We hear frequently that the medical profession doesn’t do enough to police its own. Cases like that of Lawrence Poliner might explain why. In 1997, in response to complaints by nurses at Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas, and the allegation by a doctor that Poliner had performed an angioplasty on the wrong artery, the hospital asked Poliner to stop work while they investigated. These limited privileges lasted 29 days, followed by a unanimous decision to suspend, a five-month suspension from echocardiography privileges, and then reinstated Poliner five months later subject to conditions that he consult with other cardiologists.

For this, Poliner sued for defamation and under federal antitrust law, alleging that other cardiologists were trying to dominate the market and prevent his competition. The five-month suspension had federal immunity under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act, 42 U.S.C. § 11101 et seq. (just one of many federal tort reforms that promote safety), but the trial court held that the 29-day limited-privileges created a cause of action that should go to a jury. Poliner lost $10,000 in income over that time “but was awarded more than $90 million in defamation damages, nearly all for mental anguish and injury to career. The jury also awarded $110 million in punitive damages”–despite the fact that Poliner would have to prove damages were caused by the allegedly unprivileged temporary limitation rather than by the five-month suspension. We covered the initial $366 million verdict in 2004, the outraged medical blogosphere reaction, and the remittitur to a still ludicrous $22.5 million in 2006.

Continue Reading »

• To hold a party in the public parks of Bergenfield, N.J., you’ll need homeowner’s or renter’s insurance to throw on the line [Bergen Record]
• More on suits against Victoria’s Secret over allegedly hazardous bras, thongs, and undergarments, including an aspiring class action over contact rashes [Heller/On Point News]
• Supreme Court will review Navy sonar controversy, which we’ve long covered in this space [Adler @ Volokh]
• Hope of legalized online gambling fades, and you can blame Republicans on Capitol Hill for that [Stuttaford, NRO "Corner"]
• Disney said to be behind bad proposal to soak foreign tourists to fund visit-America promotions [Crooked Timber]
• “Squishier than most”: Nocera on A.M.D.’s predatory-pricing antitrust suit against Intel [NYT]
• Process serving company lied about delivering SEC witness subpoena and falsified later document, judge rules, awarding victim $3 million [Boston Globe]
• Revisiting the false-accusation ordeal of Dr. Patrick Griffin, and how it relates to pressure to have needless chaperones at medical procedures [Buckeye Surgeon, Dorothy Rabinowitz Pulitzer piece]
• Overlawyered turns nine years old tomorrow (more). Commenters: how long have you been reading the site? Any of you go back to its first year?

• Sure enough, former Milberg lawyers sue the convicted ex-Milberg lawyers for breach of fiduciary duty. I was wondering when that was going to happen. [WSJ Law Blog; NYLJ/law.com; earlier]
• “Schneider said others in the legal community initially had a hard time understanding why he had filed a grievance against a fellow attorney.” After all, she had only stolen $200,000 from clients. [Las Vegas Review-Journal via ABA]
• Judge: No evidence of wrongdoing by Kenneth Pasternak. Too bad he can’t get his three years back. Meanwhile SEC keeps bringing enforcement cases on same repeatedly rejected theory of liability. [WSJ; Law Blog]
  
• “What the AP and The New York Times’ Hansell don’t seem to realize is how hostile an act it is to send lawyer letters to individuals.” [Jarvis via Patterico]
• “When judges act like politicians, the judicial selection process – elected or appointed – becomes increasingly political. Action and reaction. The politicization of the court led to the politicization of the elections for justices. … When justices arrogate political policymaking to themselves, they should not be surprised when they are held to the same standards as politicians.” [Wisconsin Policy Research Institute via American Courthouse; I said that, too]
• Even Susan Estrich finds the Alex Kozinski web site mini-to-do as evidence of media bias. [Estrich; Patterico link roundup]
• Senator McCaskill shows her ignorance on the Anheuser-Busch merger and corporate officer duties. [Hodak]
• A clever attorney will already have a fill-in-the-blanks product liability complaint drafted against Lego. [Childs]
• Hugo Chavez expropriates wealth to consolidate dictatorship. American lawyer helps. Somehow I don’t think we’ll see an Alien Tort Claims Act suit against his law firm. [AmLaw Daily]

Jonathan Rauch:

Unfortunately, however, it is probably illegal for newspapers to form a subscription consortium [enabling consumers to pay for web content through a one-stop subscription to hundreds of newspaper sites]. Antitrust law was written generations ago, when newspapers were local monopolies or duopolies. Today, of course, they compete with the whole Internet. The problem now is that they have too little market power, not too much.

Even so, antitrust law regards collective pricing as collusion. “There is a well-established tunnel vision in applying antitrust laws,” says Lee Simowitz, a media lawyer with Baker Hostetler in Washington. “Broader values don’t enter the equation.” Allowing newspapers to combine forces, he says, is “really up to Congress.” …

Sooner or later, newspapers will need to get their acts together — literally — and charge collectively for content, and it will be in the public’s interest to let them do so.

(”How to Save Newspapers–and Why”, National Journal, Jun. 14; will rotate off site).

“[Then Congress] went off and passed by 324 to 82 votes the so-called NOPEC bill. The NOPEC bill is, in effect, a suit against OPEC, which, if I recall correctly, stands for the Oil Price-Exploiting Club. “No War For Oil!,” as the bumper stickers say. But a massive suit for oil — now that’s the American way! …

“Congress hauls Big Oil execs in for the dinner-theatre version of a Soviet show trial and then passes irrelevant poseur legislation like the NOPEC bill. Plus ca change you can believe in, plus c’est la meme chose. The NOPEC bill is really the NO PECS bill — a waste of photocopier paper passed by what C. S. Lewis called ‘men without chests’.” (”Fill Her Up with Hot Air”, National Review Online, May 24)(via Lindgren @ Volokh).

Antitrust law trips up pillar-of-counterculture-journalism Village Voice Media, cont’d: “San Francisco Superior Court Judge Marla Miller raised the amount the Weekly [SF Weekly] must pay in damages to the Bay Guardian — from $6.3 million to $15.9 million — for undercutting its rival with below-cost ads.” (Meredith May, “Judge raises damages in case against SF Weekly”, San Francisco Chronicle, May 21; earlier; sample SF Weekly business-bashing piece, channeling plaintiff’s lawyers’ contentions in Parmalat case). “Predatory pricing — selling ads below cost with the goal of putting your competition out of business — is typically something alt weeklies cover, not something they get caught and fined for.” (Josh Feit, TheStranger.com (which competes with VVM’s Seattle Weekly), Mar. 5).

This wretched proposal to pursue sensitive foreign policy goals by way of treble-damage antitrust suits against sovereign nations is met by a hail of dead cats from Below the Beltway, Gateway Pundit, Liberty Reborn, Buffalog, Coalition of the Swilling, Sense of Events, Q and O, Coyote, Politics in the Zeros, Socrates’ Academy, It’s a Funny Thing, Bronze Blog, Discerning Texan, Blog About Nothing, It Looks Obvious, NoBrainer’s, Wheeling Intelligencer, and Collideoscope, among others. Earlier here.

And yet more: Perry de Havilland, Samizdata (”a derangement of legislators”)(via ASI).

• “Dog owners in Switzerland will have to pass a test to prove they can control and care for their animal, or risk losing it, the Swiss government said yesterday.” [Daily Telegraph]
• 72-year-old mom visits daughter’s Southport, Ct. home, falls down stairs searching for bathroom at night, sues daughter for lack of night light, law firm boasts of her $2.475 million win on its website [Casper & deToledo, scroll to "Jeremy C. Virgil"]
• Can’t possibly be right: “Every American enjoys a constitutional right to sue any other American in a West Virginia court” [W.V. Record]
• Video contest for best spoof personal injury attorney ads [Sick of Lawsuits; YouTube]
• Good profile of Kathleen Seidel, courageous blogger nemesis of autism/vaccine litigation [Concord Monitor*, Orac]. Plus: all three White House hopefuls now pander to anti-vaxers, Dems having matched McCain [Orac]
• One dollar for every defamed Chinese person amounts to a mighty big lawsuit demand against CNN anchor Jack Cafferty [NYDN link now dead; Independent (U.K.)]
• Hapless Ben Stein whipped up one side of the street [Salmon on financial regulation] and down the other [Derbyshire on creationism]
• If only Weimar Germany had Canada-style hate-speech laws to prevent the rise of — wait, you mean they did? [Steyn/Maclean's] Plus: unlawful in Alberta to expose a person to contempt based on his “source of income” [Levant quoting sec. 3 (1)(b) of Human Rights Law]
• Hey, these coupon settlements are giving all of us class action lawyers a bad name [Leviant/The Complex Litigator]
• Because patent law is bad enough all by itself? D.C. Circuit tosses out FTC’s antitrust ruling against Rambus [GrokLaw; earlier]
• “The fell attorney prowls for prey” — who wrote that line, and about which city? [four years ago on Overlawyered]

*Okay, one flaw in the profile: If Prof. Irving Gottesman compares Seidel to Erin Brockovich he probably doesn’t know much about Brockovich.

• “Of all the body parts to Xerox!” Another round of stories on efforts to reduce liabilities from office holiday parties [ABA Journal, Above the Law, and relatedly Megan McArdle]
• New edition of Tillinghast/Towers Perrin study on insurance costs of liability system finds they went down last year, which doesn’t happen often [2007 update, PDF]
• Vermont student sues Burger King over indelicate object found in his sandwich; one wonders whether he’s ruled out it being a latex finger cot, sometimes used by bakery workers [AP/FoxNews.com]
• Good discussions of “human rights commission” complaints against columnist Mark Steyn in Canada [Volokh, David Warren and again @ RCP, Dan Gardner; for a contrasting view, see Wise Law Blog]
• Having trousered $60-odd million in fees suing Microsoft in Minnesota and Iowa antitrust cases, Zelle Hofmann now upset after judge says $4 million in fees should suffice for Wisconsin me-too action [Star-Tribune, PheistyBlog]
• Australian rail operator will appeal order to pay $A600,000 to man who illegally jumped tracks, spat at ticket inspectors, hurt himself fleeing when detained [Herald Sun]
• Lawyers’ fees in Kia brake class action (Oct. 29, Oct. 30) defended by judge who assails honesty of chief defense witness [Legal Intelligencer]
• Who deserves credit for founding Facebook? Question is headed for court [02138 mag]
• Yes, jury verdicts do sometimes bankrupt defendants, as did this $8 million class action award against a Kansas City car dealer [KC Star, KC Business Journal]
• Dispute over Burt Neuborne’s Holocaust fees is finally over, he’ll get $3.1 million [NY Sun]
• So long as we’re only fifty votes behind in the race for this “best general legal blog” honor, we’re going to keep nagging you to vote for Overlawyered [if you haven't already]

• Joe Nocera’s recent column on the Vioxx settlement infuriated loyalists of the plaintiff’s bar, and they won’t like his new one on lead paint litigation much better [NY Times]
• Trial of Overlawyered favorite Jack Thompson over ethical charges leveled by Florida bar wraps up, but judge won’t rule right away [GamePolitics earlier, more recent posts]
• Two joggers hit by driver alongside Pacific Coast Highway will share $49 million from city of Dana Point — allegedly the bike lane was too wide — so now here come the concrete barriers [LA Times]
• Do makers of anti-PC documentary “Indoctrinate U.” owe cash to Indiana U. for infringing on its logo? [Maloney, OpinionJournal, Coleman] Update Dec. 11: settled.
• Casselberry, Fla. cop who sued parents after boy’s near-drowning in pool has now lost her job following public outcry over the incident [Orlando Sentinel; earlier]
• Lawyer who says he was defamed by commenters on DontDateHimGirl.com is back in court [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Ambrogi, On Point; earlier here, here, etc.]
• Outspoken blog of BU prof Dr. Michael Siegel ticks off “tobacco control” activists [Beam, Globe]
• Warning label alert: old Sesame Street episodes unsafe for children? [Stier, Wash. Times]
• Furor mounts in and out of Canada over “human rights” complaint against Maclean’s over Mark Steyn book excerpt [Wente, Globe and Mail; Eteraz, UK Guardian; Steyn, NRO; Kimball]
• Judge rejects lawsuit by animal rights group challenging UCSF animal testing [SF Chronicle]
• New at Point of Law: How do all those big cases wind up in Judge Jack Weinstein’s court, anyway?; latest Richard Epstein podcast is on antitrust, Microsoft, AT&T, etc.; abuse of the Family and Medical Leave Act; welcome new contributor Marie Gryphon; Yale Law clinic sues Yale-New Haven Hospital; bar official dismisses concerns about cy pres slush funds; breastfeeding accommodation on the job, via lawsuit?; just what New York needs, a new state law school at Binghamton; and much more.

In the latest issue of the Federalist Society’s Class Action Watch, Mark Behrens and Christopher Appel look at recent rulings from the New Jersey and Missouri Supreme Courts that reject lead paint public nuisance claims. James Beck looks at the American Law Institute’s “Principles” projects. Brian D. Boyle and Julia A. Berman look at fact-based scrutiny in securities and antitrust actions. Jessica D. Miller and Nina Ramos look at fluid recovery. Kenneth J. Reilly and Frank Cruz-Alvarez look at an Eleventh Circuit case that may have set a new standard for federal diversity jurisdiction. Last, but not least, there is a front-page article from me analyzing an omission in the Fair Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) that might provide a substantial windfall for the plaintiffs’ bar.

• Pearson Pants update: dry cleaners offered to drop their fee demand if Pearson would end case, but he declined [Marc Fisher, other Washington Post coverage, Beldar]
• Check your oil, ma’am? On second thought, if it’s going to get us sued, never mind [Reiland/Pittsburgh Tribune-Review]
• “Surprising and uncommon” resolution of med-mal case: Nebraska Methodist Health System admits error, cooperates with family on video memorializing victim and educating other hospitals about aortic dissection [Omaha World-Herald, Chamber reprint]
• Heated email exchange between perennial Overlawyered favorite Jack Thompson and Take Two game company exec [Ambrogi]
• Putting her image on a Hallmark card? Now that’s degrading and exploitative enough to make Paris Hilton want to sue [K.C. Star]
• Uncle sues nephew over season tickets to Chicago Bears at 40-yard line [Crain's Chicago Business]
• Hurt her teeth on McDonald’s cherry pie, hurt her teeth on cheeseburger soon after — and what’s this about forged dental-work receipts? [Seattle Times]
• Wisconsin snuff users may soon be rolling in coupons following settlement of antitrust class action, lawyers to pocket $17 million [AP/Green Bay Press-Gazette]
• New at Point of Law: fiasco of UC Irvine’s withdrawn offer to Chemerinsky; judge says $500/hr is enough for lawyers in Northwest bankruptcy; law firm advertises for heart attack victims to sue over lack of defibrillators in public places; Astroturf detected in Washington-state insurance-suit referendum fight; NY Times takes skeptical look at Mount Sinai’s Selikoff Center; Jerry Brown sure fooled us, says San Diego paper; Ted expands his empire; and much more;
• A topic on which we’ve had a lot to say over the years — to what extent does the Americans with Disabilities Act apply to websites? — may be heating up again [Corporate Counsel]
• Thanks for the incoming links from, among others, Instapundit (on Ted’s reclining-car-seat post, which has drawn a bodacious number of comments), Patterico (on Jarek Molski), Bainbridge (on animal welfare laws), and Adam Smith Institute (on lawyers suing each other: “Such a pity that only one side can lose”.)

Josh Wright expands on my line “we all know darn well that many ‘pro-business’ legal rules favor consumers and employees as a group ex ante,” and is even harsher with Chemerinsky than I was:

[W]hat gets me about this section is the heading: “Supreme Court favors businesses over consumers.” Is that really what these cases are about? I have read political accounts of the Supreme Court opinions in newspapers and periodicals or blogs that read this way (”The Roberts Court wants to stick it to the consumer — I can prove it: the Defendant won in all 4 cases this term”). But I’ve not heard law professors take this route too often, and never an antitrust commentator. In fact, a reasonable reading of the Court’s antitrust output this year suggests that the issues are much more nuanced than this oversimplified soundbite that pits business against consumers.

Is Leegin a pro-business and anti-consumer decision? I’m not sure I even know what that means in this context. … Justice Kennedy’s opinion on behalf of the majority does allow manufacturers to engage in behavior that was previously constrained. Perhaps that is a sufficient condition for a pro-business label? On the other hand, the very reason the Court overturned the per se rule was the result of evidence that minimum resale price maintenance made consumers better off! Now, one might think that the Court got it wrong and that RPM actually harms consumers. … But to argue that the Court got there by favoring business over consumers is not accurate, and obvious from reading the opinion.

Earlier on Leegin: Skip Oliva, Jul. 26.

It’s time to end my week of guest-blogging here. Thanks again to Walter Olson and Ted Frank for indulging my ramblings. Since I’ve used most of my posts to dwell on the evils of antitrust regulation, I’d like to try and go out on a more positive note.

Continue Reading »

It’s difficult to reconcile the American concept of “equal justice under law” with the Federal Trade Commission’s motto, “Protecting America’s Consumers.” The implication is that there is one set of laws for consumers and another set—affording lesser protection—for producers and sellers. This conflict presents itself in all “consumer protection” laws, and it stems from an awkward premise: That in any given economic exchange, the party trading cash holds the legal and moral high ground over the party trading a good or service.

Put another way, try to fashion a consumer protection or antitrust law in a purely barter economy. If A trades two pounds of flour to B in exchange for a bushel of apples, which party is the “consumer” entitled to government protection? It’s easy to apply common law principles regarding fraud to such a transaction, but virtually impossible to employ contemporary consumer protection standards, which require a presumption that one trader is good and the other is bad.

Continue Reading »

Last week the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division issued their annual report on the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (HSR Act), which requires companies to pre-report mergers over a certain value to antitrust regulators so they can preemptively determine if a deal is “likely to have an anticompetitive impact.” (It’s amazing that people with such amazing economic forecasting abilities are employed as mere government lawyers.)

Despite the occasional high-profile merger challenge, like the FTC’s recent lawsuit to stop Whole Foods from acquiring Wild Oats, very few deals face antitrust roadblocks. In the fiscal year 2006, the FTC and DOJ issued second requests for information—the first step towards a formal challenge—in only 2.6% of reported mergers. This is slightly below the ten-year average of 3.01%.

Continue Reading »

Last week a Connecticut jury acquitted Stora Enso North America Corp. of criminal “price fixing” charges. The Justice Department indicted Stoa Enso last December for allegedly selling coated magazine paper at “anticompetitive” prices. It’s rare for any company to go to trial on criminal (or even civil) antitrust charges, and an outright not-guilty verdict is even rarer: In the last ten years, the Antitrust Division’s criminal won-loss record is a robust 454-11.

The Antitrust Division’s success in convicting price fixing defendants can be attributed to the Corporate Leniency Policy, an invention of Division lawyers that allows one company in a purported “cartel” to escape all criminal prosecution in exchange for providing evidence against other firms. It’s a terrific bargain. A company can inflict maximum damage on its competitors—who face large criminal fines and treble damages in subsequent civil lawsuits—while prosecutors are generally ensured of quick plea bargains from their remaining targets.

Continue Reading »

Common journalistic practice says that a court decision is pro-business when it favors a corporate defendant over a plaintiff. Conservatives are also said to be pro-business while liberals are pro-plaintiff or pro-consumer. This is how the press frames most discussions of tort and regulatory litigation.

In the last Supreme Court term, a 5-4 decision in Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. was hailed and condemned (depending on who you ask) as a pro-business decision. The conservative majority, led by Justice Kennedy, overruled a 1911 precedent that condemned “resale price maintenance” (RPM)—contracts where a manufacturer conditions sales to distributors on setting a specific retail price—as an automatic violation of the Sherman Act. Most antitrust challenges are subject to the rule of reason, and after years of complaints from mainstream economists, the Leegin majority acquiesced in ending RPM’s special status under the “per se” rule.

Continue Reading »