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!
Gambling for Justice: Class Action Lawsuit v. Small Claims Court, Place Your Bets
January 13th, 2012. By AbiK
It’s a well-chronicled sentiment: class action lawsuit lawyers get rich on attorneys’ fees and the little guy gets stiffed. Whether true or not—and there are arguments on both sides—it’s easy to see how a settlement check for $1.13 can make a plaintiff feel like ‘thanks, but no thanks’. And that brings us to the case of Heather Peters, who is suing Honda in small claims court over her claim that Honda engaged in false advertising when it stated her 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid had a 50 MPG rating.
Small claims court? Isn’t that only for some kind of ‘my boyfriend split with my smart phone and $800 I had under the mattress” type of reality tv show crap?
Well, no—and that’s the point—or calculated bet—Peters is trying to make. See, according to the Honda Civic Hybrid Class Action lawsuit proposed settlement FAQ, each class member would receive $100 as settlement. Peters, who is a former attorney herself, deems that a bit of a paltry sum and so she took the route that most of us do not and she chose to opt out of the proposed settlement. And, in turn, she took her complaint to small claims court.
What’s intriguing about her choice is that, not only can she seek up to $10,000—the new 2012 limit set for small claims in California where the complaint is being heard—but, if she can persuade enough 2003-2009 Honda Civic Hybrid owners to follow suit (no pun) and head to small claims court, she estimates that Honda would be liable for nearly $2 billion—vs the current liability they face coming out of the class action lawsuit in which each class member would receive $100.
Talk about power to the people—if only the people took to the power—by February 11, 2012—the date by which class members’ opt out requests to the Settlement Administrator need to be postmarked.
At issue in the Honda Civic Hybrid Class Action lawsuit is not just that advertised miles per gallon (MPG) ratings for the car were misrepresented, but also—and here’s where a subclass of class members enters into the picture, to which Peters also belongs—that for model years 2006-2008, Honda Civic Hybrid (HCH) owners were told their cars needed a software update to the Integrated Motor Assist (“IMA”) battery system.
What HCH owners didn’t know—and American Honda Motor Co. apparently did not disclose—was that allegedly, in order to install the update, the result would be a negative impact on fuel economy. Not ideal when the primary reason you purchased the car was for its fuel economy.
You can start to see where $100 per claimant—worth what? a couple of tank fills?—isn’t sounding like much.
So Peters is placing her bets on small claims court. But as stated earlier, it’s a bit of a calculated bet for her–she’s done, and doing her homework. Just see her website. And she says that anyone can do the same.
But would you?
Prepping for small claims court, sans an attorney of course as that’s part of the charm of small claims court—no lawyers allowed—takes time. And, you do have to have the ability to put together a pretty darn good case, particularly if you’re taking on a major corporation. Given that, it comes down to whether you think it’s worth it, or not. And that’s probably why so many of us sit back and await whatever settlement check we receive.
You have to admire Peters though. She’s up for a fight, and she’s got a pretty good one from the looks of it—perhaps even a new profession in behind-the-scenes small claims coaching. And, at least she is not just sitting back and complaining about attorneys’ fees—she’s trying to take a stand, both literally and figuratively.
Peters’ next hearing date is January 25.
Asbestos News Roundup: 1.12.12
January 12th, 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 Lawsuits
Houston, TX: Union Pacific is facing more asbestos lawsuits filed by several trackmen who worked for the company. The trackmen allege that they developed asbestos-related lung diseases as a result of workplace exposure to asbestos-containing products.
Howard Taylor, Will S. Donald, Harrold Gregory, Dale E. Haynes and Rennie L. Hance filed suit. Details of the complaints state that Taylor was employed by Union Pacific from 1968 until 2002, Donald was employed from 1976 to 2002, Gregory was employed from 1978 until 1984, Haynes was employed by Union Pacific from 1980 until 1990 and Hance was employed by the defendant from 1969 until 1998.
The lawsuits claim Union Pacific is negligent under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act for using asbestos-containing materials for decades after becoming aware of hazardous nature of the materials; for failing to inspect equipment for the presence of asbestos-containing material; and for failing to remove asbestos-containing material from its equipment.
The trackmen also claim that Union Pacific is negligent in that it failed to warn them of the presence of asbestos-containing materia; failed to warn of the synergistic effect between smoking and asbestos exposure; failed to properly train employees; failed to provide proper respirators; failed to conduct air monitoring; failed to provide comprehensive asbestos medical examinations; failed to medically monitor the plaintiffs; and finally, that the company violated its own policies regarding the materials.
The plaintiffs are asking for an award of damages for medical expenses, mental anguish, Read the rest of this entry »
Channeling Picasso for Oscillo Flu Relief Fraud?
January 11th, 2012. By AbiK
Picasso must be rolling in his grave at Château de Vauvenargues. That is, if he’s seen the latest round of homeopathic ‘remedy’, Oscillo, flu symptom relief ads. Yes, the same Oscillo that found itself on the receiving end of a class action lawsuit last August for fraudulent marketing—something about its being “nothing more than a sugar pill.”
Well, those Oscillo (or Oscillococcinum) marketers over at Boiron, which has its US headquarters not far out of Philly, must’ve taken a field trip when the Picasso exhibit was at the Philadelphia Museum of Art—and in a flash of creative genius someone said, “that Picasso right there…it’s the embodiment of the being…completely ensnared by flu…just feel the incoherence begging for clarity!” Ah yes, the germ of an ad campaign, right then and there. Just add water.
That’s the ad at left. You can see it has an illustration of a woman, clearly a bit discombobulated a’la Picasso, that’s meant to show how she’s suffering from flu symptoms. Woe is she, indeed.
But then, she takes homeopathic Oscillo and before you know it, everything is clear, a gentle breeze flows through her hair and she smiles as she takes in the great outdoors around her, lake and all.
There’s this little splotch of text, however, under the “after” picture. It reads,
“Time-accelerated dramatization.”
Hmm.
Are they for real? I hope someone (namely the art and copy team on this) had a good laugh. Sure it’s there as a legal disclaimer, but it’s a cartoon folks. I’m thinking we, as readers of the ad, would first have to believe that some parallel cartoon reality actually existed—like in Mary Poppins when they all hop into the sidewalk drawing—in order to expect cartoon-like results in our normal reality. Tracking with me?
But the American public is not that stupid.
Nor is it foolish when it comes to reading package labels. Here’s what the Oscillococcinum one has on its back (forgive the resolution):
Active Ingredient: Anas Barbariae Hepatis et Cordis Extractum 200CK HPUS; Inactive ingredients: sucrose, lactose.
Now, if you whip out your Cassell’s Latin Dictionary, you’ll find that the active ingredient is extract of duck liver and heart. The 200CK means that its gone through a series of 200 dilutions—with each one equating a 1:100 dilution. If you do the math, the level of “active ingredient” would seem to get rather miniscule, leaving almost…nothing. (In fact, the court filing for the Oscillo class action states that, given the dilution, “At this purported ratio, the probability of getting 1 molecule of the active ingredient of Oscillo in a regular dosage is approximately equal to winning the Powerball every week for nearly an entire year.” Someone has a sense of humor!)
For those who missed basic nutrition class, the inactive ingredients, sucrose and lactose are sugars.
Nothing—or almost nothing—and sugar is, well, sugar. Which is the basis for the Oscillo false marketing class action lawsuit.
I suppose Boiron deserves some kudos for creativity—on both fronts, product development and advertising. But that’ll only go so far to “reduce the duration and severity of flu symptoms” including body aches, headache, fever, chills and fatigue. And exactly how far is what the class action will determine 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 ...
