A federal jury has disapproved a $300,000 “success bonus” that a Greenwich, Ct. divorce lawyer tried to charge his client following a high-pressure five-day divorce mediation. Noted lawprof ethicist Geoffrey Hazard, testifying for dissatisfied client Gary Zimmerman, said the extra charge resembled a contingent fee on the lawyer’s part and that contingent fees are supposed to be disallowed in divorce litigation. (Thomas B. Scheffey, “$300,000 ‘Success Bonus’ for Five-Day Mediation? Not So Fast, Says Jury”, Connecticut Law Tribune, Mar. 29). David Giacalone has more (Mar. 29).
Posts Tagged ‘Connecticut’
Disabled docs’ demands
Gail Heriot (May 3), Erin O’Connor (Apr. 30), and Martin Grace (May 2) all comment on the case of Heidi Baer of Quincy, Mass., who having failed the medical boards three times is now suing the National Board of Medical Examiners under the Americans with Disabilities Act for not giving her extra time on the exam to accommodate her dyslexia. (J.M. Lawrence, “Med student’s dyslexia plea: I need time to pursue dream”, Boston Herald, Apr. 30). For more on ADA and test accommodation, see Jul. 21, 2004, Nov. 13, 2003 and links from there. In Connecticut, meanwhile, Dr. Benjamin Smith is seeking $2.5 million from Norwalk Hospital over alleged overwork and failure to accommodate his attention deficit disorder (ADD). The two sides dispute whether Smith was made to work beyond the 80-hour maximum that is supposed to be placed on residents’ workloads; Dr. Eric M. Mazur, chairman of the hospital’s internal medicine department, denies that the institution was insensitive to Dr. Smith’s needs, saying it “rearranged some of his schedules, reduced his patient load and put him on days instead of nights” and wound up terminating him for performance. He added what must count as one of the strongly worded statements of its kind we’ve seen in a while:
“The medical establishment is often accused of not policing itself, and not clearing out bad apples,” Mazur said. “It was the consensus of the faculty that his continued employment would endanger patient care.”
(Marian Gail Brown, “Doc asks $2m for overwork”, Connecticut Post, Apr. 21)(& welcome Grand Rounds XXXVI readers).
“Stalingrad” divorce tactics
In a rancorous fourteen-month divorce trial, John Ofori-Tenkorang disputed the existence of his marriage to Jacqueline Anom, claiming marriage photos had been falsified; claimed to have routinely thrown away bank records, failing to disclose what the judge concluded were assets exceeding $1.7 million; and “wouldn’t stipulate that he wasn’t a close relative of his wife’s, or under the care of a conservator — two grounds for invalidating a marriage, forcing those issues to be proven in court.” Judge Kevin Tierney compared Ofori-Tenkorang’s tenacious assertion of legal issues to the 1942 battle deep inside Russia: “German troops surrounded the Soviet city of Stalingrad on the Volga River. They used aerial attacks, artillery bombardment and intensive panzer assaults. The city was reduced to rubble. Virtually no building stood.” (Thomas B. Scheffey, “‘Stalingrad’ Defense Tactics Prove Costly in Divorce Case”, Connecticut Law Tribune, Mar. 28).
More: reader (and historian) John Steele Gordon (his site) writes:
It sounds like the judge is a better jurist than a historian. Stalingrad, backed by the Volga River, wasn’t surrounded. That’s how the Russians were able to resupply their troops and hold the city. Then, with Zhukov’s offensive, in November, 1942, it was the Germans who were surrounded and trapped in the Stalingrad pocket.
Today’s police chase lawsuit round-up
In Connecticut, the town of Norwalk is paying $1.5 million in a settlement with pedestrians hit by a drunk driver fleeing police. Plaintiffs had sought millions. “[Julia] Johnson’s estate sought additional compensation for her death from cancer in August 2001. The estate argued that Johnson’s injuries caused her to miss a scheduled mammogram that would have caught the cancer in its early stages.” The settlement seems to be a “moral hazard” artifact of the insurance policy, which covered negligence, but not recklessness; the judge had ruled the city couldn’t be held liable for negligence, and the city worried that a jury sympathizing with the plaintiffs would’ve simply found the quantum of recklessness needed so they could award damages. This is a useful example about the inefficacy of immunity statutes that protect against “negligence” but not “gross negligence.” (Brian Lockhart, “City pays $1.5M to settle suit with hurt pedestrians”, Stamford Advocate, Mar. 14). Unrelatedly, Norwalk is also the defendant in a suit by Linda Gorman. Gorman took a job in the town clerk’s office , interacting with the general public, but complains that the town isn’t doing enough to deal with her sensitivity to fragrances and perfumes. (Brian Lockhart, “Norwalk City Hall employee files lawsuit over perfume”, Stamford Advocate, Mar. 1).
Thousands of miles away, a jury found Hawaii County 34% responsible for the death of Ellison Sweezey, who was killed when Richard Rosario, a 20-year-old crystal meth addict fleeing police, ran a red light and struck her car. Cost to taxpayers: $1.9 million. If there were joint and several liability, the county would also be on the hook for Rosario’s share. (Rod Thompson, “Jury awards $5.6M in death from car chase”, Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Mar. 9; “$5.6M awarded to family of Big Island crash victim”, Honolulu Advertiser, Mar. 9). Hawaii police have undergone training to limit their willingness to chase suspects, with the expected counterproductive result (which we discussed Sep. 21, 2003) that criminals are now more likely to flee because their chances of escape have increased. (Rod Thompson, “Car theft suspect flees after slow-speed pursuit”, Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Mar. 10). Other car-chase lawsuits: Jan. 3; Feb. 18, 2004 (& letter to the editor, Apr. 12).
Billed for 94-hour day
“Norwich, Conn., solo Timothy C. Spayne has paid the federal government $1.24 million to settle allegations that he billed Groton, Conn.-based Electric Boat for up to 94 hours in a single day for representing EB employees in workers’ compensation cases. U.S. Attorney Kevin J. O’Connor called it one of the most egregious instances of government fraud during his more than two years in office.” (Keith Griffin, “Billing for 94-Hour Day Nets Solo $1 Million Fraud Charge”, Connecticut Law Tribune, Feb. 7).
At times they even talk alike
New York’s Eliot Spitzer and Connecticut’s Richard Blumenthal, both subjects of longstanding coverage in this space, go back quite a way together and share a similar approach toward the duties of the state attorney general. A new story from AP’s Hartford bureau is kind enough to quote me saying some not-very-acerbic things about them. (Jan. 23: Stephen Singer, “Friendship another tie between two like-minded attorneys general”, Newsday, and Stamford Advocate).
Common Good “Gatekeeper Awards”
Philip Howard’s Common Good organization has announced (Dec. 16) its second annual Gatekeeper Awards for judges who rule inappropriate litigation out of court. (For the first round, see May 12, 2004). Winners this year include:
* An Indianapolis judge who ruled against an attempt to sue a cell phone company over an accident that a driver got into while using a cell phone;
* A New Mexico judge who, citing the privileges arising from the constitutional separation of church and state, refused to allow a surviving family to sue a Roman Catholic priest over allegedly insensitive remarks at a funeral which they said implied that the deceased was headed for Hell;
* A New Jersey judge who refused to allow a suit for negligent parental supervision after a five-year-old boy accidentally collided with and injured an sixteen-month-old girl at a block party;
* A Connecticut Supreme Court judge who wrote an opinion rejecting the doctrine of “self-compelled publication” in employment law, under which dismissed workers sue over injury to their reputation arguing that, whether or not their former employer has said anything damaging about them to outsiders, they have been obliged to spread the defamatory allegations themselves in the course of explaining themselves to potential future employers (see Aug. 10, 1999).
Couldn’t outrun cops, sues them instead
Connecticut:
A 21-year-old New Haven man who led Hamden police on a high-speed chase on his all-terrain vehicle before crashing into a utility pole last summer wants the town to pay his medical bills.
Britt Martin, of 75 George Street, claims that Officer Stephen DeGrand and four other unidentified officers were responsible for his injuries because they violated a Police Department policy to discontinue high-speed pursuits when the risk exceeds the need for immediate apprehension….
DeGrand said the suspect went through red lights and made illegal turns while driving well in excess of the speed limit during the chase.
(Fred Musante, Cops blamed for ATV crash, Hamden Journal, Dec. 29). More high-speed chase suits: Feb. 18 and Apr. 27, 2004; Sept. 21, 2003, etc.
Center for Justice & Democracy’s Zany “Zany Immunity Law Awards”
Many farmers use anhydrous ammonia as fertilizer, because it provides vital nitrogen nutrients to the soil. The combustible material is produced in Louisiana, and then shipped to the Midwest on barges or through pipelines, and then stored on tanks on farms. However, ammonia is also useful for making illegal methamphetamines, and thefts are a regular problem. (KOMU-TV, “Law Officers Fight Ammonia Thefts”, May 19). If a thief injures himself tampering with an ammonia tank, should he be able to sue the farmer for the injury? Three states, Kansas, Missouri, and Wyoming, say no, and provide immunity for those who store, handle, or own ammonia equipment from suit by thieves. Legislatures are considering the issue in other midwestern states.
The misnamed anti-tort reform Center for Justice & Democracy has noticed the success of the ATRA’s judicial hellhole campaign (Dec. 15; Dec. 3, 2003), and decided to respond with its own report, the “Zany Immunity Law Awards”, intended to single out “special interests” who opportunistically subvert the legislative system to get improper immunity from liability. The cover shows a legislator receiving a statuette, cash in his pocket, and roses with a ribbon labeled “Sleaziest Legislation.”
Exposing sleazy special-interest immunity laws is a noble sentiment–but it’s a sure sign of how few and far between such laws are that CJD singles out the sensible anhydrous ammonia immunity laws for its top ten list. The CJD incorrectly blames the law on a supposed “anhydrous ammonia business lobby”; in fact, it’s groups like the Michigan Farm Bureau that push for laws like Michigan S.B. 786. Indeed, the only group to oppose such laws? Trial lawyers’ lobbying groups. See also Kelly Lenz, “Fertilizer law to help farmers”, Farm and Auction, Jun. 12, 2002.
How ridiculous are the CJD awards? One of the top ten “zany immunity laws” refers to “immunity” granted to placebo manufacturers and distributors. Except the immunity in question isn’t immunity–it’s an exception to a criminal statute prohibiting the sale of fake drugs! E.g., Fla. Stat. 817.564(6)(a). (This is the only appearance of the word “placebo” in the Florida Code. It’s telling that CJD omits the statutory cite in its footnotes.) Perhaps this law is zany, but it’s hardly an example of a special interest group buying sleazy legislation that damages consumers. A subject of a research test who is injured by adulterated placebos (has this ever happened?) will still have a cause of action.
Calif.’s mandatory harassment training
A new law will require mid-size and larger employers in California to put their supervisors through interactive training aimed at preventing sexual harassment. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who may have a hard time standing up to feminist demands given his own record on the issue, signed the bill Sept. 29. (Jacqueline McManus, “New law for harassment awareness”, Monterey County Herald, Oct. 8; Peter Nicholas, “Business Sees an Ally in Governor”, L.A. Times/KTLA, Oct. 18). “The law defines a covered ’employer’ as one that employs 50 or more persons, which includes temporary service employees and independent contractors. The law does not specify that the 50 employees must be within California. That means that an employer with 50 total employees may be covered by the law, even if just a few workers are in California.” (“New California Law Mandates Anti-Harassment Prevention Training for Supervisors”, Jackson Lewis, Oct. 1) (via George’s Employment Blawg). When Connecticut lawmakers enacted the first such state law twelve years ago, I took a dim view.