Contact Jane Kim
State of Florida
State of Illinois
U.S. District Court Northern District of Illinois, including
member of the Trial Bar
U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida
U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
U.S. Tax Court
Certificate in Healthcare Compliance (CHC)
Licensed Real Estate Managing Broker in Illinois
JANE KIM, JD, LLM, CHC
Jane Kim, of counsel to the firm, manages a diverse portfolio of cases helping clients with business, healthcare regulatory and compliance matters, and litigation.
Jane also helps her healthcare clients implement robust and effective compliance programs and develop protective policies and procedures in such regard. Jane has extensive experience interpreting and complying with federal and state laws governing healthcare services, and she advises her global clients on the implications of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).
For the past ten years Jane has also focused her practice on litigation matters in state and federal courts, including civil litigation in Illinois and Florida courts. She also has an especial interest in helping those involved in the arts with their various legal needs.
Jane has litigated cases against public and multinational companies. She has also handled hundreds of commercial cases using mediation and arbitration methods of dispute resolution, and she is formally trained in Collaborative Law Disputes. This training helps her in dispute management matters to build consensus to move forward.
Her recent cases include a jury trial of a commercial dispute in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, involving commercial lease issues of a publicly-traded company manufacturing for medical device industry; an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit regarding complex income taxation issues; and, an international arbitration between medical equipment companies.
2016- Master of Laws (LL.M) in Health Law, Loyola University Chicago School of Law; Concentration in Compliance Studies
2005- J.D., The John Marshall Law School
• Law Review – Executive Board Member, John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law
• Moot Court- 1st place and “Best Counselor Award, Randall T. Peterson Client Counseling Competition, 2004
• Edward D. Rosenberg Memorial Award (merit based), 2002 and 2004
• Judicial Clerkship- Judge E.Burr, Law Division, Cook County
2002- Studied European Union Law at Magdalen College, Oxford University, England
1996- B.I.A. (Bachelor of Interior Architecture), The School of the Art Institute of Chicago
Member of American Health Lawyers Association (AHLA)
Member of Healthcare Compliance Association (HCA)
Past member of Illinois Association of Healthcare Attorneys (IAHA)
Former volunteer as counsel for Chicago Domestic Violence Clinical Advocacy Program
Past member of Judicial Investigation Committee with the Chicago Bar Association
Past member of Pro Bono Attorneys for the Chicago Legal Clinic, Inc.
Former mentor in the lawyer-to-lawyer mentoring program sponsored by the Illinois Supreme Court
Member of Illinois Real Estate Lawyers Association
Past member of American Bar Association
Past member of Illinois State Bar Association
Member of Florida State Bar Association
Indiana Health Law Review
14:1 Ind. Health L. Rev. 129 (2017)
Fraud and abuse in the healthcare system has reached staggering proportions. The healthcare industry as a whole comprises 18% of the total GDP. In 2015, the U.S. government allocated a third of the $3.7 trillion federal budget, or $1,010 billion, to Medicare and Medicaid programs. Fraud and other misconduct across the entire health system accounts for up to $272 billion or more than 25% of overall healthcare budget. The situation has become so dire that there is even a most wanted healthcare fugitives list seeking people’s assistance to apprehend health fraud fugitives.
Despite the government’s aggressive efforts to combat fraud and abuse within the health industry and doing so successfully, it never seems sufficient enough. Flowing from those efforts to combat fraud and abuse, the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) has pricked our consciousness with the Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine (“RCOD”), whereby corporate officers are personally liable for the conduct of their companies. Daniel R. Levinson, Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), in his keynote address called for an “individual accountability,” stating that the “OIG is focused on holding Responsible Corporate Officials accountable for healthcare fraud.”
Development of Public Health in America: “Guaranteed Issue” Mandates Journal of Public Health 2016, Oxford University Press
doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdw055; print ISSN 1741-3842.
Today, the United States is struggling to balance access to healthcare for all its citizens with constraints of the federal budget and precepts of the U.S. Constitution. This political struggle is nothing new. It became acute, however, when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), for short, the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), or more commonly known as Obamacare, mandated “guaranteed issue” laws whereby insurers are required to make health insurance plans of all kinds, whether individual, small or large group health plans, available to all Americans without exclusions based on pre-existing conditions, age, etc., and without premium increases based on such risk factors.
This paper does not explore possible constitutional challenges to guaranteed issue laws. Some of those challenges have been made and decided by the courts. In order to understand the current challenges to such a mandate, however, it is important to understand the background context. Thus, this paper takes a largely historical overview of the growth of the public health system and healthcare regulations in the United States, including their constitutional foundations. This approach reveals how a slow but steady progression of federal healthcare regulations culminated in the promulgation of the ACA mandates, including guaranteed issue health plans, by expanding existing laws under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Although these laws appear to provide for universal healthcare, in fact, universal healthcare in the United States is still illusory.
co-author David Zakson, Journal of Information Technology and Privacy Law
32 J. Marshall J. Info. Tech. & Privacy L. 133 (2016)
The healthcare industry possesses information coveted by cyber criminals. Unfortunately, healthcare providers are also among the most vulnerable and unprepared to deal with cyber attacks. The Introduction sets the background of this paper with cyber security statistics of the healthcare sector. Part A of this paper will discuss how new Russian law impacts global data security. Part B takes a broad look at data security safeguards. Part C focuses on U.S. attempts at safeguarding data through NIST and its Presidential Policy Directive. In Part D, the paper explores in greater detail causes that precipitate security breaches and specific security defenses that may be implemented. Lastly, Part E examines compliance programs that are essential in detecting, preventing or, at least, minimizing security threats and hacks, further obviating individual responsibility of corporate officers for breaches.
Contributed with two chapters in the LAW OF MEDICAL PRACTICE IN ILLINOIS, 3d ed., v.21, ch.4 (Robert Kane, et al., March 2016)
Japanese and American Privacy Laws, Comparative Analysis
Journal of Information Technology and Privacy Law
32 J. Marshall J. Info. Tech. & Privacy L. 1 (Fall 2015)
To understand the laws of a foreign nation, one must first understand that nation’s culture. Its people and their customs will provide insight into the proper interpretation and application of such laws. For those reasons, this commentary commences with cursory background on Japanese people, followed by a brief comparative analysis of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) (enacted in 1996) and its Japanese counterpart, the Act on the Protection of Personal Information (“APPI”) (enacted in 2003). The Japanese have borrowed a lot of American concepts of privacy laws. This paper will explore how these imported privacy concepts may not have translated well into Japanese culture and, in fact, a question is raised as to whether these privacy laws carry any meaning at all in Japan.
The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this or associated pages, documents, comments, answers, e-mails, or other communications should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. The information obtained through this website is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship.