…do try to obtain one from a doctor who exists, rather than from one who doesn’t. Former railway worker Rodney Chambers, suing CSX Transportation on a claim of asbestosis, claimed to have been examined by a certain Dr. Oscar Frye on May 14, 2005 in support of his claim. Lawyers for CSX attempted to trace the doctor and found that the phone number Chambers had given for him belonged to someone else, state boards could find no record of ever licensing a doctor by that name, and the street address Chambers gave for the doctor in Huntington, West Virginia wasn’t a real street address. A further problem: the form Chambers submitted to attest to his asbestosis diagnosis “was identical to several other medical questionnaires received from doctors around the country.” Now the CSX lawyers would like to probe whether there is a wider pattern to be found among other asbestos claimants represented by Chambers’ lawyers. (Beth Gorczyca, “Claimant’s Diagnosis Challenged”, West Virginia State Journal, Jul. 27).
Archive for July, 2006
Oz: “Boarder in the spare room wins A$450,000”
Peculiar case from Australia: “It barely raises an eyebrow when a spurned daughter, former de facto or homosexual lover challenges a deceased person’s will, asking for a share of the estate. But when the boarder in the spare room challenges – and the Supreme Court awards him nearly $450,000 – seemingly innocuous domestic relationships are revealed as financial minefields.” Frances Lan Fong Fung allowed Michael Ye to live rent free and paid some of his tuition fees; in return he helped with household chores and some of her personal care needs, like insulin injection. Her will left her estate to her siblings and nothing to him, but a judge accepted Ye’s argument that she had wrongfully failed to recognize a relationship akin to that of aunt and devoted nephew. An elder care lawyer “said elderly people either had to have a paid contract with their live-in boarder, or go to the expense of an application to the Supreme Court for the person to rescind their right to make a claim against the estate…. Ms Fung’s brother, Keith, said his family wished to maintain their privacy but said it had been an important lesson for people not to take anybody into their home.” (Leonie Lamont, Sydney Morning Herald, Jul. 8).
Combating the copyright cops
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) have filed thousands of lawsuits accusing individuals of unlawful downloading of films and music, “but largely because of the legal costs few have been contested and none have gone to trial. This has left several controversies unresolved, including the lawfulness of how the associations get access to ISP records and whether it’s possible to definitively tie a person to an IP address in the age of Wi-Fi.” That may change, however. Universal Pictures and the MPAA have told Shawn Hogan that they’re suing him for downloading Meet the Fockers over BitTorrent, but Hogan says he didn’t do it and already owned the film on DVD. Hogan happens to be a software millionaire and says he’s prepared to spend $100,000 or more in legal fees to put MPAA and Universal to their proof rather than fork over the demanded $2,500. (David Goldenberg, “Shawn Hogan, Hero”, Wired, Aug.).
“We’re going to sue everyone from A to Z”
It was easy to sympathize with Richard Jewell, victim a decade ago of FBI bungling which led to his being falsely suspected in the Atlanta Olympics bombing. It’s not so easy to sympathize with his legal posture since then, which would be easily mistaken for an effort to vacuum the pockets of every media organization within reach. (Mark Fitzgerald, “Sob On Someone Else’s Shoulder, Richard Jewell”, Editor and Publisher, Jul. 25).
BetOnSports.com prosecution, cont’d
The arrest of company CEO David Carruthers while changing planes in Dallas, writes Jacob Sullum, “is part of a larger attempt by the U.S. government to impose its brand of repressive paternalism on countries with more tolerant policies.” (syndicated/Reason.com, Jul. 26)(earlier coverage, Jul. 20 here and here). More on online gambling, and bans on promoting it: Steve Chapman, “Who’s Afraid of Online Gambling?”, Chicago Tribune/Real Clear Politics, Jul. 23; Walter Williams, “Truly disgusting”, syndicated/Jewish World Review, Jul. 26.
Depositions, cont’d: “gratuitous cruelty”
151-proof rum is flammable, who knew?
By reader acclaim: “A woman who was allegedly severely burned by flaming rum during a Bacardi promotion sued the wine and spirits producer, claiming the product was defective and dangerous. …A bartender, who was not identified in the lawsuit, was pouring shots when a customer lit a menu on fire and placed it in the stream of alcohol.” Danielle Alleyne suffered severe burns as a result, the suit says. (“Florida Woman Sues Bacardi Over Injuries Allegedly Caused by Flaming Rum Shot” AP/FoxNews.com, Jul. 26).
Joe Jamail depositions: coming soon to community theater?
The notorious Joe Jamail/Edward Carstarphen deposition video (Apr. 8, Apr. 27) has been getting another round of attention thanks to new links from Andrew Sullivan and Dale Carpenter. Among a number of interesting reader comments at the latter site is this from John Steele (excerpt):
…For years now, I’ve been having my students do dramatic readings of both the famous Jamail depos. The reaction is usually a mixture of laughter and disgust. If anyone wants the two transcripts, shoot me an email….
Employees charged with crimes
Sued-if-you-do, sued-if-you-don’t files: “‘I think companies are concerned that if they take action against the employee, the employee may bring a claim. And if they don’t take action, others who are injured may bring a claim,’ said employment attorney Jonathan Segal of Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen in Philadelphia. Segal noted that companies are increasingly dealing with employees who miss work because of criminal offenses like drunk driving or assault charges.” (Tresa Baldas, “When Employees Face Criminal Charges, Employers Face a Dilemma”, National Law Journal, Jul. 20).
Duke lacrosse affair: when faculty fan flames
If prosecutor Mike Nifong could accuse students of ghastly crimes on the flimsiest of evidence (Jun. 24 and earlier posts), one reason might be that the atmosphere at Duke University was such that, early in the case, 88 faculty members could sign a manifesto fanning the flames of public opinion against the accused students. Robert K.C. Johnson on Cliopatria has many details on the so-called Group of 88. Of the 69 signatories who are permanent faculty, “58—an astonishing 84.1 percent—describe their research interests as related to race, class, or gender (or all three), in some cases to an extent bordering on caricature.” One professor opines that the “members of the team are almost perfect offenders in the sense that [critical race theorist Kimberle] Crenshaw writes about,” since they are “the exemplars of the upper end of the class hierarchy, the politically dominant race and ethnicity, the dominant gender, the dominant sexuality, and the dominant social group on campus.” (Jul. 19) (via Coyote). For more on the case, see postings at Jeralyn Merritt’s Talk Left and the group Friends of Duke University.