Under 18 Energy Drink Ban Gets AMA Support

June 19th, 2013. By AbiK

Law News For You: Energy Drink ER Trips Skyrocket

June 18th, 2013. By AbiK

Week Adjourned: 6.14.13 – Class Action against Obama?

June 14th, 2013. By LucyC

Top Class Action Lawsuits

If You’re Gonna Sue, Sue Big. In the unlikely event any of us were napping last week—and missed this—it’s among the first of what’s likely to be an onslaught of wiretap class actions resulting from, well, surveillance activities undertaken by the federal government. First up to bat, these plaintiffs are certainly not shy about naming defendants: The wiretap class action names President Obama, US Attorney General Eric Holder, the director of the National Security Agency (NSA), the NSA, the CEO of Verizon, the US Department of Justice, and Judge Roger Vinson of the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as defendants. Judge Vinson is named as a defendant because he signed the secret order directing Verizon to turn over all phone records “on an ongoing daily basis.”

According to the wiretap class action lawsuit, this constituted an “outrageous breach of privacy” and a violation of Verizon users’ “reasonable expectation of privacy, free speech and association, right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, and due process rights.” The wiretap lawsuit challenges the legality of the NSA’s “secret and illegal government scheme to intercept and analyze vast quantities of domestic telephone communications.”

The potential class action lawsuit, entitled Klayman, et al. v. Barrack Hussein Obama II, et al., Case No. 13-cv-00851, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeks to represent a class of American citizens in the United States and overseas who are either curren or previous Verizon customers, including, but not limited to customers between April 25, 2013 and July 19, 2013.

The class is seeking a cease-and-desist order to prohibit the collection of Verizon customers’ phone records and more than $3 billion in damages and attorney fees. Plaintiffs are represented by Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch Inc.

Here we go!

Top Settlements

USPS Workers Get Special Delivery? Looks like the US Postal Service was not delivering the goods for all its employees: the agency has agreed to a $17.3 million settlement in the discrimination class action brought by its employees with disabilities.

Some 41,000 past and current postal service employees are involved in the discrimination class action, which details complaints over restricted work hours from 2000 through to 2012. These reduced work hours are allegedly due to employees’ permanent disabilities. The lawsuit alleges the practice violated the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, which bars federal agencies from discriminating against disabled employees.

The USPS class action settlement has received preliminary approval from an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) administrative judge and is expected to receive final approval from the EEOC in July. If finalized, class members may be eligible to receive up to $300 per employee—but it depends on how many people file claims.

Although the settlement still needs final approval from the EEOC, members of the class are supposed to get formal notification of the agreement next week.

Second-Hand Asbestos Settlement. Good news bad news…as the asbestos debacle continues. On June 5, 2013, an Oakland jury completed its award to plaintiffs Rose-Marie and Martin Grigg of a total of $27,342,500 in damages stemming from Mrs. Grigg’s asbestos mesothelioma (Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG12629580).

Mrs. Grigg, now 82, was exposed to asbestos in the course of shaking out and washing her husband’s work clothing. Mrs. Grigg’s then husband was an insulator for a company that used Owens-Illinois, Inc. Kaylo brand insulation products from 1950-1958.

Evidence introduced during trial showed that Owens-Illinois, Inc. knew that asbestos exposure could cause death as early as the 1930s and that test results on Kaylo showed that exposure to the asbestos in the product could cause fatal disease.

According to court documents, Owens-Illinois nonetheless advertised Kaylo as “non-toxic” and did not state that the product contained asbestos. Kaylo was packaged in boxes without warning about the health hazards associated with asbestos exposure.

The jury found that Owens-Illinois, Inc. manufactured a defective product, failed to adequately warn Mrs. Grigg, was negligent, and intentionally failed to disclose information about Kaylo-related health hazards to Mrs. Grigg. The jury also found that Owens-Illinois, Inc. acted with malice, oppression or fraud toward Mrs. Grigg. The jury awarded Mrs. Grigg $12,000,000 in damages for her pain and suffering, Mr. Grigg $4,000,000 in damages for his loss of consortium, and $342,500 in economic damages. The jury also levied an $11,000,000 punitive damages verdict against Owens-Illinois, Inc.

Okee dokee—that’s it for this week—happy Father’s Day and safe weekend to you all—see you at the bar!

(Image: northjersey.com)

Duh. Watch College Kids React to Monster Energy Death News (Parent Alert!)

June 14th, 2013. By AbiK

Add energy drinks to the list of worries for parents sending kids off to college. Of course, energy drinks seem to pale when compared to sex, drugs, alcohol and all that comes with that trio of vices—from OD’ing, to date rape, to DUI’s. But that’s the thing—energy drinks seem…so…harmless, right? After all, they’re sold in convenience stores and vending machines right next to the bags of chips…

If the above news clip is any indication, energy drinks are quite popular on college campuses—and just as readily available as coffee. So why the fuss?

The fuss is due to a pending lawsuit against Monster Energy Drink that alleges that 14-year old Anais Fournier went into cardiac arrest and died after drinking two 24-ounce cans of Monster in less than 24 hours. (Check out our interview with attorney Kevin Goldberg of Goldberg, Finnegan & Mester–he’s one of the attorneys representing the Fournier’s).

And there’s also the lawsuit filed by San Francisco city attorney Dennis Herrera which claims the Monster caffeine levels can lead to elevated blood pressure, seizures and cardiac arrest. That’s all bad enough (if true) but the real fuss ought to be that Monster’s being marketed to kids. Your kids.

RELATED: SRSLY? ABA Rep Tries to Defend High Caffeine Energy Drinks #EpicFail

Let’s back up a moment. There was a time when college exam cram time meant coffee-infused study sessions, splashing your face with cold water and relying on whatever other natural means there were to stay awake and pull an all-nighter. Sure, some kids popped the occasional No-Doz (some still do)—not a good practice, but there’s a bit of a difference: when was the last time you saw No-Doz logos popping up all over black hoodies or on the “sponsor” list of latest batch of rad, gnarly, wicked or badass athletes?

Not remembering?

That would be because No-Doz doesn’t really market itself that way. It knows its place isn’t in the culture of cool. Monster Energy, however, does something different. By selling (allegedly) extreme caffeine in drink form rather than pill form, it’s tried to create a whole lifestyle around ramping things up a notch. Or two. Or three.

Here’s how the ‘guys’ at Monster talk about themselves (straight from their website):

In short, at Monster all our guys walk the walk in action sports, punk rock music, partying, hangin’ with the girls, and living life on the edge. Monster is way more than an energy drink. Led by our athletes, musicians, employees, distributors and fans, Monster is… 

A lifestyle in a can

Right. “Lifestyle in a can”. Live life on that edge, dude.

See, somehow when you put it in drink form, wrap the can in cool graphics, and get extreme sports icons to promote it, downing super-charged soda somehow becomes cool. The sexed up version of caffeine pills. And the marketers at Monster know that. They know how impressionable kids, pre-teens, teens and even twenty-somethings can be. I don’t know about you, but I haven’t seen any banner ads for Monster over at AARP. Why? Because your average grown-up over the age of 40 knows a soft drink loaded with caffeine is bullshit.

Monster markets to a gullible crowd—and one that thinks it’s invincible.

Unfortunately, if the allegations surrounding the Anais Fournier case prove true, and if reports on the increase in energy drink-related emergency room visits* are any indication, the very folks Monster is marketing to are not invincible. They’re vulnerable—first mentally for buying into this marketing crap, and possibly physically for drinking it.

As parents, sometimes it’s the more innocent-looking influences—the wolf in sheep’s clothing—that are more insidious than the stuff we’re reminded to be wary about on a daily basis.

*In 2011, the US Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) reported a tenfold spike in emergency room visits involving energy drinks. Approximately 70% of cases involving teens from ages 12 to 17 going to ER was due to energy drinks itself – without drugs or alcohol. Most hospitalizations are caused by dehydration, heat exhaustion and heart problems. A January 2013 update from DAWN indicates that from 2007 to 2011 the number of energy drink ER visits doubled, with 20,783 reported emergency room visits due to energy drink consumption in 2011.

Asbestos News Roundup: 6.13.13 – Family Asbestos Exposure

June 13th, 2013. 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 Disease A Family Affair

The recent case of an 82-year old woman recently diagnosed with asbestos mesothelioma has highlighted how asbestos dust represented a danger not just to those who worked in heavy industry, but also to their wives and children.

Mrs. Grigg was exposed to asbestos in the course of shaking out and washing her husband’s work clothing. Mrs. Grigg’s then husband was an insulator for a company that used Owens-Illinois, Inc. Kaylo brand insulation products from 1950-1958.

Mrs. Griggs’ case, sadly, is not an isolated incident. There are many cases of family members developing asbestos disease as a result of secondary asbestos exposure, for example, by wives beating their husband’s dusty overalls as they hung on a washing line, or shaking them off in a doorway before putting them in a washing machine. Their husbands worked in industries such as mining, ship-building, construction, plumbing and electrical.

Children and even grandchildren have also been put at risk, running up to a returning parent to give them a hug as they return from work, or sitting on their knee as they wear their dusty work clothes. The risk of loved ones being accidentally exposed is unfortunate and just adds to the tragic legacy of asbestos. But as this latest case shows, it is something that family members need to be made aware of.

Asbestos Lawsuits

Pittsburgh, PA: 72-year old Michael A. Hrycko, and is wife Joyce Hrycko have filed an asbestos civil suit against various companies engaged in the manufacture and distribution of products containing the fiber.

In their lawsuit, the Hrycko’s claim that Michael Hrycko was advised by doctors at Grandview Hospital in February 2012 that he has malignant mesothelioma, a type of cancer usually associated with asbestos exposure.

Hrycko worked as a machinist at various companies between 1960 and 2007. According to the lawsuit, it was during this period that Mr. Hrycko was exposed to asbestos-containing materials and asbestos dust and fibers which led to his eventual mesothelioma diagnosis.

The lawsuit states the asbestos mesothelioma is causing the plaintiff to experience “physical symptoms, impairment and disability.”

The defendants named in the asbestos lawsuit are: CBS Corp., Industrial Holdings Corp., Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Plastics Engineering Co., Saint-Gobain Abrasives Inc., and Union Carbide Corp. (pennsylvaniarecord.com)

Asbestos Settlements

Oakland, CA: On June 5, 2013, an Oakland jury completed its award to plaintiffs Rose-Marie and Martin Grigg of a total of $27,342,500 in damages stemming from Mrs. Grigg’s asbestos-caused mesothelioma (Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG12629580). Mrs. Grigg, now 82, was exposed to asbestos in the course of shaking out and washing her husband’s work clothing. Mrs. Grigg’s then husband was an insulator for a company that used Owens-Illinois, Inc. Kaylo brand insulation products from 1950-1958.

Evidence introduced during trial showed that Owens-Illinois, Inc. knew that asbestos exposure could cause death as early as the 1930s and that test results on Kaylo showed that exposure to the asbestos in the product could cause fatal disease.

According to court documents, Owens-Illinois nonetheless advertised Kaylo as “non-toxic” and did not state that the product contained asbestos. Kaylo was packaged in boxes without warning about the health hazards associated with asbestos exposure.

The jury found that Owens-Illinois, Inc. manufactured a defective product, failed to adequately warn Mrs. Grigg, was negligent, and intentionally failed to disclose information about Kaylo-related health hazards to Mrs. Grigg. The jury also found that Owens-Illinois, Inc. acted with malice, oppression or fraud toward Mrs. Grigg.

The jury awarded Mrs. Grigg $12,000,000 in damages for her pain and suffering, Mr. Grigg $4,000,000 in damages for his loss of consortium, and $342,500 in economic damages. The jury also levied an $11,000,000 punitive damages verdict against Owens-Illinois, Inc. (prweb.com)

Asbestos Law

Falls City, NB: Vision 20-20, a Nebraska company, has been fined $25,000 for illegally disposing of asbestos. in an effort to save money. The company pled guilty to the illegal asbestos dumping, claiming it was an effort to save money.

According to a report by the Associated Press, In October 2010 Vision 20-20 hired an asbestos removal firm to work on a building scheduled for demolition. The asbestos abatement company was paid $24,000 for services to the roof, but additional work remained on floor tiles and flooring underneath the tiles. The company returned to the demolition site several months later to continue the work only to find the building had been demolished.

State officials determined Vision 20-20 illegally removed the asbestos and demolished the building in order to save $14,000.(SFGate.com)