I have been retained to investigate possible consumer fraud and breach of contract claims against Western Culinary Institute. Along with my friend and colleague, Portland attorney Brian Campf, I am interested in talking to students (current and past) of WCI about their experiences there.
Feel free to contact me: dfs@pspc.com.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Oregon Supreme Court Affirms Verdict Against Philip Morris-Again
Today, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed for a second time the verdict rendered by a Portland jury in 1999 in favor of the family of Jesse Williams. Full disclosure: the author of this blog represented on a pro bono basis the Oregon Trial Lawyers Association, one of the amicus curiae in the case.
Nine years after a jury found that Philip Morris had acted with wanton disregard for Jesse Williams, the Oregon Supreme Court had to re-visit the case a second time because the U.S. Supreme Court remanded the case.
In the nuts and bolts department, the case came down to a simple rule in Oregon. A party's request for a jury instruction must accurately summarize the law in all respects or it should not be given.
At trial, Philip Morris requested a jury instruction on punitive damages that was not given. It was not given because it misstated the law. Every Oregon lawyer knows that's the end of the game. Yet Philip Morris still insisted that it was entitled to some sort of special treatment.
The bigger news is that this was a large punitive damage verdict. Juries assess punitive damages only when a defendant has engaged in outrageous misconduct. There was plenty of that in this case--destroyed documents, falsified and hidden research, junk science used to create a controversy about whether smoking was harmful. All of it undertaken by Philip Morris. So it should come as no surprise that the jury did the right thing.
The story that rarely gets told is that 60 percent of punitive damages assessed in Oregon cases go a crime victims' assistance fund. Punitive damages are assessed based upon the misconduct at issue. They also have to be significant enough to teach the bad actor a lesson. It's a little bit like parenting. A little child gets told no when she misbehaves. The teenager that takes the car on an alcohol-fueled joy ride needs to suffer far greater consequences. That's because a wayward toddler needs gentle correction, and a wayward teen needs a big stick.
In much the same way, Philip Morris only pays heed if the assessed amount crosses into the tens or hundreds of millions. Everything else is just noise.
In a perfect world, Philip Morris would pay the judgment and get on with its legal business in a way that is acceptable to society. I don't think anyone expects Philip Morris to do anything other than to try once again to get its friends on the Supreme Court to bail it out. Let's hope that the Supreme Court stays with the rule of law instead of applying the perverse version of the golden rule. Say it with me now: The guy with the gold makes the rule. If the U.S. Supreme Court reads the Oregon court's opinion and follows the existing rules, the Williams family will see justice.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Nine years after a jury found that Philip Morris had acted with wanton disregard for Jesse Williams, the Oregon Supreme Court had to re-visit the case a second time because the U.S. Supreme Court remanded the case.
In the nuts and bolts department, the case came down to a simple rule in Oregon. A party's request for a jury instruction must accurately summarize the law in all respects or it should not be given.
At trial, Philip Morris requested a jury instruction on punitive damages that was not given. It was not given because it misstated the law. Every Oregon lawyer knows that's the end of the game. Yet Philip Morris still insisted that it was entitled to some sort of special treatment.
The bigger news is that this was a large punitive damage verdict. Juries assess punitive damages only when a defendant has engaged in outrageous misconduct. There was plenty of that in this case--destroyed documents, falsified and hidden research, junk science used to create a controversy about whether smoking was harmful. All of it undertaken by Philip Morris. So it should come as no surprise that the jury did the right thing.
The story that rarely gets told is that 60 percent of punitive damages assessed in Oregon cases go a crime victims' assistance fund. Punitive damages are assessed based upon the misconduct at issue. They also have to be significant enough to teach the bad actor a lesson. It's a little bit like parenting. A little child gets told no when she misbehaves. The teenager that takes the car on an alcohol-fueled joy ride needs to suffer far greater consequences. That's because a wayward toddler needs gentle correction, and a wayward teen needs a big stick.
In much the same way, Philip Morris only pays heed if the assessed amount crosses into the tens or hundreds of millions. Everything else is just noise.
In a perfect world, Philip Morris would pay the judgment and get on with its legal business in a way that is acceptable to society. I don't think anyone expects Philip Morris to do anything other than to try once again to get its friends on the Supreme Court to bail it out. Let's hope that the Supreme Court stays with the rule of law instead of applying the perverse version of the golden rule. Say it with me now: The guy with the gold makes the rule. If the U.S. Supreme Court reads the Oregon court's opinion and follows the existing rules, the Williams family will see justice.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Vytorin-More Details on Consumer Claims
For consumers who have taken Vytorin, here's a good summary of the problem from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/business/15drug.html
Interestingly, the companies have apparently known since April 2006 that their higher-priced drugs were not more effective than generics. But they sat on that information until Congress pressured them to release their study this month. In the meantime, the manufacturers continued to sell the higher-priced less effective drugs.
I don't routinely pay close attention to such things, but I have to wonder whether the companies ran some of those glossy TV ads for Vytorin. Sure would be interesting to see what they said. I suppose that will be part of the discussion as the various consumer class actions move forward.
One other thing. A google search also turned up a fairly hostile editorial in Wall Street Journal. According to the writer, these cases are inappropriate because no one has been injured. I guess the Journal is bound to side with its friends on Wall Street and not consumers. But you would think that even the Journal's editorial writers could appreciate the obvious point.
Taking money from consumers by way of deceptive trade practices IS an injury. Sure, it's not a big deal to the well-heeled at the Journal. But of course, if we're talking about $30 per month per person, and you're selling this thing everyday to consumers across the nation, that's a lot of money. Maybe it looks too much like business as usual to the Journal?
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Interestingly, the companies have apparently known since April 2006 that their higher-priced drugs were not more effective than generics. But they sat on that information until Congress pressured them to release their study this month. In the meantime, the manufacturers continued to sell the higher-priced less effective drugs.
I don't routinely pay close attention to such things, but I have to wonder whether the companies ran some of those glossy TV ads for Vytorin. Sure would be interesting to see what they said. I suppose that will be part of the discussion as the various consumer class actions move forward.
One other thing. A google search also turned up a fairly hostile editorial in Wall Street Journal. According to the writer, these cases are inappropriate because no one has been injured. I guess the Journal is bound to side with its friends on Wall Street and not consumers. But you would think that even the Journal's editorial writers could appreciate the obvious point.
Taking money from consumers by way of deceptive trade practices IS an injury. Sure, it's not a big deal to the well-heeled at the Journal. But of course, if we're talking about $30 per month per person, and you're selling this thing everyday to consumers across the nation, that's a lot of money. Maybe it looks too much like business as usual to the Journal?
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Saturday, January 26, 2008
FDA Investigating Vytorin
Coming on the revelations that Vytorin is no more effective than generics, the FDA announced that it would investigate the drug and its manufacturers,Merck & Co Inc. and and Schering-Plough Corp.
Here is the url for more information on FDA action: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22847409/
The press accounts don't specify the scope of the investigation, but based upon an earlier study released this month, it appears that the companies knew that Vytorin was no more effective than generic drugs in treating cholesterol issues.
Consumer laws, like Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act give consumers a way to obtain refunds when a drug manufacturer falsely represents that its new drug is more effective than a less expensive generic. While there is certainly more to this story, it looks as if consumers are filing class actions in multiple states.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Here is the url for more information on FDA action: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22847409/
The press accounts don't specify the scope of the investigation, but based upon an earlier study released this month, it appears that the companies knew that Vytorin was no more effective than generic drugs in treating cholesterol issues.
Consumer laws, like Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act give consumers a way to obtain refunds when a drug manufacturer falsely represents that its new drug is more effective than a less expensive generic. While there is certainly more to this story, it looks as if consumers are filing class actions in multiple states.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Friday, January 25, 2008
Zetia and Vytorin Subject of Consumers' Class Actions
New studies released earlier this month raise troubling questions about the effectiveness of two prescript medications used to control cholesterol. The generic products Ezetimibe--marketed under the registered trademark Zetia--and Ezetimibe/Simvastatin--marketed under the registered trademark Vytorin--apparently aren't effective, as represented by their manufacturers.
Disclosure: the author of this blog routinely handles consumer class actions and may become involved in this litigation in the future.
Consumers are lining up in various states to pursue claims for reimbursements and refunds for money spent on these drugs. According to a complaint filed in U.S. District Court of Kansas, the drugs are alleged to increase the formation of fatty plaques, which raises the risk of heart attack.
It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Disclosure: the author of this blog routinely handles consumer class actions and may become involved in this litigation in the future.
Consumers are lining up in various states to pursue claims for reimbursements and refunds for money spent on these drugs. According to a complaint filed in U.S. District Court of Kansas, the drugs are alleged to increase the formation of fatty plaques, which raises the risk of heart attack.
It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Finally-The Press Asks OHSU the Hard Questions
I have to say that Steve Duin's column in today's Oregonian (24 January 2008) is a breath of fresh air. Here is the url: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf?/base/news/1201137918314500.xml&coll=7&thispage=1
The back story is that the Oregon Supreme Court ruled recently that Oregon Health Sciences cannot cap a child's damages at $200,000 when OHSU's negligent treatment causes profound brain damage.
Rather than take responsibility, OHSU started up the scare machine. We were treated to a parade of horribles. OHSU will be forced to limit or cut care, it will be closing clinics, and it will be laying off many people all because of--they claimed--Jordaan Clarke.
Steve Duin's column debunks the myth. I mean, for crying out loud, can you say, "Aerial tram"? And don't even get me started on the OHSU waterfront developments. Or how about the recent loss of the biotech research group to Florida? The reality is that OHSU hides from public scrutiny by claiming to be private and hides from market reality by claiming to be public.
The best part of Steve Duin's article is this quote from Sen. Walker (Eugene): "They've finally found a way for people to overlook years of financial mismanagement," state Sen. Vicki Walker, D-Eugene said, "and it's Jordaan Michael Clarke. It's a great PR move, but it's ridiculous. And it's a snow job."
Couldn't agree with her more.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
The back story is that the Oregon Supreme Court ruled recently that Oregon Health Sciences cannot cap a child's damages at $200,000 when OHSU's negligent treatment causes profound brain damage.
Rather than take responsibility, OHSU started up the scare machine. We were treated to a parade of horribles. OHSU will be forced to limit or cut care, it will be closing clinics, and it will be laying off many people all because of--they claimed--Jordaan Clarke.
Steve Duin's column debunks the myth. I mean, for crying out loud, can you say, "Aerial tram"? And don't even get me started on the OHSU waterfront developments. Or how about the recent loss of the biotech research group to Florida? The reality is that OHSU hides from public scrutiny by claiming to be private and hides from market reality by claiming to be public.
The best part of Steve Duin's article is this quote from Sen. Walker (Eugene): "They've finally found a way for people to overlook years of financial mismanagement," state Sen. Vicki Walker, D-Eugene said, "and it's Jordaan Michael Clarke. It's a great PR move, but it's ridiculous. And it's a snow job."
Couldn't agree with her more.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Supreme Court Cases Focus on Whether Corporate Actors Must Answer to Juries
The Supreme Court recently announced that it will hear two cases that may impact consumers. Two cases address a troubling area--federal preemption. Both threaten to further restrict consumers' abilities to obtain compensation when wrongdoers cause harms and losses.
In Wyeth v. Levine, the Supreme Court will decide whether state law claims for injuries that seek payment for harms and losses caused by a dangerous drug are preempted, when federal law requires a warning on the drug. In the Levine case, Ms. Levine lost her arm as a result of complications from defendant's drug. The jury awarded money to make up for Ms. Levine's harms and losses. Now Wyeth argues that federal law protects it from answering for harms and losses caused by its misconduct.
In Altria v. Good, the Supreme Court will decide whether requirements that relate to the labels on cigarettes preempt consumers claims that they were deceived when Philip Morris sold Marlboro Lights. In the case--arising in Maine--consumers claim that Philip Morris failed to disclose that Marlboro "Lights" that were "lowered tar and nicotine" are only "light" when smoked by a machine. (Full disclosure: The author of this blog has been pursuing a similar claim on behalf of Oregon purchasers of Marlboro Lights.) In Altria, Philip Morris wants the Court to put a stop to these consumer cases because--Philip Morris claims--its labels were regulated by federal rules.
Nice try. Actually, nothing in any federal rule or law required Philip Morris to claim that its cigarettes were light or lowered tar and nicotine. They made that choice. And they also chose not to disclose that the "light" and "lowered tar and nicotine" labels apply to machines, not to people.
Still, this court seems to tilt in favor heavily in favor of corporate interests. As well, this court seems to distrust the jury's ability to hear and weigh the evidence and decide whether a consumer's harms and losses were caused by misconduct.
I long ago stopped making predictions about what any court will do. It's a waste of energy and time, and I imagine that I'm about as good at predicting as I am at calling heads or tails. Still, if these cases go the wrong way, consumers could find themselves with nowhere to turn when corporate misconduct causes serious harms and losses.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
In Wyeth v. Levine, the Supreme Court will decide whether state law claims for injuries that seek payment for harms and losses caused by a dangerous drug are preempted, when federal law requires a warning on the drug. In the Levine case, Ms. Levine lost her arm as a result of complications from defendant's drug. The jury awarded money to make up for Ms. Levine's harms and losses. Now Wyeth argues that federal law protects it from answering for harms and losses caused by its misconduct.
In Altria v. Good, the Supreme Court will decide whether requirements that relate to the labels on cigarettes preempt consumers claims that they were deceived when Philip Morris sold Marlboro Lights. In the case--arising in Maine--consumers claim that Philip Morris failed to disclose that Marlboro "Lights" that were "lowered tar and nicotine" are only "light" when smoked by a machine. (Full disclosure: The author of this blog has been pursuing a similar claim on behalf of Oregon purchasers of Marlboro Lights.) In Altria, Philip Morris wants the Court to put a stop to these consumer cases because--Philip Morris claims--its labels were regulated by federal rules.
Nice try. Actually, nothing in any federal rule or law required Philip Morris to claim that its cigarettes were light or lowered tar and nicotine. They made that choice. And they also chose not to disclose that the "light" and "lowered tar and nicotine" labels apply to machines, not to people.
Still, this court seems to tilt in favor heavily in favor of corporate interests. As well, this court seems to distrust the jury's ability to hear and weigh the evidence and decide whether a consumer's harms and losses were caused by misconduct.
I long ago stopped making predictions about what any court will do. It's a waste of energy and time, and I imagine that I'm about as good at predicting as I am at calling heads or tails. Still, if these cases go the wrong way, consumers could find themselves with nowhere to turn when corporate misconduct causes serious harms and losses.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
