The Injury Board Commentary - Defective & Dangerous Products

Recall of 226,000 Coleman, Coleman Evcon and Red-T Gas Furnaces Re-announced

Greg Webb — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 08:00:00 GMT

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in cooperation with the Unitary Products Group of York International has re-announced a voluntary recall of 226,000 Coleman, Coleman Evcon and Red-T brand gas furnaces for manufactured homes, due to continued reports about the furnaces overheating and causing fires. The recall involves approximately 223,600 recalled which were sold in the U.S. and 2,400 in Canada.

This recall was first issued on November 15, 2004, when only 27 reports of overheating incidents with these furnaces had been reported. To date, 393 reports have been received by York International, including several reports of extensive property damage.

According to the CPSC, “the furnaces can overheat, causing heat-exchanger cracking, burn-through and, in extreme cases, furnace wrapper burn-through” which can lead to heating and possible burning of drywall and other combustibles adjacent to the furnace posing a fire and smoke hazard to consumers.

The Coleman, Coleman Evcon and Red T furnaces are “silver” with white access panels. The brand names Coleman, Coleman Evcon and Red T can be found on their front access panels. By removing both front access panels, the furnace’s model number can be located on a faceplate on the left inside surface of the furnace (behind the lower panel access panel). Furnace models involved in the recall are:

DGAM075BDD
DGAM075BDE
DGAM075BDF

DGAT070BDD
DGAT070BDE
DGAT070BDF

DGAT075BDD
DGAT075BDE
DGAT075BDF

DLAS075BDD
DLAS075BDE
DLAS075BDF

These furnaces were sold to be used in manufactured homes throughout the United States and in Canada from 1995 through 2000. Consumers should stop using the furnace until it has been inspected and repaired; and consumers should contact Unitary Products Group (UPG) of York International to arrange for inspection and repair of any recalled furnace listed in this recall.

Consumers may contact the UPG/York International company for additional information on the hazard involved with these furnaces and to answer any installation, inspection and repair questions, by calling toll-free 1(888) 665-4640 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, or by going to the company’s website at www.dgatprogram.com. According to the CPSC, UPG Technical Services is also conducting a comprehensive notification and communications program and working with its distributors to locate owners of these furnaces.

To view a photo of these furnaces and the faceplate (with model number), please visit the CPSC website at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12102.html

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Could Inhaled Caffeine Become the New Club Drug?

David Mittleman — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:33:00 GMT

Areoshot may be caffeine addicts' biggest fantasy: by simply taking a deep breath, you can get your caffeine fix for the day or for a little while, at least. The device was created by a Harvard professor and is on the market in New York and Massachusetts as well as in France and online. It is typically sold at convenience stores, costs about $2.99 and delivers 100 mg of caffeine and B6 vitamins. Experts are beginning to worry that the convenience of the product may lead college students to turn it when they want to keep drinking without stopping.

While the creator of the product Dr. David Edwards of Biomedical Engineering at Harvard says it is safe, it has caught some negative attention from lawmakers. US Senator Charles Schumer of NY wants an FDA review of Areoshot, but Dr. Edwards says it is a typical knee-jerk response to a new product.

The Areoshot works by delivering a puff of lemon-lime flavored powder into the mouth when you press down on the lipstick size container. The airborne energy particles coat the inside of your mouth, dissolve quickly, and don't actually get into your lungs according to Dr. Edwards. Critics fear that hard-partying college students will use the product much like Four Loko drinks or so-called "blackout in a can" that laces alcohol with caffeine. Combining alcohol with caffeine can trick the body into thinking it is less intoxicated than it actually is, leading to more dangerous levels of alcohol consumption. However, Dr. Edwards says the products is simply a faster, easier way of getting a caffeine jolt at inconvenient locations to drink coffee such as at a library, at a sports game, or in an airport. Each container holds the equivalent of ten cups of coffee and has a warning label instructing users not to use more than three puffs a day (or about three cups of coffee). The problem that experts see is that it is a lot harder to drink ten cups of coffee straight than ten puffs of Areoshot, which is too much caffeine for one day.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

1.7 million Single-Cup Brewers and 4 million T Discs recalled due to burns, children injured

Paul Napoli — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:17:26 GMT

More than 100 reports of burns and incidents involving the spraying of hot liquids has prompted the recall of Tassimo Single-Cup Brewers and the coffee or tea filled T Discs used in them.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and the regulatory agency Health Canada announced that BSH Home Appliances Corp., of Irvine, CA, is recalling 835,000 Bosch Tassimo and Tassimo Professional Single-Cup Brewers in the United States and an additional 900,000 in Canada.

Consumers, hotels and food service providers should stop using these brewers immediately. The manufacturer has received 140 reports of brewers spraying hot liquid, coffee grounds or tea leaves onto consumers or bystanders. 37 of those resulted in second-degree burns. A girl from Minnesota, age 10, required hospitalization due to second-degree burns to her face and neck.

Consumers may have purchased the Bosch Tassimo brewer at department and big box stores nationwide or online from June 2008 to February 2012 for between $100 and $250. BSH sold the Tassimo Professional directly to hotels and food service providers. These units use a T Disc, a cartridge prefilled with coffee or tea.

Bosch Tassimo brewers are black, white, anthracite, gray, silver, red, titanium or white/gray colored plastic and have the brand name “BOSCH” and “TASSIMO” printed on the front of the unit. The Tassimo Professional only came in black and has the words “TASSIMO PROFESSIONAL” printed on the front. Only Tassimo brewers with the following model and date codes are affected by the recall:

Brand	Model Numbers That Begin With:	Date Codes Beginning with FD and Within the Range of:
Bosch®	TAS100	FD 8806 through 9109
	TAS200
	TAS451
	TAS46
	TAS651
Tassimo Professional	TAS6512CUL	FD 8905 through 9109

Owners of these single-cup brewers can obtain a free replacement T Disc holder by calling (866) 918-8763 or visiting http://www.tassimosafetyrecall.com/

Kraft Foods Global Inc., of Northfield, IL, is recalling Gevalia, Maxwell House and Nabob brand Tassimo T Discs for use in the recalled Tassimo Single-Cup Brewers, 2.1 million in the United States and 1.9 million in Canada, because a clogging of the T Disc can spray hot liquid and grounds onto the user or bystanders during or after brewing.

According to a release by the CPSC, consumers have reported 21 incidences of the malfunction. Four cases resulted in second-degree burns, including one 2-year-old child who suffered second-degree burns to the face.

T Discs with the following codes are affected by this recall:

Recalled T Discs
Gevalia	Maxwell House	Nabob	Codes ending with
Espresso	Espresso	Espresso	11213 through 12020
Espresso Decaffeinated	Café Collection Cappuccino	Cappuccino
Cappuccino	Café Collection Crème Cappuccino	Decaf Cappuccino
Cappuccino Decaffeinated	Café Collection Skinny Cappuccino	Latte
Skinny Cappuccino	Café Collection Latte	Skinny Latte
Latte	Café Collection Crème Latte
Caramel Latte Macchiato	Café Collection Caramel Latte Macchiato
Mocha
Peppermint Mocha

Consumers can receive a full refund by calling (866) 918-8763 or visiting the T Disc recall website.

Visit us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter @NapoliBern

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Napoli

What Happens When The Defense Doesn't Play By The Rules?

Brett Emison — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:57:00 GMT

We live in a society with rules. These rules are intended to be followed. But what happens when someone intentionally breaks these rules? I remember as a child getting in trouble from time to time. The consequences were often much harsher for an intentional or repeat violation.

What happens when a defendant intentionally or repeatedly breaks one of the court's rules? Sometimes the defendant gets away with it. But a few recent examples demonstrate what should happen when a defendant intentionally breaks the rules in order to gain an unfair advantage over an injured plaintiff.

The first example - sourced from The Safety Record - comes out of a federal district court in Atlanta, Georgia. In that case, the injured plaintiffs alleged that a defective Michelin tire detreaded and caused their vehicle to roll over, leaving the passenger injured and the driver a paralyzed quadriplegic with brain injury. In proving up their case, the injured plaintiffs asked for certain documents from Michelin related to their claims - the documents sought included warranty adjustment data, design and production tolerances, and documents relating to the specific effects alleged. After a year of negotiations, Michelin had produced only a very small number of documents.

In January 2011, the court ordered Michelin to produce all of the documents requested by the injured plaintiffs. Michelin refused to produce all of the documents. In May 2011, the injured plaintiffs asked for sanctions against Michelin for failure to comply with the court's order. In June 2011, the court again ordered Michelin to produce all of the requested documents and added a warning: "Any further delays, manipulation of discovery… or basically failure to function in good faith and producing fully all information requested ordered… will result in a substantive sanction… comparable to what Plaintiffs have asked the next time it comes in front of [the Court]."

Despite this warning and a second chance to comply, Michelin again refused to abide by the court's rules. In describing Michelin's conduct, the Court said:

Despite being previously sanctioned for producing a meaningless list of adjustment conditions without the necessary interpretive documents, Michelin again produced a chart of adjustment data that could not even be interpreted by Michelin's own in-house expert.

***

First, Michelin made multiple misrepresentations to the Court that it had produced documents as ordered by the Court when in fact it had not. Second, Michelin repeatedly refused to produce documents in direct violation of the January 3rd, June 3rd and June 24th Orders. Third, Michelin intentionally engaged in an extremely narrow, unjustified interpretation of the Court's Orders in order to limit, or altogether avoid, producing relevant and useful documents in response to Plaintiffs' discovery requests.

***

In sum, Michelin's bad faith conduct caused serious prejudice to the integrity of the legal process and to Plaintiffs' orderly, effective development and proof of their case. The pattern of abuse by Michelin is extremely troubling.

Because Michelin intentionally and repeatedly disregarded the Court's rules for nearly 2 years, the court sanctioned Michelin by awarding attorneys fees and declaring that the Michelin tire was "defective and unreasonably dangerous".

In another case, a St. Louis defense law firm was similarly sanctioned for violating discovery rules. After all of the trial preparations had occurred, after months of preparation, after numerous depositions, and just days before trial was set to begin, the defense lawyers at the last minute finally turned over an entire stash of critical documents. Instead of playing by the rules, the defendant and its lawyers decided the rules didn't apply to them.

From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

A stash of documents was turned over at the last minute, just as the case was set for trial earlier this week.

***

The judge wrote in his order, "The discovery violations committed by defense counsel were not mere delays or insignificant mistakes that occurred inadvertently but rather deliberate or intentional, systematic, dishonest conduct. Their violations undermine entire system. Their actions showed a disregard of the court's authority because they believe that they alone decide discovery matters."

[The judge] said that in 17 years on the bench, he never imposed such a sanction, which is called "the striking of pleadings." He noted that it is reserved for "only the most egregious and systematic, deliberate or intentional discovery violations."

In a third example, a Florida court set aside a jury verdict in favor of Ford Motor Company; finding that Ford defrauded the court and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration by claiming that driver error was the only known cause of unintended acceleration and find that Ford concealed years of testing that showed electromagnetic interference was a frequent root cause of unintended acceleration in Ford vehicles. The judge also found that Ford's defense lawyers lied and withheld the results of expert witness tests conducted to show what caused the tire marks left by the subject vehicle during the sudden acceleration event.

In sanctioning Ford for violating fundamental rules of honesty, the Florida judge ordered a new trial in which the jury would only consider compensatory and punitive damages.

Rules are important. Rules have meaning. When rules are repeatedly or intentionally broken, there are consequences. Litigation is meant to take place within the rules and on an even playing field. When one party ignores or abuses those rules, justice cannot be served. I applaud these courts for holding defendants accountable when they or their defense lawyers refuse to play by the rules.

[More on Frivolous Defenses]

Michelin Rapped for "Bad Faith Conduct" [The Safety Record]
Faces of Lawsuit Abuse: Sgt Jon Brough
Shield maker pays disfigured Belleville officer after evidence fight [Nicholas J.C. Pistor at St. Louis Post-Dispatch]
St. Louis Defense Firm's Client Sanctioned for Discovery Abuse [Todd Hendrickson at St. Louis Injury Law Blog]
Judge Finds Ford Fraudulently Concealed Electronic Causes of Unintended Acceleration [The Safety Record]
How Ford Concealed Evidence of Electronically-Caused UA and What it Means Today [The Safety Record]

Follow @BrettEmison on Twitter.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brett Emison

HP Recalls Chinese-Made Fax Machines Due to Fire Hazard

Greg Webb — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:00:00 GMT

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) recently announced a voluntary recall of HP fax 1040 and 1050 machines manufactured by Hewlett-Packard (HP) of Palo Alto, California, from November 2004 until December 2011, due to a fire and burn hazard. More than 1,000,000 machines total are being recalled from the U.S. (928,000), Mexico and Canada (240,000).

The HP 1040 and 1050 fax machines, which can overheat due to an internal electrical component failure, were manufactured in China and imported to the U.S. by HP. The fax machines sold for approximately $90 to $120 each, at electronics, computer and camera stores, and online by www.shopping.hp.com and other websites. According to the CPSC, “Some of the recalled fax machines were replacement units for a previous recall involving HP fax model 1010 in June 2008.”

The CPSC is aware of seven reports of the fax machines overheating and catching fire, resulting in property damage, including one instance of significant property damage. In addition, a report of a minor burn injury to a consumer's finger was also received.

For safety’s sake, consumers should stop using these fax machines immediately and disconnect them from the electrical outlet. Consumers may contact HP for a rebate on the purchase of an authorized replacement HP fax machine or a partial rebate of certain HP ink jet printers. Consumers are reminded that it is illegal to re-sell or attempt to re-sell any item or product recalled by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Consumers may contact Hewlett-Packard for more information on this fax recall by calling toll-free 1 (888) 654-9296 between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. MT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's website at http://www.hp.com/go/faxrecall/US-en

To view photos of the HP 1040 and 1050 fax machines, please visit the CPSC website at

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12101.html

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Faces of Lawsuit Abuse: Tami Martin

Brett Emison — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:14:00 GMT

The United States Chamber of Commerce has an entire web site dedicated to destroying the fundamental right of trial by jury. The Chamber's site - Faces of Lawsuit Abuse (you can find it if you want, but I'm not going to link to it) - focuses solely on defendants (and mostly corporate defendants) without any examples of the other side. The Chamber's site is pure propaganda designed to increase corporate profits by eliminating accountability and destroying the constitutional right to trial by jury enshrined in the 7th Amendment.

Tami Martin is one of the other faces of lawsuit abuse. She was paralyzed in a low-speed accident because of a defect automakers like Ford have known about for decades - reclined seat dangers. Instead of making sure Tami got the medical care she needed, Ford fought her every step of the way. Instead of accepting responsibility, Ford blamed Tami.

Tami's mother was driving Tami back to college in October 1999 in the family's Ford Windstar van. Tami was in the front passenger seat and she was wearing her seat belt. Tami was tired and reclined her seat back to take a nap. When she woke up, she was in the hospital and paralyzed.

Tami's mother had run into another vehicle. It was a minor accident - the collision was less than 30 miles per hour. Tami's mother wasn't even hurt. But Tami was left a quadriplegic.

Ford and other automakers knew that passengers shouldn't recline their seats while the vehicle is moving. Yet they don't tell passengers this information. Instead, automakers permit the seats to recline and even tout reclining seats as one of the vehicle's comfort features for long road trips.

Ford Documents Admitted at Trial Show
Ford Knew About Danger For More Than 20 Years

Government Documents Introduced at Trial Also Showed Ford's Knowledge of the Danger and Ineffectiveness of Owner's Manual Warnings

Because of the reclined seat, Tami's seat belt didn't work in this minor collision. Tami slid under the lap belt and the impact forces went into Tami's stomach and lower back, crushing Tami's spine.

All Tami wanted was for Ford to take responsibility for this defect that left her paralyzed. Tami wanted to make sure her medical needs would be met and wanted to make sure that no one else would be injured like she was.

Did Ford accept responsibility? No.

Instead, Ford blamed Tami. Ford claimed Tami should not have been reclined in her seat. In fact, Ford claimed all passengers should know about reclined seat dangers and Ford refused to accept any responsibility at all.

Ford refused to accept responsibility for its product even though Ford knew about the danger for more than 20 years and even though Ford told its customers they could recline their seats.

Ford told Windstar owners, like Tami's mother, that reclining seats are "a very nice feature to have long long road trips."

Ford Windstar Ad Introduced At Trial
Showing Ford Ignored 20 Years of Knowledge About Reclined Seat Danger

As late as March 2005, Ford aired the following advertisement across Florida:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VviUaz04uEM

Twenty seconds into the advertisement, you see this image:

Ford Advertisement Showing Front Seat Passenger
Reclined with Feet on Dash While Vehicle In Motion

Even after the accident that paralyzed Tami, Ford continued telling its customers through advertisements that it was perfectly safe to ride with a reclined seat. Ford blamed Tami Martin for doing precisely what Ford advertised to its customers.

When the commercial came up in depositions before trial, Ford finally pulled this ad off the air. At trial, the jury awarded Tami $17 million.

What did Tami do? She offered to give back half of the money if Ford would just put safety stickers in all of its vehicles warning passengers to never recline their seats while car is in motion.

Ford refused to fix the problem and instead appealed the verdict (which was ultimately upheld in Tami's favor).

The CBS Early Show featured Tami and our local counsel, Angelo Patacca. You can view the CBS news feature about Tami here.

The Chamber will never tell you about frivolous defense tactics like this one. The Chamber won't tell you about defense delay tactics that hurt innocent victims by delaying needed medical care or shifting product defect costs from negligent corporations to tax payers through Medicaid, Medicare, and assistance programs.

Tami had offered to settle with Ford for much less than the $17 million verdict. Ford's frivolous defense tactics not only hurt Tami, it hurt Ford. And when Tami offered to give back half of the money if Ford would just fix the problem... Ford refused!

When you hear the U.S. Chamber or some other corporate organization talking about tort reform or "lawsuit abuse" be sure to ask them about the other side of the story.

The 7th Amendment right to trial is perhaps the most important fundamental civil right ensured by our Constitution. In fact, deprivation of civil justice was one of the offenses of the King specifically enumerated in the Declaration of Independence.

"For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury"

The Founders understood the importance of the right to trial by jury. Yet this fundamental right "endowed by [our] Creator" is under nearly constant attack today. Corporations require you to sign this right away when purchasing something as mundane as a cell phone or concert ticket. Commentators disparage this fundamental right as nothing more than "frivolous lawsuits", "lawsuit abuse" and "jackpot justice".

Don't talk to Tami Martin about "jackpot justice". Tami never asked for what happened to her. Tami wanted to avoid litigation and avoid a lawsuit, but was forced to protect her rights because Ford refused to accept responsibility for causing the harm. Tami's verdict was no "jackpot". And even after Tami prevailed at trial, she offered to give the money back if Ford would just fix the problem! And Ford refused!

When "tort reform" bails out irresponsible individuals and corporations or defendants engage in frivolous defenses that delay justice, tax payers end up with the bill. Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid pays for the medical care that should be borne by the responsible party. Welfare, food stamps and other government assistance pays for housing, shelter, transportation and other basic needs that should be born by the responsible party. Many victims are left to financial ruin, bankruptcy and poverty because the responsible party avoids responsibility and accountability.

The Founders understood -- and perhaps we should be reminded -- that we as a society must take responsibility when we wrong someone. If we are not accountable for our actions, then society if forced to pay for our transgressions and care for those we hurt.

[More Faces of Lawsuit Abuse]

[More on your 7th Amendment Rights]

[More on Frivolous Defenses]

Follow @BrettEmison on Twitter.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brett Emison

Study links diet soft drinks to stroke and heart attack

Paul Napoli — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:15:20 GMT

A new study has found that people who drink a can or more of diet soda each day are at a dramatically increased risk of vascular events, including stroke.

Researchers from the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine and New York’s Columbia University studied the soft-drinking habits of 2,564 participants from the Northern Manhattan Study (NOMAS) over the course of ten years. NOMAS is an ongoing research study, started in 1990, of the population of Washington Heights in Northern Manhattan.

They compared people who drank diet or regular soft drinks and their frequency, either less than one soft drink per month, up to six per week, or daily.

Researchers found study participants suffered 591 vascular events, including strokes, myocardial infarctions and vascular death over the course of the study. Those who drank diet soft drinks daily, versus those who drank none, had a 43% increased risk of vascular events, even after accounting for conditions such as high blood pressure, heart disease and diabetes. Data showed no increased risk of vascular events associated with the consumption of regular soft drinks or light consumption of diet soft drinks.

The study Diet Soft Drink Consumption is Associated with an Increased Risk of Vascular Events in the Northern Manhattan Study was published online January 30 in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

HuffPost reports that two other unrelated studies have found health concerns related to diet soda, one study showing that people who drank diet soda had a wider waistline and another study that found the artificial sweetener in diet soda raises the blood sugar in mice prone to diabetes.

“Our results suggest a potential association between daily diet soft drink consumption and vascular outcomes,” said lead researcher Hannah Gardener, Sc.D., epidemiologist in the Miller School’s Department of Neurology, in a release. “However, the mechanisms by which soft drinks may affect vascular events are unclear. There is a need for further research before any conclusions can be drawn regarding the potential health consequences of diet soft drink consumption.”

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Napoli

The Definition of Tort Reform Hypocrisy? The U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Mark Bello — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 13:41:15 GMT

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the corporate lobbying group, that, for years, has sought to unconstitutionally limit a citizen's right to sue and collect damages from corporate wrongdoers, has filed a "friend of the court" brief in a lawsuit currently pending in the United States Court of Appeals in Washington.

You are familiar with the Chamber, aren't you? This is the pro-corporate group that screams "lawsuit abuse" every time a citizen sues a corporation for damages. So, if this group is filing a friend of the court brief in a lawsuit, it must be a pretty serious lawsuit, right? It wasn't one of those representative "lawsuit abuse" suits, was it? I couldn't be a "frivolous lawsuit", because the Chamber hates those, right? So, what's the lawsuit about, you ask?

The Chamber filed its brief in support of the tobacco industry (one of the industries that provides back-door funding of the Chamber's "tort reform" initiatives) and against the Food and Drug Administration (in other words, the Federal Government), arguing that the government has "no legitimate authority to take space on a tobacco company’s packaging or advertising to persuade consumers not to buy the product".

The government is planning to require graphic new warning labels on packages of cigarette, sometime this year. The most graphic labels include an autopsy photo of a smoker (former smoker?) and an x-ray of a diseased lung. The cigarette industry filed the lawsuit because the labels will cost them millions and because the labels are more prominent than their own branding. This, they say, constitutes a violation of their free speech. The government argues, essentially, that public safety and smoking danger warnings trump manufacturers' free speech.

Does anyone deny, anymore, that cigarettes are a dangerous product? Even those of us who do not smoke are at risk from the ingestion of second hand smoke. It is pretty clear that the government is correct and will prevail in a balance test between public safety and corporate wrongdoer free speech. So, why would the cigarette industry file the lawsuit? And why would the Chamber back the lawsuit? It is because they wish to delay, for as long as possible, the placement of the new, graphic, warning labels. And why do they want to do this? Because having to place them will cost millions and having their customers see them may cause a few to reconsider whether they want to continue using their dangerous product. The labels may prevent some teenager or pre-teen from taking up this filthy, dangerous habit. To the Chamber and its dangerous and polluting corporate clients, corporate profit is the only thing that matters; public safety is an inconvenience.

Can you think of anything more hypocritical than this lawsuit and the U.S. Chamber's support of it? The goverment (you, the taxpayer) has to spend millions in taxpayer dollars defending it. What a waste of taxpayer money and government time, just to buy time to save a few years profits for a corporate polluter, perhaps the most serious health hazard on the planet. The Chamber is constantly railing against "lawsuit abuse" (a campaign funded, in part, by the tobacco industry), but this one is not "frivolous"? A producer of an acknowledged dangerous product files a lawsuit against the government for trying to graphically warn the public that the product is grossly unsafe and the Chamber backs this lawsuit but attacks those filed by citizens to address and punish corporate wrongdoing? This is the same Chamber that says when a citizen sues a corporate wrongdoer for the serious harm suffered by the citizen, that citizen is guilty of "lawsuit abuse". This organization has zero credibility when it comes to this issue. The public should repudiate the Chamber and any candidate it supports, by its voice and its vote. As corporate lackey and tort reform hypocrite, John Stossel, would say: "Give me a break"!

Mark M. Bello is the owner and founder of Lawsuit Financial Corporation where he is instrumental in providing cash flow solutions and consulting when necessity of life lawsuit funding is needed during litigation. Mr. Bello has thirty-five years experience as a trial lawyer and 13 years as an underwriter and situational analyst in the litigation funding industry. He is recognized as an expert in this field by ExpertPages.com and ALM Experts. Mr. Bello is a sustaining and Justice PAC member of the Michigan Trial Lawyers Association, Justice Pac member of the American Association for Justice, Member of the American and Michigan Bar Associations, Member of Public Justice and Public Citizen, Member of InjuryBoard, out-of-state member of the Mississippi Association for Justice and a business associate of the Florida Justice Association, Texas Trial Lawyers Association and the Consumer Attorneys of California. His articles have appeared in FindLaw, The West Reporter, The Safety Report, Plaintiff Magazine, Advocate Magazine, and other fine legal publications.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mark Bello

Google "Lawsuit Abuse": What do you Find?

Mark Bello — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 12:03:13 GMT

If you are someone who reads my InjuryBoard posts from time to time, you know that I frequently write about the fact that the need for "tort reform" is a myth, perpetrated by big insurance, big pharma, big tobacco and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. These lobbying groups argue that those of us who represent injured people against Goliath corporate interests are guilty of "Lawsuit Abuse".

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has, for years, perpetrated a smear campaign against trial lawyers. This phony campaign seeks to bail out corporate wrongdoers who negligently kill and injure citizens. It seeks to prevent a citizen from suing the corporate wrongdoer or to limit the size of that citizen's award. It does this by linking what it calls "frivolous" lawsuits with the awards rendered in serious lawsuits for serious corporate behavior resulting in serious harm to individual citizens. We all have common sense. Use it and ask yourself this question: What "frivolous lawsuit" would need a high end cap on damages? Wouldn't the case, if frivolous, be dismissed by a sensible judge?

In its "Faces of Lawsuit Abuse" campaign, the Chamber falsely claims that "frivolous" lawsuits hurt this small businessman or that one. Maybe, just maybe, one "story" out of a hundred is true. But these situations are extremely uncommon and the Chamber and its ilk do not really care about them. They want to limit the seriously injured from getting serious money from offending billion dollar corporations which pour millions into these lobbying campaigns. A more humane use of these obscene expenditures would be to pay them to their victims instead of embarking on trial lawyer slander campaigns and courtroom delay, deny tactics.

So, since I believe in keeping my enemies close, I subscribe to receive "Lawsuit Abuse" Google Alerts. But, most of the time, what I see must surprise even the wealthiest insurance, pharmaceutical, or tobacco executive. It is embarrassing to the likes of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church or Jerry Sandusky. You see, if you combine the words "Lawsuit" and "Abuse" in the same Google search, more often than not, you will get information about lawsuits filed against someone who, in some position of power, has abused a child. In the case of Penn State and, certainly, the Catholic Church, we find that the cover-up is often as bad as the crime, itself. It is ironic that the choice of "Lawsuit Abuse" as a campaign slogan, meant to benefit corporate wrongdoers and restrict the civil justice rights of citizens, has backfired and, instead, called attention to the serious crime of sexual abuse against children. And isn't it interesting that one of the best weapons against the corporate cover-up of the sex abuse crimes is the threat of a lawsuit?

These lawsuits have been an important tool in changing the way the Catholic Church handles pedophile priests. It has taken thousands of lawsuits and cost the Church hundreds of millions of dollars, but the message has been delivered, loud and clear. A lawsuit by a "David" citizen against a "Goliath" corporation is the great equalizer; we are all equal in the eyes of the law. These corporate lobbying efforts are designed to defeat that legal equality. They are efforts to pour billions into the legislative and executive branches in campaign contributions so that corporate interests can hijack the judicial branch. Imagine limiting the recovery to a brain damaged victim of a bad drug to, let's say, $250,000. How does the victim's family care for him? Who pays to medical expenses or 24 hour care bills? Well...you do. If full compensation isn't paid, taxpayer funded government assistance pays the difference. And you thought we were finished with corporate bail-outs!

Here's an assignment for you, keeping in mind that the Chamber and its lobbying efforts are pouring billions into this phony "lawsuit abuse" message:

Subscribe to and receive "Lawsuit Abuse" Google Alerts every day for a month. Keep track of how many alerts relate to some type of child abuse, sexual abuse, or other abuse case where a real person filed a real lawsuit against a vicious predator. Count the number of "Lawsuit Abuse" propaganda pieces put out there by the Chamber and review the content in comparison to the serious issues of child abuse and lawsuits that hold perpetrators and co-conspirators responsible. I'd like to know whether you come away thinking that citizens and their lawyers are guilty of "lawsuit abuse" or whether, instead, these lobbying groups are the ones guilty of "lawsuit abuse" in trying to bail out corporate wrongdoers at the expense of the taxpayers and seriously injured and/or disabled citizens. Take the "lawsuit abuse challenge" and let me know what you come up with.

Ma rk Bello is the owner and founder of Lawsuit Financial Corporation, which provides necessities of life funding to litigation plaintiffs. He has thirty-five years of experience as a trial lawyer and thirteen years as an underwriter and situational analyst in the lawsuit funding industry. Bello is a Justice Pac member of the American Association for Justice, Sustaining and Justice Pac member of the Michigan Association for Justice, Business Associate of the Florida, Mississippi, Connecticut, Texas, Tennessee Associations for Justice, and Consumers Attorneys of California. He is also member of the American Bar Association, the State Bar of Michigan and the Injury Board.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mark Bello

Limits to Asbestos Lawsuits Pursued by ALEC in Idaho - And a State Near You?

Greg Webb — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 08:00:00 GMT

An article by Associated Press correspondent John Miller, published January 29, 2012, in MSNBC.com’s Health section,[1][1] notes that the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is pursuing to limit claims from lawsuits brought by people with asbestos-related illnesses, including asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma caused by inhaling asbestos filaments and particles (used in insulation until the 1970s).

ALEC’s effort stems from the results of a years-long case involving Crown Holdings of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Crown’s predecessor, a New York corporation of the same name, in 1963 acquired a majority of the stock in Mundet Cork Corporation, also a New York corporation. After three months, in February 1964, Mundet sold all its assets related to its insulation (asbestos-related) business. Two years later, in February 1966, the two companies merged. In 1989, Crown’s predecessor was reincorporated as Crown [Holdings], a Pennsylvania corporation. During the brief time Crown owned Mundet, the company did not produce asbestos products; and Crown subsequently sold the company. However, Crown Holdings was named in a host of lawsuits for asbestos-related disease damages and has paid in the neighborhood of $700 million in asbestos-related damages claims. Crown Holdings makes soda and beer container tops and last year its revenue was approximately $8 billion.[2][2]

Miller says that ALEC, a “corporate-backed, conservative non-profit” has succeeded in winning legislative protections (for corporations) in a number of states, including Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Wisconsin and Wyoming. In Texas, the Texas Legislature enacted Chapter 149 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which limits certain corporations’ successor liability for asbestos claims. Miller notes that efforts to protect companies from bankruptcy due to claims from asbestos-related lawsuits have been stepped up because more than 100 [asbestos-related] manufacturing companies have gone out of business since 1982. It seems important here to note that asbestos-containing products - the asbestos dust generated by these products - have killed hundreds of thousands of Americans, and continue to do so everyday, including the family members of workers who brought asbestos dust home on their clothing, unwittingly exposing their family members to this toxic dust. Holding the the "asbestos industry" (companies that made and/or sold asbestos-containing products) responsible and accountable for the harm they took part in, is the other side of the story that the "industry" does not want told. Interestingly, the industry knew or should have known of the hazards of breathing asbestos dust as early as the 1920's (and arguably earlier), and several large corporations conspired to keep these hazards from "getting out" in the 1930's - one of the most egregious and harmful conspiracies in American business history. For more on the appalling history of asbestos and industry, read Outrageous Misconduct: The Asbestos Industry on Trial, by Paul Brodeur.

The next domino ALEC hopes will fall is the state of Idaho, since the measure is currently awaiting a hearing in the Idaho House. ALEC hopes that Crown's asbestos-related liabilities would be limited to the fair market value of Mundet's total gross assets at the time of the merger. “Even adjusted for inflation, that would all but end the possibility of big payouts.” According to Miller, there are only 10 asbestos-related disease lawsuits pending in Idaho against Crown, but estimates these could cost Crown up to $250 million in coming years if the hearing doesn’t go their way. There still may be a win in this for “the little guy”, as the Idaho Constitution forbids lawmakers from passing new laws that shield companies like Crown from making good on their legal obligations, and lawyers who represent potential victims of asbestos disease in Idaho will make the case for Crown making good on its obligations. Barbara Jorden, lobbyist for the Idaho Trial Lawyers Association, says of Crown, "They need to honor those responsibilities." [3][3] ALEC, through "friendly" state legislators, has attempted to get a similar bill passed in Virginia in the recent past, with no success as of yet. Hopefully, the Virginia State Legislature will continue to protect its citizens, and not grant a special favor for a well-connected corporation. This writer suggests that Idaho do the same.

[1][1] “Company Seeks Asbestosis Liability Limit in Idaho”, Miller, John, January 29, 2012, MSNBC.com Health. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46181670

[2][2]Op. Cit.

[3][3] Ibid.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb