Author Archive
Army Corps of Engineers gets “F” for Katrina
November 19th, 2009. By AbiK
The folks who lived through Katrina probably have a few other “F’s” to toss in the direction of the Army Corps of Engineers as well. But the “F” I’m talking about is for “Failure”—failure to prevent devastation…failure to properly maintain the navigation channel that flooded…failure to take action when they knew damn well there was a problem and it was inevitable that a disaster like Katrina would happen.
Judge Stanwood R. Duval Jr’s ruling that the corps’ failure to properly maintain a navigation channel thereby leading to massive floods came with some harsh words:
“It is the court’s opinion that the negligence of the corps, in this instance by failing to maintain the MR-GO properly, was not policy, but insouciance, myopia and shortsightedness.”
Take that, ACOE.
I had the pleasure of meeting one of the lawyers involved in the case at Mass Torts Made Perfect in Las Vegas—John Andry. I have to admit, it had been a while since I really thought about Katrina or its victims—heck, I live on the other side of the country and well, as with most disasters (and most people), if it hasn’t affected you directly, you sadly forget. And you never really understand first-hand what the victims must have endured. So that’s why this lawyer, John Andry, intrigued me. You couldn’t help getting swept up in how he was describing the way things happened with Katrina…how it was a disaster waiting to happen.
Andry drew diagrams for me, explained the devastation, shared the stories of family and friends he personally knows who lost everything. See, Andry’s a local boy—not some out-of-towner who just comes in on a ego trip because he knew the case would generate a lot of press. No, this guy actually teared up as he was telling me and my colleague, Michelle, about the case. With him, this Katrina disaster is personal—and it shows.
Talking with Andry was a good reminder that those who were affected by Katrina are still living with Katrina—and always will be. This ruling, while a landmark one and one that will clear the way for others to seek damages, will never take away their loss. But at least now there is finally some accountability.
Drywall Victim Insurance Protection Act: Prayer in H*ll?
November 18th, 2009. By AbiK
While we’re waiting on the Chinese drywall trials to get going in 2010, there’s no shortage of activity on the subject. Just yesterday, a federal bill was filed called the Drywall Victim Insurance Protection Act (sponsored by Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-La). Now, if you’re sitting in a home sniffing the sulfuric fumes, that might sound like good news, right? A bill that would prohibit insurers from canceling or altering coverage of homes that contain Chinese drywall sounds like a nice safety net for folks wondering if they’re about to be dropped from their homeowners’ policies. Ah, but there’s a rub…
The issue is that the insurance industry isn’t regulated at the federal level; it’s regulated at the state level. So, as quoted at BradentonHerald.com (11/18/09), Michael Barry, a spokesman for the Insurance Information Institute, stated the proposed bill “would have little or no effect” if passed.
Clearly that’s not what homeowners want to hear.
So why submit a federal bill that will, in effect, be meaningless?
Well, take the case of Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. They recently felt the effects of some bad press when they told a Colorado couple with a home in Punta Gorda (with, of course, Chinese drywall) that they weren’t renewing their policy. The news hit the media airwaves bigtime and wouldn’t you know it, Citizens Property reversed the decision to not renew. Translation: the more press, the more results—or so the theory would go.
And clearly that must be the thinking shared by U.S. Senator Bill Nelson, D-Fl, who was quoted via a spokesman, Bryan Gulley, in the BradentonHerald.com article as stating, “While homeowner insurance largely is governed by state laws, it doesn’t hurt to press wherever possible, and Nelson certainly supports Rep. Melancon’s effort.”
Online Pharma Advertising…can’t wait
November 17th, 2009. By AbiK
Actually I can. You know how drug advertisements look in magazines—it can be like 3 pages of text (aka “product disclosure”) that runs on and on and interrupts whatever you’re reading. Heaven help you if you’re reading Reader’s Digest where 3 pages suddenly becomes 5 due to the smaller format. And if you do take a moment to glance at the ad, you’ve got to be thinking that something that takes that much explaining maybe shouldn’t be taken at all. Be that as it may, enter the brave new world of online advertising…
Well, there’s just no room online to be putting all that junk. Those tightly designed banner ads would become full-page ads with all the disclosure notices included and I guarantee that after coming face to face with a few “impressions” of those, you’ll never click on that website again.
And don’t the drug companies know it. But they need to be pushing their wares online—that’s where all the “growth” is these days. So now, get this—the drug industry’s big guys like Eli Lilly and Pfizer are turning to the FDA for guidance on how to push their goods online. Why? The current FDA guidelines for advertising in traditional print media (magazines, newspapers) or t.v. require all that disclosure information is shown prominently. But there aren’t really any guidelines set for new media—so everyone’s playing by the rules of traditional media, and clearly that’s not good.
Not good for who? Big pharma, but also the bigger online media companies. See the online
Musing about Merck, Zetia and Gardasil
November 15th, 2009. By AbiK
So you caught the news recently that Merck’s Gardasil was approved by the FDA for use in boys ages 9 to 26. No one really expects much from this news—ie, doctors aren’t expected to be offering it to their male patients (or their parents as the case may be). But I find it interesting none the less.
First, the background…Gardasil is the vaccine that’s supposed immunize young girls (ages 9 - 26) from the HPV virus—aka, human papillomavirus, the sexually transmitted one that can lead to cervical cancer. There’s a lot of heated debate on Gardasil in girls–we’ve blogged on it as well–and the New York Times recently reported that in order to be effectively immunized with Gardasil, it requires a series of three injections, each costing $130 (translation, around $400; translation, it ain’t cheap).
But now let’s just take a look at that NYT report again. I read on through the whole article…la
Verizon Wireless New $350 ETF Fee
November 12th, 2009. By AbiK
I’d been focusing on November 16th—the day the Arbiter 6 report is due on Zetia and Niaspan—but November 15th will be quite a day for Verizon Wireless customers. It’s the day their new Early Termination Fee (ETF) goes into effect.
The old Verizon Wireless ETF fee: $175
The new Verizon Wireless ETF fee: $350
Now, according to a Verizon spokesperson as reported by PCMagazine online, it’s only on “advanced devices”. What’s that mean? Well, “a combination of advanced capabilities that combined increase the cost of the device.”
Now in English:
“These capabilities can include a premium HTML browser; high-resolution MP camera with optical zoom; dual processor chipsets; WiFi; very high display resolution, and operating systems such as Blackberry, Windows Mobile, Palm, or Android.”
I was ok until we got to the “Blackberry, Windows Mobile….” part. Who doesn’t have any of
Links
Emerging Issues
Personal Injury
Quick Links
Archive by Category
- Airlines (RSS)
- Asbestos Mesothelioma (RSS)
- Class Action (RSS)
- Court of Public Opinion (RSS)
- Defective Products (RSS)
- Drugs/Medical (RSS)
- Emerging Issues (RSS)
- Employment (RSS)
- Financial (RSS)
- Food Illness (RSS)
- Insurance (RSS)
- Lex Levity (RSS)
- Personal Injury (RSS)
- Pleading Ignorance (RSS)
- Settlement (RSS)
- Week Adjourned (RSS)
Tags
