- Harvard’s Charles Nesson argues that Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999 violates Constitution by letting civil lawyers for RIAA enforce a criminal law [AP/MSNBC, Elefant]
- In some circles, bitter disappointment at reports that Obama camp probably won’t pursue Bush predecessors as war criminals [Paul Campos, Horton/Harper’s; earlier]
- Latest on wrangle over “exorbitant” fee: Alice Lawrence’s deposition-skipping before her death could endanger her estate’s claim against Graubard Miller law firm [NYLJ, earlier]
- One benefit of role as law school mega-donor, as Mark Lanier is with Texas Tech, is that you get to rub (hunting-jacket) elbows with visiting Supreme Court justices [WSJ law blog]
- Lou Dobbs and Phyllis Schlafly were among those who pushed bizarre theory of secret conspiracy to merge U.S. into “North American Union” with Canada and Mexico [John Hawkins]
- Senate Dems plan to abolish secret ballot for installing unions in everyone else’s workplace, so how come they insist on one for themselves in deciding how to handle Joe Lieberman? [Dan Riehl via McArdle]
- Congrats to historian Rick Brookhiser and City Journal editor Myron Magnet, among recipients of 2008 National Humanities Medal [White House release, Brian Anderson, NRO]
- Jarek Molski, California entrepreneur of disabled-access complaints, loses bid for Supreme Court review of his designation as vexatious litigant [AP, Bashman]
Archive for 2008
Update: lawprof drops suit against students
Updating our Apr. 29 item: “A law professor who sued two former students for defamation has dropped his suit after the school’s interim dean said there is no evidence he is a racist. Law professor Richard Peltz of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock told Inside Higher Ed that he sued to get his reputation back. ‘This suit was never about money,’ he said. ‘I feel that now with the university’s support, I am on the road to repairing my reputation.'” (Debra Cassens Weiss, ABA Journal, Nov. 17).
Richard Epstein on Wyeth v. Levine
The Chicago lawprof discusses the pending Supreme Court case on implied pre-emption:
…it is folly to act as if the private lawsuits attacking FDA warnings just backstop a porous and lax FDA. Often those lawsuits add an unwanted deterrent against the sale of desperately needed drugs. That risk is multiplied by hyperventilated state tort law that, in many instances, is lopsidedly pro-plaintiff.
(“Wyeth v. Levine Could Endanger Your Health”, Forbes, Nov. 11). Much more on the debate at Point of Law here, here, here, etc.
Alan Keyes sues Barack Obama
From the farther shores of political lawsuit-filing, from a farther-shores kinda guy: “On November 13, Alan Keyes and his vice-presidential running mate in California, Reverend Wiley Drake, and other members of the American Independent Party, filed a new lawsuit over Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president. … All the other cases have been dismissed because the plaintiffs were said to lack standing. This is the first case with a presidential candidate-plaintiff.” (“Alan Keyes Files Lawsuit Over Obama Eligibility”, Richard Winger Ballot Access News, Nov. 16; Keyes v. Bowen, PDF; Scott Moss, Concurring Opinions, Nov. 17).
“Dr. Megaworkup”
It’s enough to exasperate WhiteCoatRants (Oct. 20):
…Utter the terms “chest pain” and “trouble breathing” in the same sentence and with some doctors you’re getting a chest CT. It doesn’t matter that you have a cough, runny nose, that the chest pain is burning and only occurs when you cough, or that half the people in town have influenza because they didn’t get their flu shots. Even if bronchitis is the clinical diagnosis, there is still a 0.0001% chance that you could have a pulmonary embolism along with your bronchitis and we don’t want to miss it, because if we do, it may cause you to die and result in a lawsuit against the physician. Some doctors aren’t willing to take even the 1 in 1,000,000 chance that they’ll be sued. …
If a doctor doesn’t get every conceivable test on a patient and there is a bad outcome, then the doctor gets smacked with a lawsuit because the doctor didn’t do enough. Unless something changes, more and more patients coming to the emergency department will get megaworkups so nothing gets “missed.”
Then I read that some pompous plaintiff’s attorney said somewhere that “defensive medicine” was a myth. His theory was that if doctors do an extra test that catches a disease while it’s still treatable, then it is “good medicine,” not “defensive medicine.” Either he doesn’t get it because he is ignorant or he doesn’t get it because that attitude helps him afford his chalet in the Swiss Alps.
Medicine will never be perfect.
While on the subject, prominent health economist Uwe Reinhardt has cited our medical liability system as an important reason costs are significantly higher in the U.S. than elsewhere (PoL, Nov. 16). And KevinMD’s excellent section on defensive medicine has numerous posts in recent months we still haven’t gotten around to linking, including: guest take by “Dr. SSS” on the “two most expensive words in medicine” (“Sometimes it is difficult for me to understand if I am really treating myself or the patient.”); background on the $210 billion estimate that has been bandied about; E.R. visit + chest pains = obligatory catheterization?; quote from PandaBearMD (“Why risk our own money when we can use somebody else’s to protect us, even if it costs millions?”; a British visitor’s view of immobilization collars; don’t put the doc’s name on the chart!; and more reader reactions (“even if a patient has a good relationship with a physician and is willing to forgo various diagnostic tests, the family can decide to sue later if there is a bad outcome. … it is far easier to just order the test”)
Mississippi: “Former state pathologist suing Innocence Project”
“Dr. Steven Hayne, the man who performed most of Mississippi’s autopsies for 20 years, has filed a defamation lawsuit against The Innocence Project.” (Howard Ballou, WLBT, Oct. 30).
Hayne has been criticized because he said he conducted about 1,500 autopsies a year, much higher than the recommended standard [of fewer than 250 — ed.].
His testimony in two murder cases from Noxubee County turned out to be inaccurate and both men convicted in those cases were released from prison earlier this year.
One of the men had spent 15 years on Death Row for a crime he didn’t commit.
A third man has confessed to both slayings.
(“Investigation changes are needed”, Hattiesburg American, Oct. 22). As part of its campaign against Hayne, the Innocence Project sent more than 1,000 pages of material documenting its complaints to the Mississippi state medical licensure board and also denounced him to the national College of American Pathologists. (Jerry Mitchell, “Embattled doc suing Innocence Project”, Jackson Clarion-Ledger, Oct. 31). Radley Balko at Reason has been a longtime critic of Hayne (“Hit and Run”, Nov. 7), as has Lotus @ Folo. On Jun. 6, we reported on charges that Dr. Hayne’s forensic work has been of extensive assistance to plaintiff’s lawyers in Mississippi liability suits.
“Britain has no responsibility to protect Iraqis from their own legal system”
Fun with international human rights law, continued:
Lawyers for two Iraqis accused of the murder of two British soldiers now maintain that the men cannot get a fair trial in Iraq, and are entitled to one here in Britain instead. A High Court judge will rule on the case this week. Lawyers have already received several thousand pounds for representing the Iraqis, who, although not British citizens, have their case in the British courts funded by British taxpayers. Win or lose, the lawyers will receive more from that source. If the judge rules against them, they will no doubt appeal. The appeals process is lengthy, and lucrative. If they win, then there will be another issue to be litigated: whether the Iraqis should be given asylum in the UK, on the grounds that Iraq is not a safe place for the accused.
(“Iraqi crimes have no place in our courts” (editorial), Telegraph, Nov. 16).
Microblog 2008-11-16
- Tenth anniversary of Great Tobacco Robbery settlement of 1998 [NPR series all week h/t @billchilds; Carter Wood at PoL series linked here] #
- No need for “socialism” with endless bailouts instead [George Will, David Brooks] #
- Rude name for “age-restricted” (no-kids) housing developments: “vasectomy zoning” [Dr. Wes] #
- Iceland’s national financial calamity [Robert Jackson, Financial Times; Jon Danielsson, VoxEU] #
- World gone mad dept.: Saudi Arabia sponsors UN event on religious tolerance [Anorak, h/t @jeffnolan; Steven Groves, Heritage, on UN “defamation of religion” resolutions] #
American Apparel arbitration, cont’d
A couple of weeks ago I did a brief post, and guestblogger Victoria Pynchon did a longer one, on the unusual sequence of events by which American Apparel and its founder Dov Charney settled a sexual harassment lawsuit for an agreement to pay $1.3 million tied to an (abortive) agreement to send the case to what a judge characterized as a sham arbitration designed to end favorably to the company. The company hadn’t at that point (so far as I know) responded publicly to the controversy, but shortly thereafter got its side of the dispute more or less on the record as part of a lengthy post at the blog Jezebel (Oct. 31). There’s also a related Oct. 30 item on the case at Portfolio. It quotes ubiquitous NYU legal ethicist Stephen Gillers, with whose views this blog is frequently out of step, who “said he found no real ethical problems with the ginning up of a sham arbitration to issue a press release. ‘The lawyers had no duty to insure that the public got the facts or that the issues were resolved based on a real trial before a real tribunal with real evidence.'”
Nowhere to hide
When your litigation opponent subpoenas your Facebook, Amazon, MySpace, Flickr, LinkedIn and (locked) Twitter pages (& Likelihood of Confusion).