Archive for August, 2007

More Prop 65 follies

Hoover Institution’s Henry I. Miller:

Moreover, because Prop 65 is enforced entirely through litigation, it has created a system of legalized extortion. To initiate a lawsuit, a plaintiff need only show that a listed chemical is present in a consumer product and that the defendant business “knowingly” exposes Californians to that product without posting the warnings. Prior to filing the suit, the plaintiff must send the defendant a notice describing the exposure; 60 days thereafter, the plaintiff may sue. That notice may be the first inkling a retailer has that his products are exposing consumers to listed chemicals.

The latest chemical to run afoul of Prop 65 is di-isodecyl phthalate, or DIDP, an important and extremely useful additive used to soften hard vinyl plastic and found in dozens of common items, including shower curtains. It is also used to insulate the wires in the walls of homes across America. Safely used for more than 50 years, it is one of the most thoroughly tested products in the world and has been closely examined by numerous regulatory agencies throughout the United States and Europe. Through all that evaluation, no credible scientific review has found DIDP to be dangerous in normal use.

However, those favorable conclusions didn’t faze regulators at California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), who recently decided that DIDP may pose a risk of developmental harm in humans and, therefore, should be listed under Prop 65.

But the mere presence of something does not imply that it’s dangerous; one needs to know the dose, length of exposure, how the body disposes of it, and so forth. Prop 65 standards only look at the potential for risk as criteria for listing. Using that logic, since people regularly suffocate from a chunk of meat blocking their windpipe, maybe steaks should be listed too. (One hates to give the regulators ideas, however.)

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t files

Over at Point of Law, guest-blogger Deborah LaFetra discusses the case of Castaneda v. Olsher, where a owner of a mobile home park was sued by a victim of gang-warfare crossfire for permitting gang members to rent space on the lot. Of course, as Pacific Legal Foundation argued (and the court held), any alternative would run afoul of California anti-discrimination law, as well as the impossibility of obtaining information protected by California privacy law.

Government pays for prosecutions

In two cases in the last few months, federal judges have ordered the government to pay the defense costs of failed health care fraud prosecutions.

In Nevada, Judge Robert C. Jones awarded about $300,000, about 30% of the defense costs, to an Idaho doctor, finding that the losing case was frivolous because, the American Medical News reports, the government’s experts contradicted other experts in the case. (There is presumably more to the story than this, as the same is true in nearly every criminal trial involving expert testimony.) Half the claims were dismissed before trial, and the others were adjudged not guilty by a jury. The government has appealed. (Amy Lynn Sorrel, “Judge rules criminal fraud case against Idaho doctor is frivolous”, Aug. 20) (h/t P.N.).

And, in Texas, Judge Lynn Hughes awarded $391,000 to an Oklahoma attorney to cover part of his defense costs after being wrongly prosecuted on 54 counts of health insurance fraud. The court criticized prosecutors for misleading the grand jury and a “reckless disregard for the truth.” Again, the government will appeal. (AP/Tulsa World, “U.S. ordered to pay OKC attorney”, Aug. 13).

Some updates

  • Tab Turner’s Pearsonesque $2 billion lawsuit over Ford Explorer SUVs proceeds in California state court in Sacramento. [Sacramento Bee; earlier, June 18]
  • West Va. judge holds hearing over YouTube videos disclosing plaintiff depositions. [AP/Insurance Journal; earlier, August 4]
  • On Point has the complaint from Leroy Greer’s suit against 1-800-Flowers for failing to do enough to keep his wife ignorant of his flower purchases for his mistress.
  • Movable Type appears to have swallowed several comments from earlier this month (including at least one comment from me). Apologies to everyone affected.

Kentucky fen-phen lawyers are jailed

“The court finds that there is a serious risk that the funds will be moved offshore and that with these funds at their disposal, the defendants will flee to a country with which the United States has no extradition treaty or otherwise disappear,” U.S. District Judge William Bertelsman wrote in the Friday order sending Shirley Cunningham Jr., William Gallion, and Melbourne Mills Jr. to jail without bond until the January 7 trial date. (Jim Hannah, “Fen-phen lawyers are jailed”, Cincinnati Enquirer, Aug. 11). We have lots of coverage of the Kentucky fen-phen lawyers, who have been found in a civil case, to have misappropriated $62 million of settlement funds by overcharging on attorneys’ fees and other diversions. Cincinnati attorney Stan Chesley, who has not been criminally indicted, is also civilly liable on part of his $20 million fee for helping to negotiate the settlement, with the scope of liability yet to be determined; trial has been delayed while the criminal trial is pending.

August 10 roundup

Allergic to cheese, sues McDonald’s for $10 million

Jeromy Jackson says he repeatedly told the McDonald’s in Morgantown, W.V. that he needed his two Quarter Pounders without cheese, because he was allergic to cheese; “From this point forward, Mr. Jackson repeatedly asked as to the status of his food and whether it had no cheese, and took multiple preventive steps to assure his food did not contain cheese,” his suit says. On biting into the sandwich, his suit alleges, he suffered a severe allergic reaction and had to be rushed to a hospital (Cara Bailey, “Man allergic to cheese seeks $10 million from McDonald’s”, West Virginia Record, Aug. 8).

James Taranto is not what you would call sympathetic toward the action (Aug. 9): “So apparently the ‘multiple preventive steps’ he took ‘to assure his food did not contain cheese’ did not include looking at the damn sandwich before eating it”.

Does Keith Olbermann read Overlawyered?

Overlawyered, August 5:

A look at the largest donors for Obama and especially Edwards shows a disproportionate number of active members of (the trial lawyers’) lobbying group. Indeed, John Edwards’s finance chairman is Fred Baron, the former president of ATLA. If Obama and Edwards want voters to believe that Clinton is influenced by lobbyist money, what should we think about these two candidates’ debts to trial lawyers? Are we to believe that the critical difference is the lobbyist registration papers, at which point money becomes tainted and dirty?

August 7 AFL-CIO Democratic debate:

OLBERMANN: Senator Edwards, I have a question for you. You made your substantial fortune as a trial lawyer. Trial lawyers are now contributing significantly to your campaign. How is that any better than lobbyists?

Alas, Edwards dodged the question, but it has perhaps contributed to the recent NY Times press coverage.