Photo of Jennifer Mika

Jennifer Mika

Subscribe to Jennifer Mika's Posts

Jen Mika is a seasoned litigator and regulatory counselor who advises health systems, managed care plans, and other institutional clients on innovative legal solutions. Drawing on more than a decade of experience in government practice, Jen offers clients deep knowledge of compliance with federal and local health care law and a winning track record litigating complex issues. Her distinguished career in government focused on protecting vulnerable populations and included senior roles at the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, District of Columbia Office of the Attorney General, and District of Columbia Department on Disability Services.

Most recently, Jen served as the Pretrial Mental Health Coordinator for the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. In this role, she provided specialized guidance on prosecuting cases in which defendants raise mental health issues, such as competency to stand trial and insanity. Jen successfully first chaired eight contested competency trials involving complex issues related to the diagnosis of major mental illnesses and intellectual and developmental disabilities and the implications of these diagnoses on a defendant’s ability to understand criminal proceedings. In addition to her work in the courtroom, Jen was instrumental in improving coordination between District agencies and mental health providers and encouraged the use of diversion programs such as Mental Health Community Court.

Jen is also considered a leading authority on Elder Law in the District of Columbia. In addition to her years of experience litigating fiduciary and probate matters, she was the District of Columbia’s first prosecutor solely focused on investigating and prosecuting financial exploitation of elders and vulnerable adults. She successfully handled the first jury trial involving the charge of Financial Exploitation of an Elderly Person, and obtained convictions in cases involving bank employees, members of the clergy, and home health aides exploiting the elders and vulnerable adults. Jen regularly discusses financial exploitation issues on behalf of the government with the press and at events organized by the DOJ Elder Justice Initiative, D.C. Bar, and various D.C. agencies and non-profit organizations.

Jen has extensive experience finding legislative solutions for her clients. She has testified before the D.C. Council several times to provide valued insight on various successful legislative initiatives for which she was the principal drafter, including the Disability Services Reform Amendment Act of 2018 (Law 22-93), which ended involuntary civil commitment and established supported decision making for people with disabilities.

Contact:Read more about Jennifer Mika

Two recent federal cases are providing insight into what to expect in state court litigation related to information blocking, defined in the 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act) as a practice that interferes with the access, exchange, or use of electronic health information. 

On March 12, 2025, the Fourth Circuit upheld the Maryland District Court’s preliminary injunction for the plaintiff in Real Time Medical Systems Inc. v. PointClickCare Technologies, 131 F.4th 205 (2025).  In sum, the Fourth Circuit agreed with the District Court that PointClickCare’s “use of indecipherable CAPTCHAs and choice to block certain users is illegal under the information-blocking provision of the federal Cures Act, which supports [Real Time’s] unfair competition claims” under Maryland law.  The Fourth Circuit relied in part on Intus Care, Inc. v. RTZ Assocs., Inc., Case No. 24-cv-01132, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100190 (June 5, 2024), where a District Court judge found that a violation of the Cures Act would constitute an “independently wrongful” act sufficient to support a claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage under California law, even though the Cures Act lacks a private right of action.Continue Reading Recent Federal Cases on Information Blocking Violations Pave Way for State Court Claims and Shed Light on Manner Exception