Virginia’s HB1469 and HB1273 expand background screening requirements for TNCs effective July 1, 2026. Learn what rideshare companies need to do now.
FCRA litigation jumped 60.7% year-over-year in April 2026. Learn what’s driving the surge and how CRAs can reduce their exposure with stronger compliance practices.
Learn how oral fluid drug testing works, including detection windows, recent use insights, and the critical role of confirmatory laboratory analysis for accurate, defensible results in legal and workplace settings.
Workplace fatigue is an often-overlooked cause of employee impairment and legal liability. Learn how fatigue at work affects safety, litigation risk, and how tools like fit-for-duty testing and DRUID impairment technology help employers identify impairment before incidents occur.
This article explains why per se legal limits differ from true impairment, exploring scientific, behavioral, and functional evidence, substance variability, fatigue, and why relying on numbers alone can misrepresent performance, safety, and responsibility and justice.
As the FDA transitions from QSR to QMSR, the DePuy ASR hip implant litigation highlights a critical regulatory gap: the absence of a clear, enforceable risk-management standard. The case shows how regulatory compliance can still fail to protect medical device manufacturers from litigation.
The 2018 Farm Act legalized hemp, but delta-8 THC has created new challenges for drug testing, impairment standards, and workplace safety, leaving employers, regulators, and workers navigating confusion between legality, detection, and actual impairment.
FCRA litigation is rising fast. Learn the most common Fair Credit Reporting Act claims impacting employers and background screeners, who gets sued, typical violations, and practical steps HR leaders can take to reduce compliance risk and class action exposure.
Cannabis rescheduling to a Schedule III drug is imminent, and it won’t simplify workplace drug testing. Learn why employer confusion, outdated policies, and testing limitations will drive a surge in cannabis-related employment litigation.
Episode 40 of Behind the Screens featured a deeply personal and insightful interview with the podcast’s usual host, Les Rosen — only this time, he was in the hot seat with guest host Robert Capwell.
Nine Best Practices That Attorneys Must Verify Before Engaging an Expert Witness in Background Screening To Add Credibility to Cases.
At what point does the medical device manufacturers’ responsibility end and the patient’s responsibility begin? And in the case of prescription medical devices, what role does the healthcare practitioner’s responsibility play?
Negligent hiring is a legal theory that holds employers accountable for failing to properly vet employees who later cause harm, with liability depending on factors like foreseeable risk, due diligence, and a direct connection to the harm caused; employers can mitigate risks through thorough background checks, and experts like Robert Capwell provide litigation support in such cases.
In numerous medical device product liability cases, the defense of an “unavoidably unsafe product” has been raised. This defense typically applies to products that may be inherently hazardous but offer substantial benefits. But who decides what qualifies as inherently dangerous?
Whether you’re part of the background screening world or just curious about what goes on behind the scenes, it’s clear that Robert Capwell played a major role in transitioning the industry globally while fostering the highest standards in quality and compliance.
In the highly regulated field of medical device manufacturing, quality is not just a priority—it’s a mandate. Medical devices must meet stringent safety and efficacy standards to protect patient health, and any deviation from established quality standards can result in severe consequences.
Attorneys often use evidence and eyewitnesses when presenting court cases. But an expert witness who provides insider knowledge and credible, convincing testimony can help attorneys win cases. However, the wrong expert witness can potentially break a case.