Author Archive
Week Adjourned: 5.18.12 – Tetley Tea, Skechers, Verizon
May 18th, 2012. By LucyC
Top Class Actions
Actually, this week it’s Top Consumer Fraud Class Actions—because false advertising class action lawsuits seem to be the theme right now…
What’s Brewing at Tetley Tea? Let’s take Tetley Tea as an example—as of this week, the Tetley Tea is facing a federal consumer fraud class action lawsuit over allegations it falsely advertises the health benefits of its tea products, specifically that they are an “excellent” or “natural” source of antioxidants.
The Tetley Tea lawsuit states, “Tetley utilizes improper antioxidant, nutrient content, and health claims that have been expressly condemned by the FDA in numerous enforcement actions and warning letters” to other companies that made similar antioxidant claims, such as Unilever’s Lipton Tea.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all consumers in California who purchased Tetley Tea’s Classic Blend Black Tea, British Blend Black Tea, Pure Green Tea, Iced Tea Blend Tea, and/or Iced Tea Mix Tea within the last four years.
The lawsuit is seeking damages, restitution and other bits and pieces, for alleged claims of unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business acts and practices; misleading and deceptive advertising; untrue advertising; and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act and Beverly-Song Act. That’s some laundry list.
Top Settlements
Couple of big preliminary settlements on—you guessed it—consumer fraud/false advertising class action lawsuits to tell you about this week…
Skechers Sketchy Health Claims. This one, all over the media, implies that Skechers may be guilty of sketchy health claims. At least the FTC thinks so. But not the shoe manufacturer, of course. Nevertheless, Skechers USA has agreed to pay $45M to resolve allegations brought by the US and state governments that it deceived customers about the health benefits of its Shape-ups athletic shoes.
The allegations center on claims that the shoe manufacturer’s athletic toning shoes help people lose weight and strengthen their buttocks and legs. Skechers aren’t the first athletic shoe maker to face penalties for their advertising claims—Reebok also got hit and settled for $25 million, but hey, according to news reports, these shoes are big business. Skechers reportedly made $1.4 billion in 2009.
According to a statement by the US Federal Trade Commission, Skechers, based in Manhattan Beach, California, also made false claims in advertising for its Resistance Runner, Tone-ups and Toners shoes.
According to a report by Bloomberg, the ads for Skechers that were challenged by the FTC include one for Shape-ups that told consumers they could “get in shape without setting foot in a gym,” according to the statement. The FTC alleges the company made unsupported claims that the shoes would provide more weight loss and muscle toning than regular fitness shoes.
You may be a class member if you purchased eligible Skechers toning shoes since August 1, 2008, with limited exclusions. The Court has not yet ruled on whether the settlement should be preliminarily approved. The Court may not grant preliminary approval or may require certain changes to the proposed settlement.
If the Court grants preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, you will have rights which you may wish to exercise, including rights to opt-out of the settlement or object.
Under the terms of the preliminary settlement, Skechers has agreed to provide refunds to consumers who bought the following Eligible Shoes as new since August 1, 2008:
Skechers Shape-ups rocker bottom shoes
Skechers Resistance Runner rocker bottom shoes
Skechers Shape-ups Toners/Trainers
Skechers Tone-ups with podded outsoles
Skechers Tone-ups non-podded sandals
Skechers boots
Skechers clogs
Skechers trainers (Tone-ups, non-podded sole)
The total refund you can receive from the Skechers shape-ups settlement will depend on how many Eligible Shoes you purchased from August 1, 2008, onwards, as well as the total number of valid claim forms submitted by other Class Members.
Possible reimbursements could be:
$40 – $80 for Shape-ups;
$27 – $50 for podded sole shoes;
$20 – $40 for Tone-ups (non-podded sole); and
$42 – $80 for Resistance Runners
To find out more about the Skechers settlement, whether or not you could qualify as a class member, and to download forms, visit http://www.skecherssettlement.com.
Verizon Calling —Verizon Land Lines that is. A preliminary settlement has been reached in a consumer fraud class action pending against Verizon. This time, it’s not health claims that are the issue—but third-party charges.
If you were billed for third-party charges on your Verizon landline telephone bill, you may be entitled to a payment from this class action settlement, if the settlement is approved.
The Settlement will provide for payments to all class members who properly submit Claim Forms by November 15, 2012. The payments will be either $40 in the case of approved Flat Payment Claims or the full amount (i.e., 100%) of unauthorized Third-Party Charges you paid in the case of approved Full Payment Claims. Some class members may have a claim for less than $40. Class counsel contends that some class members may have a claim for hundreds of dollars, or more.
You must submit a claim form in order to qualify for payment. This is the only way to get a payment. You may submit a Flat Payment Claim for $40 or a Full Payment Claim for 100% of all unauthorized charges you paid. To file a claim, you must complete a Claim Form either online or download a Claim Form, print it out and mail it to the Settlement Administrator by November 15, 2012. You can find the claims forms by visiting www.verizonthirdpartybillingsettlement.com.
The Court in charge of this case has given its preliminary approval to the Settlement but still has to decide whether to give final approval to the Settlement. Payments will be made if the Court gives final approval to the Settlement and after appeals, if any, are resolved.
OKee dokee. Enough business as usual—it’s the weekend! See you at the bar—where the health benefits are obvious and require no advertising…
Asbestos News Roundup: 5.17.12 – Electrician Asbestos Risk
May 17th, 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.
Electricians and Asbestos Exposure Risk
Electricians and electrical cable installers may not know it, but they are at risk for being exposed to asbestos through repair, demolition or installation work. This lethal, fibrous material was used in felted asbestos insulation or asbestos tape to insulate wiring. So working on old power lines, old wiring or breaker boxes would put electricians at risk for asbestos exposure. Older arc chutes also contain asbestos. It was used in circuit breakers, for example, before the mid-1980′s, when they were made of asbestos-containing plastic molding compound.
Recently, an asbestos lawsuit filed by six workers in Tennessee has made media headlines, because the workers were exposed to asbestos when dismantling outdated synchronous condensers, among other things.
Asbestos Lawsuits
Oak Ridge, TN: Six clean-up workers in Oak Ridge have filed an asbestos lawsuit against several government contractors alleging they were unknowingly exposed to asbestos and further they were unprotected when dealing with the lethal substance.
The lawsuit, filed May 5 in Roane County, seeks damages from the contractors who were involved in cleanup operations at the Department of Energy’s (DOE) K-25 plant in 2000-2001. Those contractors included BNFL Inc., now doing business as TSB FA Nuclear Services Inc., which headed a multiyear, $300 million DOE project that dismantled and decontaminated three uranium-enrichment facilities at the Oak Ridge site.
The six plaintiffs worked as independent contractors for R&R Electric Corp., a subcontractor that reportedly was involved in the demolition of “synchronous condensers” at the site. According to a report in the Knoxville News Sentinel, the plaintiffs claim they were told that the condensers did not contain asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls and other hazards, and that their requests for respirators and other protective equipment were refused by the contractor teams at the Oak Ridge. The workers said they were exposed at the site while cutting up the equipment with chop saws.
“The chop saws created thick clouds of fine dust and debris, which completely coated Plaintiffs’ bodies and clothing every day, and which they breathed continuously,” the lawsuit alleges.
The workers also allege that during their work at they were exposed to smoke from fires in 2000 when BNFL and another contractor, Coy Superior Inc., attempted to burn insulating material and wrapping off the large copper coils that had been removed from the condensers to salvage the copper.
“The coils were burned in open fires in the BNFL switchyard over a period of a week, creating huge plumes of smoke,” the lawsuit states. “On information and belief, the insulating material and wrapping contained significant quantities of ACM (asbestos-containing material).”
While contractors reportedly denied knowledge that the equipment contained asbestos, the lawsuit states that the Department of Energy had manuals confirming that the condensers did contain asbestos and that BNFL had access to these manuals.
The lawsuit is seeking unspecified compensation for pain and suffering, increased risk of cancer and other diseases. The plaintiffs are Christopher Todd Upton, Leslie Darnell Jones, Jeffery Lynn Keylon, Paul Steven Vance, James David Parten and Timothy Edward Robbins. (Knoxvillenewsentinal.com)
Lancaster County, NE: BNSF Railway is being sued by two former railroad employees who allege their asbestos-related lung disease resulted from asbestos exposure during their work with the railway.
In their lawsuit, William Schleicher of Lincoln and Frank Cox of Eagle Lake allege they were required to work around asbestos-containing materials and accuse the railroad of negligence and failing to provide them a safe place to work, as required by federal law.
Schleicher worked as a blacksmith and Cox as a boilermaker, and their main exposures were at the West O Street yards. Schleicher was in a reclamation plant that salvaged materials, and Cox was in a heating plant, according to their attorney. Schleicher started work in 1943 at age 16, and Cox in 1968, according to their attorney.(Journalstar.com)
Marshall, TX: Billy F. Wall and Sandra S. Wall have filed an asbestos lawsuit alleging that Mr. Wall’s recent diagnosis of cancer is due to his extensive asbestos exposure during his six years employment at the Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant in Harrison County.
Wall was diagnosed with colon cancer in June 2010, and with asbestos-related pleural disease and mild interstitial pulmonary fibrosis in 2011.
In his lawsuit, Wall states that he was exposed to asbestos from 1974 to 1980 while working as a pipefitter, welder and insulator at the ammunition plant. He claims that he was exposed to asbestos on a daily basis.
Wall has named 17 defendants in his lawsuit: A.W. Chesterton Co., Armstrong International Inc., Certainteed Corp., Clark-Reliance Corp., Cleaver-Brooks Co. Inc., Crane Co., Eaton Corp., Eaton Hydraulics Inc., Eaton Hydraulics, Emerson Process Management Power & Water Solutions Inc., Fisher Controls International, Power Controls, Spirax Sarco Inc., The J. Graves Insulation Co. Inc., The WM. Powell Co., Watts Water Technologies Inc., and Young Touchstone.
The defendants are accused of failing to warn, failing to test their products concerning the effects of exposure, failing to instruct or notify users or consumers of their products of proper safety measures and for failing to properly package their products so that proper labeling and instructions were easily visible.
Mr. Wall is asking for an award of damages for medical expenses, mental anguish, impairment, loss of enjoyment of life, physical pain and suffering, and court costs. Mrs. Wall is asking the court for an award of damages for mental anguish, loss of consortium and society and loss of household services. (setexasrecord.com)
Week Adjourned: 5.11.12 – Overtime Pay, Smoking Dishwasher, Ormat
May 11th, 2012. By LucyC
Top Class Actions
Holy Catfish Batman!—what’s that smoking thing in the kitchen? A defective dishwasher, perhaps? We’ll find out, as a defective products class action lawsuit has been filed against Whirlpool, the manufacturer of Kitchenaid, Sears Kenmore, Maytag and Whirlpool dishwashers, alleging that certain models of dishwashers have a design flaw that can cause the control circuit board to fail. Greg Adams, who filed the defective dishwasher lawsuit, alleges this happened to him.
Adams claims that on December 8, 2011, he started his dishwasher only to smell burning plastic and see smoke coming from his dishwasher, sometime shortly afterward. To stop the dishwasher, he tried to pull on the door handle, but said he burned his hand on the front panel, which had become extremely hot. In the end, Adams was forced to shut the power off, to prevent further catastrophe, and protect his family. (You know this puts a whole new spin on the benefits of take out.)
According to NBCnews.com, research suggests more than 600 people across the country have come forward on kitchenaid.com. Their products were manufactured by whirlpool, which produces Kitchenaid, Sears Kenmore, Maytag and Whirlpool dishwashers. So why no recall? Well, a recall is one of the things the lawsuit seeks to achieve. Why is this so hard?
Unpaid, unhappy and unafraid… drug sales reps from Medimmune Biologics filed an employment class action lawsuit this week, against the drug company alleging unpaid overtime wage and hour violations. Sound familiar? Novo Nordisk, and Merck are also facing unpaid overtime suits by their sales reps. An industry-wide practice perhaps? Possibly. That is the $65 million question—and hinges on the definitions of ‘exempt’ and ‘non-exempt’.
According to the Medimmune wage and hour class action lawsuit, Medimmune Biologics violated California overtime laws by failing to pay drug sales representatives for overtime hours worked. Under California law, companies are required to pay all non-exempt employees overtime compensation whenever the employees work more than eight hours in a day or forty hours in a week.
The primary requirement to satisfy the outside salesperson exemption and thus not pay overtime under California law and the Fair Labor Standards Act is that the sales representatives are actually making sales. In the Medimmune Biologics overtime class action lawsuit, the drug sales representatives allege that they were not actually involved in making sales but rather promoting prescription drugs to physicians, doctors and other specialists. At most, the physicians the sales representatives promote the drugs to can agree to prescribe the medicine to patients as needed, but cannot actually buy the prescription medicine from the sales representatives directly.
Notably, all the pharma sales rep unpaid overtime class action lawsuits allege that the pharmaceutical sales representatives should be paid overtime compensation for working more than eight hour days under the California Labor Code and/or forty hour weeks under the Fair Labor Standards Act based on the contention that the drug sales representatives do not qualify for the outside salesperson exemption because they are not actually making sales. Incidentally, sales reps who filed unpaid overtime class actions against Schering Plough won.
Top Settlements
Green Energy Co. about to Hand Over Some Green? We have a potential settlement in the Ormat Technologies securities class action this week.
So here’s the not-so-skinny skinny:
To anyone who purchased or otherwise acquired Ormat Technologies Inc securities between May 7 2008 and February 24, 2010, inclusive, who incurred damages (the “class”):
You are hereby notified that this Class Action is pending and that a Settlement of it for Three Million One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($3,100,000) has been proposed. A hearing will be held on October 1, 2012, to determine: (i) whether the Settlement and Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class; (ii) whether Co-Lead Counsel’s application for an award of attorneys’ fees and the reimbursement of expenses should be approved; (iii) whether the Court should grant Lead Plaintiffs reimbursement of their reasonable costs and expenses (including lost wages) directly related to their representation of the Class; and (iv) whether the Court should approve the release of Released Claims against any and all Released Persons and dismiss the Litigation with prejudice.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND.
To participate in the Settlement, you must submit a Proof of Claim no later than September 24, 2012. As more fully described in the Notice, the deadline for submitting objections to the Settlement and requests for exclusions from the Class is September 10, 2012. Further information may be obtained by visiting gcginc.com/cases/ormat.
Got that?
Good. See you at the bar. And—Happy Mother’s Day!
Asbestos News Roundup: 5.10.12 – Car Mechanic Asbestos Exposure
May 10th, 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.
Car mechanics—the unsung heroes that keep us mobile—are among the groups of people who are at risk and were at risk for asbestos exposure. This is because brake pads and liners were made with asbestos. Auto mechanics who worked with grinding machines to smooth out those brake liners and pads, would have been exposed to asbestos.
According to a study by the Environmental Protection Agency that looked at the risk for asbestos exposure during regrinding of old brake linings, as many as 7 million asbestos fibers per cubic meter can become airborne and saturate the area around the grinding machine, while it’s in use. If the mechanic was grinding new brake pads, the exposure was estimated at 5 million asbestos fibers per cubic meter.
These fibers would be inhaled, not just by the people working the machines but also by anyone nearby. If this type of exposure was routine—it would or could result in asbestos disease such as asbestos mesothelioma, asbestosis and worse.
In a ruling this week in San Francisco, four asbestos lawsuits brought by mechanics and their families in 2007 and 2008 against the manufacturer of a brake shoe grinding machine, have been reinstated. All the mechanics had developed asbestos disease.
Asbestos Lawsuits
San Francisco, CA: Four lawsuits filed by asbestos victims, against a manufacturer of brake shoe grinding machines, have been reinstated by a state appeals court in San Francisco. The lawsuits claim that the machines released the lethal fibers from brake linings. The lawsuits were filed in 2007 and 2008, by a former mechanic who suffers from asbestosis and by families of three people who, after years of exposure to asbestos, died of asbestos-related cancer.
All the plaintiffs allege the asbestos was generated from brake shoe linings by grinding machines made by Hennessy Industries, the defendant in the lawsuits. Hennessy, based in Tennessee, manufactures wheel service equipment.
This latest ruling effectively overturns an earlier decision made by Superior Court Judge Harold Kahn in June 2010, which dismissed the four asbestos lawsuits, based on Kahn’s ruling that asbestos was not used in by Hennessy in its machines, and so was not responsible for the asbestos illness and injuries detailed in the lawsuits.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the First District Court of Appeal, having reviewed the lawsuits, stated the sole purpose of Hennessy’s machines was to grind brake linings, inevitably releasing the asbestos they contained. “When used as designed and intended, Hennessy’s machines caused the release of the toxic agent,” said Presiding Justice Barbara Jones in the 3-0 ruling.” (sfgate.com)
Jefferson County, TX: The daughter of the late Joyce Venable has filed an asbestos lawsuit alleging Chevron USA and Texaco, exposed her father to asbestos. The lawsuit states “As a result of such exposure, Joyce Venable developed an asbestos-related disease, esophageal cancer, from which he died a painful and terrible death on May 23, 2010.”
According to the lawsuit, Venable was employed by Texaco in Jefferson County, where he was exposed to asbestos. The lawsuit claims that Chevron USA and Texaco knew for decades that asbestos products were harmful and still allowed their employees to work with them without warning. (setexasrecord.com)
Charleston, WV: A couple from Florida is suing 30 companies they claim are responsible for a malignant mesothelioma diagnosis of Barbara E. Amick. Mrs. Amick was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, according to the lawsuit, on December 13, 2011.
The asbestos lawsuit alleges the 39 defendants are responsible for the diagnosis because they exposed her to asbestos during her employment in the accounts and sales departments from 1952 until 1977.
Amick claims she was further exposed to asbestos during home renovations in the 1950s and 1960s at her and her husband’s home in Vienna, WV.
According to the lawsuit, the actions of the defendants were negligent. Amick and her husband, Eldon E. Amick, are seeking compensatory and punitive damages with pre- and post-judgment interest. The 39 companies named as defendants in the suit are: Allied Glove Corporation; American Electric Power Company, Inc.; Brand Insulations, Inc.; CBS Corp.; Certainteed Corporation; Copes-Vulcan, Inc.; Crane Co.; Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc.; Ebasco Services Incorporated; Fairmont Supply Company; Famous Furnace & Supply Co.; F.B. Wright Company; FMC Corporation; Flowserve US, Inc.; General Electric Company; General Refractories Company; George V. Hamilton, Inc.; Georgia-Pacific, LLC; Grinnell Corporation; Goulds Pumps, Inc.; IMO Industries, Inc.; Ingersoll Rand Company; International Harvester Company; I.U. North America, Inc.; J.H. France Refractories Company; McJunkin Corporation; Mahoning Valley Supply Co.; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Nitro Industrial Coverings, Inc.; Ohio Valley Electric Corporation; Pittsburgh Gage & Supply Company; Safety First Industries, Inc.; SepCo Corporation; Spirax SarCo Company, Inc.; Tasco Insulations, Inc.; Union Carbide Corporation; Vimasco Corporation; Warren Pumps, Inc.; and Yarway Corporation.
Week Adjourned: 5.4.12 – iTunes, Asbestos, Yaz Birth Control
May 4th, 2012. By LucyC
Top Class Actions
“Whataya Want from Me”—how about a refund! Is Apple taking a bite out of you? Robert Herskowitz thinks they might be. He filed a federal consumer fraud class action lawsuit against Apple this week, alleging iTunes double bills for purchases from its e-Stores and refuses to issue refunds to customers who are affected. Nice.
In his iTunes lawsuit, Herskowitz claims he bought a single song from the iTunes store for $1.29, for which Apple charged him twice. According to the lawsuit, when he brought the error to Apple’s attention, he says, the company responded: “Your request for ‘Whataya Want from Me’ was carefully considered; however, according to the iTunes Store Terms of Sale, all purchases made on the iTunes store are ineligible for refund. This policy matches Apple’s refund policies and provides protection for copyrighted materials.”
Herskowitz says the agreement governing use of Apples’ e-Stores “says no such thing.” He claims the policy has “resulted in substantial numbers of Apple customers throughout the country having been double billed by Apple.” Instead, the lawsuit claims that Apple’s refund policy, in the Terms and Conditions to which every customer must agree to make purchases on Apple’s e-stores, states that Apple does not provide refunds in the event of a price reduction or promotional offering. Accordingly, by its own terms, “Apple’s ‘no refund’ policy is limited to ‘the event of a price reduction or promotional offering.’”
The complaint adds: “Under the agreement, as with any consumer transaction, Apple may bill customers only once for each product or service that is purchased. With troubling regularity, however, Apple has ‘double billed’ customers for purchases made through the Apple Stores. In those cases, when a customer purchases a song, movie or book, Apple bills that customer twice for the same download. Apple, however, has effectuated a policy and practice of refusing to refund the extra charge to customers whom it has overbilled.” Therefore, the lawsuit alleges, Apple violates its own terms of agreement as well as California state and common laws.
Furthermore, Herskowitz claims that Apple follows the same illegal policy at its App store, iBookstore and he Mac App store. Herskowitz is seeking damages of more than $5 million for a national class.
Thank goodness for people who check their bills and read the fine print!
Top Settlements
“Highly Reprehensible” indeed. And it’s about time somebody came out and said it. This week, a California Appeals Court judge ruled that a $4.5 million punitive damages award in an asbestos mesothelioma lawsuit will be allowed to stand—that it is not excessive, and that the conduct of ArvinMeritor, the defendant in the asbestos lawsuit, and successor of brake shoe manufacturer Rockwell, was “highly reprehensible.”
“By the 1960s, ArvinMeritor knew that workers exposed to asbestos dust were at risk of developing asbestos-related diseases,” the judge wrote. “Indeed, in 1973 and again in 1975, it wrote letters to (Pneumo Abex) and other manufacturers complaining about the presence of asbestos dust in the brake linings it was receiving from them. Nonetheless, ArvinMeritor did not place any warnings on its products until the early 1980s, and continued to market asbestos-containing brakes until its inventory of them was exhausted sometime in the early 1990s.”
The justice noted that ArvinMeritor did not include a specific reference to cancer on its products until 1987. Gordon Bankhead, who filed the ArvinMeritor asbestos lawsuit, had worked at automotive maintenance facilities from 1965-1999. He died of mesothelioma in 2009.
A jury found ArvinMeritor 15 percent at fault for Bankhead’s death and suffering, putting it on the hook for $375,000 of a $2.5 million noneconomic damages award. The company was joint and severally liable for all of the $1.47 million in compensatory damages. A separate trial resulted in the $4.5 million punitive damages award.
Bayer AG, the manufacturer of Yaz/Yasmin birth control pills, has announced that it has settled 651 US Yasmin blood clot lawsuits for a total, so far, of $142 million. This makes the average settlement about $218,000 a case.
The lawsuits allege that Yasmin/Yas oral contraceptives cause blood clots in the women taking the pills, and in some cases they have proved fatal. The lawsuits also allege that the blood clots can lead to heart attacks and strokes.
According to Bloomberg News, on April 10, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ordered Bayer and other makers of birth control pills to strengthen blood-clot warnings on their products. Consequently, oral contraceptives that contain a synthetic hormone called drospirenone will have warnings on the labels stating that research shows there may be triple the risk for clots with pills such as Yasmin/Yaz. These warnings are also based on an FDA examination of data on more than 835,000 women who took oral contraceptives containing drospirenone, including Yasmin/Yaz.
And on that note—it’s time to adjourn. Happy Friday everyone…
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 ...
