In a remarkable decision today, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that the Oregon Tort Claims Act is unconstitutional, as applied in a case involving profound injury. The case, Clarke v. Oregon Health Sciences Univ., involved a profoundly injured child who suffered brain damage as a result of negligent care at Oregon Health Sciences.
Despite the fact that the baby's lifetime medical needs would cost over $11 million, the Oregon Tort Claims Act limited the baby's recovery to $200,000. The Oregon Supreme Court concluded that the limits deprived the child of a remedy guaranteed by the Oregon constitution.
Here is the url to today's opinion
It's an interesting decision. The Oregon Supreme Court strives to decide cases unanimously. And while all of the participating justices agreed to the outcome, two joined in a concurring opinion that carefully suggested how the legislature might consider fixing the constitutional problems.
The case will likely mean different things to different interests. For severely injured consumers, it means that injuries caused by the government are not artificially capped by limits that are low and outdated.
But the opinion also leaves open many questions. For example, all the justices agreed that the $200,000 maximum was constitutionally inadequate in Jordaan Clarke's case. But what happens when the injuries are profound but don't total $11 million in economic damages? For the present, it looks like the Court will be addressing that question on a case-by-case basis. I suppose this isn't the end of the world, as legal systems, lawyers and judges exist specifically to frame and decide these evolving questions.
To be sure, both opinions reveal keen wisdom about the role of the judiciary as a co-equal branch of our system. The court narrowly decided the case and invited the legislature to fix the problem with specific observations that provide legislators with some guidance on how to go forward. I don't particularly agree with how the court got there or a number of the specifics in both the majority and concurring opinions. Even so, I have to say that the court handled a tough case with grace.
Where we go from here should prove interesting for those of us who represent consumers.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Friday, December 28, 2007
Friday, December 21, 2007
Too Late: Insured Teen Dies After CIGNA Insurance Delays Approval of Liver Transplant
There isn't much more horrible than watching your child die. Reported in today's news is the case of 17-year old Nataline Sarkisyan. She died after her health insurance, CIGNA, refused to approve a liver transplant. Her doctors said the transplant was necessary to treat her leukemia. CIGNA refused and then later relented after protesters showed up outside CIGNA's offices.
Here is the url: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22357873/
We like to think that playing by the rules and providing for our families provides us protection. Here is a working family that provided health insurance for itself. Given the costs of coverage today, that is no small feat. And yet, hard work and sacrifice and resources weren't enough because greed got in the way.
CIGNA refused to pay for the transplant because "there was a lack of evidence" that it would be effective. But her doctors concluded it was necessary.
As a kid, I grew up reading Mad Magazine, and one of my favorite features was something called, "What They Say/What They Really Mean," or something like that. This one is ripe for the old Mad Mag treatment. What they say is that, "There was a lack of evidence that the treatment would be effective," and what CIGNA really meant was, "Hey we're the insurance company, and we know better than the doctors who have examined and treated Natalie. It's our money, and we don't want to spend it."
Giving it the Mad Mag treatment is probably inappropriate for the simple reason that a family lost their sister and daughter and all the beauty and life and energy that every kid brings into the world. Through the years, I have represented parents who have lost children, and all have told me the same thing.
There is nothing worse than burying your child.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Here is the url: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22357873/
We like to think that playing by the rules and providing for our families provides us protection. Here is a working family that provided health insurance for itself. Given the costs of coverage today, that is no small feat. And yet, hard work and sacrifice and resources weren't enough because greed got in the way.
CIGNA refused to pay for the transplant because "there was a lack of evidence" that it would be effective. But her doctors concluded it was necessary.
As a kid, I grew up reading Mad Magazine, and one of my favorite features was something called, "What They Say/What They Really Mean," or something like that. This one is ripe for the old Mad Mag treatment. What they say is that, "There was a lack of evidence that the treatment would be effective," and what CIGNA really meant was, "Hey we're the insurance company, and we know better than the doctors who have examined and treated Natalie. It's our money, and we don't want to spend it."
Giving it the Mad Mag treatment is probably inappropriate for the simple reason that a family lost their sister and daughter and all the beauty and life and energy that every kid brings into the world. Through the years, I have represented parents who have lost children, and all have told me the same thing.
There is nothing worse than burying your child.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Allstate Ignores Court Order; Incurs $25,000 in Fines Per Day
I'm guessing Allstate policyholders' premiums are going to go up.
Here's a summary of an interesting news report from yesterday's Kansas City Star. An Allstate insured is suing Allstate in Missouri because the company failed to pay on his policy after he struck and injured another motorist. The insured, Mr. Aldridge, requested documents relating to a consultant's report in the case, and the trial court ordered Allstate to produce them.
Allstate appealed all the way to the Missouri Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ruled that Allstate must produce the consultant's papers. Allstate is still refusing, so the trial court levied fines. Reportedly, the fines are $25,000 per day for the refusal.
Here is a url to the news report: http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/v-print/story/409641.html
Allstate seems to have concluded that it can ignore the rulings and orders of the courts. It doesn't like the result, so it will just refuse to comply. The fines don't seem to be a problem. After all, they can just pass them through to policyholders.
When an injured person gets a large verdict, the media machine for the tort reform industry throws out terms. You've heard them: lawsuit lottery, frivolous lawsuit, and judicial hellhole. So what do they call it when Allstate simply refuses to comply with an order of the court? I don't hear the American Tort Reform Association putting out any press releases on this issue. Nor do I hear the politicians who hate the jury system system condemning Allstate. All I hear is a variation on the golden rule. As in, "We've got the gold, so we make the rules."
I'll be watching carefully for that next series of Allstate's commercials to hear them explain how they take care of policyholders. Who knows? Maybe they'll explain this one in a new TV ad with that guy who tells us about Allstate's stand.
I can hardly wait.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Here's a summary of an interesting news report from yesterday's Kansas City Star. An Allstate insured is suing Allstate in Missouri because the company failed to pay on his policy after he struck and injured another motorist. The insured, Mr. Aldridge, requested documents relating to a consultant's report in the case, and the trial court ordered Allstate to produce them.
Allstate appealed all the way to the Missouri Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ruled that Allstate must produce the consultant's papers. Allstate is still refusing, so the trial court levied fines. Reportedly, the fines are $25,000 per day for the refusal.
Here is a url to the news report: http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/v-print/story/409641.html
Allstate seems to have concluded that it can ignore the rulings and orders of the courts. It doesn't like the result, so it will just refuse to comply. The fines don't seem to be a problem. After all, they can just pass them through to policyholders.
When an injured person gets a large verdict, the media machine for the tort reform industry throws out terms. You've heard them: lawsuit lottery, frivolous lawsuit, and judicial hellhole. So what do they call it when Allstate simply refuses to comply with an order of the court? I don't hear the American Tort Reform Association putting out any press releases on this issue. Nor do I hear the politicians who hate the jury system system condemning Allstate. All I hear is a variation on the golden rule. As in, "We've got the gold, so we make the rules."
I'll be watching carefully for that next series of Allstate's commercials to hear them explain how they take care of policyholders. Who knows? Maybe they'll explain this one in a new TV ad with that guy who tells us about Allstate's stand.
I can hardly wait.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Doctors in Rehab Still Practicing Medicine
Interesting report on MSNBC today about doctors in rehab in California who are allowed to obtain confidential drug and alcohol treatment while continuing to provide patient care. Here's the url: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22314486/
Oregon has a similar program of confidential drug and alcohol treatment for physicians. Here is the url for the Board of Medical Examiners summary of the program: http://oregon.gov/BME/healthprog.shtml. The statutes codifying the Oregon program are ORS 677.615-677.677.
The MSNBC article notes that many drug and alcohol treatment professionals and the American Medical Association support these types of programs. According to the AMA, allowing an impaired physician to continue treating patients encourages impaired doctors to seek treatment. Of course, the article also notes that California is ending its program because a review revealed that the confidential program failed to protect patients. And it also failed to encourage doctors to receive treatment.
The California experience provides hard data that undermines the AMA's position. My perspective is surely colored by representing patients, but even so, there is something horrifying about a patient not knowing about a doctor's impairment.
If you have any doubt about this in the abstract, consider a fairly simple hypothetical question. Would you want a surgeon who is addicted to drugs performing surgery on your child? If the answer is, "Of course not," then it's easy to see the problem with the confidential approach that allows impaired doctors to continue treating patients.
The AMA should be advocating for quality of care, and the California experience makes clear that the current system delivers lower quality care. An impaired doctor can be dangerous to patients. If the impairment is kept confidential, the very least that should happen is that the doctor should take a leave so that patients have confidence in their physician. Alternatively--and it's a radical alternative--remove the confidentiality so that patients can choose. I imagine the radical alternative would horrify the AMA and the Oregon Board of Medical Examiners. I could see that reaction. But if you're not going to give patients the information they need to protect themselves, then you surely should take the impaired physician out of circulation.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Oregon has a similar program of confidential drug and alcohol treatment for physicians. Here is the url for the Board of Medical Examiners summary of the program: http://oregon.gov/BME/healthprog.shtml. The statutes codifying the Oregon program are ORS 677.615-677.677.
The MSNBC article notes that many drug and alcohol treatment professionals and the American Medical Association support these types of programs. According to the AMA, allowing an impaired physician to continue treating patients encourages impaired doctors to seek treatment. Of course, the article also notes that California is ending its program because a review revealed that the confidential program failed to protect patients. And it also failed to encourage doctors to receive treatment.
The California experience provides hard data that undermines the AMA's position. My perspective is surely colored by representing patients, but even so, there is something horrifying about a patient not knowing about a doctor's impairment.
If you have any doubt about this in the abstract, consider a fairly simple hypothetical question. Would you want a surgeon who is addicted to drugs performing surgery on your child? If the answer is, "Of course not," then it's easy to see the problem with the confidential approach that allows impaired doctors to continue treating patients.
The AMA should be advocating for quality of care, and the California experience makes clear that the current system delivers lower quality care. An impaired doctor can be dangerous to patients. If the impairment is kept confidential, the very least that should happen is that the doctor should take a leave so that patients have confidence in their physician. Alternatively--and it's a radical alternative--remove the confidentiality so that patients can choose. I imagine the radical alternative would horrify the AMA and the Oregon Board of Medical Examiners. I could see that reaction. But if you're not going to give patients the information they need to protect themselves, then you surely should take the impaired physician out of circulation.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Monday, December 17, 2007
Washington Court Approves Class Action Settlement for Auto Glass Workers
In Seattle last week, Judge Bruce Hilyer approved a class action settlement for auto glass workers who claimed to suffer vibration injuries from use of the Chicago Pneumatic CP 838. The case is Boos v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., State of Washington, King County Superior Court Case No. 02-2-16730-6SEA.
Disclosure: The author of this blog served as lead counsel for the class, and Paul & Sugerman has been involved in auto glass workers' product liability claims against Chicago Pneumatic since 1995.
In Washington, approximately 120 workers made claims and will receive compensation in the Boos settlement. In earlier cases in Oregon, approximately 75 workers made claims and received compensation for vibration injuries. It's been a long fight, and some good has come out of it.
Success in the case would have been impossible without a great team, and I close by acknowledging and thanking the rest of the team who made the case a success: Eric Boos and Jim Rasmussen, the two class representatives, and my colleagues in the trenches, Steve Sitcov, Candice Rutter, Rick Klingbeil and Bernie Jolles.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Disclosure: The author of this blog served as lead counsel for the class, and Paul & Sugerman has been involved in auto glass workers' product liability claims against Chicago Pneumatic since 1995.
In Washington, approximately 120 workers made claims and will receive compensation in the Boos settlement. In earlier cases in Oregon, approximately 75 workers made claims and received compensation for vibration injuries. It's been a long fight, and some good has come out of it.
Success in the case would have been impossible without a great team, and I close by acknowledging and thanking the rest of the team who made the case a success: Eric Boos and Jim Rasmussen, the two class representatives, and my colleagues in the trenches, Steve Sitcov, Candice Rutter, Rick Klingbeil and Bernie Jolles.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Western Culinary Institute Students Raise Complaints
Willamette Week's Dave Mazza reports in this week's issue about a rash of student complaints at Portland's Western Culinary Institute. According to the article, some 800 students pay $39,000 for culinary training. According to the article, students claim that the trade school promises a rich and rewarding career in the restaurant business. The story details problems with program, including over crowded classes, limited facilities and over-promised rosy futures.
Those who know the food and restaurant trade will tell you that the average kitchen job rarely pays more than modest wages. Celebrity TV chefs are the exception. According to the article, many of these young men and women are incurring substantial debt and leave the school with limited options beyond low-paying work.
Here's the url to the story: http://wweek.com/editorial/3405/10113/
While it's hard to draw conclusions based on a single news story may, if the report is accurate, a number of these students may have various consumer claims. Thankfully, Oregon law provides a number of different avenues for those students who might choose to seek relief.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Those who know the food and restaurant trade will tell you that the average kitchen job rarely pays more than modest wages. Celebrity TV chefs are the exception. According to the article, many of these young men and women are incurring substantial debt and leave the school with limited options beyond low-paying work.
Here's the url to the story: http://wweek.com/editorial/3405/10113/
While it's hard to draw conclusions based on a single news story may, if the report is accurate, a number of these students may have various consumer claims. Thankfully, Oregon law provides a number of different avenues for those students who might choose to seek relief.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Three Errors in Brain Surgeries Highlight Need for Civil Justice System
A recent news report reveals that at one prominent Rhode Island hospital, three different brain surgeries performed by three different surgeons involved surgery on the wrong side of the head. Same hospital. All in one year. Here's a url to the MSNBC report: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22263412/
The report details how surgeons and nurses failed to comply with safety procedures designed to ensure that surgery is done at the correct site. The regulating agency, Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals gets 8 reports a month of wrong-site surgery, but the Commission notes that hospitals are not required to report these incidents. As a consequence, the rate of error from this type of medical mistake is believed to be 10 times higher than the reported rate.
If you think about it, surgery is a fairly intense way to treat a big medical problem. To cure, the surgeon is literally cutting into the human body and removing and restructuring the body. That's a bit obvious, of course, but it's an important concept when thinking about what it means to do surgery at the wrong site. It's another form of unnecessary surgery, and that's no small thing for the patient.
When we undergo surgery, patients literally surrender all control to the doctor and medical staff. We're put under and have no way to gently say, "Excuse me, doctor, but it's the other hip."
The best outcome would be that the surgical team review and re-review the patient's chart to make sure that surgery is being performed where it is needed. Failing that, the patient's only recourse is the civil justice system. This is the only place where ordinary people have the ability to call wrongdoers to account. This is true even when the wrongdoer is rich and powerful.
So next time you hear a politician ranting about the "malpractice crisis" or "frivolous" lawsuits, it might be wise to remember that serious mistakes happen, and the system needs to remain open to address those errors.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
The report details how surgeons and nurses failed to comply with safety procedures designed to ensure that surgery is done at the correct site. The regulating agency, Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals gets 8 reports a month of wrong-site surgery, but the Commission notes that hospitals are not required to report these incidents. As a consequence, the rate of error from this type of medical mistake is believed to be 10 times higher than the reported rate.
If you think about it, surgery is a fairly intense way to treat a big medical problem. To cure, the surgeon is literally cutting into the human body and removing and restructuring the body. That's a bit obvious, of course, but it's an important concept when thinking about what it means to do surgery at the wrong site. It's another form of unnecessary surgery, and that's no small thing for the patient.
When we undergo surgery, patients literally surrender all control to the doctor and medical staff. We're put under and have no way to gently say, "Excuse me, doctor, but it's the other hip."
The best outcome would be that the surgical team review and re-review the patient's chart to make sure that surgery is being performed where it is needed. Failing that, the patient's only recourse is the civil justice system. This is the only place where ordinary people have the ability to call wrongdoers to account. This is true even when the wrongdoer is rich and powerful.
So next time you hear a politician ranting about the "malpractice crisis" or "frivolous" lawsuits, it might be wise to remember that serious mistakes happen, and the system needs to remain open to address those errors.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Friday, December 14, 2007
The Overstated Malpractice "Crisis"--Maryland Wants its Money Back
The Washington Post reports today that Maryland is demanding repayment of $84 million from a physician insurer because--here's some news--the medical malpractice "crisis" wasn't actually a crisis.
Back in 2004, then Gov. Ehrlic convened a special session to deal with what he termed the malpractice crisis. Maryland began to provide subsidies.
The insurer recently announced that it had a surplus and would pay some of the money back to the State and the rest to doctors in the form of a rebate for next year's coverage. State regulators weren't thrilled and instead demanded repayment of the $84 million which had been raised by a surcharge on HMO subscribers.
It's nice to see a state government stand firm and demand return of public money. It might be interesting to take a look back at who was fanning the flames on the non-crisis.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Back in 2004, then Gov. Ehrlic convened a special session to deal with what he termed the malpractice crisis. Maryland began to provide subsidies.
The insurer recently announced that it had a surplus and would pay some of the money back to the State and the rest to doctors in the form of a rebate for next year's coverage. State regulators weren't thrilled and instead demanded repayment of the $84 million which had been raised by a surcharge on HMO subscribers.
It's nice to see a state government stand firm and demand return of public money. It might be interesting to take a look back at who was fanning the flames on the non-crisis.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
SE Portland Mother Killed on Sidewalk
It's gut wrenching to read this. A mother of three kids, Angela Buyas, was run over and killed by a 21-year old driver late Tuesday night on SE Stark in Portland. She was walking. On the sidewalk.
According to news reports, the driver, lost control of his vehicle due to speed and intoxication. That's fairly sanitized. So a speeding drunken driver decimated a family. It's another tragic driving under the influence story. This one is even more poignant because the children earlier lost their father, and are now orphaned.
The takeaway from this horror is that alcohol + driving = disaster.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
According to news reports, the driver, lost control of his vehicle due to speed and intoxication. That's fairly sanitized. So a speeding drunken driver decimated a family. It's another tragic driving under the influence story. This one is even more poignant because the children earlier lost their father, and are now orphaned.
The takeaway from this horror is that alcohol + driving = disaster.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Monday, December 10, 2007
Washington Trial Judge Disciplined for Slurs
According to an Associated Press news report, the Washington Commission on Judicial Conduct censured Clark County Superior Court Judge John P. Wulle. In a public training session in Los Angeles last year, Judge Wulle reportedly referred to one speaker as, "the black gay guy." At the same forum, when the Clark County team--including Judge Wulle--was awarded a star for their performance, Judge Wulle loudly declaimed that he didn't need a star because, "I'm not a Jew."
I imagine it's tough being a judge because you're held to a higher standard. But there's good reason for that. It's hard to imagine that if you're black, gay or Jewish, you would be eager to have Judge Wulle decide your case.
Judge Wulle was ordered to undergo alcohol evaluation--some witnesses at the conference suggested that he smelled of alcohol. Judge Wulle disputes that alcohol was involved, saying instead that he had taken cough medicine. I have to say that as a trial lawyer, I would have derived more comfort from an admission of alcohol abuse, as it seems a lot less chilling than thinly concealed racial, religious and sexual orientation prejudices.
According to the news report, Judge Wulle was initially dismissive of complaints about his conduct. While he has since issued an apology of sorts--as in I didn't mean to offend anyone--it seems like there's a shortage of insight and willingness to confront some nastiness. Judge Wulle must also undergo judicial ethics and diversity training. Here's hoping it opens his eyes, as everyone deserves a judge who can be fair.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
I imagine it's tough being a judge because you're held to a higher standard. But there's good reason for that. It's hard to imagine that if you're black, gay or Jewish, you would be eager to have Judge Wulle decide your case.
Judge Wulle was ordered to undergo alcohol evaluation--some witnesses at the conference suggested that he smelled of alcohol. Judge Wulle disputes that alcohol was involved, saying instead that he had taken cough medicine. I have to say that as a trial lawyer, I would have derived more comfort from an admission of alcohol abuse, as it seems a lot less chilling than thinly concealed racial, religious and sexual orientation prejudices.
According to the news report, Judge Wulle was initially dismissive of complaints about his conduct. While he has since issued an apology of sorts--as in I didn't mean to offend anyone--it seems like there's a shortage of insight and willingness to confront some nastiness. Judge Wulle must also undergo judicial ethics and diversity training. Here's hoping it opens his eyes, as everyone deserves a judge who can be fair.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Friday, December 7, 2007
Bush Mortgage Bail Out: Thin at Best
With great fanfare, President Bush announced yesterday a new program that would freeze adjustable rate mortgage increases on subprime mortgages. Sounds great, until you review the fine print.
The freeze in rate increases is only available for those with subprime mortgages. Further, it is only available for those who are current on their mortgages and only if there has been no increase already.
A number of lenders went to great lengths to lend money, including using artificially lower interest-only adjustable rate mortgages, mortgages with tremendous balloons, and artificially discounted teaser rates.
The Bush plan applies to an estimated 10 to 15 percent of borrowers who are at risk of foreclosure. That's thin, at best.
At the same time, regulation of lending is lax at best. Oregon, for example, sets no legal underwriting standards. Oregon allows lenders to penalize early payment. Oregon allows refinancing even when doing so does not benefit the lender.
For those who qualify, the President's provision may provide some breathing room. On the other hand, it may merely create future problems for those who get the benefit of the freeze. Regardless, you have to wonder what they were intending to do when they created this great bailout for 10 percent of consumers who are at risk.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
The freeze in rate increases is only available for those with subprime mortgages. Further, it is only available for those who are current on their mortgages and only if there has been no increase already.
A number of lenders went to great lengths to lend money, including using artificially lower interest-only adjustable rate mortgages, mortgages with tremendous balloons, and artificially discounted teaser rates.
The Bush plan applies to an estimated 10 to 15 percent of borrowers who are at risk of foreclosure. That's thin, at best.
At the same time, regulation of lending is lax at best. Oregon, for example, sets no legal underwriting standards. Oregon allows lenders to penalize early payment. Oregon allows refinancing even when doing so does not benefit the lender.
For those who qualify, the President's provision may provide some breathing room. On the other hand, it may merely create future problems for those who get the benefit of the freeze. Regardless, you have to wonder what they were intending to do when they created this great bailout for 10 percent of consumers who are at risk.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Ford Recalls SUVs, Vans and Trucks for Engine Flaw
Through the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, Ford announced the recall of some 1.2 million SUVs, vans and trucks for an electrical system problem that can cause engine stalls. According to the NHTSA web site, the camshaft position sensor located on the engine of the vehicle may function intermittently, possibly resulting in an engine stall and crash.
Affected vehicles are equipped with the 7.31 diesel engine for the Ford E Series, Excursion, F-450 Superduty and F-550 Superduty for model years 1997-2003.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Affected vehicles are equipped with the 7.31 diesel engine for the Ford E Series, Excursion, F-450 Superduty and F-550 Superduty for model years 1997-2003.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Federal Jury Finds for Oregon Welder in Toxic Injury Case
A federal jury in Cleveland, Ohio found that an Oregon welder suffered serious injuries from exposure to toxic welding fumes. For years, welders have claimed that manganese fumes from welding causes profound damage to the nervous system. The problems appear similar to Parkinson's disease, with brain damage that affects movement and memory.
Approximately 3,000 cases are pending in Cleveland. Previously, the manufacturers had won most cases; however, the multi-million dollar verdict in this case may represent a turning point in the litigation.
In this era of mass-production, when many people are injured by the same misconduct, there seems to be a fairly predictable pattern in litigation. In almost all cases, the company wins the early cases because it is hard for injured consumers to fully investigate and understand what happened. Later cases build upon the early failures, and consumers or workers often break through with a major victory. At that point, it is not unusual for consumers and workers to achieve a critical mass that allows them to establish higher and higher verdict values by repeatedly trying cases for the same injuries.
Perhaps this is victory represents a turning point for welding workers who are seeking justice.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Approximately 3,000 cases are pending in Cleveland. Previously, the manufacturers had won most cases; however, the multi-million dollar verdict in this case may represent a turning point in the litigation.
In this era of mass-production, when many people are injured by the same misconduct, there seems to be a fairly predictable pattern in litigation. In almost all cases, the company wins the early cases because it is hard for injured consumers to fully investigate and understand what happened. Later cases build upon the early failures, and consumers or workers often break through with a major victory. At that point, it is not unusual for consumers and workers to achieve a critical mass that allows them to establish higher and higher verdict values by repeatedly trying cases for the same injuries.
Perhaps this is victory represents a turning point for welding workers who are seeking justice.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Friday, November 30, 2007
Supreme Court Considering Far-Reaching Cases This Term
I remember as kid growing up in Texas that a generalized fear settled in when the Texas legislature convened every other year for its regular sessions. The general sentiment of those of us who didn't own oil wells, ranches or corporations was, "Quick, nail everything down tight. They're going back into session."
When it comes to consumer safety, it may be that the U.S. Supreme Court will come to resemble the Texas legislature. This term, the Court considers whether federal regulations will preempt state law claims in injury cases.
What does that mean?
Preemption is a legal term that describes the relationship between federal law and the laws of the states. Because federal law is supreme, Congress can make laws that displace state rules. Sometimes this is a good thing. For example, without preemption, states would be free--if they chose--to allow slavery. That, of course, is unacceptable.
Unfortunately, preemption can also be used to eliminate consumers' access to the courts. In the pending case of Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., the Court will hear a claim from the manufacturer of a potentially dangerous catheter that it should not face a claim from a consumer who died when the product malfunctioned, even if it was defectively designed. Medical equipment manufacturers are relying on the Medical Device Amendments, claiming that Congress eliminated the rights of injured consumers to sue for damages when injured by careless manufacturers.
Maybe the Court will steer by principle and stick with the well-developed rules that consumers retain the ability to have a jury decide whether the manufacturer was in the wrong. Or maybe it's a new era reminiscent of the Texas legislature. The Court hears argument in early December, with a decision expected by June.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
When it comes to consumer safety, it may be that the U.S. Supreme Court will come to resemble the Texas legislature. This term, the Court considers whether federal regulations will preempt state law claims in injury cases.
What does that mean?
Preemption is a legal term that describes the relationship between federal law and the laws of the states. Because federal law is supreme, Congress can make laws that displace state rules. Sometimes this is a good thing. For example, without preemption, states would be free--if they chose--to allow slavery. That, of course, is unacceptable.
Unfortunately, preemption can also be used to eliminate consumers' access to the courts. In the pending case of Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., the Court will hear a claim from the manufacturer of a potentially dangerous catheter that it should not face a claim from a consumer who died when the product malfunctioned, even if it was defectively designed. Medical equipment manufacturers are relying on the Medical Device Amendments, claiming that Congress eliminated the rights of injured consumers to sue for damages when injured by careless manufacturers.
Maybe the Court will steer by principle and stick with the well-developed rules that consumers retain the ability to have a jury decide whether the manufacturer was in the wrong. Or maybe it's a new era reminiscent of the Texas legislature. The Court hears argument in early December, with a decision expected by June.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Comcast Loses Another Arbitration Clause Case
In September 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit followed a clear trend when it ruled that Comcast could not enforce its mandatory arbitration clause against subscribers who brought an overcharge case against Comcast. In Dale v. Comcast Corp., 498 F.3d 1216 (11th Cir. 2007), the Court ruled that the arbitration clause was unconscionable and unenforceable because it made consumers’ pursuit of claims nearly impossible.
The case is part of a growing trend in which federal and state courts are scrutinizing mandatory arbitration clauses. Full disclosure: Paul & Sugerman represents consumers in litigation against Comcast and has successfully fought the Comcast arbitration clause in Oregon. That case--Martin v. Comcast--is still pending.
The problem with mandatory arbitration clauses is that they are often one-sided and unfair. A requirement that both parties go to arbitration isn’t necessarily so bad IF both sides agree. But often these clauses are buried in fine print. Worse, they frequently contain other provisions that hurt consumers, like limits on recovery of attorneys fees, prohibitions on class actions, and elimination of certain types of damages. The one-way clause often includes a choice of arbitration services that favor large corporations. In the end, it’s often about as fair as a rigged ring toss at a carnival.
It’s nice to see things turning back toward the middle. This is one area in which the pendulum went way out of whack.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
The case is part of a growing trend in which federal and state courts are scrutinizing mandatory arbitration clauses. Full disclosure: Paul & Sugerman represents consumers in litigation against Comcast and has successfully fought the Comcast arbitration clause in Oregon. That case--Martin v. Comcast--is still pending.
The problem with mandatory arbitration clauses is that they are often one-sided and unfair. A requirement that both parties go to arbitration isn’t necessarily so bad IF both sides agree. But often these clauses are buried in fine print. Worse, they frequently contain other provisions that hurt consumers, like limits on recovery of attorneys fees, prohibitions on class actions, and elimination of certain types of damages. The one-way clause often includes a choice of arbitration services that favor large corporations. In the end, it’s often about as fair as a rigged ring toss at a carnival.
It’s nice to see things turning back toward the middle. This is one area in which the pendulum went way out of whack.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Tired Screed: Romney Wants to Thwart Injured Patients
Ah yes, it's campaign season again. And we have another politician calling for, "federal caps on non-economic and punitive damages related to malpractice" because, "lottery-sized awards and frivolous lawsuits may enrich the trial lawyers but they put a heavy burden on doctors, hospitals and, of course through defensive medicine, they put a burden on the entire health care system."
This time it's Mitt Romney. Cite to the article for further detail: http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/2007/11/20/D8T1MFNO2_romney_health_care/index.html
I don't know where to start. First, with the irony. I thought Gov. Romney was a conservative, but here he wants regulation and a one-size-fits-all federal standard for all patients injured by physician neglect.
The bigger problem is that Gov. Romney either knows nothing about profound injury or--worse--he knows it well, but wants to treat patients' rights as a political issue. There are bigger policy problems. To begin with, punitive damages in medical cases are so rare as to be almost non-existent. They are awarded in the rare case when a surgeon--who is drunk--commits a surgical error or when a doctor who is a pervert sexually abuses a patient. Most doctors and nurses are honorable and good people, and that is why the punitive damage problem is rare.
And then there's the lottery argument. For a buck or two, you can play the lottery in most states. You're likely to lose but if you win, you'll be a multi-millionaire. To "play the lottery" in a medical malpractice case, you need a profound injury--often it's as serious as death, or a life in a wheelchair. No matter what happens you will be that way for life because of a mistake made by an inattentive doctor. That's a tragedy, not a lottery. Anyone who confuses the two does not understand the devastation caused by profound injuries.
And then there's frivolous lawsuits. This is a phrase that really means, "We don't trust juries." For according to Gov Romney and others, juries can't tell when a lawsuit has merit, and they will literally shower the fraudulent party with a torrent of cash. I've been trying cases for over 20 years. Maybe I'm just not a very good lawyer, but it's pretty clear that juries have plenty of sense when it comes to ferreting out good claims and bad ones. Or maybe Gov. Romney and those who rant about the "crisis" have a different agenda.
In the end, it's easy to trust the jury. Our ancestors set up the jury trial system to protect us against politicians and titans. Let's not mess with it, as they knew what they were doing.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
This time it's Mitt Romney. Cite to the article for further detail: http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/2007/11/20/D8T1MFNO2_romney_health_care/index.html
I don't know where to start. First, with the irony. I thought Gov. Romney was a conservative, but here he wants regulation and a one-size-fits-all federal standard for all patients injured by physician neglect.
The bigger problem is that Gov. Romney either knows nothing about profound injury or--worse--he knows it well, but wants to treat patients' rights as a political issue. There are bigger policy problems. To begin with, punitive damages in medical cases are so rare as to be almost non-existent. They are awarded in the rare case when a surgeon--who is drunk--commits a surgical error or when a doctor who is a pervert sexually abuses a patient. Most doctors and nurses are honorable and good people, and that is why the punitive damage problem is rare.
And then there's the lottery argument. For a buck or two, you can play the lottery in most states. You're likely to lose but if you win, you'll be a multi-millionaire. To "play the lottery" in a medical malpractice case, you need a profound injury--often it's as serious as death, or a life in a wheelchair. No matter what happens you will be that way for life because of a mistake made by an inattentive doctor. That's a tragedy, not a lottery. Anyone who confuses the two does not understand the devastation caused by profound injuries.
And then there's frivolous lawsuits. This is a phrase that really means, "We don't trust juries." For according to Gov Romney and others, juries can't tell when a lawsuit has merit, and they will literally shower the fraudulent party with a torrent of cash. I've been trying cases for over 20 years. Maybe I'm just not a very good lawyer, but it's pretty clear that juries have plenty of sense when it comes to ferreting out good claims and bad ones. Or maybe Gov. Romney and those who rant about the "crisis" have a different agenda.
In the end, it's easy to trust the jury. Our ancestors set up the jury trial system to protect us against politicians and titans. Let's not mess with it, as they knew what they were doing.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Wal-Mart Raids Profoundly Injured Employee's Settlement Funds
Some things are beyond comprehension. Comes today's news, in the Wall Street Journal no less, that Wal-Mart sued a catastrophically-injured former employee for reimbursement of medical expenses. Here is a link to article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119551952474798582.html?mod=todays_us_nonsub_page_one
Reported on the front page, November 20, 2007, is the horrifying story of a woman who worked for Wal-Mart and received her health insurance through her employer. A big rig, with insufficient insurance, collided with her mini-van, and Deborah Shank was left brain damaged and confined to a wheel chair.
With the help of a lawyer, Mrs. Shank and her family settled her claim. The settlement wasn't enough to take of her future medical needs, but it would have made a big difference in her future. And then Wal-Mart sued to be reimbursed for the money it had paid for her prior care.
Wal-Mart claimed an entitlement to every dollar that it paid even though it didn't hire or pay for the lawyer that got the settlement for the Shank family. Wal-Mart claimed an entitlement to repayment even though the trucking company's insufficient insurance did not cover all of Mrs. Shank's harms and losses.
There is something very wrong with a system that allows an employer with Wal-Mart's resources to step in and claim every penny while the injured person is left penniless and without care. The story relates that the Shanks divorced so that she could receive greater public assistance as a single woman.
So the law that allows Wal-Mart full reimbursement means that taxpayers foot the bill for Mrs. Shank's care. Mrs. Shank did everything right. She worked, had insurance and didn't cause the devastating crash. The trucking company skates, Wal-Mart gets more money, Mrs. Shanks suffers without care, and we get the bill.
Go figure.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Reported on the front page, November 20, 2007, is the horrifying story of a woman who worked for Wal-Mart and received her health insurance through her employer. A big rig, with insufficient insurance, collided with her mini-van, and Deborah Shank was left brain damaged and confined to a wheel chair.
With the help of a lawyer, Mrs. Shank and her family settled her claim. The settlement wasn't enough to take of her future medical needs, but it would have made a big difference in her future. And then Wal-Mart sued to be reimbursed for the money it had paid for her prior care.
Wal-Mart claimed an entitlement to every dollar that it paid even though it didn't hire or pay for the lawyer that got the settlement for the Shank family. Wal-Mart claimed an entitlement to repayment even though the trucking company's insufficient insurance did not cover all of Mrs. Shank's harms and losses.
There is something very wrong with a system that allows an employer with Wal-Mart's resources to step in and claim every penny while the injured person is left penniless and without care. The story relates that the Shanks divorced so that she could receive greater public assistance as a single woman.
So the law that allows Wal-Mart full reimbursement means that taxpayers foot the bill for Mrs. Shank's care. Mrs. Shank did everything right. She worked, had insurance and didn't cause the devastating crash. The trucking company skates, Wal-Mart gets more money, Mrs. Shanks suffers without care, and we get the bill.
Go figure.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Monday, November 12, 2007
Changes in Oregon Auto Insurance Law Help Consumers
One of the good things to come out of the Oregon Legislature last session includes a package of changes in auto insurance law that favor consumers. The biggest change, HB 3086 (for law geeks, here’s the full cite: 2007 Or Laws Ch 782; amending ORS 742.450, 742.502, and 742.504), ended a horrible practice by the insurance industry. In the past, when one member of the same household caused injury to another household member, most policies provided that the injured person could recover no more than the minimum limits of insurance, even if the family brought higher limits insurance. So if Dad, while driving home, took his eye off the road and crashed, even if his child was horribly injured and Dad bought top limits insurance, the child would only recover $25,000, the minimum limit amount.
That was an unfair provision because a family that pays for insurance should get the full benefit of the coverage that they purchase. Under the new law, the family gets the full benefit of the policy amount that Mom and Dad bought.
The change was part of a package of changes that allow consumers the value of what they purchase. If you buy higher limits insurance—and you almost always should—that insurance should protect family members. The new law applies to insurance policies issued or renewed after January 1, 2008.
So when you renew your policy, the other thing to do is to check on your limits of insurance. Consumers often assume that minimum limits are cheapest. When you go to renew, check your limits in two categories: 1) liability; and 2)UM/UIM (underinsured/uninsured). The minimum limits are $25,000, and while that is generally enough insurance in the event of a minor-injury crash, it’s inadequate in a situation in which the injuries are permanent or someone needs major medical care.
Here is the thing that most consumers aren’t told. The next levels of insurance are usually much cheaper than the first level. So, for example, it often costs only a little bit more to insure yourself and your family at $100,000. The additional insurance is important in two situations. First, if you have gotten a little ahead in life, you don’t want to put your money at risk. Higher limits protect your assets. Second—and this is actually more important—when you get in a crash with an uninsured or underinsured driver, your higher-limits underinsured/uninsured coverage fills the gap. Yes, this means taking extra responsibility to protect yourself against uninsured/underinsured drivers. But the thing is that adequate coverage for you and your family is worth the extra expense.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
That was an unfair provision because a family that pays for insurance should get the full benefit of the coverage that they purchase. Under the new law, the family gets the full benefit of the policy amount that Mom and Dad bought.
The change was part of a package of changes that allow consumers the value of what they purchase. If you buy higher limits insurance—and you almost always should—that insurance should protect family members. The new law applies to insurance policies issued or renewed after January 1, 2008.
So when you renew your policy, the other thing to do is to check on your limits of insurance. Consumers often assume that minimum limits are cheapest. When you go to renew, check your limits in two categories: 1) liability; and 2)UM/UIM (underinsured/uninsured). The minimum limits are $25,000, and while that is generally enough insurance in the event of a minor-injury crash, it’s inadequate in a situation in which the injuries are permanent or someone needs major medical care.
Here is the thing that most consumers aren’t told. The next levels of insurance are usually much cheaper than the first level. So, for example, it often costs only a little bit more to insure yourself and your family at $100,000. The additional insurance is important in two situations. First, if you have gotten a little ahead in life, you don’t want to put your money at risk. Higher limits protect your assets. Second—and this is actually more important—when you get in a crash with an uninsured or underinsured driver, your higher-limits underinsured/uninsured coverage fills the gap. Yes, this means taking extra responsibility to protect yourself against uninsured/underinsured drivers. But the thing is that adequate coverage for you and your family is worth the extra expense.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Providence Judge Dismisses Patients' Data Loss Claims
Today, Judge Marilyn Litzenberger dismissed Providence patients' privacy claims for harms and losses resulting from the theft of computerized patient records. The case affects 350,000 patients. The motion to dismiss had been under consideration for a year. For the curious, the case is Gibson v. Providence Health System-Oregon, State of Oregon, Multnomah County Circuit Court Case No. 0601-01059.
Judge Litzenberger ruled that Oregon law did not provide a claim for Oregon patients affected by the loss. Paul & Sugerman represents the Providence patients.
At an early conference Judge Litzenberger had indicated that she was inclined to grant the motion to dismiss. She issued the decision on November 7, 2007.
When Providence first announced the security breach, it told its patients that they should take steps to protect themselves. Many patients went out and purchased identity theft protection service. Several weeks after the patients filed the lawsuit, Providence announced that it would make identity theft protection available. It eventually extended the theft protection for a second year.
It is fair to say that those of us who represent patients disagree with the judge's ruling. After all, when you go to the doctor you expect that your private health history and confidential identity information will be protected. This didn't happen.
The legal team is studying the opinion and considering its options. But for the present, it is a sad day for patients' rights.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Judge Litzenberger ruled that Oregon law did not provide a claim for Oregon patients affected by the loss. Paul & Sugerman represents the Providence patients.
At an early conference Judge Litzenberger had indicated that she was inclined to grant the motion to dismiss. She issued the decision on November 7, 2007.
When Providence first announced the security breach, it told its patients that they should take steps to protect themselves. Many patients went out and purchased identity theft protection service. Several weeks after the patients filed the lawsuit, Providence announced that it would make identity theft protection available. It eventually extended the theft protection for a second year.
It is fair to say that those of us who represent patients disagree with the judge's ruling. After all, when you go to the doctor you expect that your private health history and confidential identity information will be protected. This didn't happen.
The legal team is studying the opinion and considering its options. But for the present, it is a sad day for patients' rights.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Not Really News: Wall Street Journal Slams Trial Lawyers
The editorial in the Wall Street Journal starts like this: “We're old enough to remember when Naderite groups like Public Citizen were embarrassed by their ties to trial lawyers.” (Nov. 7, 2007, A-22). And then it goes downhill from there.
The Journal criticizes Public Citizen for its ties to trial lawyers and attempts to suggest that the stalwarts at National Association of Consumer Advocates are somehow fat-cats who are singly responsible for the demise of the American economy. It’s a screed that misses several points. Most notably this: Corporate greed, accounting abuses and lax regulation brought us Enron and the rash of inflated stock value scams.
The same big three--corporate greed, accounting abuses and lax regulation--are back for another round. This time it’s the burgeoning mortgage lending crisis. Against this backdrop, the Journal tosses out desperate charges that trial lawyers are responsible for economic meltdown. That’s very sad, as Enron didn’t hire any consumer lawyers to cook the books. Neither did the accounting firms. And the FTC and other regulatory agencies don’t seem to consult with trial lawyers, either. The growing mortgage crisis appears to be another sad case. Some lenders may have engaged in scams that involved wide-spread inflation of real estate values, so that consumers got bigger and more profitable mortgages.
The reality is that trial lawyers provide the main method of smoothing the kinks out of an economy. Open courts and the jury trial system provide the means through which ordinary consumers can call wrongdoers to account. It is the place where bad behavior faces scrutiny and the means through which greed gets checked. In that respect, the process actually protects the economy. Without the means to call wrongdoers to account, consumers would be left with very few options.
My schedule didn’t allow me to attend this year’s conference of the National Association of Consumer Advocates. So sad because it’s always nice to show up for consumers.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
The Journal criticizes Public Citizen for its ties to trial lawyers and attempts to suggest that the stalwarts at National Association of Consumer Advocates are somehow fat-cats who are singly responsible for the demise of the American economy. It’s a screed that misses several points. Most notably this: Corporate greed, accounting abuses and lax regulation brought us Enron and the rash of inflated stock value scams.
The same big three--corporate greed, accounting abuses and lax regulation--are back for another round. This time it’s the burgeoning mortgage lending crisis. Against this backdrop, the Journal tosses out desperate charges that trial lawyers are responsible for economic meltdown. That’s very sad, as Enron didn’t hire any consumer lawyers to cook the books. Neither did the accounting firms. And the FTC and other regulatory agencies don’t seem to consult with trial lawyers, either. The growing mortgage crisis appears to be another sad case. Some lenders may have engaged in scams that involved wide-spread inflation of real estate values, so that consumers got bigger and more profitable mortgages.
The reality is that trial lawyers provide the main method of smoothing the kinks out of an economy. Open courts and the jury trial system provide the means through which ordinary consumers can call wrongdoers to account. It is the place where bad behavior faces scrutiny and the means through which greed gets checked. In that respect, the process actually protects the economy. Without the means to call wrongdoers to account, consumers would be left with very few options.
My schedule didn’t allow me to attend this year’s conference of the National Association of Consumer Advocates. So sad because it’s always nice to show up for consumers.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Oregon's New Identity Theft Law
The Oregon Consumer Identity Theft Protection Act, Oregon 2007 Laws, Chapter 759, §§1-18, now provides greater protection to Oregon consumers. Before passage of the 2007 Act, Oregon businesses were not required to notify consumers when someone without authorization accessed the personal information. The legislation passed in the wake of Providence Health System’s loss of computerized patient records on more than 300,000 patients. Full disclosure: Paul & Sugerman represent consumers affected by the Providence data loss.
Under the Act, Oregon businesses must take steps to protect consumers’ personal information. While there is leeway for small businesses, the Act provides that businesses employing more than 50 people must take significant steps to protect consumer information. Oregon businesses have to be especially careful about not publishing or otherwise disclosing social security numbers, except when they are otherwise required by state or federal law.
The new law provides that when a business suffers a security breach affecting consumers’ personal information, the business must take certain steps to notify various entities. While the details may vary, businesses generally must notify law enforcement, consumers and credit reporting agencies.
Best of all, Section 4 allows consumers to place a security freeze on their consumer reports by sending a written request to consumer reporting agencies. You may be charged a fee for this service, and proper identification will be required, as well.
It’s not the best statute. Violations are enforced by State, and whether they will be enforced at all depends on government officials. But it’s better than what we have, and it at least provides some important protections for consumers, as long as the State makes it real through necessary enforcement.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Under the Act, Oregon businesses must take steps to protect consumers’ personal information. While there is leeway for small businesses, the Act provides that businesses employing more than 50 people must take significant steps to protect consumer information. Oregon businesses have to be especially careful about not publishing or otherwise disclosing social security numbers, except when they are otherwise required by state or federal law.
The new law provides that when a business suffers a security breach affecting consumers’ personal information, the business must take certain steps to notify various entities. While the details may vary, businesses generally must notify law enforcement, consumers and credit reporting agencies.
Best of all, Section 4 allows consumers to place a security freeze on their consumer reports by sending a written request to consumer reporting agencies. You may be charged a fee for this service, and proper identification will be required, as well.
It’s not the best statute. Violations are enforced by State, and whether they will be enforced at all depends on government officials. But it’s better than what we have, and it at least provides some important protections for consumers, as long as the State makes it real through necessary enforcement.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Consumer Products Safety Commission Fails Consumers
It’s like the we’re living a Groundhog Day existence. Today’s news—November 6, 2007—brings us yet another Mattel recall of over a hundred thousand dangerous toys. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the head of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Nancy Nord, has been accused of a range of abuses while serving as the head of the agency that protects children from dangerous toys.
Ms. Nord actually opposed Congressional efforts to add funding to CPSC. She now says that she wasn’t really opposed to additional funding. Instead, she opposed the bill that would strengthen protections for agency whistleblowers and that would make it easier to publicize dangerous products. Here is the link to a media report: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21653084/
Her explanation of why she opposes funding is awful. A whistleblower is someone inside who complains to outside authorities, when an agency fails to properly do its work. It seems that Ms. Nord is opposed to protecting those employees who would speak out when people in her position fail to protect our children. And the opposition to publicizing unsafe products is even worse. If a product is unsafe, those of us with children would want to know. After all, we’re supposed to take responsibility for protecting our children. But if secrecy rules keep information from consumers, how can we do that.
Ms. Nord was an unfortunate political appointment to the head of the CPSC. And for this, it appears that we will relive Groundhog Day because CPSC has failed to protect our children. She would do all of us a favor by either taking seriously her mission or—better—resigning to let someone take over the job who puts consumers first.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Ms. Nord actually opposed Congressional efforts to add funding to CPSC. She now says that she wasn’t really opposed to additional funding. Instead, she opposed the bill that would strengthen protections for agency whistleblowers and that would make it easier to publicize dangerous products. Here is the link to a media report: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21653084/
Her explanation of why she opposes funding is awful. A whistleblower is someone inside who complains to outside authorities, when an agency fails to properly do its work. It seems that Ms. Nord is opposed to protecting those employees who would speak out when people in her position fail to protect our children. And the opposition to publicizing unsafe products is even worse. If a product is unsafe, those of us with children would want to know. After all, we’re supposed to take responsibility for protecting our children. But if secrecy rules keep information from consumers, how can we do that.
Ms. Nord was an unfortunate political appointment to the head of the CPSC. And for this, it appears that we will relive Groundhog Day because CPSC has failed to protect our children. She would do all of us a favor by either taking seriously her mission or—better—resigning to let someone take over the job who puts consumers first.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Monday, November 5, 2007
Mattel Toy Lead Problem: No Surprise
Media reports from the last few months provide rich coverage of the near-daily revelations about lead paint in kids toys. The problem is one of lax oversight. In the waning years of the last century, politicians and various experts convinced American consumers that regulation was bad and deregulation was good. Maybe it’s a little too simple to say, “All regulation bad; all deregulation good.” Case in point: the toy problem.
The dangers of lead paint have been well-known to the medical community and public health officials for decades. Ingested lead is particularly dangerous to children, who can take it in and store it in their bodies. Lead is a toxin that causes injury to the brain and nervous system. It’s bad stuff, and we’ve known it for years.
Consumer safety advocates have focused on childhood lead paint poisoning arising from lead exposure in homes and schools. In the late-1990s, for example, our law firm handled a lead paint exposure case for a young child injured by exposure.
The point is that manufacturers and government agencies have known for years that lead is dangerous to children. But no one checked the Mattel toys.
Our public health system is set up in such a way that there is little if any advance inspection. As consumers, we assume that manufacturers test their products for safety. Many do, but not all. So the way we learn about a problem is from health reports or product failure reports that wend their way to the proper government agency.
In the case of kids’ toys, that agency is the Consumer Products Safety Commission, or CPSC. The agency has a mixed record to be sure. In the past it has taken action-—albeit slow, late and limited—-in the face of dangerous products. The All-Terrain Vehicle deaths and injuries in the 1980s provide a good case study. Eventually, the CPSC did something, though it took a long time, and its action was less than complete.
But these days, the CPSC’s budget has been slashed. As a result, it lacks the resources to provide surveillance necessary to catch emerging problems like lead-paint covered toys. There is more than a little irony here, as news reports in late October 2007 noted that the appointed head of the CPSC opposed increases in the agency’s budget. Someone should really explain to consumers why the head of CPSC opposes additional funding for product safety.
Maybe that would be a good thing if the agency was operating lean. But when it comes to kid safety, no one wants to see a child get hurt. And lax regulation that allows dangerous toys into our homes is unacceptable. All that is left—unfortunately—is the frustrating tool of a lawsuit to provide lifetime compensation to cover an injured child’s harms and losses. Why would anyone choose a lawsuit over prevention?
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
The dangers of lead paint have been well-known to the medical community and public health officials for decades. Ingested lead is particularly dangerous to children, who can take it in and store it in their bodies. Lead is a toxin that causes injury to the brain and nervous system. It’s bad stuff, and we’ve known it for years.
Consumer safety advocates have focused on childhood lead paint poisoning arising from lead exposure in homes and schools. In the late-1990s, for example, our law firm handled a lead paint exposure case for a young child injured by exposure.
The point is that manufacturers and government agencies have known for years that lead is dangerous to children. But no one checked the Mattel toys.
Our public health system is set up in such a way that there is little if any advance inspection. As consumers, we assume that manufacturers test their products for safety. Many do, but not all. So the way we learn about a problem is from health reports or product failure reports that wend their way to the proper government agency.
In the case of kids’ toys, that agency is the Consumer Products Safety Commission, or CPSC. The agency has a mixed record to be sure. In the past it has taken action-—albeit slow, late and limited—-in the face of dangerous products. The All-Terrain Vehicle deaths and injuries in the 1980s provide a good case study. Eventually, the CPSC did something, though it took a long time, and its action was less than complete.
But these days, the CPSC’s budget has been slashed. As a result, it lacks the resources to provide surveillance necessary to catch emerging problems like lead-paint covered toys. There is more than a little irony here, as news reports in late October 2007 noted that the appointed head of the CPSC opposed increases in the agency’s budget. Someone should really explain to consumers why the head of CPSC opposes additional funding for product safety.
Maybe that would be a good thing if the agency was operating lean. But when it comes to kid safety, no one wants to see a child get hurt. And lax regulation that allows dangerous toys into our homes is unacceptable. All that is left—unfortunately—is the frustrating tool of a lawsuit to provide lifetime compensation to cover an injured child’s harms and losses. Why would anyone choose a lawsuit over prevention?
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Taking Back Our Constitution
Gracious, yesterday was one of those rare days that restores your faith in the future of our nation. Here in Portland, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken issued her opinion in the Brandon Mayfield case, finding parts of the Patriot Act unconstitutional.
Hats off to Mr. Mayfield for pursuing justice and his attorneys Gerry Spence, Elden Rosenthal, and Michelle Longo. As well, to a courageous judge who did not shirk her duty. Judge Aiken found that many provisions of the Patriot Act violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure.
Unfortunately, this is a first round. It's hard to imagine that the government won't appeal. The issues here are critically important. Whether it's in this case or some other, the U.S. Supreme Court will have to weigh in. Can't say that I'm optimistic that the Supreme Court will be as clear-headed as Judge Aiken.
I suppose some might think that the judge was wrong. The argument goes that we have to be willing to make sacrifices when public safety or the national security interests are in play. It's not a bad argument, really, but Mr. Mayfield's terrible saga shows what happens when we sacrifice fundamental rights for public safety or the like.
The truth is that it's not easy living in a society that protects the rights of individuals. We have to be clear about that. Even so, we need to take that hard road because there is too much at stake. Unchecked governmental power is a very dangerous thing, even if it seems like the safe thing to do. So while it's not easy, if we're to live in the America that we value, we have to honor those precious fundamental rights set out in the constitution.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Hats off to Mr. Mayfield for pursuing justice and his attorneys Gerry Spence, Elden Rosenthal, and Michelle Longo. As well, to a courageous judge who did not shirk her duty. Judge Aiken found that many provisions of the Patriot Act violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure.
Unfortunately, this is a first round. It's hard to imagine that the government won't appeal. The issues here are critically important. Whether it's in this case or some other, the U.S. Supreme Court will have to weigh in. Can't say that I'm optimistic that the Supreme Court will be as clear-headed as Judge Aiken.
I suppose some might think that the judge was wrong. The argument goes that we have to be willing to make sacrifices when public safety or the national security interests are in play. It's not a bad argument, really, but Mr. Mayfield's terrible saga shows what happens when we sacrifice fundamental rights for public safety or the like.
The truth is that it's not easy living in a society that protects the rights of individuals. We have to be clear about that. Even so, we need to take that hard road because there is too much at stake. Unchecked governmental power is a very dangerous thing, even if it seems like the safe thing to do. So while it's not easy, if we're to live in the America that we value, we have to honor those precious fundamental rights set out in the constitution.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Providence Employee's Whistleblower Lawsuit
As reported in local media outlets, Steven Shields filed a wrongful discharge lawsuit against Providence Health Systems. As was widely reported at the time, Mr. Shields was the Providence employee who had possession of computer data stolen from his car. The computer data contained confidential patient records on hundreds of thousands of Providence patients.
The case is of special interest because Paul & Sugerman represents the proposed class in the patients' pending case against Providence Health System, related to loss of the patient information. As of this writing, Providence's motion to dismiss is pending in court in the patients' case.
Mr. Shields claims to have been discharged for reporting the data theft to the police. He is represented by Portland attorney Kevin Keaney.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
The case is of special interest because Paul & Sugerman represents the proposed class in the patients' pending case against Providence Health System, related to loss of the patient information. As of this writing, Providence's motion to dismiss is pending in court in the patients' case.
Mr. Shields claims to have been discharged for reporting the data theft to the police. He is represented by Portland attorney Kevin Keaney.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Friday, August 31, 2007
Oregon E. coli Outbreak-Interstate Meat Disrtibutors, Inc.
Yesterday, state and federal officials warned consumers about tainted ground beef from Interstate Meat Distributors, Inc. Over 40,000 lbs of ground beef were implicated. Incredibly, NO recall notice will be issued because the meat is now three weeks past the end of its shelf life.
Somehow that seems extremely irresponsible, as many of us put ground beef in the freezer.
Early information from various websites indicates that the alert covers ground beef sold under the "Northwest Finest" brand. The following products are included in the alert:
1. 16-ounce packages of "Northwest Finest 7% FAT, NATURAL GROUND BEEF." The label bears a UPC code of 752907 600127;
2. 16-ounce packages of "Northwest Finest 10% FAT, Organic GROUND BEEF." No UPC code is available.
It's worth checking the freezer, as no one should eat this stuff.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Somehow that seems extremely irresponsible, as many of us put ground beef in the freezer.
Early information from various websites indicates that the alert covers ground beef sold under the "Northwest Finest" brand. The following products are included in the alert:
1. 16-ounce packages of "Northwest Finest 7% FAT, NATURAL GROUND BEEF." The label bears a UPC code of 752907 600127;
2. 16-ounce packages of "Northwest Finest 10% FAT, Organic GROUND BEEF." No UPC code is available.
It's worth checking the freezer, as no one should eat this stuff.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
More Spinach Woes--Salmonella
News reports today include the announcement of another recall--this time California spinach for salmonella. Metz Fresh LLC (King City, CA.) announced the recall earlier today. The recalled bagged fresh spinach was distributed throughout the U.S. and Canada. The recall covers 10 oz and 16 oz bags, plus 4 lb. pound cartons and cartons that contain four 2.5 lb. bags. According to media reports, here are the relevant tracking codes: 12208114, 12208214 and 12208314.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Toy Recall--Lead Paint Hazard
Today's news includes another recall of dangerous products from China. Now, Fisher Price and Mattel, Inc. are recalling lead paint-covered toys. This is a major hazard for young kids; getting the word out is very important.
There are few things worse than injuries to young children. The worst is with toddlers. At the stage where they just begin to move around, the world is bright and filled with promise. But it's also filled with dangers.
Lead paint can destroy children's lives. When it is ingested, the lead can lodge in the body for years. Lead from lead paint is a well-known cause of childhood brain damage.
Toddlers are especially at risk because everything goes into their mouths. When your child or grandchild bites on lead paint covered surfaces, the paint breaks down and enters the child's blood. Lead paint on toys has been recognized as a health hazard for decades. Toy manufacturers and distributors know that their products should never have lead paint in them, so you have to wonder how these toys got out into the world. Regardless, the danger is very real, and getting tots away from dangerous toys is an important way to protect them from harm.
According to early news reports, the recall covers 83 models of plastic dolls, including Elmo, Big Bird, Dora and Diego characters. Here is a link to a Mattel website for more information:
http://www.service.mattel.com.
Let's hope that word is out quick enough and wide enough to prevent injuries to children. Paul & Sugerman encourages you to circulate this entry to families with young children because there is nothing worse than an injured kid.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
There are few things worse than injuries to young children. The worst is with toddlers. At the stage where they just begin to move around, the world is bright and filled with promise. But it's also filled with dangers.
Lead paint can destroy children's lives. When it is ingested, the lead can lodge in the body for years. Lead from lead paint is a well-known cause of childhood brain damage.
Toddlers are especially at risk because everything goes into their mouths. When your child or grandchild bites on lead paint covered surfaces, the paint breaks down and enters the child's blood. Lead paint on toys has been recognized as a health hazard for decades. Toy manufacturers and distributors know that their products should never have lead paint in them, so you have to wonder how these toys got out into the world. Regardless, the danger is very real, and getting tots away from dangerous toys is an important way to protect them from harm.
According to early news reports, the recall covers 83 models of plastic dolls, including Elmo, Big Bird, Dora and Diego characters. Here is a link to a Mattel website for more information:
http://www.service.mattel.com.
Let's hope that word is out quick enough and wide enough to prevent injuries to children. Paul & Sugerman encourages you to circulate this entry to families with young children because there is nothing worse than an injured kid.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Doctor Facing Sex Abuse Charges
Today, an Oregon anesthesiologist, Dr. David Burleson, pleaded not guilty to felony sex abuse charges. Dr. Burleson is charged with fondling two patients who had been sedated. The case represents the next step in a long process that included a legal showdown in front of the Oregon Supreme Court.
Apparently, employees of a clinic where Dr. Burleson provided care witnessed him fondling sedated patients. When subpoenaed to a grand jury, a witness refused to provide medical records identifying the victims.
The State appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court. Here is a link to the opinion: State of Oregon v. Burleson, http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S54377.htm (June 1, 2007). The short version is that the Supreme Court ruled that the witnesses must identify the victims.
It's nice to see that the system is taking Dr. Burleson's conduct seriously. In earlier times, sexual misconduct by professionals was swept under the rug. Patients suffered, and so did the profession. Bringing professional misconduct into the light of day provides important protection to future patients. Weeding out the bad doctors helps all of us.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
dfs@pspc.com
Apparently, employees of a clinic where Dr. Burleson provided care witnessed him fondling sedated patients. When subpoenaed to a grand jury, a witness refused to provide medical records identifying the victims.
The State appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court. Here is a link to the opinion: State of Oregon v. Burleson, http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S54377.htm (June 1, 2007). The short version is that the Supreme Court ruled that the witnesses must identify the victims.
It's nice to see that the system is taking Dr. Burleson's conduct seriously. In earlier times, sexual misconduct by professionals was swept under the rug. Patients suffered, and so did the profession. Bringing professional misconduct into the light of day provides important protection to future patients. Weeding out the bad doctors helps all of us.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
dfs@pspc.com
Monday, June 25, 2007
Magic Pants Guy Loses; Consumers Win
It was not unexpected, of course. But the magic pants guy has lost his lawsuit against the dry cleaners in Washington DC.
As noted earlier, magic pants guy sued the dry cleaner because they misplaced his pants. The court found for the dry cleaners, Custom Cleaners. Looks like the magic pants guy won't collect the requested $54 million. The trial court reportedly awarded the dry cleaners their court costs. Link here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19414287/
The case demonstrates some important truths. Judges don't lightly tolerate abuse of the civil justice system. Magic pants guy had no business bringing this case and surely should be the subject of scorn for seeking $54 million for the lost pants. This clown works as an administrative law judge, which is to say that he should know better.
So for those who criticize the civil justice system, let's all remember this case. Because the system worked as it should, and the clown got shut down.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
As noted earlier, magic pants guy sued the dry cleaner because they misplaced his pants. The court found for the dry cleaners, Custom Cleaners. Looks like the magic pants guy won't collect the requested $54 million. The trial court reportedly awarded the dry cleaners their court costs. Link here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19414287/
The case demonstrates some important truths. Judges don't lightly tolerate abuse of the civil justice system. Magic pants guy had no business bringing this case and surely should be the subject of scorn for seeking $54 million for the lost pants. This clown works as an administrative law judge, which is to say that he should know better.
So for those who criticize the civil justice system, let's all remember this case. Because the system worked as it should, and the clown got shut down.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Monday, June 11, 2007
The Curious Case of Judge Bork and Punitive Damages
One of the early critics of punitive damages, Judge Robert Bork, filed a lawsuit recently that reportedly arose from injuries he suffered as he fell while climbing a stage. He was on his way to the lectern to give a speech to the Yale club. According to the report, Judge Bork seeks $1 million in damages, plus punitive damages. Here's the report in The Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/07/AR2007060702247.html
There's something a little unsettling about all this. It's rare--in fact almost unheard of--that an injured person would recover punitive damages in a simple premises fall case. The standard for punitive damages generally requires wanton disregard or deliberate indifference to a hazard. It would almost require the Yale club to have deliberately left a hazardous condition there, knowing that the frail judge would fall. Kind of like tossing the old banana peel on the floor and training a camera on the spot so that you could laugh at the guy tumbling.
It's always a little risky to comment on cases based on media reports--you really don't have all the facts unless you're actually handling the case. But still, this one seems a little hard to fathom. The report in the Post makes clear that Judge Bork suffered significant injuries. He had a head injury, needed surgery and walks with a cane. Still, punitive damages?
This case might be more ironic than Mr. Hemstreet's civil rights claim (May 23, 2007 post below). Mr. Hemstreet funded ballot measures to limit damages in civil lawsuits. But Judge Bork has been one of the great theorists of the vast effort to limit damage cases. For years, Judge Bork has railed against the civil justice system, tort law, and punitive damages, the very tools that he is using in his case to seek redress for his injuries. So the bigger question is whether he now stands ready to repudiate decades of criticism that has fueled critics of the civil justice system.
Or maybe Judge Bork would explain that his case is different?
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/07/AR2007060702247.html
There's something a little unsettling about all this. It's rare--in fact almost unheard of--that an injured person would recover punitive damages in a simple premises fall case. The standard for punitive damages generally requires wanton disregard or deliberate indifference to a hazard. It would almost require the Yale club to have deliberately left a hazardous condition there, knowing that the frail judge would fall. Kind of like tossing the old banana peel on the floor and training a camera on the spot so that you could laugh at the guy tumbling.
It's always a little risky to comment on cases based on media reports--you really don't have all the facts unless you're actually handling the case. But still, this one seems a little hard to fathom. The report in the Post makes clear that Judge Bork suffered significant injuries. He had a head injury, needed surgery and walks with a cane. Still, punitive damages?
This case might be more ironic than Mr. Hemstreet's civil rights claim (May 23, 2007 post below). Mr. Hemstreet funded ballot measures to limit damages in civil lawsuits. But Judge Bork has been one of the great theorists of the vast effort to limit damage cases. For years, Judge Bork has railed against the civil justice system, tort law, and punitive damages, the very tools that he is using in his case to seek redress for his injuries. So the bigger question is whether he now stands ready to repudiate decades of criticism that has fueled critics of the civil justice system.
Or maybe Judge Bork would explain that his case is different?
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Thursday, May 31, 2007
U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Limits Discrimination Claims
For years, there has been a fiction in the law of the workplace that almost always works to the disadvantage of employees. It's called the at-will employment doctrine. According to this doctrine, an employee or an employer can terminate the work relationship at any time for any reason, as long as it's not an illegal reason. This at-will employment doctrine applies in almost every private work relationship, with the exception of those covered by written contracts or collective bargaining agreements.
It works to the employee's disadvantage because the employer generally has all of the power. It's okay to say that a worker can quit his or her job at anytime. But rights and theories don't earn paychecks and don't pay the bills.
Under the at-will employment doctrine, each day is a new day. If I'm the employer, I can change your rate of pay tomorrow, and you accept that change if you continue to work. So I could declare tomorrow that from this day forward you will no longer make $15 per hour; instead, I'm going to pay you only $12. Under the at-will doctrine, you can--to quote the old country song--tell me to, "Take this job and shove it."
That's the law.
So what happened this week at the U.S. Supreme Court? In order to protect employers, a 5-4 majority ruled that discrimination claims for unequal pay must be filed within 180 days of the date on which pay is first set. The majority got there through a pretty convoluted process.
First the majority opinion ignored the facts. As Justice Ginsburg pointed out in her dissent, Ms. Ledbetter's pay was in fact comparable to her male co-workers when she was hired. Her pay declined over time relative to her male co-workers.
But the other thing is that the majority completely ignored the at-will employment rule. According to Justice Alito and the majority, pay setting starts at the beginning of relationship, so that's what triggers the claim. But the employer can raise or lower pay at-will. So how could that be consistent with the at-will rule where every day is a new day?
The answer is that it's not consistent at all.
I think what Justice Alito mean to say was that the case was decided on the modern version of the Golden Rule. You remember that one: the person with the gold makes the rule.
Very sad outcome, as it would be nice to see the Court act consistently. But that would score one for the employees, and that's not likely to happen with this court.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
It works to the employee's disadvantage because the employer generally has all of the power. It's okay to say that a worker can quit his or her job at anytime. But rights and theories don't earn paychecks and don't pay the bills.
Under the at-will employment doctrine, each day is a new day. If I'm the employer, I can change your rate of pay tomorrow, and you accept that change if you continue to work. So I could declare tomorrow that from this day forward you will no longer make $15 per hour; instead, I'm going to pay you only $12. Under the at-will doctrine, you can--to quote the old country song--tell me to, "Take this job and shove it."
That's the law.
So what happened this week at the U.S. Supreme Court? In order to protect employers, a 5-4 majority ruled that discrimination claims for unequal pay must be filed within 180 days of the date on which pay is first set. The majority got there through a pretty convoluted process.
First the majority opinion ignored the facts. As Justice Ginsburg pointed out in her dissent, Ms. Ledbetter's pay was in fact comparable to her male co-workers when she was hired. Her pay declined over time relative to her male co-workers.
But the other thing is that the majority completely ignored the at-will employment rule. According to Justice Alito and the majority, pay setting starts at the beginning of relationship, so that's what triggers the claim. But the employer can raise or lower pay at-will. So how could that be consistent with the at-will rule where every day is a new day?
The answer is that it's not consistent at all.
I think what Justice Alito mean to say was that the case was decided on the modern version of the Golden Rule. You remember that one: the person with the gold makes the rule.
Very sad outcome, as it would be nice to see the Court act consistently. But that would score one for the employees, and that's not likely to happen with this court.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Former Civil Justice Foe Sees the Light
Comes the news today that one Mark Hemstreet and his friend Gregg Clapper filed a federal civil rights complaint for damages including economic damages, non-economic damages, punitive damages and attorney fees. The case reportedly arises from a prosecution for hunting license violations out in Eastern Oregon's beautiful Malheur County.
It's good that the courthouse is open so that these two aggrieved citizens may seek redress for the wrongs that they claim to have suffered. Federal civil rights laws provide important ways for ordinary citizens to seek relief when government officials act inappropriately, but anyone who has been in the trenches will tell you that they're hard cases.
There is a bit of irony here. Some years ago, Mr. Hemstreet was one of the leading foes of access to the civil justice system for ordinary Oregonians. In the 1995 legislative session, Mr. Hemstreet strongly supported legislation that would have limited damages and would have barred the courthouse doors for ordinary Oregonians.
Maybe it's just a simple question of whose ox is getting gored.
It would be interesting to hear today whether Mr. Hemstreet and Mr. Clapper now believe--as do most principled conservatives--that the jury system provides one of the best means of checking abuse of power. That is true whether the abuser is the government, an insurance company, an institution, or a large corporation.
So it will be interesting to see how this case progresses. And it's good to know that Mr. Hemstreet and Mr. Clapper trust Oregon juries to sit in judgment. As well, it's good that they feel confident that the court system provides them with a means of getting full and complete justice, based on the evidence that they will present at trial.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
It's good that the courthouse is open so that these two aggrieved citizens may seek redress for the wrongs that they claim to have suffered. Federal civil rights laws provide important ways for ordinary citizens to seek relief when government officials act inappropriately, but anyone who has been in the trenches will tell you that they're hard cases.
There is a bit of irony here. Some years ago, Mr. Hemstreet was one of the leading foes of access to the civil justice system for ordinary Oregonians. In the 1995 legislative session, Mr. Hemstreet strongly supported legislation that would have limited damages and would have barred the courthouse doors for ordinary Oregonians.
Maybe it's just a simple question of whose ox is getting gored.
It would be interesting to hear today whether Mr. Hemstreet and Mr. Clapper now believe--as do most principled conservatives--that the jury system provides one of the best means of checking abuse of power. That is true whether the abuser is the government, an insurance company, an institution, or a large corporation.
So it will be interesting to see how this case progresses. And it's good to know that Mr. Hemstreet and Mr. Clapper trust Oregon juries to sit in judgment. As well, it's good that they feel confident that the court system provides them with a means of getting full and complete justice, based on the evidence that they will present at trial.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Magic Pants Guy Faces Ethics Complaint
The Washington DC lawyer suing the drycleaner for $65 million faces an ethics complaint filed by the American Association of Justice. AAJ, the national association of trial lawyers committed to civil justice, filed the complaint this week, asking the Washington DC bar to look at this outrageous behavior.
And while there's no telling about the specifics, it appears that the Magic Pants guy is something of a frequent flier. News reports indicate that this isn't his first time. In divorce proceedings, a court apparently awarded legal fees against him for taking unreasonable positions in litigation.
All of this is provides a nice window into the civil justice system. It works because there are systems in place that come down hard on the few who abuse it.
That's a nice thing.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
And while there's no telling about the specifics, it appears that the Magic Pants guy is something of a frequent flier. News reports indicate that this isn't his first time. In divorce proceedings, a court apparently awarded legal fees against him for taking unreasonable positions in litigation.
All of this is provides a nice window into the civil justice system. It works because there are systems in place that come down hard on the few who abuse it.
That's a nice thing.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Sunday, May 13, 2007
The Case of the Magic Pants
Readers get the gist of this blog. Too often, corporate interests engage in half-truths (or worse) in a calculated effort to poison jurors. That's bad because our civil justice system is essential to a healthy democracy and safe republic.
But it would be wrong to claim that there aren't legitimate concerns with abuse of the civil justice system.
And that takes us to the curious case of the magic pants. In Washington DC, an administrative law judge, one Roy Pearson, Jr., sought $65 million in a lawsuit against a drycleaner. Why? The drycleaner lost his pants.
They must have been magic pants. That's the only way anyone could ever claim to have suffered such a profound injury. According to various news reports, the drycleaner offered to settle the matter for many times the value of the lost pants, and the gentleman declined. After all, magic pants aren't worth ten thousand dollars, they're worth $65 million.
The guy is a nut, and that's apparent on the face of things. But the bigger problem is that the Chamber of Commerce and other groups hellbent on shutting the courthouse will use this nut's magic pants as fodder for their cries of lawsuit abuse.
Well, I have to agree with the Chamber in this case. This is in fact lawsuit abuse. One can only hope that the Washington DC bar takes disciplinary action against the magic pants guy. While we're at it, let's hope that the Washington DC courts quickly dismisss Judge Magic Pants' lawsuit. It would seem that the courts have more important business that needs attention.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
But it would be wrong to claim that there aren't legitimate concerns with abuse of the civil justice system.
And that takes us to the curious case of the magic pants. In Washington DC, an administrative law judge, one Roy Pearson, Jr., sought $65 million in a lawsuit against a drycleaner. Why? The drycleaner lost his pants.
They must have been magic pants. That's the only way anyone could ever claim to have suffered such a profound injury. According to various news reports, the drycleaner offered to settle the matter for many times the value of the lost pants, and the gentleman declined. After all, magic pants aren't worth ten thousand dollars, they're worth $65 million.
The guy is a nut, and that's apparent on the face of things. But the bigger problem is that the Chamber of Commerce and other groups hellbent on shutting the courthouse will use this nut's magic pants as fodder for their cries of lawsuit abuse.
Well, I have to agree with the Chamber in this case. This is in fact lawsuit abuse. One can only hope that the Washington DC bar takes disciplinary action against the magic pants guy. While we're at it, let's hope that the Washington DC courts quickly dismisss Judge Magic Pants' lawsuit. It would seem that the courts have more important business that needs attention.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Deflating the Litigation Myths
Reported in The Washington Post Tues., May 8, 2007:
"Juries in medical malpractice cases tend to sympathize with the doctors being sued rather than the patients who are suing them, a law professor at the University of Missouri at Columbia has concluded after analyzing three decades of research on the subject."
And the bigger part of the study is that doctors and hospitals almost always win these cases, regardless of whether that's the right outcome. Philip Peters is publishing his study in the Michigan Law Review. He finds that injured consumers win only about 27 percent of all cases that go to trial against doctors and hospitals. Patients lose cases that independent medical reviewers say they should win.
This isn't news to anyone who represents injured consumers in the courtroom. The study makes the point that doctors often win cases that they should lose. Jurors aren't told about what goes on behind the scenes. The doctor's insurance carrier pours money in for jury consultants and focus groups. The defense witnesses generally practice their testimony with the help of consultants, videotape sessions, and all the bells and whistles that money can buy.
Even with the statistics showing that doctors win the great majority of cases that go to trial, the insurance industry's spokespeople decry the profits from frivolous lawsuits. That is one odd idea. Juries don't award large sums of money in frivolous lawsuits. In fact, they don't award any money in frivolous lawsuits. And that's the way it should be. But here is what is absurd: How can anyone make money on a frivolous lawsuit? Next time you hear someone spouting off, just ask how that works. I'm still waiting for someone to explain it to me.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
"Juries in medical malpractice cases tend to sympathize with the doctors being sued rather than the patients who are suing them, a law professor at the University of Missouri at Columbia has concluded after analyzing three decades of research on the subject."
And the bigger part of the study is that doctors and hospitals almost always win these cases, regardless of whether that's the right outcome. Philip Peters is publishing his study in the Michigan Law Review. He finds that injured consumers win only about 27 percent of all cases that go to trial against doctors and hospitals. Patients lose cases that independent medical reviewers say they should win.
This isn't news to anyone who represents injured consumers in the courtroom. The study makes the point that doctors often win cases that they should lose. Jurors aren't told about what goes on behind the scenes. The doctor's insurance carrier pours money in for jury consultants and focus groups. The defense witnesses generally practice their testimony with the help of consultants, videotape sessions, and all the bells and whistles that money can buy.
Even with the statistics showing that doctors win the great majority of cases that go to trial, the insurance industry's spokespeople decry the profits from frivolous lawsuits. That is one odd idea. Juries don't award large sums of money in frivolous lawsuits. In fact, they don't award any money in frivolous lawsuits. And that's the way it should be. But here is what is absurd: How can anyone make money on a frivolous lawsuit? Next time you hear someone spouting off, just ask how that works. I'm still waiting for someone to explain it to me.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Thursday, April 26, 2007
The Thing About Gonzales
What's the big deal about Alberto Gonzales? Why should consumers care? The latest revalations are that Attorney General Gonzales has, in the words of Stephen Colbert, a truthiness problem. But why is that such a big deal--don't all politicians lie?
It's easy to be jaded and to suffer political scandal fatigue. And that's true no matter who is in power. As someone wiser than me once said, "Politics suck." The other thing is that many commentators fondly point out that US Attorneys serve at will and past presidents, including a recent former occupant of the White House who sinned by lust, fired a slew of them, too.
Here's the problem and why it matters. When prosecutors are hired and fired based upon who they do and don't prosecute, we have a problem. Prosecutors now ask things like,"Did this guy/gal commit the crime?," or "Can we prove that they did it?" Under the current regime, they apparently needed to ask, "Did the president's chief of staff want me to prosecute?," or "Will I piss off the White House if chase this guy or gal?" That's no way to run a criminal justice system.
That by itself is enough for all of us to say that the guy has to go. But it gets worse with the evasions, cover-up and denials. Mr. Gonzales wasn't out of the loop. And the decisions to fire these people were made based upon these illegal considerations. The rest of us should care because protection of the public shouldn't turn on who gave money to the current occupant of the White House.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
It's easy to be jaded and to suffer political scandal fatigue. And that's true no matter who is in power. As someone wiser than me once said, "Politics suck." The other thing is that many commentators fondly point out that US Attorneys serve at will and past presidents, including a recent former occupant of the White House who sinned by lust, fired a slew of them, too.
Here's the problem and why it matters. When prosecutors are hired and fired based upon who they do and don't prosecute, we have a problem. Prosecutors now ask things like,"Did this guy/gal commit the crime?," or "Can we prove that they did it?" Under the current regime, they apparently needed to ask, "Did the president's chief of staff want me to prosecute?," or "Will I piss off the White House if chase this guy or gal?" That's no way to run a criminal justice system.
That by itself is enough for all of us to say that the guy has to go. But it gets worse with the evasions, cover-up and denials. Mr. Gonzales wasn't out of the loop. And the decisions to fire these people were made based upon these illegal considerations. The rest of us should care because protection of the public shouldn't turn on who gave money to the current occupant of the White House.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Portland Cruise Ship Illness
Reported on the front page in today's Oregonian (Apr. 4, 2007):
Vacationers on a four-night river cruise departed Portland on March 21. After getting underway, they learned that there had been an outbreak of gastrointestinal illness on the prior cruise. On the March 16 cruise, 33 people fell ill. An unknown number fell ill on the March 21 cruise.
The ship, The Empress of the North, reportedly has not passed various health inspections. Yet no one breathed a word until the ship got underway.
The article relates that company officials are discussing refunds. But that hardly seems sufficient to cover the harms and losses suffered by sick passengers. Buried in the article is this nugget: federal law does not require cruise ship operators to inform passengers of prior disease outbreaks. As with so many safety issues, consumers place blind reliance in sellers. I imagine that almost all consumers who go on cruises would expect to be informed about problems before departing.
If consumers can't count on government inspections and company disclosures, what is left? About all that remains is the civil justice system. Paying sickened travelers for their harms and losses is a lot less desirable than avoiding injury in the first place. But if no one else will take care of these folks, it's ultimately left to our civil justice system.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Vacationers on a four-night river cruise departed Portland on March 21. After getting underway, they learned that there had been an outbreak of gastrointestinal illness on the prior cruise. On the March 16 cruise, 33 people fell ill. An unknown number fell ill on the March 21 cruise.
The ship, The Empress of the North, reportedly has not passed various health inspections. Yet no one breathed a word until the ship got underway.
The article relates that company officials are discussing refunds. But that hardly seems sufficient to cover the harms and losses suffered by sick passengers. Buried in the article is this nugget: federal law does not require cruise ship operators to inform passengers of prior disease outbreaks. As with so many safety issues, consumers place blind reliance in sellers. I imagine that almost all consumers who go on cruises would expect to be informed about problems before departing.
If consumers can't count on government inspections and company disclosures, what is left? About all that remains is the civil justice system. Paying sickened travelers for their harms and losses is a lot less desirable than avoiding injury in the first place. But if no one else will take care of these folks, it's ultimately left to our civil justice system.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Pet Food Cases
It's easy to hold forth from the sidelines. You get a nice cushy chair and maybe a refreshing beverage of choice, gaze out over the field, and then make pronouncements. When you're not in the game, it's easy work.
The recent pet food scandal provides an interesting and somewhat frightening snapshot of America's civil justice system. One thing it reveals is how dependent consumers are on manufacturers' safe practices. It's rare to have governmental oversight of consumer goods. It just doesn't happen. And while many sellers and manufacturers act responsibly, it is too common that people get hurt when profits are put before safety.
The other thing that is revealing is how our civil justice system defines injury. While state laws vary, many states treat pets as nothing more than personal property. At the same time, most states do not allow people to recover for their emotional losses that are tied to the death of a beloved pet. I suppose some could argue that there are good reasons for that. But those of us who own pets know better.
As is common with food supply injury, the scope of the problem is not yet apparent. Nor do we know whether and to what extent these problems were caused by lack of oversight, neglect, poor testing, or contamination. But there are real problems here.
Kudos to my colleagues who are willing to take on these cases. My guess is that they will be tough. Maybe they present an opportunity to achieve justice. Let's hope at the very least that those who have made a mess are called to account.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
The recent pet food scandal provides an interesting and somewhat frightening snapshot of America's civil justice system. One thing it reveals is how dependent consumers are on manufacturers' safe practices. It's rare to have governmental oversight of consumer goods. It just doesn't happen. And while many sellers and manufacturers act responsibly, it is too common that people get hurt when profits are put before safety.
The other thing that is revealing is how our civil justice system defines injury. While state laws vary, many states treat pets as nothing more than personal property. At the same time, most states do not allow people to recover for their emotional losses that are tied to the death of a beloved pet. I suppose some could argue that there are good reasons for that. But those of us who own pets know better.
As is common with food supply injury, the scope of the problem is not yet apparent. Nor do we know whether and to what extent these problems were caused by lack of oversight, neglect, poor testing, or contamination. But there are real problems here.
Kudos to my colleagues who are willing to take on these cases. My guess is that they will be tough. Maybe they present an opportunity to achieve justice. Let's hope at the very least that those who have made a mess are called to account.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Mandatory Arbitration Abuses
What is buried in the fine print of your credit card subscriber agreement, your cable service agreement or your banking rules? Chances are there's a mandatory arbitration agreement buried in there. Sometimes it was there from when you first signed on, but more commonly, it's put there after the fact. What did that recent credit card mailer say?
The theory behind arbitration was not a bad one. We were told that arbitration would lead to quicker decisions and save consumers money. But there are big problems in practice, and mostly it's about the bad guys feeding at the trough.
Sometimes, the mandatory arbitration clause is nothing more than fine print that means, "consumers who use our service surrender all rights. " Take Comcast Cable, for example. In a recent Oregon case, Comcast tried to enforce an arbitation clause that stripped its subscribers of rights provided by Oregon law. Paul & Sugerman represented the consumers and obtained a good decision from the Oregon Court of Appeals. (The Court of Appeals threw out the clause. A copy is at http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A127818.htm.)
Horror stories about the fun-house mirror world of arbitration are wide-spread. One of industry's favorite providers, National Arbitration Forum, apparently uses two sets of rules. Banks, credit card companies, and the like get the more favorable set of rules, of course. And consumers get nailed. See the story at http://www.naca.net/News-Events/News.aspx?item=11714
Kudos to the Oregon Court of Appeals for properly applying the law. More important, Congress is finallystarting to take notice of the arbitration sham. Maybe if we keep shining bright lights on these practices, we'll be able to end the abuses.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
The theory behind arbitration was not a bad one. We were told that arbitration would lead to quicker decisions and save consumers money. But there are big problems in practice, and mostly it's about the bad guys feeding at the trough.
Sometimes, the mandatory arbitration clause is nothing more than fine print that means, "consumers who use our service surrender all rights. " Take Comcast Cable, for example. In a recent Oregon case, Comcast tried to enforce an arbitation clause that stripped its subscribers of rights provided by Oregon law. Paul & Sugerman represented the consumers and obtained a good decision from the Oregon Court of Appeals. (The Court of Appeals threw out the clause. A copy is at http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A127818.htm.)
Horror stories about the fun-house mirror world of arbitration are wide-spread. One of industry's favorite providers, National Arbitration Forum, apparently uses two sets of rules. Banks, credit card companies, and the like get the more favorable set of rules, of course. And consumers get nailed. See the story at http://www.naca.net/News-Events/News.aspx?item=11714
Kudos to the Oregon Court of Appeals for properly applying the law. More important, Congress is finallystarting to take notice of the arbitration sham. Maybe if we keep shining bright lights on these practices, we'll be able to end the abuses.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
"Fat Burner" Consumer Class Action Fraud
More special places in hell:
Comes the news report that NxCare, Inc., the manufacturer of "Slimquick--The Female Fat Burner" faces a class action consumer fraud case in Pennsylvania. Catanzaro v. Nx Care, Inc., U.S. District Court Case No. 2:07-cv-0171 (W.D. Pa.) Allegations include that the company made claims unsupported by scientific evidence. Some of the testimonials of women who claimed to have lost weight were made by company executives' wives or girlfriends.
The diet product scams play on the obesity epidemic with "scientific" formulations that are often bunk. Sometimes these "natural" formulations are profoundly dangerous, as with the recent ephedra products. While we all assume that the government regulates things like this, in fact, the FDA provides almost no oversight of so-called diet supplements. Consumer cases are becoming the last level of accountability for market misconduct.
David Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Comes the news report that NxCare, Inc., the manufacturer of "Slimquick--The Female Fat Burner" faces a class action consumer fraud case in Pennsylvania. Catanzaro v. Nx Care, Inc., U.S. District Court Case No. 2:07-cv-0171 (W.D. Pa.) Allegations include that the company made claims unsupported by scientific evidence. Some of the testimonials of women who claimed to have lost weight were made by company executives' wives or girlfriends.
The diet product scams play on the obesity epidemic with "scientific" formulations that are often bunk. Sometimes these "natural" formulations are profoundly dangerous, as with the recent ephedra products. While we all assume that the government regulates things like this, in fact, the FDA provides almost no oversight of so-called diet supplements. Consumer cases are becoming the last level of accountability for market misconduct.
David Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Monday, March 12, 2007
Payday Lenders-Is there a special place in hell?
Some claim--without laughing hysterically--that payday loans provide important sources of temporary cash to those in need who don't otherwise qualify for convential financing. Sounds great. But then there's the whole interest thing. Buried on page 2 in a droning prose is this jewel about payday loans from the Oregon Division of Finance and Corporate Securities:
"Borrowers usually look at the cost per $100 borrowed; however, the APR, which typically ranges from 391 percent to 520 percent, is useful for comparing the cost of payday loans to costs of other types of credit. Oregon law requires that lenders clearly post the APR for a typical payday loan in their office where customers can easily see it."
State of Oregon, Div. of Finance and Corp. Securities, Payday Loans in Oregon, p. 2 copy at http://dfcs.oregon.gov/pdf/2938.pdf.
Ohmigod: interest of 391 percent. Surely that would be against the law. Not until recently. In 2006, Oregon passed a law limiting payday loan interest rates to 36 percent. Something seems wrong if that's the best we can do in regulating those who prey on the most desparate. ORS 725.622 became effective January 1, 2007. I have yet to hear of any payday lenders closing shop because of this modest effort to limit usury. Let's hope that their day comes.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
"Borrowers usually look at the cost per $100 borrowed; however, the APR, which typically ranges from 391 percent to 520 percent, is useful for comparing the cost of payday loans to costs of other types of credit. Oregon law requires that lenders clearly post the APR for a typical payday loan in their office where customers can easily see it."
State of Oregon, Div. of Finance and Corp. Securities, Payday Loans in Oregon, p. 2 copy at http://dfcs.oregon.gov/pdf/2938.pdf.
Ohmigod: interest of 391 percent. Surely that would be against the law. Not until recently. In 2006, Oregon passed a law limiting payday loan interest rates to 36 percent. Something seems wrong if that's the best we can do in regulating those who prey on the most desparate. ORS 725.622 became effective January 1, 2007. I have yet to hear of any payday lenders closing shop because of this modest effort to limit usury. Let's hope that their day comes.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Friday, March 9, 2007
Data Theft Bill Introduced in Oregon Senate
Today's news includes reports that a data theft disclosure bill has been introduced in the Oregon Senate. SB 583, the Oregon Consumer Identity Theft Protection Act, might give a little more protection to consumers whose identity information is stolen or lost.
The bill allows consumers to obtain credit freezes, and it generally requires businesses who handle sensitive identity information, like drivers' licenses and social security numbers, to handle it more carefully.
The bill also requires businesses to alert consumers when there are big data breaches. The most memorable data loss in Oregon, the Providence Hospital's data loss of 365,000 patients' confidential information, would qualify. But there are a few big holes. The bill lets the business decide if it really needs to notify consumers. It doesn't have to do so if it thinks that it's reasonable not to notify consumers. Before passing it in its current form, let' s hope that lawmakers talk to some of the Providence patients to get a sense of whether it's a good idea to trust the businesses to decide what is reasonable.
Still, the credit freeze procedure is a help. And the bill gives authority to the state to enforce the law. In those ways it's an improvement of sorts.
***
Paul & Sugerman continues to represent the Providence patients in the data loss case against Providence. In that case, we're seeking repair measures and compensation for the 365,000 patients affected by the data loss. We're still waiting for the trial judge to rule on Providence's motion to dismiss.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
The bill allows consumers to obtain credit freezes, and it generally requires businesses who handle sensitive identity information, like drivers' licenses and social security numbers, to handle it more carefully.
The bill also requires businesses to alert consumers when there are big data breaches. The most memorable data loss in Oregon, the Providence Hospital's data loss of 365,000 patients' confidential information, would qualify. But there are a few big holes. The bill lets the business decide if it really needs to notify consumers. It doesn't have to do so if it thinks that it's reasonable not to notify consumers. Before passing it in its current form, let' s hope that lawmakers talk to some of the Providence patients to get a sense of whether it's a good idea to trust the businesses to decide what is reasonable.
Still, the credit freeze procedure is a help. And the bill gives authority to the state to enforce the law. In those ways it's an improvement of sorts.
***
Paul & Sugerman continues to represent the Providence patients in the data loss case against Providence. In that case, we're seeking repair measures and compensation for the 365,000 patients affected by the data loss. We're still waiting for the trial judge to rule on Providence's motion to dismiss.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Today's Good News for Consumers
New Study Caps on Damages Don't Lower Malpractice Insurance Rates
Good news for consumers injured by medical mistakes. The Oregonian reported today that a definitive new study reveals that caps on damages have no impact on doctors' malpractice premiums. Oregon's rates are among the very lowest in the country, and we have no caps on damages.
In 1999, The Oregon Supreme Court found that caps on damages deprive consumers of constitutional rights to obtain full justice. Caps are a one-size-fits-all form of justice that take away the rights of the most severely injured. We were told that the sky would fall without caps on damages, but Oregon consumers knew better. Oregonians have repeatedly rejected ballot measures to add damage caps. As expected, a definitive study shows that Oregon consumers were right all along.
News report in The Oregonian business section, by Joe Rojas-Burke, "No cap, but no hike in payouts" (Mar. 8, 2007). Find it at http://www.oregonlive.com
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Good news for consumers injured by medical mistakes. The Oregonian reported today that a definitive new study reveals that caps on damages have no impact on doctors' malpractice premiums. Oregon's rates are among the very lowest in the country, and we have no caps on damages.
In 1999, The Oregon Supreme Court found that caps on damages deprive consumers of constitutional rights to obtain full justice. Caps are a one-size-fits-all form of justice that take away the rights of the most severely injured. We were told that the sky would fall without caps on damages, but Oregon consumers knew better. Oregonians have repeatedly rejected ballot measures to add damage caps. As expected, a definitive study shows that Oregon consumers were right all along.
News report in The Oregonian business section, by Joe Rojas-Burke, "No cap, but no hike in payouts" (Mar. 8, 2007). Find it at http://www.oregonlive.com
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
