This is a Wrongful Death and Medical Malpractice Update by the national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
The family of a 59-year old Daphne, Alabama woman, Sharron Juno, has won a $140,000,000 judgment from a jury for her wrongful death.
Sharron Juno died because of a "typo". A lifelong diabetic, Juno had her insulin dosage dictated by her doctor in Alabama but transcribed by an outsourced sub-contractor in India, who wrote “80” instead of “8.”Juno passed away after receiving a dose ten times what it should be. The jury’s anger at the defendants – Thomas Hospital in Fairhope, Ala. and the outsourcing companies it contracted with – drove the $140 million verdict, said attorneys who represented the plaintiff’s family.
[forum.mtstars.com/12-25-2012/ "Transcription Error Costs Thomas Hospital $140 Million Dollars And Woman Loses Her Life"; www2.wkrg.com/12-14-2012/ "$140 Million Verdict in Baldwin County (Alabama)"; www.standardjournal.com/news/11/19-12/19/2012/ "Alabama Hospital Must Pay $140 Million In Ex-Patient's Death"; www.fox10tv.com/news/local/12-14-2012/ "Baldwin County Jury Hands Down $140 Million Settlement"]
Monday, December 31, 2012
DEATH BY "TYPO" --- SHARRON JUNO: $140 Million Malpractice Verdict Update By Charles Jerome Ware
This is a Wrongful Death and Medical Negligence Update.
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
Alabama native Sharron Juno, age 59, died because of a "typo".
A lifelong diabetic, Juno had her insulin dosage dictated by her doctor in Alabama but transcribed by an outsourced sub-contractor in India, who wrote “80” instead of “8.”Juno passed away after receiving a dose ten times what it should be.
The jury’s anger at the defendants – Thomas Hospital in Fairhope, Ala. and the outsourcing companies it contracted with – drove the $140 million verdict, said a lawyer who represented the plaintiff’s family.
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
Alabama native Sharron Juno, age 59, died because of a "typo".
A lifelong diabetic, Juno had her insulin dosage dictated by her doctor in Alabama but transcribed by an outsourced sub-contractor in India, who wrote “80” instead of “8.”Juno passed away after receiving a dose ten times what it should be.
The jury’s anger at the defendants – Thomas Hospital in Fairhope, Ala. and the outsourcing companies it contracted with – drove the $140 million verdict, said a lawyer who represented the plaintiff’s family.
On March 18, 2008, Ms. Juno was discharged from Thomas Hospital. Unbeknownst to her treating physician, the Discharge Summary he dictated was outsourced by the hospital and ultimately transcribed in Mumbai, India and New Delhi, India. The transcript contained three critical errors, including the dosage of Levemir insulin, which was written incorrectly as 80 units rather than eight (10 times the prescribed dose). The hospital violated its own procedures and multiple national patient safety standards by using the unreviewed, unsigned Discharge Summary to write admission and medication orders for Sharon Juno's admission to a local rehabilitation facility.
Shortly after her admission to the rehab facility, on March 19, 2008, Ms. Juno was given a fatal dosage of insulin based on the admission paperwork the hospital had sent to the rehab facility. The medication caused an irreparable brain injury that resulted in cardiopulmonary arrest. Sharon Juno never regained consciousness and died on March 27, 2008.
Beginning in 2007, Thomas Hospital authorized its U.S. based outsource transcription vendor — Precyse Solutions, LLC — to use overseas transcription in India to save 2 cents per line. Through a series of subcontracts, the actual transcription services were moved to India and performed by Medusind Solutions, Inc. in Mumbai and Sam Tech Datasys in New Delhi. Testimony at trial revealed that U.S. based employees of Precyse were highly critical of the poor accuracy of the transcription work performed overseas by Medusind and Samtech. Instead of instituting better quality control procedures, these employees were replaced with overseas reviewers. Consequently, no one in the United States reviewed the transcripts for critical errors before they were provided to Thomas Hospital.
Even after the death of Sharron Juno, Thomas Hospital continued its relationship with the transcription company for two more years.
[lawyersusaonline.com/blog/12-21-2012/ "Anger Over Outsourced Medical Errors Yields $140 Million Verdict"; www.marketwatch.com/story/ "Jury Holds Hospital & Transcription Company Responsible For Fatal Medication Error: $140 Million Verdict"; www.indiawest.com/news/12-28-2012/ "Indian Firms' Transcription Error Leads to $140 M Judgment"]
AUTHOR, ATTORNEY, LAWYER, COUNSELOR OF THE YEAR, 2012: CHARLES JEROME WARE of MARYLAND & WASHINGTON, D.C.
[See, Amazon.com, iUniverse.com, Outskirts Press, BooksAMillion.com, Barnesandnoble.com, www.Kobobooks.com, bookstore.iuniverse.com, books.google.com, www.buscalibre.com, www.diesel-ebooks.com, www.allbookstores.com, www.ebookmail.com, www.ebay.com, www.scribd.com, www.deepdiscount.com, www.betterworldbooks.com, www.landmarkonthenet.com, www.shopping.com, www.lawbooks-online.com, newmexicoveterinaryboard.us, www.booktopia.com.au, The Immigration Paradox-NY-Times.com, the Immigration Paradox: 15 Tips for Winning Immigration Cases, www.2shared.com, www.textbooksrus.com, www.valorebooks.com, www.waterstones.com, www.getcited.org, www.fishpond.co.nz, www.bookfinder4u.com, ebookstore.sony.com, www.bookdepository.co.uk, www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15, C-SPAN2/Book TV, BookTV.org, Miami Book Fair, International Summit on Books, American Library Association (ALA) Book Fair, National Book Festival, Baltimore Book Festival, inter al]
By his clients and peers, opponents and the public, Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
Renowned and respected for his extensive trial experiences and legal counselling of thousands of individual and organizational clients, Attorney Charles Ware is also noted for being a prolific author of several best-selling books, numerous information blogs, and hundreds of articles.
Ware is a widely acclaimed expert legal commentator who, for eight years in the 1990s hosted the extremely popular legal advice radio program "The Lawyer's Mailbox": the Number One (#1) legal advice radio program in the Mid-Atlantic States, on WEAA-88.9 FM, Morgan State University Radio in Baltimore, Maryland.
Among attorney and author Charles Jerome Ware's best-selling books are:
(1) The Secret Science of Winning Lotteries, Sweepstakes and Contests;
http://amzn.com/1432793888
(2) Understanding the Law: A Primer;
http://amzn.com/1440111456
(3) The Immigration Paradox: 15 Tips for Winning Immigration Cases;
http://amzn.com/1440171920
(4) Legal Consumer Tips and Secrets: Avoiding Debtors' Prison in the United States; and
http://amzn.com/1462051847
(5) Quince (15) Consejos Para Ganar Casos Del Inmigracion.
http://amzn.com/1462068952
Ware's blogs and twitter include, inter alia:
By his clients and peers, opponents and the public, Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
Renowned and respected for his extensive trial experiences and legal counselling of thousands of individual and organizational clients, Attorney Charles Ware is also noted for being a prolific author of several best-selling books, numerous information blogs, and hundreds of articles.
Ware is a widely acclaimed expert legal commentator who, for eight years in the 1990s hosted the extremely popular legal advice radio program "The Lawyer's Mailbox": the Number One (#1) legal advice radio program in the Mid-Atlantic States, on WEAA-88.9 FM, Morgan State University Radio in Baltimore, Maryland.
Among attorney and author Charles Jerome Ware's best-selling books are:
(1) The Secret Science of Winning Lotteries, Sweepstakes and Contests;
http://amzn.com/1432793888
(2) Understanding the Law: A Primer;
http://amzn.com/1440111456
(3) The Immigration Paradox: 15 Tips for Winning Immigration Cases;
http://amzn.com/1440171920
(4) Legal Consumer Tips and Secrets: Avoiding Debtors' Prison in the United States; and
http://amzn.com/1462051847
(5) Quince (15) Consejos Para Ganar Casos Del Inmigracion.
http://amzn.com/1462068952
Ware's blogs and twitter include, inter alia:
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES SOBERS UP: Class Action Update By Attorney Charles Jerome Ware
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
Southwest Airlines (slogan: "Grab your bag, It's on!") is paying more than $29,000,000 for the hard lesson it is learning to "not screw a lawyer out of a drink".
Clearly, an important point for Southwest to learn here is that if you are going to screw a passenger out of a drink, make certain that passenger is not a lawyer.
The case is: ADAM J. LEVITT vs. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, CO., Civil Case No. 1: 2011 cv 08176, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago); filed on November 16, 2011; based on contract, U.S.C. 28 § 1332.
Adam Levitt, an Illinois resident and attorney at Chicago's Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz law firm sued Southwest over the discount airline carrier's decision to cease honoring $5-valued coupons for "free" alcoholic drinks, which the airline had given to its "Business Select" airline tickets purchasers (passengers).
That was not a good decision by the airline! Particularly since the drink coupons lacked expiration dates.
On August 1st, 2010, Southwest arbitrarily changed its drink policy, reneged on its promise, and said Business Select passengers may only use their coupons on the day of travel printed on them. BIG MISTAKE!
The case has now become a class action lawsuit.
Attorney and plaintiff Levitt, who lives in the Chicago area, said the policy change amounted to a breach of contract. He attached to his federal civil complaint copies of his 45 Southwest free drink coupons which he had accumulated and which were now worthless.
The case has now settled (in December 2012) and the $29 million payout will be distributed proportionately among the affected class.
[www.lawyersandsettlements.com/blog/ "Southwest Learns Not To Screw A Lawyer Out Of A Drink (Ever) & Gets a Hefty Bar Tab"/ December 28th, 2012; Levitt v. Southwest Airlines Co., dockets.justia.com/ November 16, 2011; Adam J. Levitt v. Southwest Airlines Co., www.scribd.com/doc/ November 18, 2011; www.flyertalk.com/ November 16, 2011/ "Drink Coupon Lawsuit-Class Action"]
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
Southwest Airlines (slogan: "Grab your bag, It's on!") is paying more than $29,000,000 for the hard lesson it is learning to "not screw a lawyer out of a drink".
Clearly, an important point for Southwest to learn here is that if you are going to screw a passenger out of a drink, make certain that passenger is not a lawyer.
The case is: ADAM J. LEVITT vs. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, CO., Civil Case No. 1: 2011 cv 08176, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago); filed on November 16, 2011; based on contract, U.S.C. 28 § 1332.
___________________________________________
Adam Levitt, an Illinois resident and attorney at Chicago's Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz law firm sued Southwest over the discount airline carrier's decision to cease honoring $5-valued coupons for "free" alcoholic drinks, which the airline had given to its "Business Select" airline tickets purchasers (passengers).
That was not a good decision by the airline! Particularly since the drink coupons lacked expiration dates.
On August 1st, 2010, Southwest arbitrarily changed its drink policy, reneged on its promise, and said Business Select passengers may only use their coupons on the day of travel printed on them. BIG MISTAKE!
The case has now become a class action lawsuit.
Attorney and plaintiff Levitt, who lives in the Chicago area, said the policy change amounted to a breach of contract. He attached to his federal civil complaint copies of his 45 Southwest free drink coupons which he had accumulated and which were now worthless.
The case has now settled (in December 2012) and the $29 million payout will be distributed proportionately among the affected class.
[www.lawyersandsettlements.com/blog/ "Southwest Learns Not To Screw A Lawyer Out Of A Drink (Ever) & Gets a Hefty Bar Tab"/ December 28th, 2012; Levitt v. Southwest Airlines Co., dockets.justia.com/ November 16, 2011; Adam J. Levitt v. Southwest Airlines Co., www.scribd.com/doc/ November 18, 2011; www.flyertalk.com/ November 16, 2011/ "Drink Coupon Lawsuit-Class Action"]
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES SOBERS UP: Class Action Update By Attorney Charles Jerome Ware
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
Southwest Airlines (slogan: "Grab your bag, It's on!") is paying more than $29,000,000 for the hard lesson it is learning to "not screw a lawyer out of a drink".
Clearly, an important point for Southwest to learn here is that if you are going to screw a passenger out of a drink, make certain that passenger is not a lawyer.
The case is: ADAM J. LEVITT vs. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, CO., Civil Case No. 1: 2011 cv 08176, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago); filed on November 16, 2011; based on contract, U.S.C. 28 § 1332.
Adam Levitt, an Illinois resident and attorney at Chicago's Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz law firm sued Southwest over the discount airline carrier's decision to cease honoring $5-valued coupons for "free" alcoholic drinks, which the airline had given to its "Business Select" airline tickets purchasers (passengers).
That was not a good decision by the airline! Particularly since the drink coupons lacked expiration dates.
On August 1st, 2010, Southwest arbitrarily changed its drink policy, reneged on its promise, and said Business Select passengers may only use their coupons on they day of travel printed on them. BIG MISTAKE!
The case has now become a class action lawsuit.
Attorney and plaintiff Levitt, who lives in the Chicago area, said the policy change amounted to a breach of contract. He attached to his federal civil complaint copies of his 45 Southwest free drink coupons which he had accumulated and which were now worthless.
The case has now settled (in December 2012) and the $29 million payout will be distributed proportionately among the affected class.
[www.lawyersandsettlements.com/blog/ "Southwest Learns Not To Screw A Lawyer Out Of A Drink (Ever) & Gets a Hefty Bar Tab"/ December 28th, 2012; Levitt v. Southwest Airlines Co., dockets.justia.com/ November 16, 2011; Adam J. Levitt v. Southwest Airlines Co., www.scribd.com/doc/ November 18, 2011; www.flyertalk.com/ November 16, 2011/ "Drink Coupon Lawsuit-Class Action"]
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
Southwest Airlines (slogan: "Grab your bag, It's on!") is paying more than $29,000,000 for the hard lesson it is learning to "not screw a lawyer out of a drink".
Clearly, an important point for Southwest to learn here is that if you are going to screw a passenger out of a drink, make certain that passenger is not a lawyer.
The case is: ADAM J. LEVITT vs. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, CO., Civil Case No. 1: 2011 cv 08176, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago); filed on November 16, 2011; based on contract, U.S.C. 28 § 1332.
___________________________________________
Adam Levitt, an Illinois resident and attorney at Chicago's Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz law firm sued Southwest over the discount airline carrier's decision to cease honoring $5-valued coupons for "free" alcoholic drinks, which the airline had given to its "Business Select" airline tickets purchasers (passengers).
That was not a good decision by the airline! Particularly since the drink coupons lacked expiration dates.
On August 1st, 2010, Southwest arbitrarily changed its drink policy, reneged on its promise, and said Business Select passengers may only use their coupons on they day of travel printed on them. BIG MISTAKE!
The case has now become a class action lawsuit.
Attorney and plaintiff Levitt, who lives in the Chicago area, said the policy change amounted to a breach of contract. He attached to his federal civil complaint copies of his 45 Southwest free drink coupons which he had accumulated and which were now worthless.
The case has now settled (in December 2012) and the $29 million payout will be distributed proportionately among the affected class.
[www.lawyersandsettlements.com/blog/ "Southwest Learns Not To Screw A Lawyer Out Of A Drink (Ever) & Gets a Hefty Bar Tab"/ December 28th, 2012; Levitt v. Southwest Airlines Co., dockets.justia.com/ November 16, 2011; Adam J. Levitt v. Southwest Airlines Co., www.scribd.com/doc/ November 18, 2011; www.flyertalk.com/ November 16, 2011/ "Drink Coupon Lawsuit-Class Action"]
Friday, December 28, 2012
CHARLES JEROME WARE: ATTORNEY, LAWYER AND COUNSELOR OF THE YEAR, 2012
By his clients and peers, opponents and the public, Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
Renowned and respected for his extensive trial experiences and legal counselling of thousands of individual and organizational clients, Attorney Charles Ware is also noted for being a prolific author of several best-selling books, numerous information blogs, and hundreds of articles.
Ware is a widely acclaimed expert legal commentator who, for eight years in the 1990s hosted the extremely popular legal advice radio program "The Lawyer's Mailbox": the Number One (#1) legal advice radio program in the Mid-Atlantic States, on WEAA-88.9 FM, Morgan State University Radio in Baltimore, Maryland.
Among attorney and author Charles Jerome Ware's best-selling books are:
(1) The Secret Science of Winning Lotteries, Sweepstakes and Contests;
http://amzn.com/1432793888
(2) Understanding the Law: A Primer;
http://amzn.com/1440111456
(3) The Immigration Paradox: 15 Tips for Winning Immigration Cases;
http://amzn.com/1440171920
(4) Legal Consumer Tips and Secrets: Avoiding Debtors' Prison in the United States; and
http://amzn.com/1462051847
(5) Quince (15) Consejos Para Ganar Casos Del Inmigracion.
http://amzn.com/1462068952
Ware's blogs and twitter include, inter alia:
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
Renowned and respected for his extensive trial experiences and legal counselling of thousands of individual and organizational clients, Attorney Charles Ware is also noted for being a prolific author of several best-selling books, numerous information blogs, and hundreds of articles.
Ware is a widely acclaimed expert legal commentator who, for eight years in the 1990s hosted the extremely popular legal advice radio program "The Lawyer's Mailbox": the Number One (#1) legal advice radio program in the Mid-Atlantic States, on WEAA-88.9 FM, Morgan State University Radio in Baltimore, Maryland.
Among attorney and author Charles Jerome Ware's best-selling books are:
(1) The Secret Science of Winning Lotteries, Sweepstakes and Contests;
http://amzn.com/1432793888
(2) Understanding the Law: A Primer;
http://amzn.com/1440111456
(3) The Immigration Paradox: 15 Tips for Winning Immigration Cases;
http://amzn.com/1440171920
(4) Legal Consumer Tips and Secrets: Avoiding Debtors' Prison in the United States; and
http://amzn.com/1462051847
(5) Quince (15) Consejos Para Ganar Casos Del Inmigracion.
http://amzn.com/1462068952
Ware's blogs and twitter include, inter alia:
CHILD WRONGFUL DEATH IN MARYLAND, WASHINGTON, D.C., PENNSYLVANIA, DELAWARE, AND VIRGINIA
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, respectfully invites you to contact us if you have lost a loved one --- especially a child --- and you believe their death was caused by a wrongful act or negligence. We are: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
We can help you.
There is no worse tragedy, no greater agony, and no greater injustice than the untimely death of a child.
When a child is born, no rational parent or other loving adult wants that child to predecease them. It is simply not the natural order of life. And, quite plainly, there are no words to describe the tremendous pain parents experience when their child dies.
Setting a price on human life is not a pleasant task, but it is one that courts and juries are required to do in wrongful death actions. Because the primary measure of damages in a wrongful death action is pecuniary (financial) loss, the death of a child or an elderly person may raise difficulties in arriving at an adequate damage award.
When an adult dies, the pecuniary loss to the family is readily quantifiable. For example, when a parent dies, a child may seek damages for loss of the parent's care, income, nurturing, and guidance. When a child dies, the parents' recovery is limited to their pecuniary loss, which can be quite small.
When a child dies, pecuniary injuries are determined by:
A jury may consider what the child would have contributed to the parents' support, but this cannot be pure guesswork. Juries often use life expectancy charts as a starting point for calculations. Rules against jury speculation do not necessarily limit parents to small recoveries.
That's where we come in to make a difference.
Maryland Wrongful Death Laws and Intestacy Statutes:
Damages are distributed to the class of
people described below, in proportion to
their pecuniary loss.
Pecuniary loss is defined by the Maryland
Wrongful Death Statute and cases
defining the statute.
The spouse, child and parent may recover
lost financial support.
If there is no spouse, child, or parent, then
any person who is related by blood or
marriage to the victim and who was
substantially dependent upon the victim
may bring the action.
[See Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-904 (2000); Md. Code Ann., Est. & Trusts, § 3-102, et seq (2002); Md. Code Ann., Est. & Trusts, § 3-102, et seq. (2002)]
and
[www.injurylawservice.com/ Wrongful Death Lawsuits Involving Children; injury.findlaw.com/ Torts and Personal Injuries/ Wrongful Death Cases: Children and the Elderly]
We can help you.
There is no worse tragedy, no greater agony, and no greater injustice than the untimely death of a child.
When a child is born, no rational parent or other loving adult wants that child to predecease them. It is simply not the natural order of life. And, quite plainly, there are no words to describe the tremendous pain parents experience when their child dies.
Setting a price on human life is not a pleasant task, but it is one that courts and juries are required to do in wrongful death actions. Because the primary measure of damages in a wrongful death action is pecuniary (financial) loss, the death of a child or an elderly person may raise difficulties in arriving at an adequate damage award.
When an adult dies, the pecuniary loss to the family is readily quantifiable. For example, when a parent dies, a child may seek damages for loss of the parent's care, income, nurturing, and guidance. When a child dies, the parents' recovery is limited to their pecuniary loss, which can be quite small.
When a child dies, pecuniary injuries are determined by:
- The age, sex, life expectancy, work expectancy, state of health, and habits of the child;
- The child's earning potential;
- The relationship of the decedent to those claiming a pecuniary loss; and,
- The health, age, and circumstances of those claiming pecuniary losses.
A jury may consider what the child would have contributed to the parents' support, but this cannot be pure guesswork. Juries often use life expectancy charts as a starting point for calculations. Rules against jury speculation do not necessarily limit parents to small recoveries.
That's where we come in to make a difference.
Maryland Wrongful Death Laws and Intestacy Statutes:
Damages are distributed to the class of
people described below, in proportion to
their pecuniary loss.
Pecuniary loss is defined by the Maryland
Wrongful Death Statute and cases
defining the statute.
The spouse, child and parent may recover
lost financial support.
If there is no spouse, child, or parent, then
any person who is related by blood or
marriage to the victim and who was
substantially dependent upon the victim
may bring the action.
[See Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-904 (2000); Md. Code Ann., Est. & Trusts, § 3-102, et seq (2002); Md. Code Ann., Est. & Trusts, § 3-102, et seq. (2002)]
and
[www.injurylawservice.com/ Wrongful Death Lawsuits Involving Children; injury.findlaw.com/ Torts and Personal Injuries/ Wrongful Death Cases: Children and the Elderly]
Thursday, December 27, 2012
ATTORNEY, LAWYER CIVILITY: INCIVILITY COSTS!
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
Civility (ci-vil-i-ty): a noun meaning "formal politeness and courtesy in behavior or speech"; synonyms: "courtesy, politeness, comity, urbanity, complaisance" [www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civility].
Increasingly, a trend is growing that being a tough lawyer does not necessarily mean the abandonment of lessons we learned in kindergarten, such as: Be nice and treat others the way you would like to be treated.
An attorney in South Carolina has been suspended from the practice of law by the state's Supreme Court, and ordered to complete the state bar's legal ethics and professionalism program for his "lack of civility and professionalism" while handling a zoning dispute with the Town of Atlantic Beach [In the Matter of William Gary White, III, Respondent, Opinion No. 26939, 03-07-2011, The State of South Carolina In The Supreme Court].
William Gary White III was found to have violated a slew of South Carolina’s ethics rules in a letter to his client, an Atlantic Beach, S.C., church that had received a town notice that it needed to comply with zoning laws. White’s letter, copied to the town manager and later made part of the published opinion, was a scorcher:
“You have been sent a letter by purported Town Manager Kenneth McIver. The letter is false. You notice McIver has no order. He also has no brains, and it is questionable if he has a soul. Christ was crucified some 2,000 years ago. The church is His body on Earth. The pagans at Atlantic Beach want to crucify His body here on Earth yet again. ...
“First-graders know about freedom of religion. The pagans of Atlantic Beach think they are above God and the federal law. They do not seem to be able to learn. People like them in S.C. tried to defy federal law before with similar lack of success.”
A town council member filed the disciplinary complaint that led to White’s suspension. In its opinion, the state supreme court held that White ran roughshod over an oath it implemented in 2003 mandating that lawyers act with “fairness, integrity and civility, not only in court, but also in all written and oral communications.”
White says he’s learned from the experience. He says his client told him to make the comments in the letter and at the time believed them to be political statements regarding a religious matter. “I thought it was free speech,” he explains. “I think the rules are clearer now; I didn’t consider it a breach of ethics before that. I considered it representing a client.”
The South Carolina court may just be warming up. “We take this opportunity to address what we see as a growing problem among the bar, namely the manner in which attorneys treat one another in oral and written communication,” it said in a 2011 opinion. “We are concerned with the increasing complaints of incivility in the bar.”
[www.aswllp.com/Daily Journal staff writer Dhyana Levey/ "Another Effort for Lawyer Civility"; www.choosecivility.org; www.google.com/civility; www.history.org/almanack/life/manners/rules2.cfm/"George Washington's Rules of Civility"; www.civiltycenter.org; www.thefreelibrary.com/ "Lawyer Incvility"/ 10-10-1996; www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/26939- In the Matter of William Gary White- S.C. Judicial Department/ 03-07-2011; www.abajournal.com/posted Jan. 1, 2013, by G.M. Filisko]
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
Civility (ci-vil-i-ty): a noun meaning "formal politeness and courtesy in behavior or speech"; synonyms: "courtesy, politeness, comity, urbanity, complaisance" [www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civility].
Increasingly, a trend is growing that being a tough lawyer does not necessarily mean the abandonment of lessons we learned in kindergarten, such as: Be nice and treat others the way you would like to be treated.
INCIVILITY IN SOUTH CAROLINA
An attorney in South Carolina has been suspended from the practice of law by the state's Supreme Court, and ordered to complete the state bar's legal ethics and professionalism program for his "lack of civility and professionalism" while handling a zoning dispute with the Town of Atlantic Beach [In the Matter of William Gary White, III, Respondent, Opinion No. 26939, 03-07-2011, The State of South Carolina In The Supreme Court].
William Gary White III was found to have violated a slew of South Carolina’s ethics rules in a letter to his client, an Atlantic Beach, S.C., church that had received a town notice that it needed to comply with zoning laws. White’s letter, copied to the town manager and later made part of the published opinion, was a scorcher:
“You have been sent a letter by purported Town Manager Kenneth McIver. The letter is false. You notice McIver has no order. He also has no brains, and it is questionable if he has a soul. Christ was crucified some 2,000 years ago. The church is His body on Earth. The pagans at Atlantic Beach want to crucify His body here on Earth yet again. ...
“First-graders know about freedom of religion. The pagans of Atlantic Beach think they are above God and the federal law. They do not seem to be able to learn. People like them in S.C. tried to defy federal law before with similar lack of success.”
A town council member filed the disciplinary complaint that led to White’s suspension. In its opinion, the state supreme court held that White ran roughshod over an oath it implemented in 2003 mandating that lawyers act with “fairness, integrity and civility, not only in court, but also in all written and oral communications.”
White says he’s learned from the experience. He says his client told him to make the comments in the letter and at the time believed them to be political statements regarding a religious matter. “I thought it was free speech,” he explains. “I think the rules are clearer now; I didn’t consider it a breach of ethics before that. I considered it representing a client.”
The South Carolina court may just be warming up. “We take this opportunity to address what we see as a growing problem among the bar, namely the manner in which attorneys treat one another in oral and written communication,” it said in a 2011 opinion. “We are concerned with the increasing complaints of incivility in the bar.”
[www.aswllp.com/Daily Journal staff writer Dhyana Levey/ "Another Effort for Lawyer Civility"; www.choosecivility.org; www.google.com/civility; www.history.org/almanack/life/manners/rules2.cfm/"George Washington's Rules of Civility"; www.civiltycenter.org; www.thefreelibrary.com/ "Lawyer Incvility"/ 10-10-1996; www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/26939- In the Matter of William Gary White- S.C. Judicial Department/ 03-07-2011; www.abajournal.com/posted Jan. 1, 2013, by G.M. Filisko]
MARYLAND BIRTH INJURIES AND CHILD INJURIES
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
Very little in life events compares with the excitement experienced in the birth and raising of a child.
Unfortunately, however, there can be problems with many child births.
The process of labor and baby delivery are medically complicated and unpredictable.
Quite simply, birth injuries are not uncommon.
Therefore, we as a society must rely upon our physicians, nurses and other medical professionals to help survive successfully the procedures of child birth.
Thankfully, in most instances child birth is "successful". Regrettably, in a few instances it is not.
(1) Misdiagnosis/Failure to Diagnose Cases in Maryland
Typically, about ten (10%) percent of Maryland birth injury malpractice cases involve failure to properly diagnose or outright misdiagnosis issues.
A majority of those birth injury malpractice cases in Maryland include the following types of cases: (a) Cerebral Palsy (CP), (b) Erb's Palsy, and (c) Kernicterus, inter alia.
(a) Cerebral palsy (CP) is an umbrella term to describe a functional disorder caused by damage to the brain during pregnancy, delivery, or shortly after birth that can be related to this shortage of oxygen during delivery. CP is caused by faulty development of or damage to motor areas in the baby's brain that disrupt the brain's ability to control the body's movements or posture.
(b) Erb's palsy (also called Brachial Plexus palsy) is another birth injury that is caused by trauma to the unborn child. Children who suffer from Erb's palsy often suffer loss of control and/or sensation in their neck, shoulders, arms and hands.
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
Maryland Medical Malpractice - Child Injuries
Very little in life events compares with the excitement experienced in the birth and raising of a child.
Unfortunately, however, there can be problems with many child births.
The process of labor and baby delivery are medically complicated and unpredictable.
Quite simply, birth injuries are not uncommon.
Therefore, we as a society must rely upon our physicians, nurses and other medical professionals to help survive successfully the procedures of child birth.
Thankfully, in most instances child birth is "successful". Regrettably, in a few instances it is not.
(1) Misdiagnosis/Failure to Diagnose Cases in Maryland
Typically, about ten (10%) percent of Maryland birth injury malpractice cases involve failure to properly diagnose or outright misdiagnosis issues.
A majority of those birth injury malpractice cases in Maryland include the following types of cases: (a) Cerebral Palsy (CP), (b) Erb's Palsy, and (c) Kernicterus, inter alia.
(a) Cerebral palsy (CP) is an umbrella term to describe a functional disorder caused by damage to the brain during pregnancy, delivery, or shortly after birth that can be related to this shortage of oxygen during delivery. CP is caused by faulty development of or damage to motor areas in the baby's brain that disrupt the brain's ability to control the body's movements or posture.
(b) Erb's palsy (also called Brachial Plexus palsy) is another birth injury that is caused by trauma to the unborn child. Children who suffer from Erb's palsy often suffer loss of control and/or sensation in their neck, shoulders, arms and hands.
Erb's palsy can be caused by medical malpractice, usually during the delivery of the baby. What often happens is that the child's shoulder gets stuck under the mother's pubic bone following the delivery of the head. Sometimes, the OB/GYN delivering the baby will panic and will apply excessive force on the baby to dislodge the shoulder. When this happens, damage may occur to the nerve bundles located in the shoulder region causing Erb's palsy.
(c) Kernicterus is a birth injury that rarely occurs in the absence of medical malpractice. Kernicterus is the result of two much bilirubin in the child's blood which causes extreme jaundice. Properly treated and diagnosed by the OB/GYN or pediatricians after birth, kernicterus can usually be handled without a birth injury to the child. Untreated, kernicterus can cause permanent brain damage.
(2) Brain Injuries
Probably the most serious birth injuries are those that affect a child's brain. The most feared injuries are those that result from a lack of oxygen during delivery (hypoxia), or bleeding within the skull or brain is usually what causes birth injuries and often results in irreversible brain damage. An infants' lack of oxygen - a deprivation that adults can often readily shrug off - can cause a lifetime of injury and need for medical and other care.
[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, www.cdc.gov/Injury; orthopedics.about.com/od/prediatricorthopedics/p/birthinjuries; www.millerandzois.com/birthinjuries; www.jnj.com/ Correcting Childbirth Injuries; www.lpch.org/Disease Health Info/ Health Library/ Birth Injury; www.childbirthinjuries.com; www.google.com/Childbirth Injuries]
MARYLAND JOB LAW: "IRRESISTIBLE", AT-WILL, AND "FIRED" IN IOWA
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
Iowa dental assistant Melissa Nelson worked closely alongside her boss, dentist Dr. James Knight, for ten years. Apparently the pair worked too closely.
After consulting with his pastor, and upon the urging of his wife, dentist James Knight fired dental assistant Melissa Nelson, alleging she was too "attractive" and "irresistible". Nelson sued Knight, citing the Iowa Civil Rights Act for authority.
The 7-member all-male Iowa Supreme Court ruled that a female dental assistant her male dentist boss found "attractive" and even "irresistible" can be "fired" because of her "irresistible attraction".
As Justice Edward M. Mansfield wrote in the decision and opinion for the Court on Friday, December 21st, 2012:
"The question we must answer is ... whether an employee who has not engaged in flirtatious conduct may be lawfully terminated simply because the boss views the employee as an irresistible attraction."
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
Iowa dental assistant Melissa Nelson worked closely alongside her boss, dentist Dr. James Knight, for ten years. Apparently the pair worked too closely.
After consulting with his pastor, and upon the urging of his wife, dentist James Knight fired dental assistant Melissa Nelson, alleging she was too "attractive" and "irresistible". Nelson sued Knight, citing the Iowa Civil Rights Act for authority.
The 7-member all-male Iowa Supreme Court ruled that a female dental assistant her male dentist boss found "attractive" and even "irresistible" can be "fired" because of her "irresistible attraction".
As Justice Edward M. Mansfield wrote in the decision and opinion for the Court on Friday, December 21st, 2012:
"The question we must answer is ... whether an employee who has not engaged in flirtatious conduct may be lawfully terminated simply because the boss views the employee as an irresistible attraction."
Such firings may not be fair, but they do not constitute unlawful discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act, the decision read, siding with a lower court. The Court concluded that the firing was essentially an "at-will" termination of Nelson.
Definition: Employment "at-will" means that an employee can be terminated at any time without any reason. It also means that an employee can quit without reason. Employers are not required to provide notice when terminating an at-will employee.
An attorney for Melissa Nelson, the fired employee, said the decision was wrong. Nelson had been employed by dentist Dr. James Knight for ten and a half years.
[www.cnn.com/2012/12/2012/Justice/ "Iowa Supreme Court: OK to fire 'irrestible' worker"; news.yahoo.com/12-22-2012/ "Court: 'Irrestistible' Workers Can Be Fired"; m.now.msn.com/12-24-2012/ "If You're Hot Enough To Be 'Irrestistible', You Can Be Fired In Iowa"; bigstory.ap.org/article/ "Iowa Court: Bosses Can Fire 'Irrestistible' Workers"; blog.zap2it.com/2012/12/"Melissa Nelson"; jobsearch.about.com/od/employmentlaw/g/atwill.htm]
CLASS ACTION UPDATE: "FACEBOOK INSTAGRAM" BACKLASH --- The Beginning
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
LUCY FUNES, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated vs. INSTAGRAM, No. 12-cv-6482, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California:
The first of several expected class action lawsuits against Facebook's new corporate acquisition, INSTAGRAM was filed on Friday, December 21st, 2012 in federal court in San Francisco, for breach of contract, violation of privacy, and other claims regarding Facebook-Instagram's photo-sharing services.
Facebook Instagram's announcement of changes in the terms ("ToS": Terms of Service) of its photo-sharing product/services was met, predictably, with enormous user/customer backlash in social media.
Instagram, which allows people to add filters and effects to photos and share them easily on the Internet, was acquired by Facebook earlier this year for $715 million.
In announcing revised terms of service last week, Instagram spurred suspicions that it would sell user photos without compensation. It also announced a mandatory arbitration clause, forcing users to waive their rights to participate in a class action lawsuit except under very limited circumstances.
The current terms of service, in effect through mid-January, contain no such liability shield.
The backlash prompted Instagram founder and CEO Kevin Systrom to retreat partially a few days later, deleting language about displaying photos without compensation.
However, Instagram kept language that gave it the ability to place ads in conjunction with user content, and saying "that we may not always identify paid services, sponsored content, or commercial communications as such."
It also kept the mandatory arbitration clause in its ToS (Terms of Service).
"In short, Instagram declares that 'possession [of consumers' photos] is nine-tenths of the law and if you don't like it, you can't stop us,'" the lawsuit says.
Class Action 101: As a refresher, in law a "class action" lawsuit is a form of civil lawsuit in which a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court and/or which a class of defendants is being sued.
[en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com/ "1-Instragram Furor Triggers First Class Action Lawsuit"/ 12-24-2012; www.reuters.com/article/12-24-2012/ "Instagram Lawsuit"; www.bizjournal.com/sanjose/news/news/12-24-2012/ "Class Action Suit Filed Against Instagram Over ToS Changes"; www.forbes.com/sites/12-24-2012/ "Instagram Hit With Class Action Lawsuit"]
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
LUCY FUNES, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated vs. INSTAGRAM, No. 12-cv-6482, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California:
The first of several expected class action lawsuits against Facebook's new corporate acquisition, INSTAGRAM was filed on Friday, December 21st, 2012 in federal court in San Francisco, for breach of contract, violation of privacy, and other claims regarding Facebook-Instagram's photo-sharing services.
Facebook Instagram's announcement of changes in the terms ("ToS": Terms of Service) of its photo-sharing product/services was met, predictably, with enormous user/customer backlash in social media.
Instagram, which allows people to add filters and effects to photos and share them easily on the Internet, was acquired by Facebook earlier this year for $715 million.
In announcing revised terms of service last week, Instagram spurred suspicions that it would sell user photos without compensation. It also announced a mandatory arbitration clause, forcing users to waive their rights to participate in a class action lawsuit except under very limited circumstances.
The current terms of service, in effect through mid-January, contain no such liability shield.
The backlash prompted Instagram founder and CEO Kevin Systrom to retreat partially a few days later, deleting language about displaying photos without compensation.
However, Instagram kept language that gave it the ability to place ads in conjunction with user content, and saying "that we may not always identify paid services, sponsored content, or commercial communications as such."
It also kept the mandatory arbitration clause in its ToS (Terms of Service).
"In short, Instagram declares that 'possession [of consumers' photos] is nine-tenths of the law and if you don't like it, you can't stop us,'" the lawsuit says.
Class Action 101: As a refresher, in law a "class action" lawsuit is a form of civil lawsuit in which a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court and/or which a class of defendants is being sued.
[en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com/ "1-Instragram Furor Triggers First Class Action Lawsuit"/ 12-24-2012; www.reuters.com/article/12-24-2012/ "Instagram Lawsuit"; www.bizjournal.com/sanjose/news/news/12-24-2012/ "Class Action Suit Filed Against Instagram Over ToS Changes"; www.forbes.com/sites/12-24-2012/ "Instagram Hit With Class Action Lawsuit"]
Monday, December 24, 2012
SHE'S "IRRESISTIBLE" AND SHE'S "FIRED": Employment Law Update
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
The 7-member all-male Iowa Supreme Court has ruled that a female dental assistant her male dentist boss finds "attractive" and even "irresistible" can be "fired" because of her "irresistible attraction".
As Justice Edward M. Mansfield wrote in the decision and opinion for the Court on Friday, December 21st, 2012:
"The question we must answer is ... whether an employee who has not engaged in flirtatious conduct may be lawfully terminated simply because the boss views the employee as an irresistible attraction."
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
The 7-member all-male Iowa Supreme Court has ruled that a female dental assistant her male dentist boss finds "attractive" and even "irresistible" can be "fired" because of her "irresistible attraction".
As Justice Edward M. Mansfield wrote in the decision and opinion for the Court on Friday, December 21st, 2012:
"The question we must answer is ... whether an employee who has not engaged in flirtatious conduct may be lawfully terminated simply because the boss views the employee as an irresistible attraction."
Such firings may not be fair, but they do not constitute unlawful discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act, the decision read, siding with a lower court.
An attorney for Melissa Nelson, the fired employee, said the decision was wrong. Nelson had been employed by dentist Dr. James Knight for ten and a half years.
[www.cnn.com/2012/12/2012/Justice/ "Iowa Supreme Court: OK to fire 'irrestible' worker"; news.yahoo.com/12-22-2012/ "Court: 'Irrestistible' Workers Can Be Fired"; m.now.msn.com/12-24-2012/ "If You're Hot Enough To Be 'Irrestistible', You Can Be Fired In Iowa"; bigstory.ap.org/article/ "Iowa Court: Bosses Can Fire 'Irrestistible' Workers"]
DEFENDING AND WINNING MARYLAND LEAD PAINT CASES
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors is: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
Maryland Environmental Article 6-8, also referred to as Maryland Housing Bill 760, "The Lead Poisoning Prevention Program" statute, was signed into law in May 1994 and became fully effective on February 24, 1996.
The law is intended to make all privately owned pre-1950 rental housing units safer for children, while also helping rental property owners and managers to avoid costly lead poisoning litigation by complying with specific lead hazard reduction measures or a dust testing procedure set forth in the statute. This statutory provision applies to all such housing units and, at an owner's option, to rental units built after 1949.
In essence, the law sharply limits the rights of children and their representatives to traditional tort damages for lead poisoning, provided that: (1) the property owner has satisfied certain housing unit registration requirements; and (2) the unit has either passed lead dust tests or undergone a set of "risk reduction measures" which must be verified by an independent, certified third party who performs a visual inspection When the unit meets this standard, the owner is entitled to a limited tort immunity.
However, if a child living in the unit develops an elevated blood lead level which exceeds 20 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood, the owner has the option of making a "qualified offer" to the child and his or her legal representative.
A qualified offer is, in effect, a settlement of that child's potential lead poisoning claim and provides remedial compensation.
Under the provisions established in House Bill 760 for the qualified offer, the owner and his or her insurance company would: (1) offer to relocate the child's family to a housing unit that has been certified as "lead-safe," including payment of a rent differential if the "lead-safe" unit rents at a higher monthly rate; and (2) pay for any necessary medical treatment to mitigate the effects of lead poisoning when the treatment is not covered by a health insurance plan or public medical assistance.
Relocation expenses are payable until the poisoned child reaches age six, subject to a $9,500 cap. Out-of-pocket medical expenses are payable until the poisoned child reaches the age of 18, subject to a $7,500 cap.
Since a major reason for enacting House Bill 760 was the widespread and routine application of lead liability exclusions in general liability policies covering rental housing units, the statute adds provisions to the Maryland Insurance Code which limit the circumstances under which these exclusions would be effective. Therefore, access to insurance and limited liability are the primary incentives or benefits to owners of pre-1950 units who meet the statutory risk reduction standards. Additionally, the systematic reduction of lead-based paint hazards in these older units is meant to be the primary means for preventing lead poisoning in the state.
In summary, Maryland House Bill 760 takes on some of the most difficult public health, housing and liability issues posed by childhood lead poisoning to provide a measure of safety for children and a relief from the threat of litigation for rental property owners.
On October 24, 2011, the Maryland Court of Appeals in Jackson v. Dackman, struck down as invalid a statutory provision in Maryland’s Reduction of Lead Risk in Housing Act (“Act”) that provided immunity from liability to landlords if: (1) they achieved full compliance with certain requirements under the Act including registration and timely renewal of rental properties constructed prior to 1950; compliance with applicable risk reduction and response standards; and compliance with notice requirements to tenants; and (2) they had opportunity to make a qualified offer of up to $17,000 for reasonable relocation and medical expenses.
In light of the Dackman decision, landlords have found themselves facing a great deal of uncertainty and many are concerned that they may now be potentially exposed to huge liability claims, even if they previously had been fully compliant with the Act’s provisions.
Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors can provide winning defense representation for:
For detailed information about the federal law and how to obtain copies of the federally mandated pamphlet, call the National Lead Clearinghouse at 1-800-424-LEAD (5323) or the Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning at 410-534-6447.
Additionally, for detailed information about the Maryland law and how to obtain copies of the state-mandated “Notice of Tenants’ Rights” call the Maryland Lead Poisoning Hotline at 1-800-776-2706, or TDD (410) 631-3009, or the Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning at 800-370-LEAD.
The law exempts rental units owned or operated by federal, state, or local government or by a public, quasi-public, or municipal corporation, provided the property is subject to standards that are at least as strict as the standards established by this law.
[www.nchh.org/Policy/MarylandLeadLaw; www.pklaw.com/lead paint defense; www.peoples-law.org/Lead Paint in Maryland; articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-12-02/health/bs-md-rockind-appeal; www.mde.state.md.us/programs/ Lead Poisoning Prevention/Pages/Programs/Land Program/Lead Coordination/index.aspx]
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors is: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
Maryland Lead Law
Maryland Environmental Article 6-8 - "The Lead Poisoning Prevention Program" Statute
Maryland Environmental Article 6-8, also referred to as Maryland Housing Bill 760, "The Lead Poisoning Prevention Program" statute, was signed into law in May 1994 and became fully effective on February 24, 1996.
The law is intended to make all privately owned pre-1950 rental housing units safer for children, while also helping rental property owners and managers to avoid costly lead poisoning litigation by complying with specific lead hazard reduction measures or a dust testing procedure set forth in the statute. This statutory provision applies to all such housing units and, at an owner's option, to rental units built after 1949.
In essence, the law sharply limits the rights of children and their representatives to traditional tort damages for lead poisoning, provided that: (1) the property owner has satisfied certain housing unit registration requirements; and (2) the unit has either passed lead dust tests or undergone a set of "risk reduction measures" which must be verified by an independent, certified third party who performs a visual inspection When the unit meets this standard, the owner is entitled to a limited tort immunity.
However, if a child living in the unit develops an elevated blood lead level which exceeds 20 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood, the owner has the option of making a "qualified offer" to the child and his or her legal representative.
A qualified offer is, in effect, a settlement of that child's potential lead poisoning claim and provides remedial compensation.
Under the provisions established in House Bill 760 for the qualified offer, the owner and his or her insurance company would: (1) offer to relocate the child's family to a housing unit that has been certified as "lead-safe," including payment of a rent differential if the "lead-safe" unit rents at a higher monthly rate; and (2) pay for any necessary medical treatment to mitigate the effects of lead poisoning when the treatment is not covered by a health insurance plan or public medical assistance.
Relocation expenses are payable until the poisoned child reaches age six, subject to a $9,500 cap. Out-of-pocket medical expenses are payable until the poisoned child reaches the age of 18, subject to a $7,500 cap.
Since a major reason for enacting House Bill 760 was the widespread and routine application of lead liability exclusions in general liability policies covering rental housing units, the statute adds provisions to the Maryland Insurance Code which limit the circumstances under which these exclusions would be effective. Therefore, access to insurance and limited liability are the primary incentives or benefits to owners of pre-1950 units who meet the statutory risk reduction standards. Additionally, the systematic reduction of lead-based paint hazards in these older units is meant to be the primary means for preventing lead poisoning in the state.
In summary, Maryland House Bill 760 takes on some of the most difficult public health, housing and liability issues posed by childhood lead poisoning to provide a measure of safety for children and a relief from the threat of litigation for rental property owners.
Jackson, et al. v. The Dackman Company, et al.
No. 131, September Term 2008 (Md. Oct. 24, 2011)
In light of the Dackman decision, landlords have found themselves facing a great deal of uncertainty and many are concerned that they may now be potentially exposed to huge liability claims, even if they previously had been fully compliant with the Act’s provisions.
Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors can provide winning defense representation for:
- Defense of Lead Paint Cases
- Asset Protection
and can assist lead paint insurance carriers and claims representatives with: - Defense of Lead Paint Cases
- Presentations on Maryland’s Evolving Lead Paint Laws
Comparing State and Federal Laws
Federal and state laws address lead poisoning issues in slightly different ways. A shared feature is that each law requires that specific information be given to current and new tenants. Both Federal and Maryland law require landlords to give to each tenant the pamphlet “Protect Your Family from Lead in Your Home”. Maryland law also requires distribution by landlords of an additional pamphlet entitled “Lead Poisoning Prevention - Notice of Tenants’ Rights”.For detailed information about the federal law and how to obtain copies of the federally mandated pamphlet, call the National Lead Clearinghouse at 1-800-424-LEAD (5323) or the Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning at 410-534-6447.
Additionally, for detailed information about the Maryland law and how to obtain copies of the state-mandated “Notice of Tenants’ Rights” call the Maryland Lead Poisoning Hotline at 1-800-776-2706, or TDD (410) 631-3009, or the Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning at 800-370-LEAD.
Maryland Lead Poisoning Prevention Program
In 1994 the General Assembly established the Lead Poisoning Prevention Program for the purpose of reducing the incidence of childhood lead poisoning while maintaining the stock of affordable rental housing. This program requires owners of older residential rental properties to meet certain risk reduction standards. It also provides more affordable insurance and the protection of limited liability for owners who comply. It is administered by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). For more information call the Lead Poisoning Hotline at 1-800-776-2706, or TDD (410) 631-3009. Read the Law: MD Code, Environment § 6-801- 6-852; Article 48A, Secs. 734-737; Real Prop. § 8-208.2Following is a summary of the law:
The owners of all rental dwelling units built before 1950 must comply with this law. Owners of units built between 1950 and 1978 may choose to comply and thus benefit from limited liability.The law exempts rental units owned or operated by federal, state, or local government or by a public, quasi-public, or municipal corporation, provided the property is subject to standards that are at least as strict as the standards established by this law.
[www.nchh.org/Policy/MarylandLeadLaw; www.pklaw.com/lead paint defense; www.peoples-law.org/Lead Paint in Maryland; articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-12-02/health/bs-md-rockind-appeal; www.mde.state.md.us/programs/ Lead Poisoning Prevention/Pages/Programs/Land Program/Lead Coordination/index.aspx]
"TECHNICAL RAPE" AND JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
A California judge has been judicially disciplined (admonished) for his comments about a victim's "technical rape" and "lack of body shutdown."
Judge Derek Johnson has been publicly admonished for saying a sexual assault victim had suffered only a “technical” rape and didn’t display vaginal damage characteristic of rape victims he had encountered as a prosecutor.
Judge Johnson of Orange County had advanced his theory on body shutdowns during rape in a 2008 sentencing hearing, according to the opinion by the California Commission on Judicial Performance. The Recorder (sub. req.) and the Los Angeles Times L.A. Now blog have stories.
The defendant, Metin Gurel, was convicted of raping the victim, a former girlfriend, in 2007 after striking and threatening to kill and maim her. Prosecutors had sought a 16-year sentence, but Johnson said he would impose a six-year term.
The judicial discipline opinion has a transcript of his explanation why:
The prosecutor interjected to point out there was no consent and to argue about aggravating circumstances. Then the judge continued.
Johnson: “I just found the threats to be technical threats. I found this whole case to be a technical case. The rape is technical. The forced oral copulation is technical. It’s more of a crime law test than a real live criminal case.”
The Commission on Judicial Performance said Johnson’s remarks reflected biased and insensitive views about sexual assault victims who do not “put up a fight.” Johnson had apologized for the remarks to the commission, saying he was frustrated by a sentencing request he considered inappropriate under the law. He remains on the bench. Johnson’s lawyer did not comment when contacted by L.A. Now and the Recorder.
The opinion outlined the facts of the rape case, as recounted in a prior appellate opinion affirming Gurel’s conviction. Gurel had persuaded a former girlfriend to come to his apartment with threats of blowing up her car and causing her to lose her job. After she arrived, prosecutors alleged, he shattered her cellphone, bruised her breast with a metal baton, threatened to burn her with a cigarette lighter, heated a screwdriver and threatened to use it to maim her face and vagina, and threatened to kill her. Then he ordered her to perform oral sex and raped her, prosecutors said. The victim left the next morning after telling her attacker she had to return home to get her clothes so she could move in with him. She went to the police station instead, but did not report the rape until 17 days later.
Gurel was convicted of rape, forcible oral copulation, domestic battery, stalking and making criminal threats.
[www.abajournal.com/news/article/ "Judge Admonished For Comments About Victim"; www.washingtonpost.com/2012/12/ "Judge's views on "Technical Rape Earn Rebuke"; latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanaw/2012-12/ "Judge Who Said Rape Victim"; bing.com/news/"Technical Rape"/ 12-2012; au.answers.yahoo.com/8-6-2009/ "What Does 'Technical Rape' Mean Exactly?"; www.allgov.com/usa/ca/news/ "Top Stories - Judge Who Said Victim"]
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
A California judge has been judicially disciplined (admonished) for his comments about a victim's "technical rape" and "lack of body shutdown."
Judge Derek Johnson has been publicly admonished for saying a sexual assault victim had suffered only a “technical” rape and didn’t display vaginal damage characteristic of rape victims he had encountered as a prosecutor.
Judge Johnson of Orange County had advanced his theory on body shutdowns during rape in a 2008 sentencing hearing, according to the opinion by the California Commission on Judicial Performance. The Recorder (sub. req.) and the Los Angeles Times L.A. Now blog have stories.
The defendant, Metin Gurel, was convicted of raping the victim, a former girlfriend, in 2007 after striking and threatening to kill and maim her. Prosecutors had sought a 16-year sentence, but Johnson said he would impose a six-year term.
The judicial discipline opinion has a transcript of his explanation why:
Johnson: “I spent my last year and a half in the DA’s office in the sexual assault unit. I know something about sexual assault. I’ve seen sexual assault. I’ve seen women who have been ravaged and savaged whose vagina was shredded by the rape. I’m not a gynecologist, but I can tell you something: If someone doesn’t want to have sexual intercourse, the body shuts down. The body will not permit that to happen unless a lot of damage is inflicted, and we heard nothing about that in this case. That tells me that the victim in this case, although she wasn’t necessarily willing, she didn’t put up a fight. And to treat this case like the rape cases that we all hear about is an insult to victims of rape. I think it’s an insult. I think it trivializes a rape.”
The prosecutor interjected to point out there was no consent and to argue about aggravating circumstances. Then the judge continued.
Johnson: “I just found the threats to be technical threats. I found this whole case to be a technical case. The rape is technical. The forced oral copulation is technical. It’s more of a crime law test than a real live criminal case.”
The Commission on Judicial Performance said Johnson’s remarks reflected biased and insensitive views about sexual assault victims who do not “put up a fight.” Johnson had apologized for the remarks to the commission, saying he was frustrated by a sentencing request he considered inappropriate under the law. He remains on the bench. Johnson’s lawyer did not comment when contacted by L.A. Now and the Recorder.
The opinion outlined the facts of the rape case, as recounted in a prior appellate opinion affirming Gurel’s conviction. Gurel had persuaded a former girlfriend to come to his apartment with threats of blowing up her car and causing her to lose her job. After she arrived, prosecutors alleged, he shattered her cellphone, bruised her breast with a metal baton, threatened to burn her with a cigarette lighter, heated a screwdriver and threatened to use it to maim her face and vagina, and threatened to kill her. Then he ordered her to perform oral sex and raped her, prosecutors said. The victim left the next morning after telling her attacker she had to return home to get her clothes so she could move in with him. She went to the police station instead, but did not report the rape until 17 days later.
Gurel was convicted of rape, forcible oral copulation, domestic battery, stalking and making criminal threats.
[www.abajournal.com/news/article/ "Judge Admonished For Comments About Victim"; www.washingtonpost.com/2012/12/ "Judge's views on "Technical Rape Earn Rebuke"; latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanaw/2012-12/ "Judge Who Said Rape Victim"; bing.com/news/"Technical Rape"/ 12-2012; au.answers.yahoo.com/8-6-2009/ "What Does 'Technical Rape' Mean Exactly?"; www.allgov.com/usa/ca/news/ "Top Stories - Judge Who Said Victim"]
AUTO/CAR "ACCIDENTS" VERSUS "NEGLIGENCE": WRONGFUL DEATH
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
The automobile, or car, is a key player in most lawsuits in American courts. Further, auto/car accidents are a major part of our lives, unfortunately. A car accident is one of the most common reasons people file personal injury claims.
Auto/car "accidents" result principally from driver negligence or intentional actions by drivers that have serious consequences. Regrettably, each year about 35,000 or so victims die on roads across America. Many of these deaths are preventable.
A large number of these deaths would be classified as wrongful because there is negligence at play. Most typically this negligence manifests itself in the form of drunk driving or distracted driving. However, sometimes it is not the offending driver that is solely negligent, because in some cases the auto manufacturer could also be considered negligent if the vehicle was poorly designed or defective.
While auto manufacturers test vehicles for safety, a recent report indicates that it is possible the 45-year-old design for crash test dummies could be contributing to a continually elevated number of traffic fatalities. Some are suggesting that these crash dummies were developed in a manner that when they are tested, the results are not accurately reflective of how a real driver or passenger would be impacted in a wreck.
These dummies could be skewing results to make the vehicles seem safer than actuality. According to one auto safety expert, if the dummies used were more accurate to what a real human is like, the potential injuries yielded would be higher and thereby the safety rating lower. In such a case, manufacturers might go back to the drawing board to improve the vehicle before selling it.
Presently, some think that because these testing methods are not entirely reliable, many individuals are driving vehicles that are unsafe and ultimately lead to fatalities from accidents. Many are hoping that the safety testing will be modified to include a computer modeled driver that will be able to better assess how an individual would react to varying impacts.
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors possesses winning experience handling traffic accidents and/or traffic fatalities, as well as other wrongful death cases in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia and Washington, D.C.
For more information, please do not hesitate to contact us: www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
[see, "Outdated Crash Test Dummies Blamed for Continued Auto Fatalities", Claims Journal, www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2012-12-18/ D. Johnson;www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/ "The Difference Between An Accident And An Act Of Negligence"; www.jdsupra.com/law-news/personal-injury/ Personal Injury Updates; www.jdsupra.com/law-news/products/liability/ Products Liability Updates; www.nolo.com/ "Car Accidents and Negligence"; www.ehow.com/ "How To Determine Comparative Negligence"; ezinearticles.com/ "Negligence in Car Accidents"]
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
The automobile, or car, is a key player in most lawsuits in American courts. Further, auto/car accidents are a major part of our lives, unfortunately. A car accident is one of the most common reasons people file personal injury claims.
Auto/car "accidents" result principally from driver negligence or intentional actions by drivers that have serious consequences. Regrettably, each year about 35,000 or so victims die on roads across America. Many of these deaths are preventable.
A large number of these deaths would be classified as wrongful because there is negligence at play. Most typically this negligence manifests itself in the form of drunk driving or distracted driving. However, sometimes it is not the offending driver that is solely negligent, because in some cases the auto manufacturer could also be considered negligent if the vehicle was poorly designed or defective.
While auto manufacturers test vehicles for safety, a recent report indicates that it is possible the 45-year-old design for crash test dummies could be contributing to a continually elevated number of traffic fatalities. Some are suggesting that these crash dummies were developed in a manner that when they are tested, the results are not accurately reflective of how a real driver or passenger would be impacted in a wreck.
These dummies could be skewing results to make the vehicles seem safer than actuality. According to one auto safety expert, if the dummies used were more accurate to what a real human is like, the potential injuries yielded would be higher and thereby the safety rating lower. In such a case, manufacturers might go back to the drawing board to improve the vehicle before selling it.
Presently, some think that because these testing methods are not entirely reliable, many individuals are driving vehicles that are unsafe and ultimately lead to fatalities from accidents. Many are hoping that the safety testing will be modified to include a computer modeled driver that will be able to better assess how an individual would react to varying impacts.
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors possesses winning experience handling traffic accidents and/or traffic fatalities, as well as other wrongful death cases in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia and Washington, D.C.
For more information, please do not hesitate to contact us: www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
[see, "Outdated Crash Test Dummies Blamed for Continued Auto Fatalities", Claims Journal, www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2012-12-18/ D. Johnson;www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/ "The Difference Between An Accident And An Act Of Negligence"; www.jdsupra.com/law-news/personal-injury/ Personal Injury Updates; www.jdsupra.com/law-news/products/liability/ Products Liability Updates; www.nolo.com/ "Car Accidents and Negligence"; www.ehow.com/ "How To Determine Comparative Negligence"; ezinearticles.com/ "Negligence in Car Accidents"]
WRONGFUL DEATH 101: MARYLAND, VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON, D.C., PENNSYLVANIA & DELAWARE
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
Generally, a wrongful death action is a civil case against someone who can be held legally liable for the death of someone else.
Any "tortious" (unlawful) injury that has caused someone else's death may be grounds (or reason) for a wrongful death action.
Generally, under the common law (e.g., the system of jurisprudence which originated in England and was later applied in the United States), a claim (the assertion of a right to money or property) for wrongful death had to be brought by the deceased person's survivors (usually close relatives only).
Modern "wrongful death" laws in many states have modified somewhat the common law definition.
Generally, a wrongful death lawsuit alleges that the deceased victim was killed as a result of negligence (or some other type of unjust action) by the person or entity being sued. Further, the lawsuit alleges that the deceased victim's "survivors" are entitled to monetary damages as a result of the unlawful conduct leading to the wrongful death.
[www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Wrongful Death Actions; accident-law.freeadvice.com/ What Is A Wrongful Death Claim?; Barron's Law Dictionary, 3rd Ed., S.H. Gifis]
Generally, a wrongful death action is a civil case against someone who can be held legally liable for the death of someone else.
Any "tortious" (unlawful) injury that has caused someone else's death may be grounds (or reason) for a wrongful death action.
Generally, under the common law (e.g., the system of jurisprudence which originated in England and was later applied in the United States), a claim (the assertion of a right to money or property) for wrongful death had to be brought by the deceased person's survivors (usually close relatives only).
Modern "wrongful death" laws in many states have modified somewhat the common law definition.
Generally, a wrongful death lawsuit alleges that the deceased victim was killed as a result of negligence (or some other type of unjust action) by the person or entity being sued. Further, the lawsuit alleges that the deceased victim's "survivors" are entitled to monetary damages as a result of the unlawful conduct leading to the wrongful death.
[www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Wrongful Death Actions; accident-law.freeadvice.com/ What Is A Wrongful Death Claim?; Barron's Law Dictionary, 3rd Ed., S.H. Gifis]
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
STOCKING STUFFERS!! By Attorney Charles Jerome Ware
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
(1) The Secret Science of Winning Lotteries, Sweepstakes and Contests;
http://amzn.com/1432793888
(2) Understanding the Law: A Primer;
http://amzn.com/1440111456
(3) The Immigration Paradox: 15 Tips for Winning Immigration Cases;
http://amzn.com/1440171920
(4) Legal Consumer Tips and Secrets: Avoiding Debtors' Prison in the United States; and
http://amzn.com/1462051847
(5) Quince (15) Consejos Para Ganar Casos Del Inmigracion.
http://amzn.com/1462068952
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
(1) The Secret Science of Winning Lotteries, Sweepstakes and Contests;
http://amzn.com/1432793888
(2) Understanding the Law: A Primer;
http://amzn.com/1440111456
(3) The Immigration Paradox: 15 Tips for Winning Immigration Cases;
http://amzn.com/1440171920
(4) Legal Consumer Tips and Secrets: Avoiding Debtors' Prison in the United States; and
http://amzn.com/1462051847
(5) Quince (15) Consejos Para Ganar Casos Del Inmigracion.
http://amzn.com/1462068952
Monday, December 17, 2012
SIX FEDERAL JUDGES WIN CASE, BEER v. U.S.: CLASS ACTION NEXT?
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and
consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United
States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia
Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times,
et al.]
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
With six federal judges having won their promised "cost-of-living" raises, a group of them led by Senior U.S. District Court Judge Royal Furgeson of Texas, currently President of the Federal Judges Association, now plan to seek class action status in a lawsuit against the U.S. Congress on behalf of other federal judges similarly situated.
The winning case for the 6 federal judges is Beer v. United States, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2010-5012 (October 5, 2012), which held:
In an en banc review of a suit brought by current and former Article III judges claiming that Congress violated the Compensation Clause by withholding the salary adjustments established by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, decision of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing the complaint is reversed, remanded, and Williams v. U.S. is overruled where, in the unique context of the 1989 Act, the Constitution prevents Congress from abrogating that statute's precise and definite commitment to automatic yearly cost of living adjustments for sitting members of the judiciary. Further, because the 1989 Act was enacted after Section 140, the 1989 Act's automatic cost of living adjustments control.
[caselaw.findlaw.com/summary/opinion/us-federal-circuit; www.abajournal.com/news/article/ December 14, 2012/ Matha Neil/ "Group of Federal Judges Plans to Seek Class Action Status in Suit Over Unpaid Cost-of-Living Raises"; also see, caselaw.1p.findlaw.com/ Williams, et al. v. United States, U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Case No. 99-1572, 00-1254, 1255 (February 16, 2001); www.ky3.com/news/December 14, 2012/ Jesse J. Holland, Associated Press; www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts & law/ 12-14-2012/ "Federal Judges Asking Colleagues To Help Make COngress Pay Promised Cost-of-Living Increases"]
Congress in 1989 limited federal judges' ability to earn money outside of their work on the bench and in exchange provided what was supposed to be automatic cost-of-living increases to judicial salaries to ensure inflation wouldn't erode the value of those salaries over time.
But instead of following through, Congress withheld those cost-of-living increases in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2007 and 2010, while giving other federal employees their promised cost-of-living increase adjustments.
The Constitution, the judges say, is on their side. The Constitution says compensation for federal judges "shall not be diminished during their continuance in office," so the judges say denying them a promised cost-of-living increase violates the Constitution's Compensation Clause.
And now a federal appeals court agrees with them.
"Congress' acts in 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1999 constitute unconstitutional diminishments of judicial compensation," the appeals court said in its October order, adding that money also was due that had been withheld in 2007 and 2010. "As relief, appellants are entitled to monetary damages for the diminished amounts they would have been paid if Congress had not withheld the salary adjustments."
However, the appeals court's decision only applied to those judges who sued in the Beer v. United States case, so Furgeson and another group of judges are trying to get a class-action lawsuit approved so they can get the missed salary adjustments for more than 1,000 other current and former federal judges who court papers say would have been eligible.
Their success will depend on whether the Beer decision holds up if challenged at the Supreme Court. So far, the Justice Department has not yet decided whether to appeal the federal circuit court's ruling to the Supreme Court.
Stay tuned.
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
With six federal judges having won their promised "cost-of-living" raises, a group of them led by Senior U.S. District Court Judge Royal Furgeson of Texas, currently President of the Federal Judges Association, now plan to seek class action status in a lawsuit against the U.S. Congress on behalf of other federal judges similarly situated.
The winning case for the 6 federal judges is Beer v. United States, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2010-5012 (October 5, 2012), which held:
In an en banc review of a suit brought by current and former Article III judges claiming that Congress violated the Compensation Clause by withholding the salary adjustments established by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, decision of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing the complaint is reversed, remanded, and Williams v. U.S. is overruled where, in the unique context of the 1989 Act, the Constitution prevents Congress from abrogating that statute's precise and definite commitment to automatic yearly cost of living adjustments for sitting members of the judiciary. Further, because the 1989 Act was enacted after Section 140, the 1989 Act's automatic cost of living adjustments control.
[caselaw.findlaw.com/summary/opinion/us-federal-circuit; www.abajournal.com/news/article/ December 14, 2012/ Matha Neil/ "Group of Federal Judges Plans to Seek Class Action Status in Suit Over Unpaid Cost-of-Living Raises"; also see, caselaw.1p.findlaw.com/ Williams, et al. v. United States, U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Case No. 99-1572, 00-1254, 1255 (February 16, 2001); www.ky3.com/news/December 14, 2012/ Jesse J. Holland, Associated Press; www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts & law/ 12-14-2012/ "Federal Judges Asking Colleagues To Help Make COngress Pay Promised Cost-of-Living Increases"]
Congress in 1989 limited federal judges' ability to earn money outside of their work on the bench and in exchange provided what was supposed to be automatic cost-of-living increases to judicial salaries to ensure inflation wouldn't erode the value of those salaries over time.
But instead of following through, Congress withheld those cost-of-living increases in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2007 and 2010, while giving other federal employees their promised cost-of-living increase adjustments.
The Constitution, the judges say, is on their side. The Constitution says compensation for federal judges "shall not be diminished during their continuance in office," so the judges say denying them a promised cost-of-living increase violates the Constitution's Compensation Clause.
And now a federal appeals court agrees with them.
"Congress' acts in 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1999 constitute unconstitutional diminishments of judicial compensation," the appeals court said in its October order, adding that money also was due that had been withheld in 2007 and 2010. "As relief, appellants are entitled to monetary damages for the diminished amounts they would have been paid if Congress had not withheld the salary adjustments."
However, the appeals court's decision only applied to those judges who sued in the Beer v. United States case, so Furgeson and another group of judges are trying to get a class-action lawsuit approved so they can get the missed salary adjustments for more than 1,000 other current and former federal judges who court papers say would have been eligible.
Their success will depend on whether the Beer decision holds up if challenged at the Supreme Court. So far, the Justice Department has not yet decided whether to appeal the federal circuit court's ruling to the Supreme Court.
Stay tuned.
FEDERAL JUDGES UPDATE: CLASS ACTION Report By Attorney Charles Jerome Ware
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
A Group of Federal Judges Plans To Seek Class Action Status In A Lawsuit Against the U.S. Congress Over Unpaid "Cost of Living" Raises.
With the nation teetering on an economic "fiscal cliff," federal judges may soon force Congress to dedicate possibly millions of dollars to what some of those same judges must consider a worthy cause: their own salaries.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in October of this year ordered Congress to pay six federal judges years of back pay. Now a group of federal judges is pushing a class-action lawsuit to ensure all of the rest of the federal judges who also missed out on their cost-of-living increases get what they feel is their due.
It's a problematic issue: One set of federal judges asking another set to essentially approve salary increases for everyone. Though, of course, Congress also ultimately controls its own salaries.
Congress in 1989 limited federal judges' ability to earn money outside of their work on the bench and in exchange provided what was supposed to be automatic cost-of-living increases to judicial salaries to ensure inflation wouldn't erode the value of those salaries over time.
Senior U.S. District Judge Royal Furgeson Jr. of Texas, President of the Federal Judges Association and one of the judges seeking class-action status, called that a "binding commitment" made by the legislative branch for the judicial branch to "receive the same yearly COLAs awarded to all other federal employees, to keep us even with inflation."
But instead of following through, Congress withheld those cost-of-living increases in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2007 and 2010, while giving other federal employees their promised cost-of-living increase adjustments.
The Constitution, the judges say, is on their side. The Constitution says compensation for federal judges "shall not be diminished during their continuance in office," so the judges say denying them a promised cost-of-living increase violates the Constitution's Compensation Clause.
And now a federal appeals court agrees with them.
"Congress' acts in 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1999 constitute unconstitutional diminishments of judicial compensation," the appeals court said in its October order, adding that money also was due that had been withheld in 2007 and 2010. "As relief, appellants are entitled to monetary damages for the diminished amounts they would have been paid if Congress had not withheld the salary adjustments."
However, the appeals court's decision only applied to those judges who sued in the Beer v. United States case, so Furgeson and another group of judges are trying to get a class-action lawsuit approved so they can get the missed salary adjustments for more than 1,000 other current and former federal judges who court papers say would have been eligible.
Their success will depend on whether the Beer decision holds up if challenged at the Supreme Court. So far, the Justice Department has not yet decided whether to appeal the federal circuit court's ruling to the Supreme Court.
[see, Beer v. United States, United State Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2010-5012 (October 5, 2012): In an en banc review of a suit brought by current and former Article III judges claiming that Congress violated the Compensation Clause by withholding the salary adjustments established by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, decision of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing the complaint is reversed, remanded, and Williams v. U.S. is overruled where, in the unique context of the 1989 Act, the Constitution prevents Congress from abrogating that statute's precise and definite commitment to automatic yearly cost of living adjustments for sitting members of the judiciary. Further, because the 1989 Act was enacted after Section 140, the 1989 Act's automatic cost of living adjustments control; caselaw.findlaw.com/summary/opinion/us-federal-circuit; www.abajournal.com/news/article/ December 14, 2012/ Matha Neil/ "Group of Federal Judges Plans to Seek Class Action Status in Suit Over Unpaid Cost-of-Living Raises"; also see, caselaw.1p.findlaw.com/ Williams, et al. v. United States, U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Case No. 99-1572, 00-1254, 1255 (February 16, 2001); www.ky3.com/news/December 14, 2012/ Jesse J. Holland, Associated Press; www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts & law/ 12-14-2012/ "Federal Judges Asking Colleagues To Help Make COngress Pay Promised Cost-of-Living Increases"]
A Group of Federal Judges Plans To Seek Class Action Status In A Lawsuit Against the U.S. Congress Over Unpaid "Cost of Living" Raises.
With the nation teetering on an economic "fiscal cliff," federal judges may soon force Congress to dedicate possibly millions of dollars to what some of those same judges must consider a worthy cause: their own salaries.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in October of this year ordered Congress to pay six federal judges years of back pay. Now a group of federal judges is pushing a class-action lawsuit to ensure all of the rest of the federal judges who also missed out on their cost-of-living increases get what they feel is their due.
It's a problematic issue: One set of federal judges asking another set to essentially approve salary increases for everyone. Though, of course, Congress also ultimately controls its own salaries.
Congress in 1989 limited federal judges' ability to earn money outside of their work on the bench and in exchange provided what was supposed to be automatic cost-of-living increases to judicial salaries to ensure inflation wouldn't erode the value of those salaries over time.
Senior U.S. District Judge Royal Furgeson Jr. of Texas, President of the Federal Judges Association and one of the judges seeking class-action status, called that a "binding commitment" made by the legislative branch for the judicial branch to "receive the same yearly COLAs awarded to all other federal employees, to keep us even with inflation."
But instead of following through, Congress withheld those cost-of-living increases in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2007 and 2010, while giving other federal employees their promised cost-of-living increase adjustments.
The Constitution, the judges say, is on their side. The Constitution says compensation for federal judges "shall not be diminished during their continuance in office," so the judges say denying them a promised cost-of-living increase violates the Constitution's Compensation Clause.
And now a federal appeals court agrees with them.
"Congress' acts in 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1999 constitute unconstitutional diminishments of judicial compensation," the appeals court said in its October order, adding that money also was due that had been withheld in 2007 and 2010. "As relief, appellants are entitled to monetary damages for the diminished amounts they would have been paid if Congress had not withheld the salary adjustments."
However, the appeals court's decision only applied to those judges who sued in the Beer v. United States case, so Furgeson and another group of judges are trying to get a class-action lawsuit approved so they can get the missed salary adjustments for more than 1,000 other current and former federal judges who court papers say would have been eligible.
Their success will depend on whether the Beer decision holds up if challenged at the Supreme Court. So far, the Justice Department has not yet decided whether to appeal the federal circuit court's ruling to the Supreme Court.
[see, Beer v. United States, United State Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2010-5012 (October 5, 2012): In an en banc review of a suit brought by current and former Article III judges claiming that Congress violated the Compensation Clause by withholding the salary adjustments established by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, decision of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing the complaint is reversed, remanded, and Williams v. U.S. is overruled where, in the unique context of the 1989 Act, the Constitution prevents Congress from abrogating that statute's precise and definite commitment to automatic yearly cost of living adjustments for sitting members of the judiciary. Further, because the 1989 Act was enacted after Section 140, the 1989 Act's automatic cost of living adjustments control; caselaw.findlaw.com/summary/opinion/us-federal-circuit; www.abajournal.com/news/article/ December 14, 2012/ Matha Neil/ "Group of Federal Judges Plans to Seek Class Action Status in Suit Over Unpaid Cost-of-Living Raises"; also see, caselaw.1p.findlaw.com/ Williams, et al. v. United States, U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Case No. 99-1572, 00-1254, 1255 (February 16, 2001); www.ky3.com/news/December 14, 2012/ Jesse J. Holland, Associated Press; www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts & law/ 12-14-2012/ "Federal Judges Asking Colleagues To Help Make COngress Pay Promised Cost-of-Living Increases"]
Friday, December 14, 2012
"PAY-FOR-DELAY" DRUG SETTLEMENTS ANTITRUST VIOLATIONS?: Update by Antitrust and Business Attorney Charles Jerome Ware
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
Among other positions held, Attorney Ware is a former Federal Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Senior Antitrust Trial Attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Special Assistant to the Direct of the Bureau of Competition for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and Special Counsel to the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) Will Review Whether Reverse Payment ("Pay-For-Delay") Settlements Are Antitrust Violations:
Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., U.S., Docket No. 12-416, review granted 12/07/2012.
On December 7th, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari on the question: Whether a Reverse Payment ("Pay-For-Delay") settlement, in which a patent-owning brand name drug manufacturer pays a generic maker to cease its patent validity challenge in court (during the litigation), violates federal antitrust laws.
[BloombergBNA, www.bna.com/Monday, December 10th, 2012/ "Supreme Court Will Review Whether Reverse Payment Settlements Are Antitrust Violations"]
Another way of outlining the key issue in this case is as follows: Whether reverse-payment agreements are per se lawful unless the underlying patent litigation was a sham or the patent was obtained by fraud (as the below court held), or instead are presumptively anti-competitive and unlawful (as the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has held).
[Justice Alito has recused himself from participating in this appeal. This appeal comes to the Supreme Court from the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. See, www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/ Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.]
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
Among other positions held, Attorney Ware is a former Federal Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Senior Antitrust Trial Attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Special Assistant to the Direct of the Bureau of Competition for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and Special Counsel to the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) Will Review Whether Reverse Payment ("Pay-For-Delay") Settlements Are Antitrust Violations:
Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., U.S., Docket No. 12-416, review granted 12/07/2012.
On December 7th, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari on the question: Whether a Reverse Payment ("Pay-For-Delay") settlement, in which a patent-owning brand name drug manufacturer pays a generic maker to cease its patent validity challenge in court (during the litigation), violates federal antitrust laws.
[BloombergBNA, www.bna.com/Monday, December 10th, 2012/ "Supreme Court Will Review Whether Reverse Payment Settlements Are Antitrust Violations"]
Another way of outlining the key issue in this case is as follows: Whether reverse-payment agreements are per se lawful unless the underlying patent litigation was a sham or the patent was obtained by fraud (as the below court held), or instead are presumptively anti-competitive and unlawful (as the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has held).
[Justice Alito has recused himself from participating in this appeal. This appeal comes to the Supreme Court from the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. See, www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/ Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.]
Thursday, December 13, 2012
"PREGNANT MAN" THOMAS BEATIE, IS "MOTHER" AND "FATHER" OF 3 CHILDREN, SEEKS DIVORCE FROM "WIFE": Family Law Update!
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
Attorney Charles Ware is a principal in the national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors. The firm is headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
From a family law perspective, Thomas Beatie raises a number of interesting issues.
Depending upon which "experts" one consults regarding the "Thomas Beatie" phenomenon, Beatie may be all of the following in one person:
a son, a daughter, an uncle, an aunt, a man, a woman, a husband, a wife, a father, a mother, etc.!
Beatie is a "transgender male" who kept (preserved) all of his female reproductive organs, and gained international media attention after publicly announcing his first pregnancy in 2007. He (she) has now given birth to 3 children and is working on having a fourth child [see, www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/04/ "Thomas Beatie, 'The Pregnant Man', Wants a Fourth Child"].
In 2010 "Guiness World Records" recognized Mr. (Ms.) Beatie as the world's "First Married Man to Give Birth" [see, Guiness World Records, 2010 Edition, page 110].
When announcing his (her) first pregnancy, Beatie posted photographs of his (her) body shirtless with a beard and a very pregnant belly on the Internet. Thus, Beatie immediately became popularly known as the world's first "Pregnant Man", and began a long string of publicity appearances on such television shows as "The View", The "Anderson Cooper" program, et al.
Thomas Beatie and his now-very estranged "wife" live in the state of Arizona.
Arizona is one of many states that does not recognize same-sex marriage.
Thomas Beatie and his "wife" have filed for divorce in Arizona. But, there's a problem: Neither the judge in the Beatie divorce case nor the Arizona Attorney General are sufficiently confident as to what Beatie's gender is!
Therefore, the Arizona family law judge (Judge Douglas Gerlack of Maricopa County, Arizona) is presently considering whether he actually has jurisdiction to grant a "divorce" to a transgender male who married a woman and then gave birth to 3 children.
Beatie was allowed to change his birth certificate to say he is a man, and allowed to enter into marriage as a man. But Judge Gerlach says same-sex marriages are not allowed in Arizona and he’s not sure whether he has jurisdiction. He asked the Arizona Attorney General's office for an opinion, but it declined. On Friday, Gerlach said he planned to rule by February.
Even if he does not have jurisdiction to grant the divorce, Judge Gerlach said, he can still rule on custody and property division under his common law authority.
[see, Family Law: "Arizona Judge Ponders Jurisdiction in Divorce Case of Pregnant Man", www.abajournal.com/news/article/12-13-2012/ Debra Cassens Weiss; www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article/11-15-2012/ "Pregnant Man and New Girlfriend Talk Babies..."]
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
Attorney Charles Ware is a principal in the national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors. The firm is headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
THOMAS BEATIE, "THE PREGNANT MAN"
From a family law perspective, Thomas Beatie raises a number of interesting issues.
Depending upon which "experts" one consults regarding the "Thomas Beatie" phenomenon, Beatie may be all of the following in one person:
a son, a daughter, an uncle, an aunt, a man, a woman, a husband, a wife, a father, a mother, etc.!
Beatie is a "transgender male" who kept (preserved) all of his female reproductive organs, and gained international media attention after publicly announcing his first pregnancy in 2007. He (she) has now given birth to 3 children and is working on having a fourth child [see, www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/04/ "Thomas Beatie, 'The Pregnant Man', Wants a Fourth Child"].
In 2010 "Guiness World Records" recognized Mr. (Ms.) Beatie as the world's "First Married Man to Give Birth" [see, Guiness World Records, 2010 Edition, page 110].
When announcing his (her) first pregnancy, Beatie posted photographs of his (her) body shirtless with a beard and a very pregnant belly on the Internet. Thus, Beatie immediately became popularly known as the world's first "Pregnant Man", and began a long string of publicity appearances on such television shows as "The View", The "Anderson Cooper" program, et al.
DIVORCE DEBACLE IN ARIZONA
Thomas Beatie and his now-very estranged "wife" live in the state of Arizona.
Arizona is one of many states that does not recognize same-sex marriage.
Thomas Beatie and his "wife" have filed for divorce in Arizona. But, there's a problem: Neither the judge in the Beatie divorce case nor the Arizona Attorney General are sufficiently confident as to what Beatie's gender is!
Therefore, the Arizona family law judge (Judge Douglas Gerlack of Maricopa County, Arizona) is presently considering whether he actually has jurisdiction to grant a "divorce" to a transgender male who married a woman and then gave birth to 3 children.
Beatie was allowed to change his birth certificate to say he is a man, and allowed to enter into marriage as a man. But Judge Gerlach says same-sex marriages are not allowed in Arizona and he’s not sure whether he has jurisdiction. He asked the Arizona Attorney General's office for an opinion, but it declined. On Friday, Gerlach said he planned to rule by February.
Even if he does not have jurisdiction to grant the divorce, Judge Gerlach said, he can still rule on custody and property division under his common law authority.
[see, Family Law: "Arizona Judge Ponders Jurisdiction in Divorce Case of Pregnant Man", www.abajournal.com/news/article/12-13-2012/ Debra Cassens Weiss; www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article/11-15-2012/ "Pregnant Man and New Girlfriend Talk Babies..."]
MARYLAND CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS' ASSOCIATION (MCDAA): Veteran, Renowned Defense Attorney Charles Jerome Ware --- Integrity, Ability and Experience
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
[www.CharlesJeromeWare.com]
Attorney Charles Ware is a principal in the national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
The firm is headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland.
[www.CharlesJeromeWare.com]
[www.CharlesJeromeWare.com]
Attorney Charles Ware is a principal in the national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
The firm is headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland.
[www.CharlesJeromeWare.com]
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
FEDEX OVERCHARGED BUSINESS CUSTOMERS, SEALED EMAIL SAYS:
GOKARE v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, U.S. Dist. Court, Tennessee (W.D.)
This class-action update is brought to you as a public service by Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference." Visit us at www.CharlesJeromeWare.com.
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
It is being reported in major media today that FedEx Corp. (FDX) has been “systematically overcharging” customers by billing businesses and government offices at higher residential rates, a company sales executive said in an internal e-mail unsealed in a lawsuit.
“I have brought this to attention of many people over the past five or six years, including more than one managing director, and no action has been taken to address it,” Alan Elam wrote in an e-mail on Aug. 2, 2011. “My belief is that we are choosing not to fix this issue because it is worth so much money to FedEx,” Elam said in a separate e-mail that day [Bloomberg, by Margaret Cronin, 12-11-2012].
The e-mails were unsealed yesterday in a class-action lawsuit claiming FedEx Corp. and FedEx Corporate Services Inc. overcharged commercial and government customers as much as $3 each for millions of packages delivered. The plaintiffs, who claim violations of federal civil racketeering laws, seek three times the amount of the alleged overcharges in their lawsuit.
FedEx, based in Memphis, Tennessee, has charged residential rates for deliveries to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Office, Bank of America Corp., Toyota Motor Credit Corp. and the National Passport Processing Center, according to the amended complaint filed yesterday in the lawsuit.
“Perhaps most telling, on at least 70 separate occasions, FedEx improperly charged a residential delivery surcharge to its customers for deliveries to FedEx’s own headquarters,” according to the complaint.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Memphis in 2011 seeking to represent a national class of consumers, also asks for an injunction barring FedEx from charging commercial customers at residential rates. The Elam e-mails were among 11 documents unsealed and attached to the amended complaint yesterday.
“These 11 documents do not tell the entire story of this case,” a FedEx spokeswoman, said in an e-mail today. “We will continue to defend these allegations in a court of law and not the media.”
FedEx customers with billing concerns can seek refunds by going online at fedex.com or by calling 1-800-GoFedEx.
The Elam e-mails point to the company’s internal knowledge of overcharging, lawyers suing the company said. The e-mails were initially classified by FedEx as confidential and unsealed by court order yesterday.
“Defendants’ own internal documents prove that defendants have known for years that they are unlawfully charging residential surcharges when they do not apply, but have permitted the unlawful surcharges to continue because they generate substantial illicit profits,” plaintiffs’ attorneys said in an amended complaint filed yesterday after the order.
“We believe that FedEx’s own e-mails show that the overcharges were not an accident or error, but rather an intentional decision to employ a system that overcharged customers.”
Elam said he became aware of a problem in 2008, according to the e-mails. “It became clear to me at this time that we had a systemic problem that was likely causing overcharges for thousands of our customers, and that the dollar value was huge,” Elam wrote in an Aug. 12, 2011, e-mail to Daniel Mullally, FedEx senior vice president for sales.
Elam said he brought the issue to the attention of three of his superiors, including his managing director. “In conversations with each, I used the language, ‘This is a huge class-action lawsuit waiting to happen.’ None of them have ever reported back taking any action to elevate this issue,” Elam wrote.
“FedEx has been systematically overcharging our customers for services that we know we did not provide, and we have been doing so for many years,” Elam said.
In a prior e-mail attached to this string, Mullally told Elam that he didn’t know about any possible overcharging.
“Quite frankly I was not aware of this but certainly I understand the gravity of the situation so let me involve Solutions, Customer Service and Billing to see what we are doing to resolve,” Mullally wrote. “Thanks for bringing to my attention.”
Chris Suhoza, vice president of solutions at FedEx, responded to Mullally and Elam: “Alan rest assured your concerns and those of others in this area have not gone unheard. We are working this customer experience issue through ...” The rest of this sentence remained redacted, or blacked out.
The case is Gokare P.C. v. Federal Express Corp., 11- cv-02131, U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee (Memphis).
[www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2012-12-11/ "FedEx Overcharged Customers for Years, Sealed E-Mail Says"; www.leagle.com/August 1, 2012/ Manjunath A. Gokare, P.C. (class actions) v. Federal Express Corporation, Case No. 2:11-CV-02131_SHM-cgc, U.S. Dist. Ct., W.D. Tennessee, Western Division, August 1, 2012; dockets.justia.com/Manjunath A. Gokare, P.C. v. Federal Express Corporation, February 18, 2011, W.D., Tennessee; www.businessweek.com/12-11-2012/ "FedEx Overcharged Customers for Years..."]
This class-action update is brought to you as a public service by Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference." Visit us at www.CharlesJeromeWare.com.
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
It is being reported in major media today that FedEx Corp. (FDX) has been “systematically overcharging” customers by billing businesses and government offices at higher residential rates, a company sales executive said in an internal e-mail unsealed in a lawsuit.
“I have brought this to attention of many people over the past five or six years, including more than one managing director, and no action has been taken to address it,” Alan Elam wrote in an e-mail on Aug. 2, 2011. “My belief is that we are choosing not to fix this issue because it is worth so much money to FedEx,” Elam said in a separate e-mail that day [Bloomberg, by Margaret Cronin, 12-11-2012].
The e-mails were unsealed yesterday in a class-action lawsuit claiming FedEx Corp. and FedEx Corporate Services Inc. overcharged commercial and government customers as much as $3 each for millions of packages delivered. The plaintiffs, who claim violations of federal civil racketeering laws, seek three times the amount of the alleged overcharges in their lawsuit.
FedEx, based in Memphis, Tennessee, has charged residential rates for deliveries to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Office, Bank of America Corp., Toyota Motor Credit Corp. and the National Passport Processing Center, according to the amended complaint filed yesterday in the lawsuit.
“Perhaps most telling, on at least 70 separate occasions, FedEx improperly charged a residential delivery surcharge to its customers for deliveries to FedEx’s own headquarters,” according to the complaint.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Memphis in 2011 seeking to represent a national class of consumers, also asks for an injunction barring FedEx from charging commercial customers at residential rates. The Elam e-mails were among 11 documents unsealed and attached to the amended complaint yesterday.
“These 11 documents do not tell the entire story of this case,” a FedEx spokeswoman, said in an e-mail today. “We will continue to defend these allegations in a court of law and not the media.”
FedEx customers with billing concerns can seek refunds by going online at fedex.com or by calling 1-800-GoFedEx.
The Elam e-mails point to the company’s internal knowledge of overcharging, lawyers suing the company said. The e-mails were initially classified by FedEx as confidential and unsealed by court order yesterday.
“Defendants’ own internal documents prove that defendants have known for years that they are unlawfully charging residential surcharges when they do not apply, but have permitted the unlawful surcharges to continue because they generate substantial illicit profits,” plaintiffs’ attorneys said in an amended complaint filed yesterday after the order.
“We believe that FedEx’s own e-mails show that the overcharges were not an accident or error, but rather an intentional decision to employ a system that overcharged customers.”
Elam said he became aware of a problem in 2008, according to the e-mails. “It became clear to me at this time that we had a systemic problem that was likely causing overcharges for thousands of our customers, and that the dollar value was huge,” Elam wrote in an Aug. 12, 2011, e-mail to Daniel Mullally, FedEx senior vice president for sales.
Elam said he brought the issue to the attention of three of his superiors, including his managing director. “In conversations with each, I used the language, ‘This is a huge class-action lawsuit waiting to happen.’ None of them have ever reported back taking any action to elevate this issue,” Elam wrote.
“FedEx has been systematically overcharging our customers for services that we know we did not provide, and we have been doing so for many years,” Elam said.
In a prior e-mail attached to this string, Mullally told Elam that he didn’t know about any possible overcharging.
‘Understand the Gravity’
“Quite frankly I was not aware of this but certainly I understand the gravity of the situation so let me involve Solutions, Customer Service and Billing to see what we are doing to resolve,” Mullally wrote. “Thanks for bringing to my attention.”
Chris Suhoza, vice president of solutions at FedEx, responded to Mullally and Elam: “Alan rest assured your concerns and those of others in this area have not gone unheard. We are working this customer experience issue through ...” The rest of this sentence remained redacted, or blacked out.
The case is Gokare P.C. v. Federal Express Corp., 11- cv-02131, U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee (Memphis).
[www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2012-12-11/ "FedEx Overcharged Customers for Years, Sealed E-Mail Says"; www.leagle.com/August 1, 2012/ Manjunath A. Gokare, P.C. (class actions) v. Federal Express Corporation, Case No. 2:11-CV-02131_SHM-cgc, U.S. Dist. Ct., W.D. Tennessee, Western Division, August 1, 2012; dockets.justia.com/Manjunath A. Gokare, P.C. v. Federal Express Corporation, February 18, 2011, W.D., Tennessee; www.businessweek.com/12-11-2012/ "FedEx Overcharged Customers for Years..."]
"SCOTUS" UPDATE (Supreme Court of the United States): SCALIA COMPARES SODOMY TO MURDER
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
Admittedly using the "form of argument... called the 'reduction to the absurd'," in an appearance at Princeton University on Monday, December 10th, 2012, SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia defended his dissent in the 2003 Supreme Court case, Lawrence v. Texas, Docket No. 02-102, 459 U.S. 558 (2003), which overturned a Sodomy ban.
Scalia’s dissent had called the majority decision in Lawrence v. Texas "a massive disruption of the current social order." Scalia said the Texas ban on sodomy was an expression of Texas citizens’ beliefs about morality, “the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality and obscenity.” Scalia said the Supreme Court’s justification for overturning the sodomy law could call into question laws banning gay marriage, and the majority had "largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda."
At the Princeton appearance, a student who identified himself as gay asked how Scalia can compare moral objections to sodomy with moral objections to things such as bestiality or murder.
Scalia said his comparisons are intended to make a point. "It's a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the 'reduction to the absurd,' " Scalia said. "If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?"
U.S. Rep. Barney Frank once called Scalia a “homophobe” in a 2009 interview in which he said that at some point the U.S. Supreme Court will have to review the Defense of Marriage Act barring federal benefits for married same-sex couples. His prediction proved true on Friday when the U.S. Supreme Court accepted a challenge to the law along with a separate case challenging California’s voter-approved ban on gay marriage.
Scalia has been giving speeches around the country to promote his new book, "Reading Law."
In response to those who proclaim that the U.S. Constitution is a "living document", Justice Scalia is well-known for responding: "It isn't a living document. It's dead, dead, dead."
[see, Lawrence, et al. v. Texas, No. 02-102, 539 U.S. 558 (2003); Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986); www.abajournal.com/news/ "Scalia Explains Why He Compares Sodomy Bans To Murder Laws"/ 12-11-2012; Associated Press, 12-11-2012/ "Antonin Scalia Defends Legal Writings Some View As Offensive, Anti-Gay", www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm/02-102.ZD.html]
Admittedly using the "form of argument... called the 'reduction to the absurd'," in an appearance at Princeton University on Monday, December 10th, 2012, SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia defended his dissent in the 2003 Supreme Court case, Lawrence v. Texas, Docket No. 02-102, 459 U.S. 558 (2003), which overturned a Sodomy ban.
Scalia’s dissent had called the majority decision in Lawrence v. Texas "a massive disruption of the current social order." Scalia said the Texas ban on sodomy was an expression of Texas citizens’ beliefs about morality, “the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality and obscenity.” Scalia said the Supreme Court’s justification for overturning the sodomy law could call into question laws banning gay marriage, and the majority had "largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda."
At the Princeton appearance, a student who identified himself as gay asked how Scalia can compare moral objections to sodomy with moral objections to things such as bestiality or murder.
Scalia said his comparisons are intended to make a point. "It's a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the 'reduction to the absurd,' " Scalia said. "If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?"
U.S. Rep. Barney Frank once called Scalia a “homophobe” in a 2009 interview in which he said that at some point the U.S. Supreme Court will have to review the Defense of Marriage Act barring federal benefits for married same-sex couples. His prediction proved true on Friday when the U.S. Supreme Court accepted a challenge to the law along with a separate case challenging California’s voter-approved ban on gay marriage.
Scalia has been giving speeches around the country to promote his new book, "Reading Law."
In response to those who proclaim that the U.S. Constitution is a "living document", Justice Scalia is well-known for responding: "It isn't a living document. It's dead, dead, dead."
[see, Lawrence, et al. v. Texas, No. 02-102, 539 U.S. 558 (2003); Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986); www.abajournal.com/news/ "Scalia Explains Why He Compares Sodomy Bans To Murder Laws"/ 12-11-2012; Associated Press, 12-11-2012/ "Antonin Scalia Defends Legal Writings Some View As Offensive, Anti-Gay", www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm/02-102.ZD.html]
MARYLAND CRIMINAL LAW UPDATE: "SHAKEN BABY SYNDROME" UNDER SCRUTINY BY EXPERTS
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
"Every year in this country, hundreds of people are convicted of having shaken a baby, most often to death. In a prosecution paradigm without precedent, expert medical testimony is used to establish that a crime occurred, that the defendant caused the infant's death by shaking, and that the shaking was sufficiently forceful to constitute depraved indifference to human life.
Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) is, in essence, a medical diagnosis of murder, one based solely on the presence of a diagnostic triad: (1) retinal bleeding, (2) bleeding in the protective layer of the brain, and (3) brain swelling.
New scientific research has cast doubt on the forensic significance of this triad, thereby undermining the foundations of thousands of SBS convictions. Outside the United States, this scientific evolution has prompted systemic reevaluations of the prosecutorial paradigm. Most recently, after a seventeen-month investigation costing $8.3 million, a Canadian commission recommended that all SBS cases be reviewed. In contrast, our criminal justice system has failed to absorb the latest scientific knowledge. This is beginning to change, yet the response has been halting and inconsistent."
[Deborah Tuerkheimer, 87 Wash. U. L. Rev. 1 (2009)]
The term "Shaken Baby Syndrome" was first coined in the early 1970s. As previously stated, supra, it has been used to describe a characteristic set of head injuries found in infants who have allegedly been subjected to violent shaking: (1) swelling of the brain, (2) bleeding around the brain, and (3) bleeding in the retinas.
The theory was first espoused by a pair of pediatric specialists as a possible cause of the otherwise unexplained head injuries sometimes seen in infants with no visible signs of physical abuse. It quickly took root in the medical community.
Before long, SBS became widely accepted as a clinical diagnosis for head injuries inflicted on small children. And a nationwide educational campaign to alert the public to the dangers of shaking was launched.
In fact, SBS is now so firmly ingrained in the public consciousness that the World Health Organization has a diagnostic classification for it; the American Board of Pediatrics offers a subspecialty in it; and last year, for the fifth year in a row, the U.S. Senate designated the third week in April as National Shaken Baby Syndrome Awareness Week.
To this day, there is widespread consensus among medical professionals that shaking a baby is dangerous and often lethal. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Ophthalmology and the National Association of Medical Examiners have all issued position papers embracing the theory, although the NAME paper, which was published despite failing peer review, was later withdrawn. The Centers for Dis ease Control and Prevention publishes SBS prevention guides for public health departments and community organizations. And several states, including Ohio, New York and Texas, require prospective parents and child care providers to learn about the perils of shaking.
In or about 1996, wife, mother and child care provider Audrey Edmunds of Wisconsin, then a 35-year-old stay-at-home mom, was convicted of reckless homicide in the 1995 shaking death of a neighbor couple’s infant daughter. She was sentenced to 18 years in prison.
In 2008, however, a Wisconsin appeals court granted her a new trial on the grounds that a shift in mainstream medical opinion as to the cause of the girl’s injuries now casts doubt on Edmunds’ guilt.
Prosecutors subsequently dismissed the case against Edmunds—not because they think she is innocent but to spare the victim’s parents the agony of having to revisit their daughter’s death.
Now, in 2012, Edmunds’ culpability remains a hotly contested topic of conversation in criminal justice circles. And her case has reignited a fierce debate in the forensic community over the science behind what’s called "shaken baby syndrome" (SBS).
Certainly, the vast majority of doctors still regard it as a valid and reliable diagnosis, one whose scientific basis has been proven time and time again by decades of peer-reviewed research, clinical experience and caregiver confessions.
But a small and apparently growing number of forensic experts have begun to question many of the assumptions upon which the diagnosis rests—like whether shaking alone can produce the kind of traumatic head injuries attributed to SBS in the absence of other injuries, like a broken neck, or whether a child who has been shaken violently would immediately be rendered unconscious.
The decision marks the first time that an appeals court has questioned the scientific basis for a shaken baby conviction, and some hope the Wisconsin ruling will lead to a systematic court review of the evidence in other shaken baby cases, or even an independent examination of the underlying science by some neutral third party like the National Academy of Sciences.
Today, a freed Audrey Edmunds, now 51, continues to maintain her innocence, though she is still angry about her prosecution.
[lawreview.wustl.edu/inprint/Volume 87, No. 1/ 87 Wash. U. L. Rev. 1 (2009)/ "The NExt Innocence Project: Shaken Baby Syndrome and the Criminal Courts"/ by Deborah Tuerkheimer; www.abajournal.com/ December 1, 2011/ "Unsettling Science: Experts Are Still Debating Whether Shaken Baby Syndrome Exists"/ by Mark Hansen; blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/June 22, 2009/Javier Lavagnino, Esq./ "Reliability of Shaken Baby Syndrome Diagnosis Questioned"; www.thecrimereport.org/SBS and Audrey Edmunds; www.nytimes.com/02-02-2011/ "Shaken-Baby Syndrome Faces New Questions in Court"/ by Emily Bazelon; mip.medill.northwestern.edu/blog/ Sept. 19, 2012/ "A Point of View: Shaken Baby Syndrome"]
"SHAKEN BABY SYNDROME"
"Every year in this country, hundreds of people are convicted of having shaken a baby, most often to death. In a prosecution paradigm without precedent, expert medical testimony is used to establish that a crime occurred, that the defendant caused the infant's death by shaking, and that the shaking was sufficiently forceful to constitute depraved indifference to human life.
Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) is, in essence, a medical diagnosis of murder, one based solely on the presence of a diagnostic triad: (1) retinal bleeding, (2) bleeding in the protective layer of the brain, and (3) brain swelling.
New scientific research has cast doubt on the forensic significance of this triad, thereby undermining the foundations of thousands of SBS convictions. Outside the United States, this scientific evolution has prompted systemic reevaluations of the prosecutorial paradigm. Most recently, after a seventeen-month investigation costing $8.3 million, a Canadian commission recommended that all SBS cases be reviewed. In contrast, our criminal justice system has failed to absorb the latest scientific knowledge. This is beginning to change, yet the response has been halting and inconsistent."
[Deborah Tuerkheimer, 87 Wash. U. L. Rev. 1 (2009)]
The term "Shaken Baby Syndrome" was first coined in the early 1970s. As previously stated, supra, it has been used to describe a characteristic set of head injuries found in infants who have allegedly been subjected to violent shaking: (1) swelling of the brain, (2) bleeding around the brain, and (3) bleeding in the retinas.
The theory was first espoused by a pair of pediatric specialists as a possible cause of the otherwise unexplained head injuries sometimes seen in infants with no visible signs of physical abuse. It quickly took root in the medical community.
Before long, SBS became widely accepted as a clinical diagnosis for head injuries inflicted on small children. And a nationwide educational campaign to alert the public to the dangers of shaking was launched.
In fact, SBS is now so firmly ingrained in the public consciousness that the World Health Organization has a diagnostic classification for it; the American Board of Pediatrics offers a subspecialty in it; and last year, for the fifth year in a row, the U.S. Senate designated the third week in April as National Shaken Baby Syndrome Awareness Week.
To this day, there is widespread consensus among medical professionals that shaking a baby is dangerous and often lethal. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Ophthalmology and the National Association of Medical Examiners have all issued position papers embracing the theory, although the NAME paper, which was published despite failing peer review, was later withdrawn. The Centers for Dis ease Control and Prevention publishes SBS prevention guides for public health departments and community organizations. And several states, including Ohio, New York and Texas, require prospective parents and child care providers to learn about the perils of shaking.
Audrey Edmunds
In or about 1996, wife, mother and child care provider Audrey Edmunds of Wisconsin, then a 35-year-old stay-at-home mom, was convicted of reckless homicide in the 1995 shaking death of a neighbor couple’s infant daughter. She was sentenced to 18 years in prison.
In 2008, however, a Wisconsin appeals court granted her a new trial on the grounds that a shift in mainstream medical opinion as to the cause of the girl’s injuries now casts doubt on Edmunds’ guilt.
Prosecutors subsequently dismissed the case against Edmunds—not because they think she is innocent but to spare the victim’s parents the agony of having to revisit their daughter’s death.
Now, in 2012, Edmunds’ culpability remains a hotly contested topic of conversation in criminal justice circles. And her case has reignited a fierce debate in the forensic community over the science behind what’s called "shaken baby syndrome" (SBS).
Certainly, the vast majority of doctors still regard it as a valid and reliable diagnosis, one whose scientific basis has been proven time and time again by decades of peer-reviewed research, clinical experience and caregiver confessions.
But a small and apparently growing number of forensic experts have begun to question many of the assumptions upon which the diagnosis rests—like whether shaking alone can produce the kind of traumatic head injuries attributed to SBS in the absence of other injuries, like a broken neck, or whether a child who has been shaken violently would immediately be rendered unconscious.
The decision marks the first time that an appeals court has questioned the scientific basis for a shaken baby conviction, and some hope the Wisconsin ruling will lead to a systematic court review of the evidence in other shaken baby cases, or even an independent examination of the underlying science by some neutral third party like the National Academy of Sciences.
Today, a freed Audrey Edmunds, now 51, continues to maintain her innocence, though she is still angry about her prosecution.
[lawreview.wustl.edu/inprint/Volume 87, No. 1/ 87 Wash. U. L. Rev. 1 (2009)/ "The NExt Innocence Project: Shaken Baby Syndrome and the Criminal Courts"/ by Deborah Tuerkheimer; www.abajournal.com/ December 1, 2011/ "Unsettling Science: Experts Are Still Debating Whether Shaken Baby Syndrome Exists"/ by Mark Hansen; blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/June 22, 2009/Javier Lavagnino, Esq./ "Reliability of Shaken Baby Syndrome Diagnosis Questioned"; www.thecrimereport.org/SBS and Audrey Edmunds; www.nytimes.com/02-02-2011/ "Shaken-Baby Syndrome Faces New Questions in Court"/ by Emily Bazelon; mip.medill.northwestern.edu/blog/ Sept. 19, 2012/ "A Point of View: Shaken Baby Syndrome"]
MARYLAND MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLASS ACTIONS: An Update by Attorney Charles Jerome Ware
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
I predict that medical malpractice class action cases are on the rise here in Maryland as well as throughout the United States. Patterns and practices of malpractice are becoming increasingly easier to find. Costs are more practical in bringing class actions instead of individual lawsuits. Class actions typically make pursuit of the pattern of malpractice much more convenient. However, class actions require a lot of cooperating among lawyers and the plaintiffs/victims.
I know, I have litigated 3 class action lawsuits successfully [see, thelawyersmailbox.blogspot.com/11-26-2012/ "Charles Ware's Three (3) Famous Class Action..."].
Some examples of medically-related class action cases include a $15.7 million suit in state and federal court on behalf of BlueCross/BlueShield subscribers in New England; a multi-million dollar laser eye centers case in the Southeast; and the recent settlement of a $123 million class-action medical malpractice case in Delaware which included over 900 plaintiffs/victims from the states of Delaware, Maryland and Pennsylvania.
[www2.wspa.com/12-16-2010/ "Class Action And Medical Malpractice..."; www.google.com/www.worldlawdirect.com/ "Medical Malpractice Class Actions; www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ Sept. 4, 2001/ by S. Lightstone/ "Class-Action lawsuits medicine's newest legal headache"; www.cmanet.org/issues/detail/ "Medical Malpractice Class Action..."; setexasrecord.com/ Tuesday, December 11, 2012/ The Southeast Texas Record, Southeast Texas Legal Journal/ By Michelle Massey]
I predict that medical malpractice class action cases are on the rise here in Maryland as well as throughout the United States. Patterns and practices of malpractice are becoming increasingly easier to find. Costs are more practical in bringing class actions instead of individual lawsuits. Class actions typically make pursuit of the pattern of malpractice much more convenient. However, class actions require a lot of cooperating among lawyers and the plaintiffs/victims.
I know, I have litigated 3 class action lawsuits successfully [see, thelawyersmailbox.blogspot.com/11-26-2012/ "Charles Ware's Three (3) Famous Class Action..."].
Some examples of medically-related class action cases include a $15.7 million suit in state and federal court on behalf of BlueCross/BlueShield subscribers in New England; a multi-million dollar laser eye centers case in the Southeast; and the recent settlement of a $123 million class-action medical malpractice case in Delaware which included over 900 plaintiffs/victims from the states of Delaware, Maryland and Pennsylvania.
[www2.wspa.com/12-16-2010/ "Class Action And Medical Malpractice..."; www.google.com/www.worldlawdirect.com/ "Medical Malpractice Class Actions; www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ Sept. 4, 2001/ by S. Lightstone/ "Class-Action lawsuits medicine's newest legal headache"; www.cmanet.org/issues/detail/ "Medical Malpractice Class Action..."; setexasrecord.com/ Tuesday, December 11, 2012/ The Southeast Texas Record, Southeast Texas Legal Journal/ By Michelle Massey]
SETTLEMENT UPDATE ON THE EARL "DR. PEDOPHILE" BRADLEY CASE FOR DELAWARE, MARYLAND AND PENNSYLVANIA CLAIMS
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
For background, see: Attorney Charles Ware's Blog, Wednesday, November 21, 2012, charlesware.blogspot.com/ "Dr Pedophile's" Social Child Sex Abuse Case Ends: $123,000,000 Class Action Settlement"; twitter.com/charlesjware/11-21-2012.
On or about November 19th, 2012, Wilmington, Delaware Superior Court trial Joseph Slights III approved the $123,000,000 class action settlement for more than 900 victims of child sex abuse over a 15-year period of time by pediatrician Dr. Earl Bradley, now age 59, aka "Dr. Pedophile."
Victims of Dr. Bradley were children from communities in Delaware, Maryland and Pennsylvania (including several infants).
Plaintiffs who entered into the $123 million settlement now have until Friday, December 14th, 2012 to submit their claims for compensation (a form to be filled out) to former Philadelphia-based judge Thomas Rugger, who will determine the payout (compensation) for each victim.
According to Plaintiff's attorneys, about $90 million should be available for victims, after attorneys' fees and expenses are paid. Judge Rugger also over-saw payouts to victims of sexual abuse by members of the Catholic Diocese of Wilmington, Delaware.
Dr. Bradley was convicted in August 2011 of multiple counts of child rape involving his patients, and is serving a term of 14 life sentences. He recorded his abuse on videos that he kept at his office. These recordings amounted to more than 13 hours of videos.
Since Bradley did not have malpractice insurance, the money comes from the hospital where he had privileges, Beebe Medical Center. Apparently the hospital feared bankruptcy and chose to settle. The first checks should start going out in early 2013.
[baltimore.cbslocal.com/12-10-2012/ "$123 M Settlement..."; thedailyrecord.com/12-10-2012/ "Claims Due In Delaware Doctor's Abuse Settlement"]
For background, see: Attorney Charles Ware's Blog, Wednesday, November 21, 2012, charlesware.blogspot.com/ "Dr Pedophile's" Social Child Sex Abuse Case Ends: $123,000,000 Class Action Settlement"; twitter.com/charlesjware/11-21-2012.
On or about November 19th, 2012, Wilmington, Delaware Superior Court trial Joseph Slights III approved the $123,000,000 class action settlement for more than 900 victims of child sex abuse over a 15-year period of time by pediatrician Dr. Earl Bradley, now age 59, aka "Dr. Pedophile."
Victims of Dr. Bradley were children from communities in Delaware, Maryland and Pennsylvania (including several infants).
Plaintiffs who entered into the $123 million settlement now have until Friday, December 14th, 2012 to submit their claims for compensation (a form to be filled out) to former Philadelphia-based judge Thomas Rugger, who will determine the payout (compensation) for each victim.
According to Plaintiff's attorneys, about $90 million should be available for victims, after attorneys' fees and expenses are paid. Judge Rugger also over-saw payouts to victims of sexual abuse by members of the Catholic Diocese of Wilmington, Delaware.
Dr. Bradley was convicted in August 2011 of multiple counts of child rape involving his patients, and is serving a term of 14 life sentences. He recorded his abuse on videos that he kept at his office. These recordings amounted to more than 13 hours of videos.
Since Bradley did not have malpractice insurance, the money comes from the hospital where he had privileges, Beebe Medical Center. Apparently the hospital feared bankruptcy and chose to settle. The first checks should start going out in early 2013.
[baltimore.cbslocal.com/12-10-2012/ "$123 M Settlement..."; thedailyrecord.com/12-10-2012/ "Claims Due In Delaware Doctor's Abuse Settlement"]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)