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
Friday, August 31, 2007
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
