Tort Reform Video Takes it Too Far–or Right on the Money?
January 24th, 2012. By AbiK
Was clicking around on some attorney blogs, and came across this gem—a rendering of what tort reform could look like for medical malpractice. Clearly it’s a bit over the top in a number of ways–but the point is there. And sadly, it takes a dramatization like this in order to crystallize key points buried in tort reform legislation.
If you’re wondering what the HR 5 bill is, it’s aim is to “improve patient access to health care services and provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the health care delivery system.” That’s the aim. And it all sounds good—until you start to read and understand what it all might mean to you or your loved one should you find yourself in need of a personal injury attorney.
Oh, and note to self: phrases on a government bill such as “sharing of information” should always pique one’s interest…
Week Adjourned: 1.21.12
January 23rd, 2012. By LucyC
Top Class Actions
Holy HELOC Batman—It’s been certified! A class action lawsuit brought by a couple in Cupertino in 2009—and which has been through 4 attempts to get certified—finally got the nod from a federal court judge this past week. And this one could affect many people.
The back story—Washington Mutual and JPMorgan Chase (Chase has since acquired WaMu) allegedly reduced credit limits on Jeffrey and Jenifer Schulken’s home equity line of credit (HELOC) without valid reasons.
Specifically, the HELOC class action lawsuit alleges violations of the Truth in Lending Act violations and unfair competition among other claims. The Cupertino couple allege they were informed by Chase, by letter, that their home equity credit lines would be suspended because they did not have enough monthly income to satisfy their debts. The Schulken’s allege that the monthly income of $11,200 that Chase claimed the couple stated on their applications, was inaccurate, that they had never “provided such an inflated income figure to WaMu, and that if the Schulkens’ file indicated such an income, then WaMu had intentionally misrepresented their income.”
After four attempts by Chase to have the complaint dismissed, two classes have now been certified: the “inability to verify” class, and a subclass of borrowers whose credit lines were suspended because Chase could not verify their financial circumstances.
The plaintiffs’ class definition to include “only those members who signed contracts that (1) arise from heritage WaMu customers, and (2) state that the borrower must provide, upon the lender’s request, ‘a current financial statement, new credit application, or both.’”
Top Settlements
Couple of big pharma settlements announced this week…
At the top of the hit parade we have Johnson & Johnson (J&J). They have reportedly agreed to pay $158 million to settle a lawsuit in Texas that alleges the company defrauded the state by misleading doctors about its antipsychotic drug Risperdal.
The deal will put an end to claims that J&J marketed Risperdal off label—for unapproved uses—and downplayed health risks associated with the drug. Texas had originally sought at least $579 million in damages. Well, shoot for the stars—isn’t that how the saying goes?
Bloomberg reported that the settlement follows some rather incriminating testimony given in court last week. Testimony that included an expert eye witness stating that J&J hid data showing Risperdal could cause weight gain that could lead to diabetes. According to Bloomberg “the witness also alleged that J&J had key study [ Study 113] results several years before it added warnings about weight gain to the drug’s label.”
Bloomberg notes in its report that J&J’s unpublished studies—ah—yes—more than one—were cited in a South Carolina case that brought a $327 million judgment against the pharmaceutical manufacturer. “It is apparent to this court that this information was not disclosed because if did not fit the marketing department’s vision for the promotion and marketing of this drug,” Judge Roger Couch wrote in a ruling (as quoted by Bloomberg). Amen to that.
And singing from a similar song sheet—we have Merck. It was announced this week that they have agreed to pay up to $37 million to settle a Canadian Vioxx class action lawsuit. Included in the settlement is $10 million for costs and fees. Plaintiffs’ lawyer said up to 2,000 Canadians may be eligible for compensation.
FYI—Vioxx (Rofecoxib) was on the market from 1999 to 2004, prescribed to patients as a pain-reliever for arthritis, osteoarthritis, menstrual pain, and other acute pain. Vioxx was recalled and pulled off the market when it was linked to deadly side effects heart attack, stroke, kidney damage, and arrythmia. This led to billions of dollars’ worth of litigation, including a $4.85 billion settlement that covers most of the U.S. plaintiffs.
Ok—That’s a wrap for this week. See you at the bar!
Asbestos News Roundup: 1.19.12
January 20th, 2012. By LucyC
A roundup of recent asbestos-related news and information that you should be aware of. An ongoing list of reported asbestos hot spots in the US from the Asbestos News Roundup archive appears on our asbestos map.
Asbestos Settlements
Manitoba, Canada: Several Manitoba property owners received class action settlement monies this week totalling nearly $5 million. The payments are part of a legal settlement between Pinchin Environmental Ltd. and asbestos manufacturer Federal Mogul that was more than eight years long.
According to the Winnipeg Free Press, the plaintiffs owned buildings that contained a type of asbestos fireproofing material called Limpet. Limpet was used extensively in Canadian buildings in the latter half of the last century. The largest award – $700,000 – went to Winnipeg Airports Authority, which is in the process of demolishing an old terminal. The Canadian Wheat Board was another large award recipient, getting $198,000 as compensation. Its Main Street head offices underwent extensive renovation over the past decade, including expensive asbestos abatement, the Winnipeg Free Press writes. The WFP also states “The Canadian involvement in the U.S. settlement is unique in a few ways. Pinchin officials say the legal claims would likely have failed had they been presented in Canadian court. The Canadian participation was not instigated by the property owners, but by Pinchin’s own efforts. About 70 percent of the $32-million eventual settlement will go to Canadian building owners. And of that Canadian component, about 25 percent will be distributed to Manitoba claimants.” (Winnipegfreepress.com)
Asbestos Hot Spots
Former Workers at the Silico and Southwest Vermiculite Co Plants at Risk for Asbestos-related Diseases.
Albuquerque, NM: Federal contractors began removing asbestos-contaminated soil at two sites in Albuquerque this week, where fireproof insulation was manufactured for decades. Dressed in protective suits and using heavy equipment, the men are scraping up the contaminated soil. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must remove some 5,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil from the former Silico Inc. plant located at 5119 Edith NE. Soil removal is also underway at a smaller site located at 1822 First NE. The site was used by the Southwest Vermiculite Co. The popular fireproof insulation was sold under the brand names Zonalite and Texas Vermiculite, and was distributed across New Mexico to insulate attics and walls.
But along with the soil removal come questions about the health of former employees at the plants, as well as the location of some 68,000 tons of asbestos-tainted vermiculite imported to New Mexico from 1967 to 1988 for use in making the insulation.
The vermiculite came from the W.R. Grace mine in Libby, Montana, which shipped tons of asbestos-contaminated vermiculite by rail to plants across the country. The mine closed in 1990. The employees who worked in the plants and loaded and unloaded the vermiculite ore would have been at greatest risk for asbestos exposure, said Mike McAteer, the EPA’s on-site coordinator. “I have no doubt there would have been fiber getting kicked up during this loading operation,” McAteer said. He recommended anyone who believes he or she may have been exposed to asbestos to contact a health provider.
According to the report in the Albuquerque Journal, Bernalillo County environmental health officials plan to identify employees who worked at the plants and notify them about potential health risks, Kitty Richards, an agency program manager, said at a public meeting Tuesday. (Albuquerquejournal.com)
Attorney Mark Scurti lends a Pro Bono Hand to those facing Bankruptcy
January 17th, 2012. By BrendaC
Attorney Mark Scurti has donated countless hours of his time to help people through tight spots with creditors over the last decade. Since 2001, Scurti has handled more than 50 bankruptcy cases pro bono and has eight more on the docket for 2012. “I didn’t realize it had been that many,” says Scurt
i. “You do what you need to do especially in times when people really need help.”
Not only has he personally handled pro bono cases, he’s also helped hundreds of other people avoid costly legal expenses by teaching them how to represent themselves in bankruptcy court.
Scurti, who is a bankruptcy lawyer with the firm of Hodes, Pessin & Katz, was recently chosen as the Maryland Volunteer Lawyers Service (MVLS) volunteer of the year. The award is in recognition of the volunteer attorney who has done the most to further assistance to pro bono clients through the MVLS. Modest to the core Scurti says, “I was very honored and humbled by that award but I am just one of many lawyers who do pro bono work. The Ma
ryland Bar Association and MVLS are both very passionate about seeing that people are represented and making sure that the system works.”
As many as 1,500 people a month in Maryland appear in bankruptcy or debtor court—many cannot afford a lawyer and there aren’t enough pro bono lawyers to go around. Up to 16 per cent of those people opt to represent themselves pro se—that is, advocate for themselves. “Finding volunteer lawyers to take all intake cases can be difficult,” says Scurti.
Scurti set up some “pro se” clinics where lawyers give filers a quick primer on what they need to know about going to bankruptcy court. “I harangued some fellow attorneys of mine to come in and provide 15 to 20 minute consultations,” says Scurti. “They can talk to an attorney after and get some guidance—is this something I should really do by myself—or do I need to get an attorney to do?”
And how do they do? “Well, they do pretty well,” says Scurti.”
“Obviously the forms are overwhelming to them but many times it is just a matter of unlocking some of the mysteries of what these forms are, where they go, and a lot of the folks can do it successfully,” he adds. “But there is a lot of support for them, too.”
Bankruptcy and debt problems are Scurti’s areas of expertise. For lawyers whose practices don’t typically handle those kinds of issues, but who would like to help the thousands of Americans struggling with debt problems, Scurti and the MVLS recently set up a workshop to get attorneys up to speed on bankruptcy court. “We actually got about 55 new attorneys who came in for the workshop on how to prepare a simple chapter 7 bankruptcy application,” he says. “We were able to place about 30 cases with pro bono attorneys and we got rid of a lot of cases that were back-logged in the system.”
Scurti and the MVLS even produced a video several years ago for pro se filers. It can be found on the US Bankruptcy court website.
Attorney Mark Scurti is a member of the Hodes, Pessin & Katz Corporate and Business Services Group. He primarily practices bankruptcy law. He also practices same-sex/LGBT law. He received his law degree from the University Of Baltimore School Of Law and holds a B.A. in Marketing/Business and an M.B.A. from Loyola College in Maryland.
Week Adjourned: 1.13.12
January 13th, 2012. By LucyC
Top Class Actions
Diagnosis: Discrimination? Following in the footsteps of the Novartis and Merck suits, one has to wonder if discrimination is standard practice in this industry…
A $100 million gender discrimination employment class action lawsuit has been filed against Quest Diagnostics Inc., and AmeriPath, Inc., (collectively known as “Quest”) in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The complaint details the systemic discriminatory treatment of female sales representatives company-wide by the self-proclaimed “world leader in diagnostic testing, information and services.”
Indiana resident Erin Beery and Florida resident Heather Traeger, both of them current Quest employees in the AmeriPath division, filed the lawsuit on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly-situated sales reps employed from February 17, 2010 to the present. Beery is an Executive Territory Manager in Quest’s Anatomical Pathology Sales Division in Indianapolis; Traeger is Senior Executive Territory Manager in the Anatomical Pathology Sales Division in Bradenton.
The complaint details a wide range of discriminatory practices in the selection, promotion and advancement of sales reps at Quest Diagnostics and AmeriPath, including discrimination on the basis of pregnancy and caretaking responsibilities in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other federal statutes.
In addition, both of the named plaintiffs in the case have individual claims of disparate pay, differential treatment, gender hostility, the creation of a hostile work environment and retaliation in the workplace affecting them in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other federal statutes.
According to Beery and Traeger, high ranking company officials within Quest’s predominately-male management team foster an environment detrimental to the success and advancement of female employees. They describe “old boys’ club” attitudes that pervade the enterprise, including forcing women to work under less favorable circumstances than their male counterparts and denying them the educational and job advancement opportunities afforded men in similar positions.
The complaint asserts that Quest’s policies do not provide sufficient oversight or safety measures to protect women from intentional and overt discrimination of even facially-neutral policies, so that female employees discriminated against have no recourse within the company. It cites an absence of internal incentives or disciplinary measures to ensure company executives and managers comply with company discrimination policies and equal employment laws.
The lawsuit also asserts that a significant number of the women who work for Quest have been and are affected by the same discriminatory employment policies, practices and procedures to which Beery and Traeger were subjected, justifying the certification of the class.
Scanning Scam? And now for our weekly consumer fraud lawsuit. This one was filed against Symantec Corp alleging the software manufacturer attempts to convince consumers to buy its products by providing misleading information about the functionality of their computers.
Filed by James Gross, of Washington state, the lawsuit claims that Symantec distributes trial versions of its products that scan a consumer’s system, then report that harmful errors, privacy risks and other problems exists on the PC, regardless of the actual operating status of the computer.
The lawsuit also claims that Symantec uses that scanning software to market Norton Utilities, PC Tools Registry Mechanic and PC Tools Performance Toolkit software. Norton Utilities and PC Tools are products that Symantec claims help improve the performance of personal computers and keep online activities private. The lawsuit claims that Norton Utilities and PC Tools are forms of “scareware,” a common type of malicious software that causes pop-up messages to appear on computers telling users that they are infected with a virus.
“The truth, however, is that the scareware does not actually perform any meaningful evaluation of the user’s computer system, or of the supposed ‘errors’ detected by the software,” the complaint claims. What scareware does do, in my experience, is suck up your time and send your stress levels through the roof—like you’ve got nothing better to do!
“The scareware does not, and cannot, actually perform the valuable tasks represented by Symantec through its websites, advertising, and in-software display screens.” No comment.
Lawyers representing the plaintiffs state that the software is falsely informing the consumer that errors are high priority and in addition it is falsely informing the consumer that their overall system health and privacy health is low. Symantec makes Norton 360, Norton Internet Security and Norton AntiVirus software.
Top Settlement
Nationwide Insurance Settlement. Well, it’s a start. This week, a federal court preliminarily approved a settlement with Nationwide Insurance that resolves allegations brought in a federal class action lawsuit, that the insurer improperly reduced or denied insurance benefits to residents in Delaware. Nice.
What’s the beef? The lawsuit claims that Nationwide improperly reduced or denied insurance benefits for medical services after submitting medical bills to a computer-based bill review audit. Specifically, the lawsuit challenges reductions in payment for those services based upon a reasonableness or usual and customary charge bill review administered by Mitchell Medical. Among other things, the lawsuit challenges Nationwide’s right to conduct such bill review under the applicable policies, the disclosure that such bill review would be conducted, and the manner in which the bill review was conducted. Nationwide denies any wrongdoing, and contends that review of medical bill pricing protects against excessive charges and helps to preserve insurance benefits.
Here’s the skinny on qualifying: “You are a member of the “Settlement Class” and a “Settlement Class Member” covered by the settlement if you fall within the following class definition adopted by the Court:
All persons, and their medical providers or other assignees, who (a) submitted first-party medical expense claims to Nationwide pursuant to Nationwide’s Delaware automobile insurance policy No-Fault coverage; (b) had their claim submitted by Nationwide to computer pricing review during the period from September 1, 2004 through December 31, 2007; (c) received or were tendered payment but in an amount less than the submitted medical charges based upon the pricing review of the charges; and (d) received or were tendered an amount less than the stated policy limits.”
You can find out more about the Nationwide insurance settlement here.
Ok – That’s a wrap for this week. See you at the bar!
Popular Categories
Archive by Category
- Accidents (RSS)
- Airlines (RSS)
- Asbestos Mesothelioma (RSS)
- Automotive (RSS)
- Celebrity (RSS)
- Complaints/Comments (RSS)
- Consumer Fraud (RSS)
- Court of Public Opinion (RSS)
- Criminal Law (RSS)
- Defective Products (RSS)
- DePuy ASR Hip Recall (RSS)
- Discrimination (RSS)
- Drugs/Medical (RSS)
- Elder Care Abuse (RSS)
- Employment (RSS)
- Environment (RSS)
- Financial (RSS)
- Food Illness (RSS)
- Human/Civil Rights (RSS)
- Insecurities (RSS)
- Insurance (RSS)
- Intellectual Property (RSS)
- Internet/E-commerce (RSS)
- Lawyers (RSS)
- Lawyers Giving Back (RSS)
- Lex Levity (RSS)
- Personal Injury (RSS)
- Pleading Ignorance (RSS)
- Real Estate (RSS)
- Securities (RSS)
- Settlement (RSS)
- Tort Reform (RSS)
- Totally Tortelicious (RSS)
- Veterans (RSS)
- Week Adjourned (RSS)
- Whistleblower (RSS)
Loading ...
