Weblogger Jolisa Gracewood (“Busytown“) has further thoughts on the liability-related disappearance of independent birthing centers across most of Gotham (see our Aug. 22 post), culminating in a large number of links including one to this site (Aug. 30)(& letter to the editor Sept. 18).
Archive for 2003
Shifting the blame on Oxycontin
The Louisville Courier-Journal editorially blasts the trial-lawyer-promoted campaign against the pain-relief drug (“Shifting the blame”, Sept. 2) (via MedRants)(see Apr. 10, 2002 and links from there)
Oz: A$100K for prisoner who fell out of bed
“A prisoner who injured himself in a fall from his bunk bed has won more than $100,000 compensation from taxpayers. Craig Ballard, jailed for a vicious assault on a woman, successfully sued the State of NSW after he fell out of the bunk in his cell at Grafton Correctional Centre.” (Tony Wall, “Ex-prisoner awarded six-figure sum”, Daily Telegraph (Aust.), Sept. 1; Melbourne Age, Sept. 1; “Payout to prisoner who fell from bed ‘ludicrous'”, Sydney Morning Herald, Sept. 1). “The Opposition leader, John Brogden, said it was ludicrous the payout to Mr Ballard was double the amount available to a victim of crime.” A new liability statute will make it harder for prisoners to file similar actions, but Ballard’s claim was resolved under the earlier law (“Prisoner who fell from bunk could have got more: minister”, Sydney Morning Herald, Sept. 2; “Prisoner who fell from bunk could have got more: minister”, The Australian, Sept. 2; Tony Wall, “Word is out: sue the prison”, Daily Telegraph, Sept. 2).
Boom in ads to sue
Lawyer advertising on TV seems to be losing its stigma: “According to data provided by the Television Bureau of Advertising, a television industry trade group, lawyers spent $311.3 million on television commercials in 2002, a 75 percent increase from the $177.2 million spent in 1999.” The boom is led by mass tort advertising, notably ads urging persons who have consumed recently recalled drugs to consider filing suit. The result, charges Chicago lawyer Philip Beck, who represents the drug firm Bayer, is to allow “lawyers to be able to sign up huge volumes of claims even though they know the vast majority of them don’t have any merit”. (Alexei Oreskovic, “Regularly Scheduled Programming”, The Recorder, Sept. 3).
Welcome Kimberly Swygert readers
Her “Number Two Pencil” blog, one of the first places we turn for commentary on education, offers some kind comments about this website (Aug. 29). She also brings news of another cheerleader lawsuit (Sept. 2), this time involving one from Westmoreland County, Pa. who “is suing her school over her ‘demotion’ from the varsity squad”.
Employment law roundup
Newsweek purports to discern a renewed boom in workplace suits, though the strength of its evidence for that proposition is open to question (Jennifer Barrett, “‘I Have Never Seen Such a Fever Pitch'” Jul. 21). In one remarkable bit of stimulation to the employment litigation sector, a California court of appeals has ruled that a litigant can turn an age discrimination claim into a lawsuit under the state’s famously broad unfair-competition statute, s. 17200, on the grounds that an employer who commits age discrimination gains an unfair competitive advantage over employers that don’t (Alexei Oreskovic, “Nestle Ruling Paves Way for New Work Discrimination Cases”, The Recorder, Jun. 16). The EEOC has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Mormon employee who says he was fired for refusing to drink alcohol, prompting blogger Michael Fox to observe that “one of the fascinating things about employment law is how almost any issue that could arise in the workplace, seems to ultimately lead to a possible claim of some sort”. (“Fired for not drinking, suit alleges”, Jewish World Review, Aug. 3; Employer’s Lawyer, Aug. 26). And the EEOC has gotten its hand slapped by a court after overreaching in one of those much-publicized “noose” racial harassment cases (EEOC v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 11th Circuit, Aug. 7 (PDF), via Employer’s Lawyer, Aug. 7).
Access suit closes landmark Calif. eatery
On Lock Sam, a beloved 105-year-old Chinese restaurant in Stockton, Calif., has closed rather than fight a suit filed by a wheelchair-using visitor who says he was humiliated and soiled himself after finding himself unable to use the restaurant’s bathroom. The restaurant owners said 32 employees would be laid off. The customer, Charles Hager, hired Oakland attorney Paul Rein to file a lawsuit demanding triple damages plus attorney fees under state discrimination law. (Jason Williams, “One last trip to On Lock Sam”, Stockton Record, Aug. 18; Michael Fitzgerald and Bruce Spence, “Eatery to close after 105 years”, Jul. 30; Michael Fitzgerald, “Talk before filing that lawsuit”, Jul. 30). The closing prompted an outpouring of discussion, much of it critical of the lawsuit, by Stockton residents (letters, Stockton Record, Aug. 9) including longtime patrons of the restaurant who themselves use wheelchairs or are otherwise disabled (Aug. 18 story, see comments of Fred Hess and Mary Gildner).
“Doctors avoid close contact; fear threat of impropriety”
“The B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons says some doctors are reluctant to perform breast and genital examinations because they are worried patients will accuse them of impropriety. ‘Unfortunately, the fear of becoming the subject of a patient complaint has caused some to become reluctant to perform necessary breast and genital examinations, to the obvious detriment of the patient,’ the college says in its annual report.” Some evidence indicates that rates of invasive cervical cancer may be markedly higher among women from ethnic groups with a high cultural aversion to pelvic exams. “Although less than 25 per cent of complaints result in formal disciplinary proceedings and penalties, the college has observed the mere threat of an accusation has meant ‘a significant number of women in this province are not receiving proactive preventative screening for breast and gynecological diseases.'” (Pamela Fayerman, CanWest/Calgary Herald, Aug. 27).
Farewell
I just wanted to give my thanks to Mr. Olson for letting me post a few things here about the law, both within and without the usual range of this blog. If you’d like to read more of my posts, you’ll find me at Crescat Sententia.
Tobacco: AGs push Hollywood self-censorship
“In a stunning, courageous admission that they no longer have any serious work left to do, attorneys general in two dozen states recently sent a letter to the Motion Picture Association of America asking that Hollywood minimize smoking in movies so youngsters won’t be gulled into lighting up.” (Nick Gillespie, “Tinselectomy”, Reason, Aug. 29). Check out Gillespie’s list of other destructive behaviors that Hollywood glamorizes, especially the last item. Supposedly the self-censorship will be voluntary: “We’re not saying any law has been broken,” said Tom Dresslar, a spokesman for California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, a rather remarkable admission since there is precisely zero reason for any filmmaker to pay attention to this particular grouping of law enforcement functionaries other than the fear that they could cause some sort of legal trouble in the future unless placated. (“States Ask Hollywood to Cut Film Smoking “, AP/Fox News, Aug. 27).