Bad ideas from the U.S. hit Canada ten years later dept.: two Canadian provinces are seeking to replicate the success of state attorneys general in the U.S. and scoop up large amounts of money from tobacco companies through lawsuits without the bother of raising taxes. British Columbia’s legislature followed the lead of several U.S. states (Florida, Maryland and Vermont) and enacted an explicitly retroactive “we win, you lose” statute undercutting tobacco companies’ defenses against cost recoupment. Now Manitoba has joined in, its decision announced by Theresa Oswald, who bears the scary title of Healthy Living Minister. (“Manitoba to back B.C. in tobacco case”, CBC, Feb. 25)(B.C. law).
Author Archive
Delivery-room camera bans
Back in the news again, with the president of the AMA saying malpractice-suit fears are the reason obstetricians veto videotaping (AP/WTSP, Apr. 5). See Oct. 18, 2000.
Finger pointing
“The woman who claims she bit into a human finger while eating chili at a Wendy’s restaurant has a history of filing lawsuits – including a claim against another fast-food restaurant in Nevada.” (Ken Ritter, “Woman who claimed to find finger at Wendy’s has litigious history”, AP/San Diego Union-Tribune, Apr. 8)(via Malkin)
Upcoming events: Chicago, Orlando
Tomorrow (Friday, Apr. 8) I’m scheduled to participate in a panel discussion on medical malpractice at Chicago’s Union League Club, sponsored by various units of the University of Illinois (law school, medical school, Institute for Government and Public Affairs). And on Apr. 20 I’ll be giving a luncheon speech in Orlando to the Federalist Society Lawyers chapter there, on the themes of my most recent book The Rule of Lawyers. (Updated Apr. 9 to add Illinois web link and remove mention of a third appearance now likely to be canceled).
To book either Ted or me for speaking engagements, by the way, just send us email at the addresses indicated in the right-hand column.
Microsoft vs. eBay reseller
A Kent State student resold unopened Microsoft software at a profit, the giant company sued him, and things just spiraled from there. The two sides have settled now, though. (Denise Grollmus, “Kill Bill”, Cleveland Scene, Mar. 30).
Gun roundup
Legislation is once again moving through Congress to pre-empt lawsuits which seek to saddle the manufacturers and lawful sellers of guns with the costs of crime. At the request of supporters of H.R. 800, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, I wrote a letter to the House Judiciary Committee explaining why such a bill is warranted now more than ever (longtime readers may recall that I testified on the Hill two years ago in favor of the measure). The new letter is here. (More: Mar. 15 hearings; chairman’s opening statement.)
Also, the Illinois legislature has soundly defeated efforts, backed by Chicago Mayor Daley and pro-gun-litigation groups, to alter state law so as to encourage lawsuits against gun dealers (“More Daley-backed gun bills go down in Senate committee”, AP/KWQC, Mar. 15; “House rejects measure to let victims sue gun dealers”, AP/KWQC, Apr. 6). (Update Apr. 16: backers revive measures, but they are defeated on floor of Ill. Senate). And David Hardy of the extremely promising-looking new blawg Arms and the Law finds that when law reviews present a viewpoint one-sidedly hostile to the right of individual gun ownership, it’s sometimes owing to the careful spadework of a generous outfit called the Joyce Foundation (Apr. 3)(further controversy on last point: here and here).
Melton Mowbray
The concept of appellation controlee, along with an accompanying high-stakes lawsuit, hits the world of traditional British pork pies. (Raffi Melkonian, Crescat Sententia, Aug. 5, 2004).
S.F. to regulate bloggers?
Terri Schiavo case
A reader writes requesting my opinion of the Terri Schiavo case. For what it’s worth, I find Jacob Sullum’s and Glenn Reynolds’ analyses of the case (and, specifically, the issue of federal intervention) to be generally persuasive. For factual background on the case, the place to start is Matt Conigliaro’s.
“The Fen-Phen Follies”
Comprehensive and damning coverage in the March American Lawyer by reporter Alison Frankel, who terms the annals of the diet-drug litigation a “veritable catalogue of ignominy”:
Law firms allegedly attempting to fleece a lawyer-built victims trust fund. Doctors working for contingency fees, filing questionable supporting reports. Corporate executives, facing the prospect of ruin, hurling money at claimants. The fen-phen class action approved in 2000 was supposed to be a new paradigm of how to resolve a mass tort equitably. Instead the iron law of unintended consequences has ruled. Misconduct has not been punished, but rewarded. Some uninjured people have been paid to go away while thousands of claimants alleging real injuries still wait for compensation.
Lawyer advertising and generous settlement standards drew claimants “like ants to a picnic”, and some law firms figured out how to game the system by arranging echocardiograms that would diagnose supposed heart troubles in entirely uninjured patients: “in one horrifying case, a patient whose condition was overstated for the sake of obtaining payment through the trust ended up having unnecessary heart valve replacement surgery.” Frankel quotes Michael Fishbein, a plaintiff’s attorney who helped negotiate the initial settlement:
“…We all believed it would be done in an honest way, that doctors would not endanger the health of their patients by making phony diagnoses.”
Says Fishbein: “I guess we were naive.”
Also see Jim Copland, Point of Law, Mar. 1. We’ve covered the fen-phen saga extensively, and nearly nine years ago I was sounding the alarm about the medical dangers that arise from litigation-driven diagnoses.