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
Thursday, August 2, 2007
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
