The Dhaliwal brothers prefer to have attorney Mark Geragos do the talking, greatly frustrating investigators trying to reconstruct what happened in the zoo mauling. (Jaxon Van Derbeken, “In ambulance, survivors of S.F. tiger attack made pact of silence”, San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 5; “San Francisco Authorities Seek to Inspect Tiger Attack Victims’ Cell Phones”, AP/FoxNews.com, Jan. 5; Patricia Yollin, Tanya Schevitz, Kevin Fagan, “S.F. Zoo visitor saw 2 victims of tiger attack teasing lions”, San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 3; Jacob Sullum, “The Buck Keeps Moving”, syndicated/Reason, Jan. 2). Earlier: Jan. 3.
Archive for January, 2008
Mississippi wrong-doc-sued case
Robert Loblaw’s Decision of the Day blog, on appellate decisions, has this update (and somewhat longer write-up) on a case briefly noted by guestblogger Jason Barney in this space in October:
Ratliff v. Stewart, 06-61018 (5th Cir., Dec. 6, 2007)
The facts in this Fifth Circuit decision reflect rather poorly on the practice of law in the Southern District of Mississippi. The underlying case arises from injuries that plaintiff Sarah Ratliff allegedly suffered from the drug Stadol. Although Ratliff eventually settled her claims, her litigation took some strange turns, resulting in this appeal.
To start, Ratliff’s attorney named the wrong doctor as a defendant. The attorney knew that Ratliff had been prescribed Stadol by a Dr. Stewart with an office in McComb, Mississippi. Without investigating further, the lawyer found a defendant who fit the bill: Dr. Lawrence Stewart. But Lawrence Stewart had never prescribed Stadol to Sarah Ratliff. Although he did have a patient named Sarah Ratliff, she insisted that she had not filed a lawsuit against him.
As it turns out, the plaintiff had been treated by Lawrence Stewart’s father, Edsel Ford Stewart, who by this point had passed away. But Lawrence’s protests fell on deaf ears, as did his motion to dismiss, complete with an affidavit stating that he had never treated the plaintiff. After filing their opposition to this motion, the plaintiff’s attorneys finally bothered to check with their client and, lo and behold, she told them that they had sued the wrong guy. Just for fun, the attorneys waited another month before confessing error and letting Lawrence off the hook.
Did they learn from their mistake? Not really, as they then filed a suit against the estate of “the elder Lawrence Stewart.”
Could it get any worse? Maybe a little. Five months after being dismissed from the case and nine days after the rest of Ratliff’s case was reassigned to a different judge, Lawrence Stewart’s attorney sent a letter to follow up on an earlier request for attorney fees. But he sent it to the old judge. And, in an even bigger blunder, the old judge decided to award attorney fees for a case that was no longer on his docket.
The mess eventually got cleaned up: the old judge vacated his order and the new judge adopted it. Ratliff appealed, but the Fifth Circuit rejects his arguments and largely affirms the fee award.
U.K.: Farm stiles and gates yield to wheelchair access
In the English countryside stiles and so-called kissing gates “have been a familiar feature of the landscape for centuries, but local authorities now believe that installing them along footpaths and rights of way is a breach of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.” (“Farms kiss goodbye to stiles and gates to allow wheelchair access”, Times Online, Nov. 30). According to Wikipedia, some kissing gates are designed on a large enough scale that wheelchairs can pass through.
Did Mark Lanier comment about Vioxx on a medical blog?
Libertarian medical school blogger “Frommedskool” has been critical of the Vioxx litigation (regularly citing to our coverage at Point of Law). An April 2006 post about the Cona/McDarby case, however, appears to have generated a December 2007 comment from someone calling himself Mark Lanier, the plaintiffs’ attorney in the case:
Third, there was a huge amount of info Merck had that it never gave the FDA, there were smoking gun memos and emails, and there was huge harassment of the medical community done by Merck. For example, Merck did a full meta-analysis of placebo trial that showed a statistically significant increase in heart attacks, but Merck excised that from the report given the FDA. Even Merck’s head admtted they should have given the analysis to the FDA.
(Point of Law discussed the so-called withholding of the meta-analysis back in 2006. It wasn’t all that.) Fascinatingly, this comment immediately provokes comments from another lurker (just two hours later?!) claiming to be a plaintiff, reasonably asking why, if the evidence was so good, Lanier was agreeing to settle 47,000 plaintiffs’ cases for under $5 billion, essentially a nuisance settlement given that victorious plaintiffs were being awarded in the millions and tens of millions.
“That’s why I didn’t become a trial lawyer”
Democratic front-runner (if it’s okay to call him that now) Barack Obama tells a Newton, Iowa audience about his early decisions to pursue civil rights, community organizing and public office rather than more lucrative legal specialties, and is blasted in parts of the lefty blogosphere for the implied dig at John Edwards. (Shailagh Murray, Washington Post “The Trail”, Dec. 30; Kos, TPM, Kia Franklin, etc.) Per the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza, “Obama is starting to use the term ‘trial lawyer’ more often on the stump to describe Edwards, perhaps hoping to capitalize on the negative associations many voters have with that particular profession.” (“The Trail”, Dec. 31).
P.S. Some highlights of our earlier Obama coverage: Aug. 5, 2004 (“Anyone who denies there’s a crisis with medical malpractice insurance is probably a trial lawyer”); Apr. 10, 2007 (making inroads nonetheless on Edwards’ trial-lawyer donor base; per Legal Times, “Despite Obama’s silence on the issues trial lawyers care about, those who support him say they are confident he will back trial lawyers when the time comes”); Jul. 31 and Aug. 5 (auditions at AAJ/ATLA convention). P.P.S. Plus Ted at Point of Law a year back (“far from convinced” that Obama will cross the trial bar, despite his vote for the Class Action Fairness Act).
“Son seeks estate of mother he killed”
After Joshua Hoge stabbed his mother and brother to death with a butcher knife, he was found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed to Washington’s Western State Hospital. His mother’s estate then sued King County and won $800,000 “when it was determined that a public-health clinic had failed to give Hoge his medication and was partially responsible for the slayings.” Now Hoge is suing to obtain part of his mother’s estate, which would allow him to capture some of the lawsuit winnings. A Washington statute restricts killers from profiting by their crimes, but by its terms applies to “willful” killings. Besides, says Jean O’Laughlin, Hoge’s attorney, her client isn’t covered because he was found not guilty. A Seattle University associate professor of Law, John Strait, agrees: “For all intents and purposes, there is no crime. We don’t punish people for being really sick. We don’t impose criminal culpability on people who are mentally ill,” he said. “It’s nutty logic.” (Natalie Singer, Seattle Times, Jan. 3). I wrote a couple of years ago about Washington state’s unusually broad assignment of liability to public agencies for crime and other private misconduct.
“Lawyer installs shark tank in office”
It started as a joke, but Bozeman, Mont. attorney Christopher Gillette is going through with the ambitious aquarium installation, whose saltwater inhabitants will include venomous fish as well as sharks. [Bozeman Daily Chronicle; AP/El Paso Times] In the 1980s the now well-known law firm of Bickel & Brewer adopted the snake exhibit at the Dallas Zoo. (Mark Donald, “Rambo Justice”, Dallas Observer, Mar. 19, 1998).
January 4 roundup
- Housekeeping service in Florida proclaims, “We Speak English”. So will they get sued? [Smerconish/Phila. Daily News]
- Update: Dad who long ago walked out on his family won’t get chunk of estranged son’s $2.9 million 9/11 fund benefit [NY Post (link fixed now); earlier]
- Did Illinois state’s attorneys advise Marine sergeant complaining of car vandalism that there wasn’t much point trying to recover from the suspected offender since he was a lawyer? [Blackfive via Zincavage and many readers; Kass/Tribune] And what kind of trouble might the lawyer be in if he suggested slipping the repair costs along to an insurer? [Patterico commenters, Goldberg/NRO Corner correspondent] More: Bainbridge.
- Not long after American Lawyer pronounces the demise of securities class actions, we learn they may be back on a cyclical upswing [August TAL; new Stanford Clearinghouse]
- If rising tide of outrage leads to abolition of peremptory challenges, many lawyers won’t have anyone to blame but themselves [Reed]
- Brooklyn judge’s presenting of box of candy to plaintiff among grounds for reversal of $14 million brain-damaged infant verdict [NYLJ]
- Yet more health privacy madness: “HIPAA is adversely affecting our ability to conduct biomedical research” [Reuters on JAMA study via Kevin MD; relatedly, Karvounis/HealthBeat]
- People kept tearing down no-swimming signs at much-used park in Bellingham, Wash., and you know what’s going to happen next without our having to tell you [AP/Seattle Times]
- Two Illinois judges in drunk-driving accident that broke other driver’s leg draw mere reprimand with “no consequences other than public embarrassment” [Post-Dispatch]
- Suit against Avvo lawyer-rating suit dismissed on First Amendment grounds [Seattle Times, Post-Intelligencer; earlier]
- Saves her friend’s life, then sues her [seven years ago on Overlawyered]
Paragraph of the day
Certainly some corporate defendants deserve to take it in the shorts. Judge Easterbrook, in affirming a well-deserved $16 million FTC fine against a late-night infomercial purveyor of fraud, opines:
For the Q-Ray Ionized Bracelet, by contrast, all statements about how the product works—Q-Rays, ionization, enhancing the flow of bio-energy, and the like—are blather. Defendants might as well have said: “Beneficent creatures from the 17th Dimension use this bracelet as a beacon to locate people who need pain relief, and whisk them off to their homeworld every night to provide help in ways unknown to our science.”
FTC v. QT, Inc. (via Lattman).
Richard Neely and arbitration (and the godless bloodsuckers?)
In 2006, former West Virginia judge and justice Richard Neely wrote an article called “Arbitration and the Godless Bloodsuckers” (reprinted at the anti-consumer Consumerist) making a sensational claim: he had served as an arbitrator for the National Arbitration Forum, but because of his rulings denying attorneys’ fees, had been blacklisted from further arbitration proceedings because the “godless bloodsucker” banks (no, really, those are his words) had decided he was an “unacceptable” arbitrator. As part of the litigation lobby’s war on consumer choice in seeking legislation to force consumers to litigate even if they wish the opportunity for lower prices through agreeing to mandatory binding arbitration (see the Overlawyered section on arbitration), the claims have been repeated on multiple occasions, in Congressional testimony, in newspaper and magazine articles, in blogs, and even in the Overlawyered comments. Turns out, according to a response made by the National Arbitration Forum, that Judge Neely has made some claims that weren’t true:
- Contrary to Neely’s claims, he was never “struck” from any case by any party.
- At least under NAF rules, a party cannot unilaterally select an arbitrator: the two sides must agree, or, in the alternative, each select an arbitrator who will in turn mutually agree upon a third arbitrator. (Code of Procedure Rule 21.) Parties can strike an arbitrator for bias—for example, perhaps one of the arbitrators has announced that a class of parties are “godless bloodsuckers.” But this right applies equally to consumers and merchants.
- Neely claimed incorrectly that a party defaulting could be liable for more than they would under the civil justice system. But arbitration participants have more procedural protections in the case of default than those operating in the civil justice system–there is no “default” in arbitration. Rather, the arbitrator has to decide the case on the merits, even without the participation of the customer. Given the fact that the vast majority of debt collections in court are resolved by default, the typical consumer comes out far ahead in arbitration.
- Neely proposed a reform that arbitrators be required to disclose conflicts of interest. But arbitrators are already required to disclose such conflicts.
Read the whole thing. Neely (who ruled on the merits 100% of the time for banks against their customers in the two debt collection cases he decided) was apparently so upset by his experience that he signed a new agreement with NAF after the events he claims to describe transpired. One wonders: has the plaintiffs’ bar retained Neely as a consultant on the issue, and he decided he could make more money bad-mouthing arbitration than as an arbitrator? One will never know—unless Neely discloses his conflicts of interest.
Richard Neely’s previous claim to fame was stating, while Chief Justice of the West Virginia Supreme Court, “As long as I am allowed to redistribute wealth from out-of-state companies to in-state plaintiffs, I shall continue to do so.” He’s had somewhat less success doing so as a plaintiffs’ attorney (June 2002).