Archive for May, 2005

“A catastrophe for MS patients”

That would be the withdrawal of Tysabri, a drug that showed markedly better action against progression of multiple sclerosis than any of its predecessors and also combats “flare-ups” of the condition, but was pulled after reports of a possible link to fatalities from a rare side effect. “Some disappointed patients who benefited from the drug have said they’re willing to take the risk,” but that option’s not open to them. (David Rumbach, “Suffering withdrawal”, South Bend Tribune, May 4; Michael Fumento, “‘Murder on Patients'”, TechCentralStation, May 4).

Poker club night

In Palmer Lake, Colo., cops entered the card-playing venue “with guns drawn, lasers trained on people’s heads” according to one present. Palmer Lake police chief Dale Smith described the tactics as “standard habit and practice for these kinds of situations.” (Jane Reuter, “Small-town poker bust criticized as overblown”, Colorado Springs Gazette, Apr. 29)(via Dispatches from the Culture Wars).

“Diver’s widow sues his buddy”

The Dive Blog (Mar. 30) discusses a suit filed in Orange County, California in which Brenda Palmer-Shatz of Laguna Niguel blames the actions of Steve Feldman “whether negligent or intentional” for the drowning of her husband Daryll Shatz on Nov. 30, 2003. Feldman had been acting as Shatz’s “diving buddy” in the common practice by which scuba divers help watch out for each other’s safety. Mrs. Palmer-Shatz’s allegations of intentional misconduct, which are of the most incendiary and scandalous nature, are enough to make the suit highly unusual; but her separate allegations of negligence raise some issues of broad importance to the future of scuba diving as a sport, as DiveBlog notes:

I would hate for the perceived potential for liability to cause someone to abandon the buddy system altogether. To my knowledge, there have been very few (if any) instances where a negligence suit has succeeded against a dive buddy.

Reporter Peggy Lowe’s coverage of the story in the Orange County Register is reprinted at Underwater Times and Cyber Diver News Network.

Government-funded lobbying

You might think it’s easy to get people outraged at the idea of the government’s pushing for its own favored policies by quietly funneling tax money to one side in public debate. At least when the topic isn’t tobacco; in that case, taxpayer-funded Astroturf efforts seem to be perfectly fine. (Tony Messenger, “When judging anti-smoking efforts, follow the money”, Columbia (Mo.) Daily Tribune, Apr. 17)(via Jacob Sullum, Hit and Run, in a post titled “Bowing to Their Own Pressure”). For a particularly egregious example from California, see Jan. 5, 2000.

Update: Lap dance class action

An appeals court in Houston has ruled that two men can proceed with their intended class-action lawsuit against six strip clubs for having added a $5 fee to the price of a lap dance when paid for with a credit card, a practice they say violates Texas law. As has been previously noted (see Sept. 10, 2003), the fun is likely to begin if and when standard notices go into the mail informing past lap dance customers that a lawsuit has gone forward in their name; many of these notifications are likely to be opened by wives and other family members in the class member’s absence. (Roma Khanna, “Panel says men can sue strip clubs over extra fees”, Houston Chronicle, Apr. 23)(via The Slithery D). More: Wave Maker (May 5) wonders whether it might not be divorce lawyers, rather than class action lawyers, behind the scheme.

BlackBerry squeezed

The Canadian maker of the wireless email device in March agreed to pay $450 million to settle the claims of NTP, a company which manufactures nothing and instead makes its way in the world by asserting rights in old patents. Not all is sweetness and light, however: “Critics of the patent system maintain that these companies — called ‘patent trolls’ by their detractors — rely on excessively broad patents, particularly for software, that should never have been granted in the first place.” For more on the controversy over patent-licensing firms, see various posts on our technology and intellectual property page. (Ian Austen and Lisa Guernsey, “A Payday for Patents ‘R’ Us”, New York Times, May 2).

“Butter knife ‘an offensive weapon'”

Britain’s High Court has rejected an appeal by Charlie Brooker of Kent over his conviction for carrying a bladed instrument without good reason. Brooker’s lawyer, Mark Hardie, argued that the butter knife in question “had no handle, sharp edges or points and therefore could not fall foul of a law intended to protect people from dangerous weapons”, but the judges observed that the law by its terms did not confine itself to sharp or dangerous blades. “During the hearing, Mr. Hardie said the law would now catch even plastic knives restaurants and cafes supplied to customers with take-away food.” (Duncan Gardham, Daily Telegraph, Apr. 14; John Aston, “Carrying A Butter Knife May Lead to Prosecution”, The Scotsman, Apr. 13).

Why object to HIPAA?

Why get annoyed at the federal medical privacy law (discussed in this space Mar. 16, Feb. 5, 2004, etc.)?

*Because it means your patients at the VA hospital often have no names on their doors? (MedRants, Mar. 31);

* Because it keeps you from talking about a patient’s condition when members of his extended family call to express concern? (Virginia A. Smith and Dawn Fallik, “Questions remain two years after medical privacy act”, Jewish World Review, Mar. 5);

* Because it brings out the worst in editorial writers at papers like the Philadelphia Inquirer? (Jeff Drummond’s HIPAA blog, Mar. 23).

And: MedRants has more (May 2).

Update: Judge dismisses “happy hour” antitrust case

Last year, after taverns in Madison, Wisconsin bowed to pressure from official programs discouraging youth drinking and agreed to end “happy hour” discounts in the university town, a law firm from Minneapolis swooped down to file an antitrust suit demanding millions for the offense of having colluded to charge higher prices (see Mar. 29, 2004). Now, however, Circuit Judge Angela B. Bartell has dismissed the suit on summary judgment, finding that the bar owners had acted against their will under regulatory constraint. An alderman who represents the downtown area where most of the bars are located “said bar owners had racked up more than $250,000 in legal fees defending themselves”; given our lack of a loser-pays rule, they have no expectation that either attorney Steven Uhr or the three students on whose behalf he filed the action will chip in to defray any of those outlays. (Ryan J. Foley, “Judge: Bars didn’t fix price of drinks”, AP/Capital Times, Apr. 8; Megan Costello, “Judge dismisses drink special suit”, Badger Herald, Apr. 8).