Author Archive
McDonald’s Hot Coffee Lawsuit Includes AWOL Sex Charges (Really)
April 12th, 2012. By AbiK
Rare is it, indeed, that you can write such a headline. But yes, there are two new McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuits—which is somehow fitting as we’re now celebrating the 20th anniversary of THE McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit—the one that gave birth to the whole hot coffee lawsuit genre. This time, while one lawsuit involves a distracted grandmother and her 4-year-old granddaughter, the other does, in fact, include an element of sex.
Let’s talk sex first. So how does one file a hot coffee lawsuit and somehow throw sex—specifically a lack of—into it? (I should use ‘loss of consortium’ here but really, who calls it ‘consortium’?)
Well, it appears that Melissa Pettigrew had ordered coffee at a McDonald’s drive-thru back in August, 2010. And the coffee spilled onto her lap—her thighs and abdomen to be specific—leading to a burn injury. According to a quote from her attorney, Ms. Pettigrew is still receiving treatment for her burns.
If you’ve ever had exceedingly hot coffee that you’ve ordered on-the-go, you know it can be pretty painful if it spills on you. You also know, however, that there are 50-50 odds at best that the person serving you the coffee has actually put the lid on properly. So it’s easy to see how Ms. Pettigrew might have wound up filing a personal injury complaint.
It’s her co-plaintiff that gives this hot coffee lawsuit it’s twist—yes, Ms. Pettigrew is not suing solo. Ms. Pettigrew’s husband is alleging that he’s suffered loss of consortium as a result of his wife’s hot coffee burn injuries. You know Mickey D’s in-house counsel said, “now we’ve seen everything” when this lawsuit landed on their desks.
Sadly, though, you can understand this one. We know—hot coffee lawsuit jokes aside—that the 1992 McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit was not actually frivolous—there was not only injury but what most would consider negligence on McDonald’s part (note, the ’92 lawsuit went to trial and ultimately settled). And, if the allegations in the Pettigrews’ lawsuit are true—i.e., that that McDonald’s employees served coffee that was too hot or without securing the lid, or that McDonald’s did not properly train and educate workers on handing hot coffee to customers—then shame on McDonald’s for not effectively institutionalizing processes and procedures to avoid such hot coffee injuries.
The second McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit has two sides to it—it’s not as seemingly straightforward as the one above.
In this one, Mona Abdelal was with her granddaughters, Lynn Abdelal (4 yrs. old) and her 2-year-old sister, at a McDonald’s in Harwood Heights, IL. The grandmother had finished her coffee and instructed little Lynn to throw the cup out. Lynn, not understanding, went up to the McDonald’s counter and ordered a refill for her grandmother. The little girl was told that fresh coffee was brewing, so the girl came back and was given a cup of coffee—allegedly with an unsecured lid and no protective cardboard holder.
According to the complaint, Lynn “could not hold the cup steady in her small hands. A lot of coffee spilled out of the cup onto (the girl’s) chest, causing (her) to sustain severe second-degree burns”.
There is absolutely no question that it is a travesty when a little child—any child—is harmed; and in this instance, the girl’s doctors have said she will have permanent scarring from the coffee burns.
There is also absolutely no question, that if the allegations are true—that a McDonald’s worker gave a 4-year-old hot coffee (beyond irresponsible) that was improperly contained (negligence)—that McDonald’s should at least in part be liable.
However, think of the time elapsed here—a little girl who is supposed to go to a trash bin and come right back instead goes to the restaurant counter, engages in at least some dialog, has to come back for the coffee, and then gingerly walk back to the table to Grandma. Where on earth was the grandmother’s attention all that time? According to reports, it was on the 2-year-old sister. Understandably, but a lack of attention on the 4-year-old as she’s wandering through McDonald’s seems a bit, well irresponsible.
So while this hot coffee lawsuit is seeking close to $4 million in damages, there are some grey areas and we’ll have to see where it all nets out.
How Generic Drugs Discriminate Against the Poorest Patients
April 10th, 2012. By AbiK
No one wants to come right out and say it, but that’s basically what’s going on with generic drugs. Poor patients are effectively discriminated against simply by having no choice other than to buy the cheapest version of whatever pill they’ve been prescribed. Cheaper meds are fine—until you factor in that the more expensive brand name equivalents come with a bit of an extra ‘insurance policy’—no, not the type of insurance you’re thinking of—it’s insurance in the sense of legal recourse should something go wrong as a result of taking the drug.
Let’s face it, outside of those who claim to buy the cheaper equivalent on ‘principle’, for the most part the folks who are buying generics are those who either simply cannot afford the brand-name drug or those who’ll lose prescription coverage benefits unless they opt for the generic shown on the approved formulary from their insurance company. We’re not talking the 1% here, folks.
Sure, it’s great that cheaper generic versions of big-name blockbuster drugs are available—we’d all be broke otherwise. But generics have a hidden cost, too…
Legally speaking, that cost can be tremendous. How so? Well, what if something goes wrong—horribly wrong—upon taking the drug? What if there’s a serious reaction to the drug, like a ruptured tendon from a fluoroquinolone? Or tardive dyskinesia from a ‘good as Reglan’ generic? Sure, the generic drug should in most instances perform like its pricier twin—but there’s a catch: unlike with brand name drugs, if something goes wrong, there’s not much legally at present that can be done (from a strict product liability standpoint—not talking malpractice here).
The issue with generic drugs has to do with liability—being liable when harmful side effects occur. And simply put, generic manufacturers are not held liable.
Currently, it’s the brand name drug manufacturers who are responsible for ensuring their drug has gone through a rigorous FDA-approval process and they’re also responsible for making any label changes should new warnings be applied to a drug they’ve produced.
Generic manufacturers, however, don’t have quite the same responsibility. The Hatch-Waxman Act—officially, the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984—made it easier for generics to find their way to market. Generic drugs do not have to go through a lengthy FDA approval process if they’re able to prove that the generic drug is equivalent to the brand name version. And, as such, the generic drug simply picks up the labelling information and package insert information from the brand name drug. When any changes are necessary (e.g., adding a black box warning), the generic is required to duplicate what’s happened with the brand name drug.
The most significant benefit of the Hatch-Waxman Act for blockbuster brand name drug manufacturers is that it allows the big pharma companies a period of exclusivity in the marketplace before the generic drug enters the market.
Now, the difference between a drug liability lawsuit for a generic vs a brand name is most glaring when you look at lawsuit outcomes. One of the most publicized examples showing the difference between a brand name drug lawsuit and a lawsuit with the same, but generic, drug involves phenergan.
In both cases the plaintiffs—both women who were administered the anti-nausea drug in a hospital and then subsequently lost an arm due to gangrene—sued the drug manufacturers. In the brand-name case, it was v. Wyeth; in the other, the generic, it was v. Baxter Healthcare. The upshot was that the plaintiff who had the ‘good fortune’ to have been given the brand name version received a multi-million dollar settlement. The generic patient? Her lawsuit against Baxter was dismissed. She had also filed a malpractice lawsuit, the final terms of which were undisclosed.
Both women had life-altering injuries; only one received settlement money from the drug manufacturer.
While the phenergan lawsuits began in a hospital setting where the choice of brand name or generic may not have been the patients’ to make, the outcomes of their lawsuits show the stark difference in terms of liability claims. And, for patients who simply cannot afford to choose a brand-name drug, choosing the generic becomes a more or less de facto decision to give up the right to sue the drug company. And in that sense, generic drugs do discriminate against the poorest patients.
Online Dating: A Sex Offender’s Dream Meet and Greet, Till Now
April 3rd, 2012. By AbiK
- T-shirt available at AllPosters.com
Dating in the real world is hard—you know, you have to try to look half-decent and then there’s the conversation bit—trying to sound both interesting and intelligent with a dose of humor thrown in. Not easy. Particularly if the chemistry just ain’t there. Enter online dating. It’s just easier, right? Stick a profile out there—write it up when you’re at your wittiest, have some friends edit it, find some pics and photoshop them, and you’re good to go. Be the best date prospect you can be because it’s all, well, massaged—the way an ad campaign is.
But here’s the thing. If you can do it—in essence, perpetrate a bit of ‘online fraud’—guess who else can put their best self forward on online dating sites? Sex offenders. And you thought canceled or inactive subscribers was bad!
That’s hopefully about to change. Thanks to attorney Mark Webb and California state attorney general, Kamala Harris, three of the larger online dating sites have agreed to provide online safety tools for daters including: checking subscribers against the national sex offender registries; providing an abuse reporting system for site members; providing proactive education about safe online dating practices; and providing tips on how to safely meet someone offline–as, after all, that’s the goal of an online meetup.
According to a release from the attorney general’s office, “In 2011, 40 million Americans used an online dating service and spent more than $1 billion on online dating website memberships. Of couples married in the last three years, one in six met through an online dating service and one in five people have dated someone they met through an online dating site.”
Given those numbers, it’s no surprise that online dating sites are a natural lure for those seeking a mate. Apparently, that’s what the woman at the root of these changes thought when she became a rape victim while on a date that began as a Match.com meetup.
The victim, known only as Jane Doe from Los Angeles, was on the Match.com-arranged date when she was raped. She found out later that her date was a convicted serial sex offender. Amazingly, in her subsequent Match.com lawsuit (Jane Doe vs. Match.com, Los Angeles Superior Court Case #BC458927) she only sought for Match.com to screen out sex offenders and she waived her right to compensatory damages. She just wanted to spare others from what she’d been through.
Of note as well, her attorney, Mark Webb took on her case pro bono.
In addition to Match.com, the online dating sites who agreed to the above terms include eHarmony.com and Spark Networks (which operates online dating sites including JDate and ChristianMingle).
Tax Alert: Tax Scam Tips to Avoid Getting Screwed
April 3rd, 2012. By AbiK
With two weeks left to file taxes, everyone’s in a bit of a scramble to fill out those 1040′s or 1040EZ’s. And, don’t you know that tax scammers know it. So here are some tips to avoid becoming a victim of a tax scam—after all, owing money to the IRS or going through an IRS audit is bad enough—but being a victim of identity theft due to a tax scam is potentially a lot worse.
Tax Scam Tip #1: The IRS Does Not Use Email or Social Media to Contact You.
If the IRS has a problem with you or your tax return, they’ll use the regular mail. So your mailman will be the bearer of those joyful greetings. The IRS will not send you an email. Therefore, if you receive an email from someone claiming to be the IRS, do not open it, do not open any attachments that may be on it, do not click on any links in it, and do not respond to it—it’s someone who’s phishing for your personal information. And keep in mind, the IRS website ends in “.gov”—not .net, .com, .org, .biz or any other domain extension—if you see those, be highly suspicious.
Likewise, while I’m sure there are some friendly folks working at the IRS, the IRS as a rule is not your friend and will not be sending you a message on Facebook or DM’ing you on Twitter.
If you receive either an email or a message on your social media channels from someone who claims to be the IRS, forward that information (you can send the email directly) to phishing@irs.gov.
Tax Scam Tip #2: The IRS Does Not Request Your Personal Information by Phone (or Email).
Again, the IRS won’t ask you on-the-spot for things like your social security number or a password or a credit card or bank account number. So if you receive a phone call (or email for that matter) from someone claiming to be the IRS and they ask you to provide any of your personal information, just hang up. It is not the IRS calling.
Likewise, if someone calls, claiming to be the IRS, and they threaten you or try to intimidate you in order to get you to provide your social security number, bank account information or credit card numbers, hang up. No matter what you see in the movies or on t.v., the IRS doesn’t make phone calls to threaten anyone into giving them personal identification information.
Tax Scam Tip #3: Tax Prep is Not Free, and You Don’t have to Provide Money to Get a Refund.
Yes, you will have to pay to get your taxes prepared if you do not prepare them yourself. But if anyone tells you that you’re due a tax refund—but you’ll first have to repay the stimulus money you received last year—then you’re being scammed. You will never have to pay any money—other than for your tax preparer’s services–in order to receive a tax refund.
If you receive an email, phone call or other communication offering “free” tax preparation, delete it, hang up or toss it. Tax prep is not free. Additionally, no legitimate tax preparer can guarantee you a refund—you’ll get a refund if your tax return says you will. And a legitimate tax preparer will sign your return—in your presence—and provide you with a signed copy of your tax return.
As with any other business, when in doubt, you can always check out a business at the Better Business Bureau. And if you think you’ve been a victim of a tax scam, file a report with the IRS at the phishing email above, and if you’ve fallen for the scam without realizing it until later and think you’ve been a victim of identity theft, report it to the FTC.
LAS Newsletter: Top Legal News, Free Delivery, Every Week
April 2nd, 2012. By AbiK
Sign up for our free weekly newsletter to keep up on the latest legal news: class action lawsuits, lawsuit settlements, mass tort litigation, securities fraud lawsuits, and more.
The LawyersandSettlements.com newsletter is published weekly, and delivered free to your inbox.
This week’s top legal news: class action lawsuits for CarMax, GoDaddy, Dial Soap, Medicus Golf, Reebok Toning Shoes, Google Privacy, Yo-Plus Yogurt, Harley Davidson, and the Honda Hybrid.
Also, an update on Yasmin and Yaz lawsuits—what’s going on with talk of Bayer Yaz settlements and what does it mean for claimants?
Read all about it—and more—every week. Sign up now!
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 ...
