In today's Oregonian, there's a thoughtful letter to the editor under the heading, "Sizemore should be banned" from Mark Sturbois of Southeast Portland. Mr. Sturbois points out that Mr. Sizemore has been convicted of improprieties relating to the initiative process. But even so he's back again with more bad ballot measures.
Coincidentally, the back page of the same Metro section (Oregonian Jan. 10, 2008) reports on an important ruling by Marion County Circuit Judge Dennis Graves. In that case, a number of professional petitioners challenged new laws that regulate how signatures are gathered for initiative petitions.
The regulations allow the State to enforce existing rules that ban paying signature gatherers by the signature. The professional petitioners--the Sizemores of our lives--challenged the rules and asked the judge to enjoin enforcement. Judge Graves refused to do so.
I'm not privy to the particulars, and you always have to be a little careful about news reports of cases. Still, it seems reasonable to me that the State can enforce rules that regulate signature gathering for initiatives. After all, we want a transparent process that Oregonians can trust, not one that encourages or promotes signature fraud. It seems like Judge Graves' ruling goes the right way on this important issue.
So back to Mr. Sturbois. Seems like he's got a well-founded and well-articulated beef with the Sizemore efforts. Let's hope that the latest round of rules helps cure us of this ill. While the right to petition is an important one, we're all entitled to have the petitioning process remain open and honest. So maybe some fraud-proofing will stop the cascade of lousy ideas?
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Countrywide Makes it Up
Here's a fun one. According to a report in today's New York Times, Countrywide admitted that it fabricated--or in its lawyers words, "recreated"--documents in a bankruptcy case. Countrywide used three letters that it claimed to have sent to the borrower and used them as the basis for claiming that the borrower owed Countrywide $4,700.
Here's the url for reference. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/business/08lend.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin
Countrywide's claim that the borrower owed money is particularly problematic. According to the news report, the borrower had successfully completed her bankruptcy plan, a plan that Countrywide passed on without objection. After completion of the bankruptcy plan, Countrywide sent the borrower a notice of intention to foreclose based on the fabricated documents.
Countrywide sent the borrower's lawyer "copies" of three letters sent previously. Or so Countrywide claimed. Interestingly, the oldest of the three letters was addressed to an office address that the lawyer would move into well after the date of the first letter. Nice work at the documents department.
In the predatory lending crisis, there are those who want to put all of the blame on borrowers for failing to take responsibility. While there will be plenty of blame to go around before the whole story comes out, this story doesn't exactly bathe Countrywide in a righteous light. It will be interesting to see whether this type of conduct was widespread, or whether it was a rare instance of misconduct.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Here's the url for reference. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/business/08lend.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin
Countrywide's claim that the borrower owed money is particularly problematic. According to the news report, the borrower had successfully completed her bankruptcy plan, a plan that Countrywide passed on without objection. After completion of the bankruptcy plan, Countrywide sent the borrower a notice of intention to foreclose based on the fabricated documents.
Countrywide sent the borrower's lawyer "copies" of three letters sent previously. Or so Countrywide claimed. Interestingly, the oldest of the three letters was addressed to an office address that the lawyer would move into well after the date of the first letter. Nice work at the documents department.
In the predatory lending crisis, there are those who want to put all of the blame on borrowers for failing to take responsibility. While there will be plenty of blame to go around before the whole story comes out, this story doesn't exactly bathe Countrywide in a righteous light. It will be interesting to see whether this type of conduct was widespread, or whether it was a rare instance of misconduct.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Monday, January 7, 2008
De Beers Class Action Settlement
One of the better class notices I've seen appeared in Parade Magazine on Sunday, January 6, 2008. It announced a $295 million settlement of a diamond market price fixing class action lawsuit against De Beers diamonds.
The notice provides a nice summary of the class settlement with plenty of information on how class members can learn more about the case. The settlement fund totals some $295 million. It covers diamond purchases from Januay 1, 1994 through March 31, 2006. Additional information can be found at www.diamondclassaction.com.
Paul & Sugerman did not participate in this case and has no connection to the claim.
The size of the settlement fund suggests that class counsel did a great job in putting together what must have been a tough case. But more important, it's an impressive job of providing notice.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
The notice provides a nice summary of the class settlement with plenty of information on how class members can learn more about the case. The settlement fund totals some $295 million. It covers diamond purchases from Januay 1, 1994 through March 31, 2006. Additional information can be found at www.diamondclassaction.com.
Paul & Sugerman did not participate in this case and has no connection to the claim.
The size of the settlement fund suggests that class counsel did a great job in putting together what must have been a tough case. But more important, it's an impressive job of providing notice.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Friday, January 4, 2008
FTC Wins Fraud Case Against Infomercial Marketer
In a decision released yesterday, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a multi-million dollar judgment against QT, Inc., the seller of the Q-Ray Ionized Bracelet.
QT made millions selling the product to desperate consumers, claiming its "Q rays" were a miracle cure that relieved all sorts of chronic pain. Independent medical research found that it was about as effective as a placebo.
A federal judge heard the evidence and stuck the company with fines and ordered refunds, as well. The numbers run into the tens of millions.
News reports scattered around the internet today point out that the company filed bankruptcy, and yet it continues to sell the product using product testimonials.
The opinion--written by Judge Easterbrook--makes for amusing reading. He labels the company's claims about biofeedback, Q Waves and energy balancing as "blather." In affirming the trial court, the appeals court concluded that the judge hearing the case was in the best position to weigh the evidence.
I'm reminded of a film I saw quite by accident a few months ago. It was a Spanish film called Ladrones Robben Ladrones (Thieves Rob Thieves) in which the bogus marketing of a miracle cure is at the heart of a terrific heist film. It's one of those good guys win in the end films. Sort of like this case.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
QT made millions selling the product to desperate consumers, claiming its "Q rays" were a miracle cure that relieved all sorts of chronic pain. Independent medical research found that it was about as effective as a placebo.
A federal judge heard the evidence and stuck the company with fines and ordered refunds, as well. The numbers run into the tens of millions.
News reports scattered around the internet today point out that the company filed bankruptcy, and yet it continues to sell the product using product testimonials.
The opinion--written by Judge Easterbrook--makes for amusing reading. He labels the company's claims about biofeedback, Q Waves and energy balancing as "blather." In affirming the trial court, the appeals court concluded that the judge hearing the case was in the best position to weigh the evidence.
I'm reminded of a film I saw quite by accident a few months ago. It was a Spanish film called Ladrones Robben Ladrones (Thieves Rob Thieves) in which the bogus marketing of a miracle cure is at the heart of a terrific heist film. It's one of those good guys win in the end films. Sort of like this case.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Friday, December 28, 2007
Oregon Supreme Court Finds Tort Claim Act Unconstitutional
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
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 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
