The Injury Board Commentary - Miscellaneous - Most Popular

Lybrel pill that halts periods approved by FDA

Staff Writer — Wed, 30 May 2007 08:00:04 GMT

A new birth control pill called Lybrel, which also prevents women from having menstrual periods, received FDA approval last week.

The low-dose oral contraceptive has received mixed reviews from skeptical consumers and doctors. While some herald the new drug as a freeing, liberating pill that puts an end to the discomforts of cramps, bloating and the like, others say it is unnatural and may have side effects down the road.

A report from LasVegasNow.com highlights the debate:

"It's actually abnormal for a woman not on birth control to miss periods or not have regular cycles. It's not healthy for them," said Martin. "But because the pill balances it hormonally, it is OK for them not to get a monthly cycle."
But those like medical researcher Linda Andrist want more study on Lybrel's long term safety.
"We don't know about bone health, breast cancer, heart disease, strokes especially for young women," said Andrist.

Lybrel is expected to be available at pharmacies by summer 2007.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Las Vegas hotel guest dies following exposure to Legionnaires' disease at Luxor

Brian Nettles — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 03:21:07 GMT

As if lightning has struck twice, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has again contacted the Southern Nevada Health District and reported that guests of the Luxor in Las Vegas hotel have contracted Legionnaires' disease after vacationing on the Las Vegas Strip. This comes on the heels of the Legionella exposure outbreak reported this past summer at the Aria Resort, another Strip property.

On January 30, the Las Vegas Sun newspaper reported that the Health District was contacted by the CDC and advised that 3 guests of the Luxor hotel have been diagnosed with the virus since this past spring. In the last of the 3 confirmed cases, the guest has died as a result of the exposure to the Legionella bacteria.

The Los Angeles Times recently reported that the Southern Nevada Health District has issued a public health notice to warn the public of this hazardous condition.

Just 6 months ago, the Las Vegas Review Journal reported that water testing performed by local officials confirmed the presence of the type of bacteria that causes Legionnaires' disease was present at the resort. The testing was performed after 6 former hotel guests had been diagnosed with this sometimes deadly disease. Subsequently, the Aria issued a public statement to notify guests of the possible exposure.

Of note, these 2 properties are only about 1 mile apart on the Las Vegas Strip.

Manifestation of the bacteria's symptoms typically occur within 2-14 days of the the exposure period. According to the Southern Nevada Health District, symptoms include: high fever, chills, cough, and fatigue or weakness and/or pneumonia. The Health District recommends that any former guests experiencing such symptoms should see your doctor and inform him or her that you may have been exposed to Legionella.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brian Nettles

Birth Control Pills Recalled Pfizer – Lo-Ovral-28 and Others

Greg Webb — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 07:45:00 GMT

Women across America who use Lo-Ovral-28, Norgestrel and Ethinyl Estradiol for birth control are likely going to be a bit concerned after they learn that drug manufacturer Pfizer announced a voluntary recall of more than one million packs (14 Lots) of its Lo-Ovral birth control pills because the pills “may not contain” enough inert or active ingredients to prevent pregnancy. This could cause some angst and sleepless nights for many people who have chosen to use the contraceptive.

According to a brief morning bulletin on WROC-TV (Rochester, New York), “The drugmaker says the recall involves certain lots of Lo/Ovral-28 tablets, along with Norgestrel and Ethinyl Estradiol tablets.” Pfizer's PR bulletin on its website says, “Some blister packs may contain an inexact count of inert or active ingredient tablets and that the tablets may be out of sequence. The cause was identified and corrected immediately.”

The medication was distributed nationwide, and Pfizer is urging couples across the nation who normally use the medication to use other “non-hormonal” forms of contraception immediately.

The packaging defects do not “pose any immediate health risks,” Pfizer says; however, looking to the future, one may wonder how many babies could be born nine months from now “as a result of this packaging error”. Maybe we are in for another baby boom.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Study Finds Individual Health Insurance Is Abusive

Nick DiCello — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:47:38 GMT

The availability of affordable health insurance coverage is a hot button topic in this country. Millions of americans cannot afford insurance and go without coverage. In this election year, some are proposing the individual health insurance market as a a solution to America's health insurance crisis. A recent study published by Families USA, a consumer advocacy group out of Washington, D.C., however, concludes that the individual health insurance market is wrought with abusive practices. See Families USA's Report.

Most of the 18 million americans who are covered under individual policies or plans, i.e., those not issued inconnection with one's employment or membership in a group or bona fide association, can be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. Furthermore, applicants can be denied coverage due to their medical history or conditions. Indeed, only five states prohibit insurance companies selling individual policies from cherry-picking the helathiest consumers and excluding everyone else. Even when coverage is issued, most states permit insurance companies selling individual coverage to exclude specific conditions from coverage.

The opportunity to limit risk by only insuring the healthiest members of the population allows for huge profit margins. In 45 states, including the District of Columbia, nothing prevents insurers selling individual coverage from spending less than $0.75 of every premium dollar on actual medical services or treatment. Limted risk, coupled with unfettered minimum medical loss ratios, promotes business models where profits are king, oftentimes at the expense of the insureds.

Unlike in the employer/group context, insurance companies are permitted to undewrite individual applications for insurance to determine the risk of insuring an applicant in light of his or her health history, lifestyle, and physical attributes. Unfortunately, however, some insurers engage in what is known as predatory post-claims underwriting in which little to no medical underwriting is done upon receipt of the application, a policy is issued, and when a substantial claim is made under the policy, the insurer, for the first time, requests medical records and investigates whether the applicant made any misrepresentations in the application that could permit the insurer to cancel or rescind the coverage. When an insurance company rescinds coverage, the insured is often left with substantial medical expenses. Furthermore, rescission can impede one's ability to obtain insurance in the future. One problem with this practice is the applications ask questions about complex medical information dating back several years. Often times the questions are unclear. Most of the time the applications are actually completed by insurance agents who may not ask the question the way it is written or not ask all of the questions. In other words, most consumers are ill-equipped to answer every question on the application with precision. Incorrect answers, however, can form the basis for coverage cancellation at a later time when the insured needs coverage. This practice - of rescinding coverage after claims are made based on information that was available to the insurer during initial underwriting - is illegal in many states and is being exposed through recent lawsuits. See for example Court Awards $9M to Cancer Patient Over Cancelled Coverage.

States must pass legislation to reduce the abuses that currently pervade the individual health insurance market. Relatively speaking, Ohio is among the more consumer-friendly states when it comes to individual insurance regulation. For example, under Ohio law, an insurer cannot rescind coverage on the basis of a misrepresentation in the application without first clearly establishing the misrepresentation was knowingly made by the applicant with intent to defraud the insurance company. In other words, innocent misrperesentations cannot serve as a basis for coverage cancellation.

If you or someone you know has had their claims denied under an individual health insurance policy (includes coverage for spouses and family members) or had that coverage cancelled, you should contact an attorney to discuss your legal rights. Many of the abusive practices plaguing the individual insurance market are expressly prohibited under Ohio law.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick DiCello

New Laws About Leaving Children Unattended in Cars

Jenny Albano — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 14:23:28 GMT

As of now twelve states have laws that specifically prohibit parents or guardians from leaving children alone in cars. Some of the states make it a traffic violation that includes a ticket or fine and other states make the offense a misdemeanor with a possible prison sentence. All states have laws that allow authorities to charge parents with child neglect and endangerment if a child dies because he/she was left unattended in a car.

In Florida, the child-in-car law was just recently amended to make it a second-degree misdemeanor to leave a child under the age of 6 alone in a vehicle for more than fifteen minutes or at all if the car is still running. The new rules went into effect on July 1, 2007 and if a parent or guardian is prosecuted they could face up to 60 days in jail and a fine of $500.

An advocacy group called Kids and Cars had been trying to toughen legislation on this issue.

"We're trying to get people to realize it is just as dangerous to leave a child alone in a vehicle as it is to leave him near a body of water," said Kids and Cars founder and president Janette Fennell. "Just in seconds, something can happen."

Fennel said that there are around 30 to 40 cases of hyperthermia deaths, which is death from unusually high body temperatures, of children left in vehicles every year. These rates have been increasing since the 1990s. Many children die from strangulation by power windows or by crashes caused by knocking the car into gear. Abduction is always a danger of leaving a child alone.

Two South Carolina toddlers were found dead after they overheated and died in their mother's car on Monday, July 30. This is just one tragic example of why harsher consequences need to be inflicted on parents or guardians who leave their children in danger in a car by themselves.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jenny Albano

The Subprime Mess and Phil Gramm: An Experiment in Deregulation

Paul Kiesel — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:12:58 GMT

In 1933, a few years following the stock market crash, Congress passes the Glass-Steagall Act, in hopes that regulating banks will help prevent market instability, particularly amongst Wall Street banks. The purpose of the act is to separate commercial banks that focus on consumers from investment banks, which deal with speculative trading and mergers.

The Glass-Steagall Act provided the proper oversight and entity separation that would prohibit banks and other financial companies from merging into giant trusts (conflict of interests) -- giant trusts or corporations being more powerful, naturally, and having the seemingly limitless capital to lobby their corporate interests, however, with a very myopic scope (particularly when it comes to factoring in potential losses -- most banks, as seen in contemporary times, chose not to anticipate losses in the mortgage market; they presumed home prices would continue to appreciate).

In 1999, former Senator Phil Gramm (who is, incidentally, Senator John McCain's economic adviser and cochairs his presidential campaign) set out to completely gut the Glass-Steagall Act, and did so successfully, replacing most of its components with the new Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act: allowing commercial banks, investment banks, and insurers to merge (which would have violated antitrust laws under Glass-Steagall). Sen. Gramm was the driving force behind the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, as he had received over $4.6 million from the FIRE sector (Finance, Insurance and Real Estate donations) over the previous decade, and once the Act passed, an influx of "megamergers" took place among banks and insurance and securities companies, as if they had been eagerly awaiting the passage of Gramm's Act. Everything in between Glass-Steagall and Gramm-Leach-Bliley (i.e. Savings and Loan crisis/bust) was, in large part, the incubation period for what would take place over the nine years that would follow the passage of Gramm's Act: an experiment in deregulation.

Shortly after George W. Bush was elected president, Congress and President Clinton were trying to pass a $384 billion omnibus spending bill, and while the debates swirled around the passage of this bill, Senator Phil Gramm clandestinely slipped a 262-page amendment into the omnibus appropriations bill titled: Commodity Futures Modernization Act. It is likely that few senators read this bill, if any. The essence of the act was the deregulation of derivatives trading (financial instruments whose value changes in response to the changes in underlying variables; the main use of derivatives is to reduce risk for one party). The legislation contained a provision -- lobbied for by Enron, a major campaign contributor to Gramm -- that exempted energy trading from regulatory oversight. Basically, it gave way to the Enron debacle and ushered in the new era of unregulated securities. Interestingly enough, Gramm's wife, Wendy, had been part of the Enron board, and her salary and stock income brought in between $900,000 and $1.8 million to the Gramm household, prior to the passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act.

In 2003, Gramm left the Senate to join UBS, which had acquired investment house PaineWebber due to his deregulation bill. At UBS, Gramm lobbied Congress, the Fed and the Treasury Department. During Gramm's tenor at UBS and as a lobbyist, Congress passed the Responsible Lending Act, billed as an anti-predatory-lending measure, but was called the "Loan Shark Protection Act" by consumer advocates, as it was designed to preempt stronger state laws against anti-predatory lending. The Fed largely ignored the underlying and growing problems within the subprime mortgage/housing markets, as Bernanke famously acknowledged the housing market in April, 2007 as, "[showing] signs of softening," but said that a "sharp slowdown," is unlikely. Then, according to Mother Jones magazine, Henry Paulson became the Treasury Secretary in July, 2007, when, "In 2005, [at] Goldman [he] securitized $68 billion in residential mortgages and $23 billion in 'other assets' primarily related to CDOs," (Mother Jones, August, 2008). With such self-interest, and a lack of the nation's interest, we can see how this subprime mess was allowed to escalate to such great proportions.

Some justice was served, however, this spring, as UBS became one of the subprime debacle's biggest losers, having to write down $37 billion -- the same amount as their previous four years of profits combined. UBS also made the public aware that two-thirds of its losses were due to reckless investing in collateralized debt obligations (CDOs).

Now, Gramm has a second chance of extending his out-of-touch and ill-performing policies, as Senator John McCain appointed Gramm to be his "economic expert" and cochair of his presidential campaign, last year. Also, it is likely that if Senator McCain were to win in November, Gramm would be our next Treasury Secretary, which means more of the same deregulatory mess and the continuation of failed and insidious economic policies.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Kiesel

Rick Perry, Opposer of "Frivolous Lawsuits", Sues Virginia

Greg Webb — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 16:36:23 GMT

Presidential candidate Rick Perry of Texas, who continually touts his record in Texas for taking away his citizens' rights to sue for harms done to them ("tort reform" measures like capping awards for medical malpractice and other personal injuries), seems to think it is OK to sue the Commonwealth of Virginia . Mr. Perry found Virginia's requirement that a Presidential candidate obtain 10,000 signatures before being placed on a primary ballot to be too "onerous" and "problematic" (Query: if this requirement was too onerous, how is he going to manage being President of the United States?). This wannabe President has trumpeted to anyone who will listen to him about his legacy of taking away Texas citizens' rights to sue, their rights to challenge big business, or big insurance companies, all of whom seem to be prospering in Texas and across the country. Apparently, when he wants to sue for a perceived wrong, he can justify a lawsuit. And the fact that the Virginia requirement was well-known and clear to Mr. Perry - and all of the candidates - when he entered the race, seems to be of little importance. His lawsuit does not qualify as "frivolous", even though the Virginia requirement is clear as the print on this page.

It seems as if most of Mr. Perry's competitors in Virginia, like Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, did not have the same problem as Mr. Perry. This is despite Mr. Perry having a sizeable advantage over Mr. Paul in campaign money. Despite the money in his coffers, Mr. Perry claims that Virginia's "ballot access rules are among the most onerous and are particularly problematic in a multi-candidate election." Interesting theory, considering most of the other candidates (excluding Newt Gingrich) seemed to find the rules quite negotiable.

The hypocrisy of some politicians is rather perplexing, especially those self-righteous politicians who have little problem denouncing all of those so-called "ne'er-do-wells" who have the temerity to bring a lawsuit for an injury, like that caused by a defective product that kills or maims a family member, or like a health care provider who negligently injures or kills, or like a large corporation that willfully and knowingly releases or dumps toxic substances into the air or groundwater (or ocean - e.g., BP). Those latter suits are "frivolous" according to Mr. Perry and his cronies in the Texas legislature, but his lawsuit against Virginia, upon being denied access (Virginia sure has a lot of gall, does it not?) because of his inability to qualify under a well-known state requirement, becomes fodder for a lawsuit. Perhaps Mr. Perry should have been a little better organized, or used some of the many millions his campaign has banked (where did that money come from?) to work a little harder in Virginia. But, in light of, and despite of, his campaign's failure to follow the rules Virginia clearly established, he now seeks redress through the courts, claiming his constitutional rights have been violated. What an amazing turn of events.

Is not Mr. Perry a strong proponent of "states' rights"? What happened to Virginia's rules? These are rhetorical questions, because the answers are clear - Virginia's rights and rules do not matter when they do not comport with Mr. Perry's presidential aspirations. Oops.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Happy New Year: My first blog entry

Robert Roe — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 09:00:00 GMT

I'm new to Injury Board and am excited to be part of an organization that approaches the practice of law in a professional and caring manner. I thought it would be difficult to decide what to write for my first blog entry. I thought it would need to be original, witty, unique, and somehow perfect. Since I don't write for a living, that seemed overwhelming and I didn't think I would ever get my first entry off the ground. In the end, it was a personal experience that moved me to write:

While traveling home from a conference, I received a phone call from a client. I was in a public place, but his questions were about the general process and I was able to spend about 15 minutes answering them. When I hung up, the gentleman next to me asked "do you deal with all your clients that way?" Not sure what I had done wrong, I answered yes. He shook his head and said "I never get that kind of personal service from my lawyer."

Unfortunately, his experience is not an anomaly. Attorneys often forget to communicate effectively with their clients. Attorneys must strive to not only be masters of the courtroom, but also great communicators with their clients. Few clients understand the process of a claim or lawsuit. Taking the time to communicate with a client about the process, about the status of the case, and about the client's role makes the client happy and allows the attorney to do a better job.

I encourage attorneys to resolve to communicate effectively in this New Year. I know I will.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Robert Roe

Learning to Tell a Story

Clay Rossi — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 18:12:27 GMT

At the core, every successful trial attorney must be a storyteller. Sadly, law schools do little to nurture and develop this essential skill but rather, ironically, do quite a good bit to destroy the ability to communicate. After three years of legal education, graduates come out “speaking like lawyers.”

Once joining a law firm, the young lawyer is most likely relegated to drafting discovery responses, where clarity in communication is often not sought and even less frequently achieved. Next it’s on to motion practice where wrangling over legal elements and statutory construction further stunts the practitioner’s ability to converse in anything but the most obscurantist manner. Only after years of this regimen is the attorney deemed ready to talk to twelve ordinary people seated in the jury box. The result is as one would expect.

Some lawyers come to understand what has been done to them, others don’t. The one’s who do understand are likely to turn to books and seminars in an attempt to effect a 12-step recovery on their ability to talk like human beings. Yet the goal of many of these rhetorical “recovery programs” is to get you to speak “plain English.” If successful, you are back where you started and no closer to the skill of story telling then you were the day before you walked into law school.

Why not turn to the experts.

Who has the most expertise in being a storyteller than – you guessed it – the professional storyteller? But here again, do not confuse who is a “storyteller” for the purposes of communicating to a jury. While the novelist, actor, and screenwriter might all have something to contribute, what trial attorneys do is rooted in the eons old verbal art of which there remain few practitioners.

One such man is Irish storyteller, Eddie Lenihan who retells the traditional folktales that we unappreciatively label as mere superstition. Lenihan’s stories are surreal – and as such are the perfect antidote to the hyper-rationalism that dominates the lawyer’s mind. How many times does a case turn on the happening of the most improbable events (which in fact did happen!)? However, most of us fail to learn the craft of making those improbable events come alive to the jury. Lenihan knows how. (NB: He also shows that a Hollywood personal appearance and newscaster diction have nothing to do with it, which for most of us should be good news.)

So, take some time and enjoy the incomparable Eddie Lenihan in the following videos and see if that by the tale’s end you don’t find that for a split second you found that the improbable might just have occurred.

http://youtu.be/pMXn7v5wTx0

http://youtu.be/3pl8M0mYrc0

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Clay Rossi

Law Blogs: Protected Political Speech or Commercial Speech?

Michael Phelan — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:31:23 GMT

Here in Richmond, Virginia, a local lawyer is challenging the Virginia State Bar's authority to regulate his blog, claiming that such regulation violates his First Amendment free-speech rights. Like many attorneys, Horace Hunter of Hunter & Lipton, PC, has a web site that links to a blog site.

Mr. Hunter takes the position that his law blog consists of news and commentary, not commercial speech. Last year, the Virginia State Bar told Mr. Hunter to place an advertising disclaimer on his blog, contending that Hunter's website, from which one can link to the blog, is part of an adverstisement because a purpose of the website is to market the firm. Hunter is a small-firm, criminal defense lawyer. One doubts whether the bar would have taken such a position with a 500 lawyer firm. Hunter courageously refused to comply with the bar's request, and the bar charged him with misconduct. There is a bar hearing on this case tomorrow.

One of the Commonwealth's leading constitutional law experts, Rodney Smolla, wrote a legal brief on Hunter's behalf in which he had this to say:

The Commonwealth of Virginia would be absolutely prohibited from punishing any Virginia citizen or company for posting any of the information contained in Horace Hunter's blogs on the Internet, period. The blog is not commercial speech but political speech that is protected by the First Amendment.

The blog "is not magically transformed into commercial speech merely because Horace Hunter happens to be a member of a highly regulated profession that draws clients for pay from the general public." "Virginia is attempting … to force Horace Hunter to profess that his blogs are not an exercise of his First Amendment right to express his views on matters of public concern, but instead are commercial advertisements soliciting legal business."

"Horace Hunter's motivation is surely mixed," Smolla conceded. "A byproduct of the visibility such commentary brings may be to attract more legal business."

But he added, "If some underlying motive for pecuniary gain alone were all it took to transform speech from political to commercial, then large swatches of speech in the American marketplace of ideas would be disqualified from full First Amendment protection."

Smolla noted that the Richmond-based law firm of Hunton & Williams conducted a seminar on a successful case and its ramifications to an audience that might have included current or prospective clients. Smolla contends that if it is the position of the state bar that it could punish Hunton & Williams, then there would be no stopping point short of sweeping in virtually all speech by lawyers.

"By extension this logic would have empowered the Virginia State Bar, had it then been in existence, to impose on the great Virginia lawyer James Madison disclaimer requirements for his circulation of his essays in 'The Federalist Papers,' which, by the way, a modern day Madison practicing law in Virginia might well circulate in the form of an Internet blog," he wrote.

Interesting food for thought. There is no doubt that the bar has the authority to regulate certain speech. For example, in Virginia, a lawyer may not make false or misleading public statements or create an unjustified expectation about the results a lawyer can achieve. The question is whether Mr. Hunter is making false or misleading statements in the form of commercial speech or simply reporting on legal news. I've read several of Mr. Hunter's blogs, on his site, "This Week in Richmond Criminal Defense." Here's Hunter's blog regarding whether "This Week in Richmohnd" requires an advertising disclaimer. Here are archived Hunter blogs. You be the judge. I think Dean Smolla hit the nail on the head. Hunter's motives are clearly mixed. I'm sure he hopes his blog generates business. Just like I'm sure that Hunton & Williams hoped to generate business by sponsoring a seminar for, inter alia, prospective clients, in which the topic was a case H & W successfully handled. The bar should not regulate either form of speech.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Phelan