We’ve posted four more entries from our alarmingly backed-up pipeline of reader letters, on our letters page. Among topics this time: the oddly divergent views of Wisconsin’s governor on the protection of lawful activities, with special reference to cheeseburger-selling and helmetless cycling; the recently announced class action settlement in Lamb v. Wells Fargo; complaints that some Texas jury pools are now “tainted” against lawsuits; and U-Haul’s role as bystander in the Ford Explorer litigation frenzy.
Posts Tagged ‘product liability’
Asbestos: send in the prosecutors?
Prof. Lester Brickman of Yeshiva University’s Cardozo School of Law, a noted legal ethicist and the leading academic critic of the asbestos litigation, has a devastating new 137-page article out in the Pepperdine Law Review. His contention: mass attorney solicitation of claimants has combined with willfully unreliable medical screening and witness-coaching by law firms to generate hundreds of thousands of fundamentally fraudulent claims which are obtaining unjustified payouts in the billions and even tens of billions of dollars. The only likely catalyst for reform at this point, he argues, would be a full investigation by a grand jury armed with subpoena powers. (Stuart Taylor, Jr., Dec. 31; Paul Hampel, “Many asbestos suits are fraudulent, professor says”, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Jan. 13). The article, not online but available to those with LEXIS access or in law libraries, is Lester Brickman, “On the Theory Class’s Theories of Asbestos Litigation: The Disconnect Between Scholarship and Reality”, 31 Pepp. L. Rev. 33. For our coverage of asbestos, see, e.g., Nov. 12, Oct. 24, Sept. 25, and earlier posts.
Update: second cardiologist sued over alleged fen-phen fraud
“A second doctor was accused of fraud [earlier this month] in a federal lawsuit filed by the AHP Settlement Trust, the entity created to process claims related to the $3.75 billion fen-phen settlement.” (see Sept. 21, Sept. 25). The new suit alleges that a New York City cardiologist conspired with an unnamed law firm to submit medically unreasonable claims of heart valve injury, resulting in the payment of millions of dollars in claims. “Compensation was a motivating factor in the fraud, the suit alleges, noting that for each VHD [valvular heart disease] certification, Mueller allegedly received an immediate payment of $500 over and above the $900 he received for interpreting the echocardiogram. The suit alleges that Mueller received another payment of $1,500 following compensation to the claimant, earning more than $1 million.” Contingency fees for expert witnesses are not necessarily prohibited as such in American courtrooms, though they have been widely viewed with distaste by ethics authorities. (Shannon P. Duffy, “Fen-Phen Settlement Trust Sues Second Doctor for Fraud”, Legal Intelligencer, Nov. 17).
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t
You may have heard of the $100 million lawsuit filed by postal workers against US Postal Service officials for failing to evacuate the anthrax-contaminated Brentwood facility and to treat workers quickly enough. (Allan Lengel, “Postal Workers File Suit Over Handling of Anthrax Crisis”, Washington Post, Oct. 15). The press coverage universally fails to note that while two workers, Joseph P. Curseen, and Thomas J. Morris, Jr., died from anthrax, the lawsuit was filed on behalf of all 2200 workers in the facility, and none of the five named plaintiffs represent the families of the deceased or, though all the Brentwood postal workers were tested for the disease, allege that they contracted anthrax. Instead, they allege, vaguely, “anthrax-like symptoms” for which they wish to receive damages. (At the press conference, the lead lawyer apparently claimed that there are several other anthrax-linked deaths, a fact we’re sure the CDC would be curious to know even as it was being reported uncritically by the Washington Post.) At least some postal workers who actually contracted anthrax have already brought individual suits that won’t be affected by the class action. (Linell Smith, “More anthrax suits likely against Postal Service”, Baltimore Sun, Jan. 10; “Lawsuit Over Anthrax Death Settled”, Washington Post, Aug. 9, 2002). Again, this went unnoted by the press coverage, which focused on the postal workers who were harmed, rather than the claims of the named plaintiffs. Also less publicized is the fact that New Jersey postal workers are suing Bayer, claiming that they were injured because they took Cipro as a precaution against anthrax exposure, and requesting class action status. (“Postal Workers Sue Maker of Cipro”, AP, Oct. 19).
UPDATE, Oct. 24: Reader William Jones writes to point us to a recent study of Brentwood postal employees in a CDC publication that shows no additional mortality from the anthrax exposure beyond the deaths of Curseen and Morris. (K. Berry et al., “Follow-Up of Deaths Among U.S. Postal Service Workers Potentially Exposed to Bacillus anthracis — District of Columbia, 2001–2002”, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Oct. 3 ).
Law.com: “The Future of Litigation”
American Lawyer/Corporate Counsel runs a multi-article feature on “The Future of Litigation (contents) with articles on asbestos, the Class Action Fairness Act, and other topics, some of them more to our taste than others. We shouldn’t omit mention of Alison Frankel’s overview piece (“Where We Are”, Law.com, Oct. 8) since it quotes a certain “litigation pundit who slays lawyer-excesses on his ‘Overlawyered’ Web site”.
Diagnosis: asbestos
Commenting on the recent legal action (see Sept. 21) charging a cardiologist with having run a diagnosis mill providing dubious certification of heart damage for thousands of fen-phen claimants, Sydney Smith (Medpundit) is reminded of a problem from her own practice (Sept. 19, scroll down): “Making dubious diagnoses for class action suits is becoming a bit of a cottage industry in medicine. Asbestos is the [worst]. Several of my patients have come in saying that they’ve been diagnosed with asbestosis by ‘the union’s lawyer’s doctor.’ Needless to say, neither the union, nor the lawyer, nor the doctor ever share their findings with me, even when asked. And not one case has been confirmed by our local pulmonologist when I’ve referred them on. That is if they’ll let me. Some of them don’t want to have a second opinion — don’t want to miss that payout. (That’s not to say I haven’t had cases of asbestosis. But curiously, all of my asbestosis cases were not diagnosed by lawyers.)”.
Class action roundup: tires, Western Union, jam
At the new multi-author blog Marginal Revolution, Alex Tabarrok writes that he’s angry: “The lawyers will get $19 million, the plaintiffs have no damages and I have been involved in an abuse of justice. I received notice yesterday that I was a plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against Bridgestone/Firestone that is about to be settled. I was never injured by Firestone but that’s ok because injured people have their own lawsuit the one I am involved in is for people who were not injured. The lawsuit reads ‘Plaintiff Does Not Seek To Represent And This Litigation Does Not Involve Any Person Who Alleges That He or She Suffered Any Personal Injury or Property Damage Because Of A Failure Of One Of The Tires’ (capitalization in original.) Bear in mind that Firestone has already replaced all four of my tires with a competitor’s brand for free and similarly for many of the other plaintiffs.” (Sept. 16) Co-blogger Tyler Cowen at the same site isn’t any happier to discover that he is a member of the class in a suit against Western Union over its wire-funds-abroad service charging that, according to the legalese, “…the Defendants [made] misrepresentations about or otherwise failing to disclose to customers the fact that they received a more favorable exchange rate for converting U.S. dollars to foreign currency and foreign currency to U.S. dollars than they provided to their customers.” “Imagine that” — writes Cowen — “a middleman buying and selling at different prices!” (Sept. 17). (More: see KrazyKiwi, Oct. 8).
Meanwhile, a Wisconsin man has filed an intended class action lawsuit against jam maker J.M. Smucker after the Washington-based anti-business group Center for Science in the Public Interest published a report claiming that Smucker’s “Simply 100 Percent Fruit” products were falsely labeled because only a minority of the actual contents of a jar of strawberry or blueberry “Spreadable Fruit” consisted of those berries, the remainder consisting (as Smucker’s labeling makes clear) of syrups, concentrates and extracts derived from other fruits such as apple, grape, lemon and pineapple. (“Smucker’s Spreads Not All Fruit, Lawsuit Says”, AP/FoxNews, Sept. 5 — if you’re looking for a deceptive claim, how about the one conveyed by that headline?). The food-industry-defense Center for Consumer Freedom levels an interesting accusation against CSPI, namely that bounty-hunting lawyers suing under California’s Proposition 65 law seemed to have mysterious psychic powers to divine in advance exactly what was going to be in a CSPI report on supposed killer french fries — either that, or CSPI shared the information with them before it went public with its allegations. See “We, the jury, find the defendant ‘starchy'”, CCF, Jul. 17 (third from last paragraph); “CSPI: 100 Percent Litigious”, CCF, Sept. 8; “Latest Acrylamide Panic Based on Fudged Numbers” (press release), CCF, Jul. 10. For more on the French fry suit, see Dec. 27-29, 2002.
Boom in ads to sue
Lawyer advertising on TV seems to be losing its stigma: “According to data provided by the Television Bureau of Advertising, a television industry trade group, lawyers spent $311.3 million on television commercials in 2002, a 75 percent increase from the $177.2 million spent in 1999.” The boom is led by mass tort advertising, notably ads urging persons who have consumed recently recalled drugs to consider filing suit. The result, charges Chicago lawyer Philip Beck, who represents the drug firm Bayer, is to allow “lawyers to be able to sign up huge volumes of claims even though they know the vast majority of them don’t have any merit”. (Alexei Oreskovic, “Regularly Scheduled Programming”, The Recorder, Sept. 3).
Award for bad journalism?
The asbestos litigation compromise now pending in Congress may be a good bill or it may be a bad one, but there’s no excuse for the L.A. Times’s absurdly slanted coverage of it, argues Hugh Hewitt today (HughHewitt.com, Jul. 14; David G. Savage, “Asbestos Bill Could Be Windfall for Business”, Los Angeles Times, Jul. 14)(via Southern California Law Blog).
FBI probing Jefferson County verdicts
News from the most litigation-famed county in Mississippi (see May 7; May 4-6, 2001): “The FBI is investigating huge jury verdicts in Jefferson County and several of the trial lawyers who have been involved with them, according to sources close to the investigation.” Last year, when a local resident interviewed by CBS Minutes suggested that jurors profit “under the table” from some of the huge verdicts, Mississippi Trial Lawyers Association official David Baria called for a criminal investigation; now that he’s got one, however, he’s not so happy about it, calling the FBI probe “a concerted effort to demonize lawyers and judges” as well as politically motivated. (Jerry Mitchell, “Verdicts, lawyers under FBI scrutiny”, Jackson Clarion-Ledger, Jun. 22).