“Doctors want to provide relief, but they also want to keep people safe and stay out of trouble themselves — since doctors have been sued for undertreating pain and jailed for overtreating it.” (Lois M. Collins and Elaine Jarvik, “Doctors walk narrow line in treating pain”, Deseret Morning News/Casper Star Tribune, Jan. 5). Commenters at Kevin Pho’s (Jan. 6) get specific about some of the legal headaches that an emergency room doctor may face when a chronic pain patient shows up claiming to need immediate relief: calling other local practitioners to check on whether the patient is known for “drug-seeking activity” is now a violation of the federal HIPAA health-privacy law, while giving a day or two’s worth of medication to tide them over risks litigation from family members accusing the doctor of enabling their relative’s narcotic habit.
Author Archive
Chili finger duo sentenced
Fickle finger of fate, cont’d: dissatisfied Wendy’s customer Anna Ayala drew a nine-year sentence while Jaime Plascencia, her boyfriend and the procurer of the severed digit, drew twelve years. “The two pleaded guilty in September to conspiracy to file a false insurance claim and attempted grand theft with damages exceeding $2.5 million.” (“Chili Finger Couple Get Stiff Sentences”, AP/NBC San Diego, Jan. 18). Our previous coverage: Apr. 8, Apr. 9, Apr. 13, Apr. 20, Apr. 22, Apr. 27, May 16, Sept. 10.
We’re here from the government…
…and we’re not happy about your choice of cooking oil — gee, thanks a million, Mayor Bloomberg. Andrew Stuttaford explains (NRO “The Corner”, Jan. 15).
“2005’s Top Ten Jury Verdicts”
The new WSJ Law Blog summarizes (Jan. 16) Lawyers Weekly’s annual compilation of cases. As Lawyers Weekly tells it, the top verdicts this year were both somewhat lower and more closely linked to actual damages (i.e., less crazy) than last year’s. Among the ten: the Miami bus shelter electrocution discussed by Ted Jul. 10 (and linked to by the WSJ); Coleman v. Morgan Stanley, discussed in this space May 18 and Nov. 17; the $253 million verdict in Ernst v. Merck; the $105 million verdict against beer servers at New Jersey’s Giants Stadium (Jan. 21 and Feb. 2); and Hall-Edwards v. Ford Motor, involving an Explorer rollover.
Another interesting case on the list: Baker v. PrivatAir, in which a pilot forced out of his California job at age 63 won $64 million for age discrimination, wrongful termination, emotional distress and defamation. Some other employees with whom the pilot had had conflicts had joined forces to get him fired; one of the steps they took against him was to get him written up on safety charges, which the employer then did not adequately investigate.
“Media reform” and campaign finance law
They operate as a pincer movement, contends Brian Anderson in City Journal, and they’re both aimed at choking off certain unwelcome (if popular) points of view in public discussion. (“The Plot to Shush Rush and O’Reilly”, Winter).
“Seasons of Anxiety”
Common Good has prepared a Flash calendar illustrating how fears of being sued influence people month by month over the course of the year — sports, schools, holidays, etc. What, no falling leaves?
Update: Microsoft fees in Calif.
A state appeals court has approved a $1.1 billion settlement in the California consumer class action case against Microsoft, one of many parallel consumer antitrust class actions against the tech giant filed in states across the country. Plaintiffs lawyers at Townsend and Townsend and Crew and other firms are likely to share roughly $101 million in fees for representing software buyers in the state; class members were offered vouchers good on future purchases, which is not how the lawyers are taking their pay, of course. (Marie-Anne Hogarth, “Law Firms Closer to Raking In $101M in Fees in Microsoft Case”, The Recorder, Jan. 12). Oh well, at least it doesn’t sound as bad as the Minnesota settlement.
Update: lawyers’ “pit bull” ads
The Florida Supreme Court has ruled (PDF) that the law firm of Pape & Chandler violated the state’s Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers by marketing itself with the image of a spike-collared canine and the phone number 1-800-PIT-BULL (see Aug. 23, Sept. 19, 2004). The law firm says it is considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, citing precedents of First Amendment protection for lawyers’ advertising. (David L. Hudson, Jr., “Florida Muzzles Pit Bull Ads”, ABA Journal eReport, Dec. 2). Commentary: Capt. Fogg, D. McGowan, Giacalone, Schaeffer.
One QC’s view
Distinguished British lawyer Arthur Marriott QC, as quoted by Richard Ackland in the Sydney Morning Herald, and perhaps not entirely irrelevant to the situation in some other countries too:
The great ideas to assist the poor and bring about access to justice, such as the introduction of legal aid, have been met with an explosion in the number of lawyers. Other schemes such as no win-no fees encourage predatory lawyering. The payment of lawyers on a time basis does not provide an incentive for the efficient conduct of trials. And finally, efforts to reform the litigation system have systematically been sabotaged and wrecked by lawyers. As Napoleon said, the administration of justice is too important to be left to lawyers.
(“The rise and rise of the predatory lawyer”, Nov. 18).
Newspaper circulation scandal: lawyers get $40K, clients $15K
“The Minneapolis-based Star Tribune has agreed to pay $55,000 to end a lawsuit accusing it of cheating advertisers by inflating circulation numbers, according to a lawyer for two plaintiffs. The settlement agreement says that the two plaintiffs, Masterson Personnel and Alternative Staffing, will receive $15,000 in rebates from the newspaper for advertising in 2007. The bulk of the settlement, up to $40,000, goes to attorneys representing the plaintiffs.” (Tim Huber, “Star Tribune to pay $55,000 to settle circulation lawsuit”, St. Paul Pioneer Press, Dec. 20)(via Romenesko).