| Thursday, May 15, 2008 |
| Mr. Quaid Goes to Washington |
Actor Dennis Quaid testified before Congress yesterday about the terrifying ordeal that nearly killed his newborn twins last year. The infants were given an accidental overdose of the blood-thinning drug, Heparin (shortly thereafter, the drug made additional headlines when tainted batches from China killed dozens).
He and his wife are suing Baxter International, the maker of the drug, as they believe confusing labeling on the bottle caused the mix-up. They also argued that the drug should have been recalled after three other infants died, also of accidental overdoses. Baxter cited preemption in their motion to dismiss the Quaid's lawsuit.
Before Congress, he urged lawmakers to protect the rights of average citizens, saying " I believe that if preemption of lawsuits is allowed to prevail, it will basically make all of us, the public, uniformed and uncompensated lab rats."
Here's some video of Quaid talking preventive medical negligence-
The FDA, under the Bush Administration, has advocated the preemption of lawsuits. FDA Deputy Commissioner Randall Lutter said, "[The] FDA believes that the important decisions it makes about the safety, efficacy and labeling of medical products should not by second-guessed by state courts." Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA, disagreed, saying, "One of the most powerful incentives for safety - the threat of liability - would vanish." Labels: Blog, Injuries, LegalNews, Malpractice, ProductDefect, Recalls, Safety, USCourts Continue Reading >
|
| posted by Munley Attorney @ 11:38 AM |
|
| Friday, April 25, 2008 |
| Gov. Taps NEPA Native for Director of Open Records |
Northeast PA's own, Terry Mutchler, has been chosen by Gov. Ed Rendell to head-up the state's Office of Open Records. The position was created last February when the state's open records law, which was considered one of the worst in the country, was overhauled. Basically, the new law says that local and state records will be public, unless specified. Read more about PA Senate Bill 1 here.
Mutchler, an East Stroudsburg native, has a history in both the legal field and the media. She worked as an investigative reporter for the Allentown Morning Call and the Associated Press. During her time at the Morning Call, she was sued for refusing to reveal a confidential source and faced six-months in jail; she was later vindicated in the case, which went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Prior to accepting Mr. Rendell's appointment, Atty. Mutchler had been serving as the Illinois' first Public Records Counselor, where she helped define Illinois' open records policy.
Her six-year term as Director of this new office will begin in June. Between now and then, she will be working to build and train the office's staff, get to know the law and implement public policy. Come June, the Director will begin working with government agencies, citizens and the press on open government issues. She will also address disputes over access to the records.
In a release Gov. Rendell said "The Office of Open Records will serve an essential role in helping the public better understand how their government operates. Terry brings the ideal combination of knowledge and experience to her new role as executive director of the office, and I am very pleased to welcome her back to Pennsylvania."
The current open records law was passed in 1957, and failed to include documents of the PA General Assembly and many financial documents. The new law recognizes that records belong to the public, and that means the burden of proof now falls on an the agency wishing to deny access. Now the public will be able to access most records, with the exception of certain 911 tapes, autopsy and police reports. It also established penalties on individuals or agencies that deny access to records.
Mutchler, who is be making 120K per year, believes her background will help her make a smooth transition into this new position. Read more about her appointment here. Labels: Blog, LegalNews, PACourts, USCourts Continue Reading >
|
| posted by Munley Attorney @ 11:40 AM |
|
| Thursday, April 24, 2008 |
| Wesley Snipes Facing Sentencing for Tax Evasion |
In just about 25 minutes from now actor Wesley Snipes will be sentenced in federal court in Ocala, FL. He was convicted earlier this year on three charges of willful failure to file a tax return, and acquitted of some much more serious charges including felony fraud and conspiracy. The government says he owes about $2.7 million, while Snipes' attorneys are crying foul, saying he owes no more then $400,000. Either way, that would buy you quite a few Blade DVDs.
Prosecutors, looking to make an example of Snipes, are pushing for the maximum sentence of 3 years imprisonment and a $5 million fine for the "notorious" and "inveterate" offender. They paint the action star as the face of the fringe tax protest movement in the U.S. Read more here. In a 37-page memorandum to U.S. District Judge William Terrell Hodges, prosecutors wrote, "This case cries out for the statutory maximum term of imprisonment, as well as a substantial fine, because of the seriousness of defendant Snipes' crimes and because of the singular opportunity this case presents to deter tax crimes nationwide."
According to the government's case, Snipes failed to pay taxes in 1999, 2000 or 2001 (he was acquitted for 2002-2004). They say he sought bogus tax returns, while slipping millions to hidden foreign accounts and instructing his employees to not pay taxes.
Snipes and his co-defendants Douglas P. Rosile and Eddie Ray Kahn, who were both convicted of felony fraud and conspiracy counts, will see how they will be spending the next few years of their lives. Snipes' defense team is looking for probation instead of jail time, and even came to court with letters attesting to Snipes' character penned by fellow actors Denzel Washington and Woody Harrelson. This could get interesting.
Read Forbes write-up here.Labels: Blog, LegalNews, USCourts Continue Reading >
|
| posted by Munley Attorney @ 9:04 AM |
|
| Monday, April 21, 2008 |
| Girl, Wrongly Declared 'Dead' Files Lawsuit |
A medical malpractice lawsuit has been filed on behalf of a six-year-old Orange County, CA girl who suffered permanent brain damage after doctors wrongly declared her dead. The little girl, who was five years old at the time, fell into her backyard pool and was rushed to the hospital. Read more here.
The girl was treated, declared dead and her breathing tubes were removed. More than an hour later, police officers investigating the incident discovered that the girl was still alive, and alerted the medical staff. Doctors were able to revive the girl; however, she suffered permanent brain damage from lack of oxygen.
The girl's mother hopes a jury will award the family enough money to pay for care needed by their child, who now has special needs.
She told the San Francisco Chronicle that, "If she needs a piece of equipment, she shouldn't have to worry about how to get it or how she is going to get it. These things are not covered by insurance. We're not able to have it."
Labels: Blog, Injuries, LegalNews, Malpractice, Safety, USCourts Continue Reading >
|
| posted by Munley Attorney @ 2:53 PM |
|
| Friday, April 18, 2008 |
| California to Review Dropped Health Insurance Policies |
We've all heard about it, big insurance companies happily accepting premiums for years and years until a customer submits a large medical bill. Then, that person's medical records are reviewed and either because of an inadvertent or insignificant omission of information, their coverage is dropped. Now, the person is uninsurable, and probably lacking the capital necessary to properly treat their disease. Insurers defend these practices, saying protecting themselves from fraud keeps premiums low for everyone (and profits high for them).
Now, a California regulatory agency is reviewing the "recission" practices of five major insurers, WellPoint Inc.'s Anthem Blue Cross, UnitedHealth Group Inc.'s PacifiCare, Health Net Inc., the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and Blue Shield of California. The state will be pouring through the companies' records over the past four years, and allowing independent arbitrators decide whether or not they acted in good faith. If it is determined that a policy was wrongly canceled, it will be immediately restored, and the insurer will be responsible to pay all medical bills incurred by the consumer over the time they were without insurance.
Today's announcement could mean the restoration of thousands insurance policies across the state. Read more here.
This isn't the first move California has made against insurance companies' policies. Last fall, the state fined Health Net $1 million for failing to disclose a link between employee bonuses and the cancellation of individual insurance policies. And on Wednesday of this week, Los Angeles City Attorney, Rocky Delgado, filed a $1 billion lawsuit against Anthem Blue, for their questionable practices. In another lawsuit against Health Net, the insurer was forced to pay nearly $9 million to a woman whose battle with breast cancer left her without coverage and facing mounting medical bills.
The Govenator has pledged his support in the fight against these harmful practices. In a released statement he said he would work with the legislature to "ensure this egregious practice is stopped." He went on to say, "It's outrageous that innocent patients have to live in fear of losing their health care coverage."Labels: Blog, Insurance, LegalNews, Malpractice, USCourts Continue Reading >
|
| posted by Munley Attorney @ 9:36 AM |
|
| Wednesday, April 16, 2008 |
| Merck's Questionable Ethics Explored |
Two new reports in the Journal of the American Medical Association have raised concerns that Merck employed questionable ethics in pushing their dangerous drug, Vioxx, onto the market. You're shocked, I'm sure.
The reports were based on court documents discovered throughout the course of the 4.85 billion settlement involving 47,000 patients injured by the drug.
The first report alleges (read about it) that Merck was well-aware of the fact patients taking Vioxx in clinical trials were three times as likely to die as those taking placebo. Instead, Merck reported the drug was "well-tolerated," failing to report the findings of their study to the FDA and the public in a timely fashion. Vioxx was eventually withdrawn from the market in 2004.
The second report (as described here) indicates that Merck used company-hired individuals to write their studies, then paid well-respected academic scientists to take credit for them. The Journal indicated that this is common, but questionable practice in today's medicine, and urged reform.
Merck denies the reports, saying they were "false and misleading." And they know all about false and misleading!
Labels: Blog, Injuries, Malpractice, ProductDefect, Safety, USCourts Continue Reading >
|
| posted by Munley Attorney @ 2:22 PM |
|
| Tuesday, April 15, 2008 |
| Who Needs Tort Reform When You Have a Functioning Court System? |
Proving once more that no tort reform is necessary in Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court of PA announced yesterday that medical malpractice cases are down 40.8% statewide, and down over 50% in Philadelphia County.
Med mal cases have been on a steady decline since 2003, when a rule change required a medical expert certify all malpractice cases to ensure that there was deviation from the standard of care. The rule change also required cases to be heard in the same county where the alleged harm occurred, which eliminated so-called "venue shopping."
In a release, Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille said, "The latest statistics provide additional evidence that the sharp drop in medical malpractice litigation, which began in 2003, was not a temporary correction, but a sustained response to the procedural rule changes adopted by the Supreme Court and the statutory changes enacted by the General Assembly." He went on to say that "Ongoing review and enhancements to our procedures will ensure that both plaintiffs and defendants can rely on an accessible court system where professional liability actions are impartially and promptly resolved."
Read the report released by the PA Supreme Court here.Labels: Blog, LegalNews, Malpractice, PACourts, USCourts Continue Reading >
|
| posted by Munley Attorney @ 10:47 AM |
|
|
| Supreme Court to Hear Case of Former LA Prosecutor |
Yesterday, the Supreme Court decided it would take up the case of a former LA prosecutor in what could be a challenge to prosecutorial immunity. The case, Van de Kamp vs. Goldstein, will examine whether or not a head prosecutor can be held liable for an individual's wrongful conviction.
Back in 1976, when the Court heard a similar argument, it was determined that the rule of "absolute immunity" is in effect whenever a prosecutor acts within the scope of his/her prosecutorial duties.
This case stems from the 1980 murder conviction of Thomas Goldstein, a Marine Corp veteran living in Long Beach, CA. Goldstein was tried and convicted of shooting his neighbor. The case heavily relied on jailhouse informants, some of which were found to be disreputable. Goldstein maintained his innocence for the 24 years he was incarcerated before his conviction was overturned in 2004. Goldstein filed suit against the former prosecutor of Los Angeles, John Van de Kamp, for the use of unreliable witnesses. Read more about the case here.
Lawyers for Van de Kamp said the case should be dismissed based on the Court's ‘76 ruling; however, the other side made the argument that the case is not about how Goldstein was prosecuted, but rather how Van de Kamp's poorly managed D.A.'s office contributed to his wrongful conviction.
The Court will hear arguments from both sides this fall.Labels: Blog, LegalNews, USCourts Continue Reading >
|
| posted by Munley Attorney @ 9:09 AM |
|
|
|
© Munley, Munley & Cartwright - Pennsylvania Injury & Accident Lawyers,
www.munley.com
BLOG DISCLAIMER: Attorney Advertising. Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome in Future Cases. Representation in jurisdictions where our attorneys are not already licensed is performed in conjunction with local counsel / lawyers -- at no additional legal fees to our clients -- and with permission of the court. Examples of cases mentioned in blog postings are for illustrative purposes. Please keep in mind that statutes and legal precedent, such as published court opinions, may change from year to year, and commentary may be outdated. Readers should not consider this site as authoritative legal advice and should contact an attorney of their own choosing for specific advice on any legal issue. The attorneys of Munley, Munley & Cartwright are not responsible for the comments of others that may be posted on this site.
|
|
Our law firm pursues justice for victims and consumers in
