Class Action Status Approved for 'Light' Cigarettes Lawsuit

From the Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

NEW YORK -- A federal judge today granted class action status to tens of millions of "light cigarette" smokers for a potential $200 billion lawsuit against tobacco companies.

U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein in Brooklyn made the ruling on a 2004 lawsuit that alleges Philip Morris USA Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Lorillard Tobacco Co. and other defendants duped smokers, and responded to consumers' mounting health concerns with a campaign of deception designed to preserve revenue.

The class is anyone who purchased cigarettes that were labeled "light" or "lights" after they were put on the market, beginning in the early 1970s.

Lawyers Not Likely to Have AD/HD

A study commissioned by the Attention Deficit Disorder Association indicates that lawyers are among the professions less likely to suffer from AD/HD, or attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, according to an article published by Consumers Affairs.

Politicians, tradespeople and entertainers are the most likely to suffer from the disorder.

There was no indication, however, about what happens to lawyers who become politicians.

L.A. Homeless Update

Afraid that a settlement in the lawsuit brought by the ACLU would cause the homeless problem to spread outside of skidrow, the Los Angeles City Council voted 10-3 to reject the settlement and continue fighting in court.

Exerpt:

"We will not bend to a legal decision that everyone knows is not appropriate in this city," Councilman Bernard C. Parks said.

Councilwoman Jan Perry, whose district includes much of skid row, led the charge against the deal, along with downtown business and development interests. They argued that rather than helping clean up skid row, the settlement could make conditions worse by drawing more homeless people from the surrounding area.

The council's action not only forestalled a resolution of the dispute with the ACLU, it also was a rare rebuff of the mayor. Since Villaraigosa was elected last year, council members have been more inclined to court his favor than reject his initiatives.

After the vote, Bratton said he remained committed to improving skid row but warned that the collapse of the settlement makes the job more difficult.

"I am disappointed in that if the settlement had been agreed upon, it would have given me tools to immediately move forward. With the lawsuit we have some uncertainty," he said.

The case could take years to be resolved.

This is America?

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports:

A woman held in a halfway house for months beyond her original sentence because she could not pay a $705 fine was released Tuesday after an agreement between the state Department of Corrections and the Southern Center for Human Rights.

Ora Lee Hurley had been caught in a legal Catch-22 that kept her confined to the Gateway Diversion Center in Atlanta for eight months beyond her initial 120-day sentence for a probation violation.

"We're grateful to the Department of Corrections for taking immediate steps to remedy the problem," Southern Center lawyer Sarah Geraghty said after a five-minute hearing before Fulton County Superior Court Judge John Goger where the settlement was announced.

Geraghty had earlier called Hurley's dilemma "another debtor's prison case."

Read on in the article and you find Hurley was no saint; she has a history of drug violations.

But to keep her incarcerated past her origninal sentence because she couldn't pay the fine? They were taking everything she earned to pay for keeping her in jail. Of course, she couldn't pay the fine.

That's not right.

Kudos to the Southern Center for Human Rights for stepping up and doing something about it.

From The Los Angeles Times:

Los Angeles officials and the American Civil Liberties Union have reached a compromise to settle a lawsuit that has prevented police from arresting homeless people who camp on the streets and sidewalks of skid row, Police Chief William J. Bratton said Monday.

However, not everyone is happy with the reported settlement:

"Any settlement that leaves people living on the street in filthy conditions and permits chaos from 9 to 6 every night in one critical area of the city is unacceptable," said Carol Schatz, president and chief executive of the Central City Assn.

We did not see anywhere in the Times article where business interests offered any alternative. Are they willing to help fund shelters for the less fortunate in our society? Probably not; there's no profit in it.

Homelessness, is a problem countrywide, and one that is not going to get any better in the foreseeable future.

It will take all of us working together to find the answers, and they will be different for each community.

Man in jail 11 years for contempt

CNN has a story about a guy who has been in a Pennsylvania county jail for 11 years for contempt of court.

Yes, it's a divorce case and involves $2.5 million. The guy says he doesn't have it; the court says he can get it.

Oh, yeah. The guy's a lawyer.

Suing Insurance Companies Over Coverage

Some people who have individual health insurance policies are suing the insurance company after their coverage is dropped, retroactively.

Exerpt from The Los Angeles Times:

The suits accuse health plans of dumping sick policyholders without evidence that the consumers intentionally omitted information about their medical condition or history. They also accuse insurers of using applications that are vague and confusing by design, trapping consumers into making mistakes that can be used to cancel their coverage later.

The complaints involve individual policies — the type of coverage sold to people who work for themselves or for employers who don't offer health benefits. Unlike many work-based plans, which are open to qualified employees regardless of health, insurers in California and many other states can reject applicants for individual policies based on their conditions or health histories. After an applicant is accepted, a state law prohibits health plans from canceling unless the policyholder lied to obtain coverage.

Aside from appealing to the company that dumped them, subscribers' only recourse is to complain to state regulators or sue. After an insurer yanks coverage, it can be difficult, if not impossible, to get a policy from another carrier.

California May Have Tough Time with Pretexting Case

It seems that a member of the board of directors of Hewlett-Packard Co. leaked some confidential information to the media and the company didn't like it.

So they authorized an investigation which including "pretexting", which in this case is claiming to be someone else in an effort to get that person's calling records from the phone company.

The state Attorney General's office is involved, but some experts say the state will have a hard time proving if any California law was broken.

The case is confusing to many, so read the latest from the Los Angeles Times.

Landowner Negligence Case 'Signifcant'

PHILADELPHIA, Sept. 12, 2006--A negligence finding against a Pennsylvania landowner for the actions of a hunter using his land is a first for the U.S., said Joel S. Rosen, attorney for the plaintiff.

"This is an important victory for brain injury victims," said Rosen. "Firearm mishaps result in a significant number of brain injuries across the United States."

Rosen said the importance of the case may be misunderstood.

"This case holds landowners responsible when they allow negligent hunting on their property," he said. "Our research shows this is the first case of its kind in the U.S."

Landowners have a responsibility when they allow hunting on their property, he said.

"This landowner new nothing about the hunter. He did not know if he was a safe hunter. He did not know what kind of gun he was using. He did not even know if he had a hunting license," said Rosen.

"Now that we have proven the property owner's negligence, we look forward to trying the damage portion of the case," he said.

The verdict came in a negligence case involving Craig T. Wetzel who was hunting on land owned by Daniel Haas in Coplay, PA, northeast of Philadelphia.

A rifle shot fired by Wetzel traveled more than 1/2 mile before striking Casey Kantner in the head as she sat in her car in her driveway. Kantner was 18 at the time and six months pregnant. She was hospitalized for a week and had surgery to repair her fractured skull. Her baby was born safely three months later.

The original jury could only determine negligence. A separate panel will decide the amount of damages in about 60 days.

Rosen is with the law firm Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C., of Philadelphia.

Joel S. Rosen wins case against hunter, landowner

Joel S. Rosen, who spent 22 years in the Philadelphia district attorney's office and who is probably best known for the conviction of fugitive Ira Einhorn, has won a lawsuit against a hunter, and the owner of the property on which he was hunting, for the accidental shooting of a pregnant 18-year-old woman.

Casey Kantner, who is now 20, was sitting in her car in her driveway when she was critically injured by a bullet fired from nearly 6/10ths of a mile away. She suffered a traumatic brain injury and had surgery to repair the damage.

With Rosen's help, Kantner sued the hunter, Craig Wetzel, for negligence, maintaining he should have known his bullets would put people in nearby residential areas in danger. The suit also claims he should not have been using the 7 mm Magnum Ruger Model 77 high-powered rifle.

The suit also named Daniel Haas, the owner of the 140-acre orchard from which the shots were fired, and his company, Overlook Orchards Inc. The company was dismissed from the lawsuit by Senior Judge John P. Lavelle.

A separate jury will determine the amount of damages owed to Kantner, which should be within 60 days.

Under Pennsylvania law, no appeal can be made until the case is finalized.

Pennsylvania AG going too far?

Seems to us that the Pennsylvania Attorney General is going a bit too far in his request for reporters' computers:

High court suspends LNP fine

Exerpt:

A key issue is whether the attorney general violated press freedoms in compelling Lancaster Newspapers, publisher of the Intelligencer Journal, Lancaster New Era and Sunday News, to hand over computer hard drives that might contain information reporters obtained from confidential sources.

"We're confident that the state Supreme Court will give this issue the appropriate scrutiny it deserves," said Kevin Harley, spokesman for Attorney General Tom Corbett.

The justices did not indicate when they would issue a final order or say whether they would schedule oral arguments.

The dispute arises from a probe begun last fall by the attorney general into county Coroner Dr. G. Gary Kirchner's dealings with the press.

The attorney general engaged a statewide investigative grand jury to look into whether Kirchner gave Intelligencer Journal reporters his password to a part of the county’s Web site restricted to law-enforcement and other authorized officials.

The grand jury has required witnesses to appear, but no charges have been filed.

Looks like a major fishing expedition to us.

Judge: $51 Million Too Much in Vioxx Case

From The Washington Post:

U.S. District Judge Eldon E. Fallon in New Orleans ordered a new trial to assess damages owed to retired FBI agent Gerald Barnett but left intact a jury's finding two weeks ago that Merck was liable for his 2002 heart attack. Jurors awarded Barnett $50 million in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages.

Easy come, easy go.

Seriously, did anyone really think that amount would stand? We bet the plaintiff's lawyers didn't go out and spend any of it.

Trial Lawyers Fighting Back

Long the whipping boys of conservatives throughout the land, trial lawyers are fighting back.

The Association of Trial Lawyers of America on Tuesday launched a $500,000 television and radio ad campaign in five congressional districts blaming GOP lawmakers for not seeking lower prices for the Medicare prescription drug program.

The ad campaign targets Republican House members from Pennsylvania, Indiana, New Mexico, Ohio and North Carolina. The ads accuse the lawmakers of blocking provisions that would have required Medicare to negotiate with drug companies for the best prescription cost.

Of course, Republicans are not taking this lying down.

Carl Forti, a spokesman for the National Republican Campaign Committee, scoffed at the trial lawyers association's ad campaign.

"I can't figure out what angle they're going to take that they can sue somebody over," he said.

My, but we love a good fight.

Top Lawmaker Breaks Law

Oops! It seems Sen. Bill Frist, Senate majority leader, lied to the Tennessee Health Department about completing the required continuing medical education requirements.

“As a result of a change in Tennessee’s regulations several years after Dr. Frist came to the Senate, he may be required to complete additional continuing medical education hours,” spokesman Matt Lehigh said in a statement. “A representative of the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners has been contacted, and Dr. Frist will meet every requirement of the Board.”

It may not be that easy for the retiring senator, who has ambitions to become president.

Tennessee law states that doctors who fail to do their continuing medical education “will be subject to disciplinary action.”

Dan Warlick, a Nashville lawyer who represents doctors in trouble with the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners, said a case such as Frist’s would likely be taken seriously.

“They have been routinely revoking licenses for physicians who have misrepresented to the board what they have done,” Warlick said.

“Medicine changes,” Warlick added. “If you’re telling them you’re keeping up, and you’re not, that would be a very significant problem for the board to have to deal with.”

We don't look for much to come of this, though. The Frist name still carries a lot of weight in the Volunteer State.

Pete Coors' Community Service

Pete Coors, described as a Colorado beer magnate and former Republican candidate of the U.S. Senate, pleaded gulity to a charge of driving while impaired last week. Coors was arrested for driving under the influence in July after a test showed his blood alcohol level at 0.088 percent. The legal limit in Colorado is 0.08 percent.

The judge sentenced Coors to 24 hours of community service and required to pay $495 in court fees. He will also have to attend a Mother's Against Drunk Driving panel discussion on victims of DWI. The $200 fine was waived because it was his first offense.

However, the real story was buried at the end of the news account published in the Rocky Mountain News:

[Coors' attorney Stephen] Higgins told the judge that Coors spends a lot of time doing volunteer work for the Boy Scouts of America and other organizations and asked if that could count toward the community service requirement.

OK, let's see if we have this right. A wealthy man has to pay less than $500 in court costs, skates on the $200 fine, and his attorney has the cojones to have his normal volunteer work count as his community service?

What kind of message does this send?

Oh, yeah, there was also this tidbid:

... Coors said he wished police had been "looking for someone a little more dangerous to the community" when he was stopped.

Sorry, Pete, but anyone driving while legally drunk is a danger to the community.

Lawyers' Greed Damages Profession

Let's face it, lawyers as a group do not enjoy the best of reputations; and when we have a situation like the one in Kentucky where three lawyers were suspended by the State Supreme Court over a division of the spoils in a fen-phen diet drug cases involving $200 million dollars, all lawyers suffer to some extent.

Linda Gosnell, chief counsel for the Kentucky Bar Association, called it a "case of absolute, unbridled greed."

We are inclined to agree with her assessment when 440 clients get a share of about $45 million and the attorneys, consultants, and for all we know, relatives of the lawyers, split $155 million.

One of the lawyers (we're purposely not mentioning their names here) claimed the $23 million he pocketed was fair and well within his 30 percent.

He may be right, but perception and public opinion must account for something.

How fair is it when the clients who were harmed by the deadly drug mix receive a little more than $100,000 and an attorney walks away with $23 million?

That doesn't sound fair to us, and cases like this only further damages the public perception of an entire noble profession.

Should Merck Change It's Vioxx Strategy?

Although Merck & Co. is still winning more Vioxx cases than it loses, David Logan, dean of Roger Williams University School of Law in Bristol, Rhode Island, said the pharmaceutical company should rethink it's strategy because their losses are big ones.

"How long can Merck carry the cost of these verdicts?" Logan asked. "None of these cases are coming back small."

Last week, a New Orleans jury awarded $50 million in compensatory damages and an additional $1 million in punitive damages to a retired FBI agent.

After the verdict Merck shares fell 57 cents, or 1.4 percent, at $40.61 on the New York Stock Exchange.

Also last week, a state judge in New Jersey overturned a November verdict favorable to Merck, saying the company withheld information showing heart attacks could come with use of Vioxx for less than 18 months.

Although, Merck has a winning percentage in Vioxx cases, they may well be better off to start settling some of them.

The Asbestos Story

Anyone interested in asbestos and/or Mesothelioma should read The Asbestos Story: America’s Greatest Industrial Tragedy.

Subtitled "A Tale of Deceit, Design & Temerity," this article is an excellent overview of the history of asbestos litigation in the United States. It is written by attorney Christopher Placitella and is well-referenced.

The article is broken up into sections with titles such as "New Jersey Asbestos Lawsuit Filed", "Physician Dedicates Life to Asbestos Diseases", and "Asbestos Victims, Lawyers Blamed for Bankruptcies".

Exerpt:

In 1981, Johns Manville is the first to implement a new strategy for avoiding claims by filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The Johns Manville bankruptcy plan establishes a Trust to pay for claims filed by asbestos-exposed people who develop disease. The Trust is segregated from the rest of the company. The company goes on doing business as usual while being shielded from all future asbestos liabilities.

Unfortunately, as time goes on, it becomes clear that the amount of money needed to pay claims estimated in the bankruptcy process is inadequate, and that the workers will not be as fully compensated as they thought they would be.

As part of the bankruptcy process, the Trustee for the now Johns Manville Trust turns over to the plaintiffs' attorneys all of the documents previously in Manville's possession for their examination. Many of these documents have never been produced and their very existence has been denied, including the records of the lawsuit filed by Mr. LeGrande, more than 20 years earlier.

John Mark Karr: Defense Lawyer's Nightmare

It will probably be pretty hard to find a lawyer willing to take the case of John Mark Karr now that he's admitted involvement in the death of JonBenet Ramsey on international television.

But maybe not; everyone deserves his day in court.

As Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy said, "There have been no charges filed at this time. There is a presumption of innocence."

We're sure there are those out there that will want to give him a fair trial before they execute him, just as there are those who want to execute him before the trial.

Any bets on if he'll cop a plea?

Too much TV, or Too Much Info

It seems that lawyers for convicted wife-killer Justin Barber, as they should in the performance of their duties, are tying to cover all the bases.

First, they want to find out if the jurors watched Court TV and learned of inadmissable evidence concerning body armor. They are also challenging the judge's decision to allow testimony about his five affairs in the course of his three-year-marriage.

The body armor we can understand; the judge said no. If jurors watched the television show and used that knowledge in their deliberations against the instruction of the judge, then Barber should probably have a new trial.

On the other hand, his lawyers are barking up the wrong tree over the extra-marital affairs. In our mind, if someone is accused of killing his wife, and he has a history of straying, then that goes to motive.

As we said, his lawyers are just doing their job, but we're afraid they may be giving him false hope.