The industrial workplace contains many potential health hazards that not only can cause great harm to workers, but also can destroy the employers’ economic stability. Often these hazards are documented and dealt with, but frequently they are unknown. When health-conscious employers monitor the physical well-being of their employees in an effort to avoid the terrible personal and economic costs these hazards can produce, they may be supplying their employees with the documentation necessary to recover financially for their industrial illnesses.

This Article analyzes this dilemma confronting employers. It describes the many factors employers must consider when deciding whether to institute a monitoring process that takes full advantage of technological developments in medical care. The Article suggests an approach employers may take until some of the disincentives surrounding the implementation of monitoring are removed.

The debate concerning the legal and ethical bases of guardian refusal of medical treatment on behalf of incompetent patients often ignores critical distinctions among types of patients and guardians. For example, patients who have expressed preferences regarding treatment while competent are distinguishable from patients who have always lacked the competency requisite to expressing a treatment preference. “Bonded guardians,” whose relationship with the patient preexisted guardianship, should have a different role in the decision-making process than “nonbonded guardians,” who were strangers to the patient prior to the guardian-ward relationship.

This Article proposes criteria for guardian treatment refusal on behalf of incompetent patients. Under the model for guardian decision making presented here, bonded guardians should be preferred over nonbonded guardians, and bonded guardians should be allowed discretion to make treatment choices, limited only by a standard of reasonableness policed by the courts. The Author presents legal and ethical justifications for the bonded guardian's heightened role. Finally, he considers the proper roles of health professionals, hospital ethics committees, and judges in the decision-making process.

The insanity defense reflects the moral judgment that some criminal defendants do not deserve criminal sanctions because of mental incapacity. This Note examines the alternative formulations, such as guilty but mentally ill and diminished responsibility, that some states have enacted in the face of growing controversy over the insanity defense. It observes that the alternatives, if used in lieu of the insanity defense, distort the criminal law and do not comport with the legal doctrine of responsibility, which eschews punishing mentally ill defendants. The Note concludes that the insanity defense should not be abolished unless the moral consensus changes regarding the criminal responsibility of mentally ill defendants.

The Social Security Administration promulgated the medical-vocational guidelines (the grid) in 1978 in order to improve consistency and efficiency in disability claim adjudications. The grid takes administrative notice of the availability of jobs suited to claimants’ capabilities, eliminating the need to make such a determination on a case-by-case basis.

In Heckler v. Campbell, the Supreme Court held that the grid is valid and that the Secretary of Health and Human Services cannot be required to give specific examples of jobs available in the national economy. In so doing, the Court reversed the Second Circuit, which had required the Secretary to give claimants examples of jobs suited to their individual characteristics to assure them adequate notice of the issues involved in their hearings.

This Case Comment contends that the Supreme Court misperceived the Second Circuit's purpose in requiring the Secretary to provide specific examples of available jobs. Nonetheless, the Comment argues that the Supreme Court decision does not foreclose requiring such examples to assure adequate notice and to aid in resolving adjudicative factual issues. This Comment concludes that such a requirement would improve the efficiency, accuracy and consistency of Social Security disability determinations.