. The Court also cautioned that if an insurer breaches its duty to defend, it may be precluded from seeking equitable contribution if the insurer is ultimately forced to pay.Practice Note: In Minnesota, if an insurer owes a defense to an insured already being defended by another insurer, it should offer to contribute an equal share. An insurer paying for the entire defense is no longer dependent on the agreement of the insured to secure its rights to pursue the non-contributing insurer. There is no benefit for delaying or denying a defense if owed.

One of the many changes affecting employers as a result of the Affordable Care Act is a new annual fee payable to the IRS applicable to self-insured health plans. Each employer who sponsors a self-insured health plan is subject to this new fee, called the "patient-centered outcomes research fee" or "PCORI fee." Most, but not all, flexible spending account plans are exempt. For the first plan year, the PCORI fee is equal to $1 multiplied by the "average number of lives covered." The PCORI fee must be paid to the IRS on an annual basis and is reported on IRS Form 720, Quarterly Excise Tax Return. The Form 720 and payment are due on Wednesday, July 31, 2013, for calendar year plans, as well as any other plan with a plan year that ended in October, November, or December of 2012. The next due date will be July 31, 2014. Because deposits are not required for this fee, employers are not required to pay the fee using the Electronic Federal Tax Payment System (EFTPS). Please click here to access Form 720. The fee is reported on the line on page 2 in Part II labelled "Applicable self-insured health plans." Please click here to access the Form 720 Instructions, where more detailed information is set forth on pages 8 and 9. (A separate, corresponding fee is imposed on insurance companies for insured group health plans).

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled on a number of cases affecting employers. This alert contains a summary of three rulings employers should be aware of, and their implications for the workplace:

FIRST IN A SERIESOn March 23, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Six days later, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 was enacted. When fully implemented, these Acts will significantly affect nearly every aspect of health care in the United States, including employer-provided group health plan coverage.  This Alert is the first in a series that will discuss how health care reform legislation will impact employers and employer-provided group health plans. This Alert focuses on those changes under the legislation that are most imminent for employers and their plans. Nearly all of the changes described here will become effective sometime in the next year. Topics covered below include: