On the whiplash trail

Might become a rich source of material for this site: Attorney Jonathan G. Stein of Elk Grove, Calif. has launched a blog on “Litigating MIST Cases,” MIST in this case standing for “Minimum Injury, Soft Tissue” auto-crash cases, or, in practical terms, “Any car crash with less than $1,500 in property damage and a soft tissue type injury, i.e. neck or back pain, sometimes called ‘whiplash.'” (Claims of “soft tissue” injury, unlike those from bruises, lacerations or broken bones, typically are hard or impossible to verify to the satisfaction of all sides). One recent entry begins: “Face it, most MIST patients end up at a chiropractor. …the chiropractor always asks who the attorney is on the file.” An earlier entry promises to explain “how the chiropractor can treat the patient to help you accomplish your goal — obtain a fair and reasonable settlement for your client.”

Stein is also selling a book on the handling of these cases and promotes it as follows:

I just settled a case. Client was in an accident causing no visible damage to her vehicle. The defendant had less than $500 in damage to her car. Client had $2,200 in treatment. Settlement pre-lit: $8,500. That is almost four times the special damages. On a MIST case.

So, yes, this system works.

Per Stein’s biographical blurb, “Most of his practice consists of MIST cases.” More on chiropractors here, and more on whiplash here.

September 23 roundup

Dan Rather vs. CBS, cont’d

Beldar doesn’t hold back (Sept. 22) from telling us what he thinks:

Rather’s case — as incredibly, stinkingly, appallingly, cosmically bogus as it is — nevertheless has some considerable settlement value: Not because CBS is likely to lose to Rather if the truth is confirmed in court, but because individual decision-makers within CBS may have overwhelming vested interests in ensuring that the facts are not thoroughly probed in court.

Earlier: Sept. 19. More buzz: Howard Kurtz/WaPo, Eugene Volokh, New York Post “Page Six”, Bertovici/Portfolio.com.

Seattle schools pro bono, cont’d

It’s sparking further discussion:

Hey, Davis Wright Tremaine, and your clients, the parents who sued the district: This is insane.

You argue this isn’t to enrich the firm, but to punish the district. The theory is that the fees, at $1.8 million and rising, are a lash to whip the district for its bad race-based deeds.

When I called the lawyers Tuesday, they compared it to, among other cases, their pro bono defense of a prisoner beaten by L.A. jail guards.

This makes no sense. Seattle’s policy wasn’t intended to hurt anyone, let alone beat them to a pulp.

(Danny Westneat, “The bill just keeps going up”, Seattle Times, Sept. 19; Emily Heffter, “Billing in ‘pro bono’ cases is fodder for ethics debate”, Seattle Times, Sept. 18; Above the Law, Sept. 18).

Read On…

Giuliani and guns

Don Surber welcomes Hizzoner’s conversion; Sister Toldjah remains to be convinced (disclaimer; and see quote from me here; our page on firearms litigation and regulation). More: By coincidence, the Bloomberg administration is in court at the moment trying to argue that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act doesn’t actually put the kibosh on the city’s gun suits, despite a mountain of evidence that it was intended to do just that (Mark Hamblett, “2nd Circuit Hears Arguments on Letting NYC’s Gun Suit Go to Trial, New York Law Journal, Sept. 24).

New book on golf law

San Diego lawprof John “Jack” H. Minan’s “The Little Green Book of Golf Law”, published by the ABA and hitting bookstores about now, treats of errant balls and many other legal issues that arise in the Wodehouse-beloved outdoor game. I would note that “Iowa golfer Walter Olson”, portrayed unflatteringly in one of the stories, is guaranteed a different person from and unrelated to me. (Tod Leonard, “Law doesn’t control way ball bounces”, San Diego Union-Tribune, Sept. 11).

Big Government, Big Business, and artisanal food

Alex Cockburn a few years back, quoted by Jacob Sullum at Reason “Hit and Run” (Sept. 17):

A lot of the history of food regulation in this country has turned out to be a way to finish off small, quality producers by demanding they invest in whatever big ticket items the USDA happens to be in love with at the time; said love objects usually turning out to be whatever the big food processors are using. That’s the reason why it’s hard to get decent sausages or hams….The big packers and processing plants get to participate directly in the writing of the laws that set the standard practices that the inspectors march out to enforce on all the little producers not part of the Meat Syndicate.

Suing drug companies over meth abuse

For a while now, lawyers in Minnesota, Oklahoma and elsewhere have been suing companies that make over-the-counter cold remedies containing ephedrine and pseudoephedrine on the grounds that they were aware some buyers were using the drugs as raw material for illegal methamphetamine labs. Now such litigation appears to be gaining momentum in Arkansas, where many county governments have signed up to sue Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, and other companies. “If successful, it could open up litigation against manufacturers of other produce used in making meth, such as drain cleaners and acetone.” (E. Alan Long, “Williams updates JPs on methamphetamine litigation”, Carroll County News, May 29; and see this, on anhydrous ammonia). As of last month, twenty-two counties had enlisted in the litigation, which seeks to recoup, among other things, money spent on the processing of criminal methamphetamine cases. “What more could we have done with a million dollars a year for our county? Would that have meant a half dozen more police officers? Would that have meant a better solid waste program? Who knows, what could your county have done with an extra million dollars,” asked Judge Bill Hicks of Independence County, a backer of the suits. (“Special Report: Meth Related Lawsuit Filed Against Pharmaceutical Companies”, KAIT, Aug. 1; Pharmalot via Childs)(& welcome Megan McArdle readers).