Close X
Attorney Spotlight

Find out which two countries Cheryl Palmeri gets the most questions about related to International Trade in today's market? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

In June 2016, AmSurg Corp. and Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (Envision) announced they have signed a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which the companies will combine in an all-stock transaction. Upon completion of the merger, which is expected to be tax-free to the shareholders of both organizations, the combined company will be named Envision Healthcare Corporation and co-headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee and Greenwood Village, Colorado. The company's common stock is expected to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol: EVHC. Bass, Berry & Sims served as lead counsel on the transaction, led by Jim Jenkins. Read more.

AmSurg logo

Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Inside the FCA blogInside the FCA blog features ongoing updates related to the False Claims Act (FCA), including insight on the latest legal decisions, regulatory developments and FCA settlements. The blog provides timely updates for corporate boards, directors, compliance managers, general counsel and other parties interested in the organizational impact and legal developments stemming from issues potentially giving rise to FCA liability.

Read More >

Defense of Dialysis Center Company in Discrimination and Retaliation Claim

Client Type: Nonprofit

We won summary judgment for a dialysis center company in a multiple-count lawsuit filed in New Jersey federal court. The plaintiff, a former clinic nurse, alleged race discrimination and retaliation under state and federal law against the company and her manager based upon her alleged mistreatment while employed and her termination within days of reporting her alleged mistreatment. The Court found that the company properly disciplined the plaintiff for failing to wear personal protective equipment while treating a patient as required by company policy. The Court held the plaintiff did not raise an inference of discrimination regarding her discipline through the nine co-workers proffered as comparators whom she claimed were treated more favorably under similar circumstances. As to the retaliation claim, the Court noted that the temporal proximity of her termination to her complaints was insufficient to establish retaliation because the termination resulted from her failure to show up for work or properly call in on the day of her termination. The Court found that the plaintiff could not raise a jury issue on these various claims, in part, because both the plaintiff's personal phone records and the clinic's phone records belied her assertion she attempted to provide notice of her absence in accordance with company policy.

You Also May Be Interested In:

Related Professionals

Related Services


Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.