…results in courtroom commotion in Mississauga, Ont., Canada. (“Boy, 10, sues hockey association over demotion”, CBC News, Jun. 19; “Hockey lawsuit put off until fall”, Mississauga News, Jun. 24). Brendan Butrimas allegedly got booted from the Applewood Hockey Association because of conflicts between his father and officials. His family says the C$10,000 suit is — had you guessed? — Not About The Money. “It’s not a money grab. This is a case to protect the rights of children,” said attorney Harry Kopyto, the family’s legal agent. (“Boy sues over fight between his father and hockey league”, CP/Globe and Mail, Jun. 19). (Corrected Nov. 27 to specify standing of family’s legal agent; a reader writes in to say that Kopyto was disbarred by Ontario legal authorities but “is allowed to appear as an agent/paralegal in Small Claims Court”.)
Archive for June, 2005
Trauma reality-TV show
The reality TV show “Trauma: Life in the ER” was filmed at 35 hospitals in 23 states over a five-year period. Now lawyers are pursuing would-be class actions against the New York Times’ television subsidiary, Discovery Communications, and various hospitals claiming that the privacy consent given by patients and family members was defective or obtained under false pretenses. Despite protests from defendants that the issue of validity of consent is intrinsically one that requires case-by-case determination, a New Jersey judge has certified a class action for lawsuits within that state. The judge estimated that the number of potential class members nationwide might reach into the hundreds of thousands. (Charles Toutant, “Hospital Patients Filmed for Reality TV Certified as Plaintiff Class”, New Jersey Law Journal, Jun. 20). Florida Masochist notes (Jun. 24) that a plaintiff’s lawyer suing in Orlando, per the Sentinel coverage, “said the lawsuit doesn’t question the right to broadcast the material, but the filming and production process”. (Pedro Ruz Gutierrez, “Patients sue over TV appearances”, Orlando Sentinel, Jun. 24). That sounds puzzling: if the persons suing aren’t objecting to the broadcast of the material, how seriously were they injured by the alleged affront to their privacy?
Brain wave monitor
Opinions vary among physicians as to the likely usefulness of a new device which indicates whether a patient is awake or asleep during surgery. One thing is certain, however: hospitals’ decisions on whether or not to adopt the new technology will be strongly influenced by the aim of avoiding litigation, as distinct from the device’s perceived medical merits. (Daniel Fisher, “Defensive Medicine”, Forbes, Apr. 25).
2nd Circuit dismisses Cayuga land claim
In a fairly stunning ruling with far-reaching significance for Indian land claims in the Northeast, a panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has thrown out the Cayuga tribe’s lawsuit against New York State and local landowners over possession of 64,000 upstate acres, including the $248 million that a trial court judge had earlier determined was owed to the tribe in damages (see Jun. 24-25, 2002). The majority in the 2-1 opinion, led by Judge Jose Cabranes, relied on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent opinion in City of Sherrill v. Oneida, which disallowed a tribe’s efforts to assert reservation sovereignty over tracts of land it had added piecemeal through purchase to its previous holdings. According to the majority opinion, the Sherrill ruling revitalizes the equitable defense of laches, or undue delay, which many observers had assumed was unavailable to defendants in the Indian land claim suits. In a dissent, Judge Janet Hall agreed that ejectment of current homeowners was now barred by the Supreme Court’s evolving jurisprudence but argued that claims for cash damages should be allowed to go forward.
Should the ruling be upheld following the inevitable petitions for en banc reconsideration, Supreme Court certiorari, etc., it could spell doom for most and perhaps all efforts to revive long-defunct Indian land claims, which have for decades now inflicted injustice and disruption on innocent landowners and others. For our extensive coverage of the issue, see Jun. 27 (Shinnecocks’ Hamptons suit) and many links from there. (Diana Louise Carter, “Judges throw out Cayugas’ land claim”, Rochester Democrat & Chronicle, Jun. 29; Scott Rapp, “Judges To Indians: You’re Too Late To Reclaim Land”, Syracuse Post-Standard, Jun. 29; Jim Adams, “Second Circuit throws out New York state land claim”, Indian Country Today, Jun. 28; William Kates, “Appeals Court Tosses $248M Award to Tribe”, AP/Washington Post, Jun. 28). More: New York Law Journal (& welcome Howard Bashman readers). Update Apr. 14, 2006: U.S. Justice Department petitions for certiorari.
Autism, mercury and RFK Jr.
Blissful Knowledge is providing extensive coverage (via Megan McArdle)(see Jun. 26, Jun. 20, etc.).
Bad-mouthing Frodo
Okay, so lawyers constantly serve as press sources for coverage critical of the people they litigate against, but still…. After the New York Times reports on a revenue-splitting dispute between Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema (Ross Johnson, “The Lawsuit of the Rings”, Jun. 27), Jack Shafer wonders: “[S]houldn’t there be a Times policy against giving a partisan source, in this case a defense attorney, the cover of anonymity to call the plaintiff in a case against his client piggish?” (“Lord of the Pigs?”, Slate, Jun. 27).
Wal-Mart job pays millions
Who says you’ll never get rich working at Wal-Mart? A federal magistrate judge has just approved a $2.8 million award for disability-based discrimination on behalf of plaintiff Patrick Brady, who suffers from cerebral palsy. The company’s offense? It “violated federal and state laws by making a prohibited inquiry [relating to his disabilities] before giving Brady an employment offer. The company also subjected Brady to adverse employment conditions by transferring him from the pharmacy to a more physically taxing position pushing carts in the parking lot, according to the verdict.” The magistrate judge complained bitterly about having to reduce the award from the $7.5 million in damages, including $5 million in punitive damages, originally voted by the jury. On the tendency of stringent liability exposure to discourage employers’ hiring of disabled persons (workplace participation of whom actually went down, not up, after the ADA was passed), see, among other sources, Jul. 11, 2000, and this NBER paper. (Michael Bobelian, “Court Reluctantly Trims Wal-Mart Penalty”, New York Law Journal, Jun. 23).
Blogosphere on potential Milberg Weiss indictment
Tom Kirkendall, and Professors Ribstein, Bainbridge, and Henning on the prospect of charges against unindicted alleged co-conspirator Milberg Weiss (Jun. 27).
Grokster repercussions?
Professors Rebecca Tushnet and Eugene Volokh discuss how language in Monday’s Supreme Court Grokster opinion could leak into dramatic ripple effects for other industries and products.
“I practiced defensive medicine today”
Kevin, MD has a continuing series of real-life tales of defensive medicine.