Challenging Supremacy: Virginia’s Response to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Matthew R. Farley *


Health care reform has been a primary goal of presidential candidates for the past half-century. At least since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and the inception of the Medicare system in 1965, the primacy of achieving extensive and efficient health care in American policymaking cannot be seriously disputed. Currently, health care costs seem uncontrollable, and nearly fifty million Americans remain uninsured. Continuing into modern times, a cornerstone of President Bill Clinton‘s first term in office was to provide health care for all Americans. And although Democrats held a majority of seats in both chambers of Congress at the time, Clinton‘s attempt to revamp the health care system failed remarkably.

Continue reading.

*Law Clerk to the Hon. Thomas E. Johnston, United States District Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia. J.D., 2010, University of Richmond School of Law; B.A., 2007, University of Mary Washington.

Community Development Authorities

Andrew A. Painter *


Governed under current Virginia Code section 15.2-5152 et seq. (jointly, “CDA Statutes”), Community Development Authorities (“CDAs”) were first authorized by the General Assembly in 1993 under the provisions of the Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act (“WWAA”) to provide an additional method for localities to finance infrastructure associated with development and redevelopment in an authority district. Given that Virginia‘s localities have increasingly considered CDAs as a way to cope with revenue shortfalls and growing infrastructure demands, and considering that many jurisdictions have yet to enact policies concerning their use, this article endeavors to provide an overview of the current status of CDA law in Virginia, including attendant considerations as to CDA legislative development, establishment, governance, and powers.


Continue reading. 

* Associate, Walsh Colucci Lubeley Emrich & Walsh P.C., Northern Virginia. J.D., 2007, University of Richmond Law School; M.U.E.P., 2004, University of Virginia; B.A., 2002, Mary Washington College. Mr. Painter‘s practice focuses on land use and zoning entitlements as well as variances and zoning appeals, tax assessment challenges, local government law, and community development authorities. The author expresses sincere thanks to Bonnie M. France of McGuireWoods L.L.P. and John H. Foote of Walsh Colucci Lubeley Emrich & Walsh P.C.

Fool Me Once, Shame on Me; Fool Me Again and You’re Gonna Pay for It: An Analysis of Medicare’s New Reporting Requirements for Primary Payers and the Stiff Penalties Associated with Noncompliance

Brent M. Timberlake *

Monica A. Stahly **


“Fool me once, shame on you; fool me . . . and you can‘t get fooled again.”*** —George W. Bush (2006)


July 30, 1965—that was the date on which two decades of debate over the national health insurance system that would come to be known as Medicare was signed into law as part of President Johnson‘s “Great Society” legislation. Since that time Medicare eligibility has expanded and the prospect of its insolvency continues to become more likely. In order to minimize unnecessary expenditures of Medicare funds, Medicare was statutorily deemed to have secondary liability in areas where primary insurers— including self-insurers, liability insurers, group health plans, and workers‘ compensation insurers—have an obligation to pay for Medicare recipients‘ medical care.


Continue reading.

*Associate, Troutman Sanders L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia. J.D., 2004, University of Richmond School of Law; B.A., 2001, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

**J.D. Candidate, 2012, University of Richmond School of Law.

***godsroundtable, Bush “Fool Me Once . . .”, YOUTUBE (June 24, 2006), http://

Much Ado About Nothing Much: Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Virginia v. Truro Church

Henry L. Chambers, Jr. *

Isaac A. McBeth **


Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Virginia v. Truro Church (“Truro”) involves a property dispute. The core issue is who owns or controls property held in trust for an Episcopal congregation after a majority of that congregation votes to disaffiliate from the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (“TEC”) and affiliate with a different church. Deciding a church property dispute is inherently difficult because courts are generally “not a constitutionally permissible forum” to resolve ecclesiastical issues. Indeed, the desire to avoid such issues can lead courts to decline to decide particular cases. However, faced with the property dispute, a significant procedural history, and the need to determine the application of Virginia Code section 57-9(A) to the dispute, the Supreme Court of Virginia decided this case.

Continue reading.

*Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law.

**J.D. Candidate, 2011, University of Richmond School of Law.

Appellate Law

L. Steven Emmert *


Several years ago, the idea of a purely appellate practitioner was almost unheard-of in Virginia, outside government circles. Appellate practice was widely regarded by the practicing bar as a necessary adjunct to trial practice, not as a viable separate field in which to earn a living. Today, the field is experiencing a modest burst of growth. Senior Justice Elizabeth B. Lacy, addressing a symposium sponsored by the Virginia State Bar‘s Appellate Practice Committee in 2009, noted “the rise of an appellate bar” in the Commonwealth and expressed the view that this was a healthy development. By one modern measure, interest in this field of law in Virginia has clearly expanded, as the number of websites devoted to appellate practice—of which there were none as recently as late 2004— continues to grow.

Continue reading.

*Partner, Sykes, Bourdon, Ahern & Levy, Virginia Beach, Virginia. J.D., 1982, University of Virginia School of Law; B.A., 1979, Richmond College. The author is the principal publisher of Virginia Appellate News & Analysis, established in 2005 and available at

Civil Practice and Procedure

John R. Walk *

Andrew P. Sherrod **


This article surveys recent significant developments in Virginia civil practice and procedure. Specifically, the article discusses opinions of the Supreme Court of Virginia from June 2009 through April 2010 addressing civil procedure; significant amendments to the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia made during the same period; and legislation enacted by the Virginia General Assembly during its 2010 session relating to civil practice.


Continue reading.

*Shareholder, Hirschler Fleischer, P.C., Richmond, Virginia. J.D., 1980, University of Richmond School of Law; B.A., 1977, College of William & Mary. Mr. Walk is an Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Richmond School of Law

*** Principal, Hirschler Fleischer, P.C., Richmond, Virginia. J.D., 2000, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law; B.A., 1996, Hampden-Sydney College.