The other day the Chicago Tribune documented a longstanding campaign (see Friday link) to get government bodies to adopt standards requiring flameproofing of furniture upholstery, carpets and other household materials. Turns out key actors in that campaign were companies that make the chemicals used in flameproofing, which thereby guaranteed themselves a giant market for their products, as well as cigarette companies that worried that they would face regulatory and legal pressure over fires caused by careless smoking and decided to pursue a strategy of turning the issue into someone else’s problem.
Unfortunately, according to the Tribune series, the supposedly flameproof furnishings 1) aren’t necessarily very good at reducing fire risk and 2) are doused with chemicals that one might not want rubbing off on one’s family and pets. That’s aside from the regulations’ obvious cost in making furnishings more expensive and narrowing consumer choice by excluding producers unable or unwilling to use the chemical treatments. Whether or not you accept the series’ interpretation in all respects — the authors tend to taken an alarmist line, for example, on the chemicals’ environmental dangers — it’s useful as reminder #83,951 that government regulation often is driven by motives quite different from those advertised, and in particular by business lobbies whose interest is frequently squarely opposed to laissez-faire.
On Sunday, Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, criticized lately in this space for his views on supposed Big Beer responsibility for Indian reservation alcoholism, addressed the flameproofing story in his column. After reciting the controversy — laying a particular emphasis on chemical alarmism, long a specialty of his — Kristof concludes as follows:
This campaign season, you’ll hear fervent denunciations of “burdensome government regulation.” When you do, think of the other side of the story: your home is filled with toxic flame retardants that serve no higher purpose than enriching three companies. The lesson is that we need not only safer couches but also a political system less distorted by toxic money.
Which affords James Taranto of the WSJ’s “Best of the Web” this response:
The guy is so blinded by ideology that he fails to notice he has just given an example of burdensome government regulation.
Tagged as:
environment,
expert witnesses,
fires,
lobbyists,
New York Times,
safety
…can become a certified forensic consultant, it seems. “As soon as I finished the test, a screen popped up saying that I had passed, earning me an impressive-sounding credential that could help establish my qualifications to be an expert witness in criminal and civil trials. For another $50, ACFEI mailed me a white lab coat after sending my certificate.” Do the lab coats come in cat sizes? [Leah Bartos, ProPublica]
Tagged as:
expert witnesses,
science and scientists
In a much-watched (earlier) lawsuit filed on behalf of a class of up to 6,000 blacks not hired or promoted by the state government of Iowa, a judge rejected a theory that hiring and promotion were tainted by unconscious “implicit” bias. Judge Robert Blink did not find persuasive the expert testimony proffered for the plaintiff’s theories, and said plaintiffs had not identified a particular discriminatory practice responsible for their situation as required by law. He also noted that blacks appeared to fare better in the state employment process than they did in private sector hiring. Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller “noted that much of the case involved blacks who were passed over for jobs after sending in applications in which they did not list their race.” [AP/NPR, Des Moines Register]
P.S. Thanks to commenter wfjag for directing our attention to this December AP dispatch with its truly wince-making example of Lead Plaintiff Fail:
The lead plaintiff in a class-action discrimination lawsuit filed by black workers against the state of Iowa is expected to plead guilty Wednesday to using her position at Iowa Workforce Development to carry out a fraud scheme in which she embezzled $43,000 in benefits meant for jobless Iowans. … Her claims have been front and center during the lengthy litigation….
Tagged as:
discrimination law,
expert witnesses,
Iowa
“Justice Department officials have known for years that flawed forensic work might have led to the convictions of potentially innocent people nationwide, but prosecutors failed to notify defendants or their attorneys even in many cases they knew were troubled.” Among the cases: that of Santae Tribble, who spent 28 years in prison following a murder-robbery conviction based on claimed hair identification now known to be erroneous. [Washington Post, more]
Follow-up from the Post on the Justice Department’s lack of transparency; and see my colleague Tim Lynch’s post at Cato.
Tagged as:
crime and punishment,
expert witnesses,
prosecution
Class action lawyers are suing the government of Iowa on an theory that “subconscious” bias resulted in employment discrimination against black employees and job-seekers. “The plaintiffs — up to 6,000 African-Americans passed over for state jobs and promotions dating back to 2003 — do not say they faced overt racism or discriminatory hiring tests.” Instead, they are relying on the work of an expert witness who is the developer of something called an Implicit Associations Test meant to measure subconscious bias. The controversy invites courts to revisit some issues of statistical and indirect proof that came up, without necessarily being resolved, in the landmark Supreme Court case of Wal-Mart v. Dukes. [AP via Justin Shubow, FedSoc Blog]
Tagged as:
discrimination law,
expert witnesses,
Iowa
Many links that tend to harmonize with arguments made in Schools for Misrule, along with a few others:
- Judges criticize law reviews: “The high bench vs. the ivory tower” [Richard Brust, ABA Journal]
- “The fervor of the sixties penetrated law schools quite passionately” [Ann Althouse quoting an introduction to clinical legal education]
- More on forthcoming Brian Tamanaha book, Failing Law Schools [ABA Journal]
- “The Coming Crash in Legal Education: How We Got Here, and Where We Go Now” [Richard W. Bourne, SSRN via Kenneth Anderson/Volokh] How law, medicine and architectural schools joined the academy [Richard Neumann, Jr./SSRN via Caron]
- How lucrative are the sidelines a lawprof can develop, such as expert witness work? It varies greatly, but one star’s NYC condo is for sale for $15.9M [Julie Zeveloff, Business Insider]
- “Lawsuits against law schools weak: experts” [Reuters]
- “Obama hugging Derrick Bell” video: neither newsy nor likely to damage the President’s image, and why again is Prof. Bell supposed to be a more alarming connection than Prof. Ogletree himself? [Breitbart, Hinderaker, Cooke/NRO, and an HLS reminiscence from David French at NRO]
Tagged as:
Charles Ogletree,
expert witnesses,
law schools,
Schools for Misrule
- Popular proposal to curb Congressional insider trading (“STOCK Act”) could have disturbing unintended consequences [John Berlau, CEI "Open Market"] A contrary view: Bainbridge.
- Here’s Joe’s number, he’ll do a good job of suing us: “Some Maryland hospitals recommend lawyers to patients” [Baltimore Sun, Ron Miller]
- Bribing the states to spend: follies of our fiscal federalism, and other themes from Michael Greve’s new book The Upside-Down Constitution [LLL, more, yet more] “Atlas Croaks, Supreme Court Shrugs” [Greve, Charleston Law Review; related, Ted Frank]
- “… Daubert Relevancy is the Sentry That Guards Against the Tyranny of Experts” [David Oliver on new First Circuit opinion or scroll to Jan. 23]
- Goodbye old political tweets, Eric Turkewitz is off to trial;
- State laws squelch election speech, and political class shrugs (or secretly smiles) [George Will]
- Too bad Carlyle Group got scared off promising experiment to revamp corporate governance to curb role of litigation [Ted Frank, Gordon Smith] AAJ should try harder to use people’s quotes in context [Bainbridge]
Tagged as:
arbitration,
Baltimore,
campaign regulation,
Daubert,
expert witnesses,
federalism,
hospitals,
securities litigation,
Twitter
Checking out a published report, Erik Magraken contacted former New Mexico state senator Duncan Scott and found that it was true, the lawmaker had indeed introduced a legislative amendment in 1995 providing that:
When a psychologist or psychiatrist testifies during a defendant’s competency hearing, the psychologist or psychiatrist shall wear a cone-shaped hat that is not less than two feet tall. The surface of the hat shall be imprinted with stars and lightning bolts. Additionally, a psychologist or psychiatrist shall be required to don a white beard that is not less than 18 inches in length, and shall punctuate crucial elements of his testimony by stabbing the air with a wand. Whenever a psychologist or psychiatrist provides expert testimony regarding a defendant’s competency, the bailiff shall contemporaneously dim the courtroom lights and administer two strikes to a Chinese gong…
The amendment — intended satirically, one should hasten to add –”passed with a unanimous Senate vote” but was removed from its bill before consideration by the state house and never became law. (& Coyote, Above the Law)
Tagged as:
expert witnesses,
New Mexico,
psychiatry
“Macomb County Probate Court officials can’t explain how a man falsely claiming to be a medical doctor was allowed to decide whether people were mentally competent to handle their own estates and whether jail inmates needed mental health care.” [Detroit News]
Tagged as:
expert witnesses,
Michigan,
psychiatry
The recent British decision of Jones v. Kaney points in that direction, and one expert in Canada says, “Bring it on” (via Erik Magraken):
I like Britain’s approach because everyone, including expert witnesses, should be responsible for their actions. … I make an error or I provide care that’s below standard, I should be held responsible and I am. I don’t see why that responsibility should disappear because I’m now acting as an expert on the witness stand in court.
Tagged as:
expert witnesses,
United Kingdom
Horrifying Seattle Times investigation:
For a quarter century [Stuart] Greenberg testified as an expert in forensic psychology, an inscrutable field with immense power. Purporting to offer insight into the human condition, he evaluated more than 2,000 children, teenagers and adults. His word could determine which parent received custody of a child, or whether a jury believed a claim of sexual assault, or what damages might be awarded for emotional distress. …
His peers elected him their national president. But his formidable career was built upon a foundation of hypocrisy and lies.
Tagged as:
child custody,
expert witnesses,
psychiatry,
Washington state
A Frontline/NPR/Pro Publica joint investigation makes a powerful case that prosecutors have drawn on the work of errant labs and expert witnesses to generate unreliable charges, and sometimes convictions, following unexplained deaths of children. Among the targets: numerous parents falsely accused of murdering their own children.
Tagged as:
expert witnesses,
prosecution
Following a battle of the medical experts, a jury tells the UCF Athletics Association to pay $10 million in the death of a student player who “collapsed and died following offseason conditioning drills at the UCF football complex.” [Chicago Tribune]
Tagged as:
expert witnesses,
Florida,
football
- First Amendment wins as SCOTUS strikes down violent-videogame ban [Ilya Shapiro, Hans Bader] Justice Scalia cites “Snow White” and “Hansel and Gretel” [Ann Althouse]
- More Wal-Mart v. Dukes analysis [Schwartz, Althouse, Trask, Fisher, Beck, Sergio Campos/Prawfs] And aftermath for the litigants and others: ABA Journal (Pelosi wants legislative fix), CLP (plaintiffs), Reuters (law firm that’s won hundreds of millions in class actions complains it’s sunk $7 million into the case), Ted Frank (responding to that), Bay Citizen (“Foundations Could Pull Plug on Wal-Mart Suit”).
- “Would the REINS Act Rein In Federal Regulation?” [Jonathan Adler, Regulation magazine (PDF)]
- “Hypotheses Are Verified By Testing, Not By Submitting Them To Lay Juries For A Vote” [David Oliver; Drug and Device Law on denture cream product liability suit]
- Clash between federalism and some med mal reform proposals could have implications for ObamaCare battle [John Baker, Daily Caller; earlier]
- Dan Snyder Gets a Taste of D.C.’s New Anti-SLAPP Law [Citizen Media Law, earlier]
- Court skeptical of testimony of lap dance expert [Legal Blog Watch]
Tagged as:
expert witnesses,
federalism,
First Amendment,
regulation and its reform,
videogames,
Wal-Mart v. Dukes
- In suit over weird, elaborate online hoax, court allows fraudulent-misrepresentation claim despite lack of motive of tangible gain [Chi Trib]
- Service animal rodeo: “A trained rat probably would have had a good case in California” [AP/Statesman-Journal] Broward County, Fla. backs lonely widow’s right to keep “prescription Chihuahua” against rules of condo board [AOL, Sun-Sentinel] Oklahoma: “Depressed Woman Fights to Keep Therapy Kangaroo” [Newser] Earlier on recent change in federal rules;
- Should lawmakers screen bills for constitutionality? Ms. Lithwick has trouble sticking to a position [AEternitatis]
- Human-relations complaint leads to arrest of U.K. man for singing “Kung Fu Fighting” [MSNBC]
- Barney Frank: Yes, let’s talk about med-mal reform [The Hill] Ringing the bell: Roundups of more big med-mal verdicts [White Coat, more]
- “Expert Witnesses Stripped Of Immunity From Negligence Suits In The UK” [Erik Magraken]
- “Sustainability”: an empty idea? Or perhaps actively wrongheaded? [David Friedman via David Henderson]
Tagged as:
Barney Frank,
Dahlia Lithwick,
expert witnesses,
hate speech,
medical malpractice,
music and musicians,
service animals,
United Kingdom
St. Luke’s Hospital in Pennsylvania’s Lehigh Valley is suing a lawyer and law firm “for proceeding with cases that the attorneys [allegedly] knew were ‘baseless and lacking in evidence,’” and is also suing an expert for allegedly filing a “boilerplate” certificate of merit. The cases in question are among many filed claiming that patients were killed by notorious “Angel of Death” nurse Charles Cullen; hospitals say that while some of the suits were filed on behalf of actual Cullen victims, others piled on seeking compensation for bad outcomes that had nothing to do with the murderer. Damages for wrongful litigation are notoriously hard to win in American courts. [White Coat]
Tagged as:
expert witnesses,
hospitals,
loser pays,
Pennsylvania
