A New Age psychotherapeutic outfit based in Kittery, Maine, and nearby New Hampshire, the Gentle Wind Project “is a 24-year-old non-profit corporation that describes itself as being ‘dedicated to education and research aimed at alleviating human suffering and trauma.’ … The organization holds seminars across the country, selling “healing instrument” products for donations ranging from $450 to upwards of $10,000, asserting they have exclusive healing technology that is channeled telepathically from the ‘spirit world’ and has healing powers.” On a less serene note, the organization recently filed a lawsuit claiming that a husband and wife from Blue Hill, Me., Judy Garvey and James F. Bergin, and various other individuals defamed Gentle Wind by publishing a website criticizing the organization’s leadership and cautioning newcomers against excessive involvement. Garvey and Bergin were themselves formerly involved with Gentle Wind. (James Baker, “New age therapy group sues over Web site”, Foster’s Sunday Citizen (N.H.), Aug. 8)(more). The Gentle Wind Project’s side of the story may be found here and here. Update Jan. 19, 2006: federal judge dismisses suit.
Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
Fresh archive page for medical posts
The “Bad Medicine” heading, which archives posts relating to medical liability, has grown so large as to be unwieldy for readers, so we’re opening up a “Bad Medicine II” heading for posts from here on. [Superseded]
Icky road to wealth
A Philadelphia jury has awarded $4 million to 17-year-old Anastasia Roberts in her lawsuit against Grand King Buffet, a Chinese restaurant, over an incident in which Roberts chewed on and then spat out a foreign object in a sweet potato ball which proved to be a used bandage. According to her suit “Grand King threw the bandage away, destroying evidence”, and the offending object had blood and pus on it. Roberts, who per the allegations in the suit suffered mightily from post-traumatic stress over the affair, plans to become a nurse. (Dan Gross, “A ‘bloody’ $4M award for teen”, Philadelphia Daily News, Aug. 3; “A fuss over pus”, City Paper, Jan. 22-28).
Welcome Ken & Daria Dolan viewers
I was a guest on the Dolans’ CNN Financial show this morning to discuss medical malpractice reform and the presidential race.
They Came To Stay II
We previously covered the surprising side effect of legal reforms to protect tenants against landlords: homeowners in Florida discovering that a friend or relative invited as a guest gets to leave only when they want to leave without expensive litigation to evict them (Feb. 19). This had tragic results in Montgomery County, Maryland last week. 71-year-old Joyce Hadl charitably allowed a homeless woman, Susan L. Sachs, to stay with her rent-free in exchange for work around the house. According to a friend of Hadl’s, when Sachs started exhibiting signs of mental illness, “walking around the house and calling Hadl insulting names”, Hadl became alarmed and tried to get her to leave, but police called to the home concluded that they could not legally remove her. Hadl has since disappeared, and Sachs is now under police custody, having been charged with her first-degree murder. (David Snyder and Amit R. Paley, “New Arrests in Disappearance”, Washington Post, Aug. 26).
“Recovered memory” doubter sued
Prof. Elizabeth Loftus, the psychologist whose writings and expert testimony have been highly influential in casting doubt on the reliability of buried and then putatively recovered memories of abuse (see Mar. 22 and links from there), is the defendant in a lawsuit filed by a “Jane Doe” abuse complainant whose allegations Loftus critically examined in a 2002 article for Skeptical Inquirer (the valuable magazine of CSICOP, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims for the Paranormal). Trial is expected soon: “If she loses, not only will academic freedom have arguably suffered a grievous blow, but on a personal level, Loftus herself could face bankruptcy.” “Jane Doe” also “filed an ethics complaint against Loftus with the University of Washington. Though the university eventually cleared Loftus of breaking research protocols — after seizing all of her files on the case and preventing her from publishing her work for almost two years — its support was so lukewarm, and its unwillingness to stand by its controversial psychologist during the current lawsuit so clear, that Loftus was only too happy to accept an offer from Irvine.” (Sasha Abramsky, “Memory and Manipulation”, L.A. Weekly, Aug. 20-26) (via Brian Doherty, Reason “Hit and Run”, Aug. 24). Update: see Jun. 26, 2005 (L.A. Times covers case).
Sues over restaurant review
Restaurateur Phil Romano earlier this month “slapped Dallas Morning News restaurant critic Dotty Griffith and the Belo Corp., the newspaper’s parent, with a suit alleging fraud, malice, defamation and an ‘attempt to cripple the business of one of Dallas’ finest new restaurants’ via an April 16 restaurant review. That finest new restaurant is Il Mulino New York, the Romano-shepherded Dallas extension of the much heralded Greenwich Village venue founded in 1981 by Fernando and Gino Masci.” (Mark Stuertz, “Eat My Briefs”, Dallas Observer, Aug. 12; Sean Mehegan, “The Porcini Was Praiseworthy, but a Lawsuit Was Served Next”, New York Times, Aug. 23). Update Jan. 3, 2006: parties settle with paper agreeing to run second review.
Sunburst Works Refinery $41M verdict
In 1955, there was a gasoline pipeline leak at the Sunburst Works Refinery that caused minor contamination of a 19-acre underground site. Texaco cleaned the spill at the time, and did further millions of dollars of cleanup starting in 1993. State regulators determined that there was no health effects, and that benzene levels in Sunburst, Montana were no different than in areas unaffected by the spill. The state Department of Environmental Quality ruled that nothing more needed to be done beyond additional monitoring, not least because the groundwater at issue isn’t used for anything–even livestock find it “naturally too briny” to drink.
Not good enough, say some residents and their lawyers, who blame the half-century-old spill for a variety of illnesses from arthritis to mononucleosis. They sued to require additional multi-million dollar cleanup. The plaintiffs originally sought damages for decreased property values, though townpeople who refused to join the lawsuit say that the main cause of the decreased property values is bad publicity from the 2001 lawsuit. (There are only 82 plaintiffs in a town of about 400.) Texaco acknowledges responsibility for the spill, but disputed the need to spend millions more on a clean-up methodology of little efficacy. The judge refused to allow Texaco to introduce evidence that they did exactly what the Montana regulators asked them to do, and a jury awarded a $41 million verdict, including $25 million in punitive damages. Texaco will appeal. The case is important because the verdict could encourage other “double-whammy” lawsuits on companies who have already been spending millions to comply with the extensive state and federal environmental regulations. (Kathleen A. Schultz, “Texaco to appeal Sunburst ruling”, Great Falls Tribune, Aug. 20; “Jury Rules Against ChevronTexaco In Cleanup Suit”, Wall Street Journal, Aug. 20 (sub – $); Reuters, Aug. 20; Kathleen A. Schultz, “Texaco must pay Sunburst $41M”, Aug. 19; Kathleen A. Schultz, “Texaco-Sunburst trial gets under way”, Jul. 26).
Common Cause: car-dealer ads may run afoul of McCain-Feingold
The first election without the First Amendment, as Paul Jacob has called it, is getting pretty surreal: the role of money in politics hasn’t diminished, but many more of us are at risk of being exposed to harsh legal penalties for expressing our opinions. (George Will, “Campaign Cops and Car Ads”, Washington Post, Aug. 22; Paul Jacob, “With the Boss, but without the First Amendment”, syndicated/TownHall, Aug. 8; “Campaign finance” (editorial), Houston Chronicle, Aug. 16; George Will, “Speech crime in Wisconsin”, Newsweek, Aug. 16). More: Robert Samuelson, Juan Non-Volokh.
Update: Indian sovereignty advances
“In an extraordinarily broad declaration of Indian land rights, a Northern District judge has held that the Cayuga Nation can buy up property in its former Central New York homeland, declare it ‘Indian country’ and operate a gambling hall immune from local building, zoning and tax laws.” “John Caher, “Indian Tribe Wins Broad Right to Add, Control Land”, New York Law Journal, Apr. 29). In related news, New York State “has broken off negotiations to settle the Cayuga Indian land claim and will let the courts decide the 24-year-old lawsuit, officials on both sides of the dispute said”. (Scott Rapp, “State stops settlement talks with Cayugas”, Syracuse Post-Standard, Aug. 4). For more on Indian land claim litigation in upstate New York and elsewhere, see my City Journal Autumn 2002 piece; Nov. 3-5, 2001 and links from there; Jun. 24-25, 2002; Jun. 4, Apr. 16, Feb. 9, 2004 and links from there. See also Jan Golab, “The Festering Problem of Indian ‘Sovereignty'”, The American Enterprise, Sept.. Update 2005: U.S. Supreme Court, in City of Sherrill v. Oneida, disallows “creeping expansion” of tribal sovereignty through piecemeal land purchases.