Author Archive for Jen Petersen – Page 2

Class Action Suit Against Judge Allegedly Bankrolled by State Farm Approved

Class Action Lawsuit Can Be Brought Against State Farm

The lawsuit brought by a group of State Farm auto insurace customers was approved by a federal judge on September 16th. These plaintiffs allege that the company funded the campaign of an Illinois Supreme Court judge in return for the judge’s vote overturning a $1 billion settlement. The company also allegedly lied about the issue when previously questioned about it by consumers.

The judge in question, Lloyd Karmeier, ran for office in 2004. State Farm allegedly funded his campaign so that he could vote in their favor in their appeal of a $1 billion dollar settlement relating to State Farm’s use of generic auto parts when paying for the insured’s car repairs. These generic auto parts were successfully argued to be inferior to factory auto parts.

The Original Case

State Farm has been fighting these allegations for some time, and the approval of the class action lawsuit is the biggest blow so far to their efforts. The original case reached its $1 billion dollar verdict in 1999, it and its related cases have frequently been in the news for the last 17 years. It is one of the largest class action settlements in legal history.

The State Farm customers won a total judgment of $1.186 billion dollars for State Farm’s use of low-quality generic car parts in 1999, as previously mentioned. An appeal ruling reduced the amount of the settlement to $1.01 billion dollars.

Another appeal, in which Karmeier was involved, took place in 2005 and threw out the settlement entirely. This decisions was immediately contensious, and became even more so when State Farm was found to have backed Karmeier.

State Farm’s Response

A State Farm spokesperson said that the company plans to appeal the ruling allowing the class action suit. Their argument is that the plaintiffs have made these allegations for many years, and should not be allowed to do so any longer.

Justice Karmeier’s Response

Karmeier is not a co-defendant with State Farm. He is, unsurprisingly, the Illinois Chief Justice. While he is not in danger of paying a huge settlement, this suit could do great damage to his career if the allegations are found to be true. Karmeier did not return requests for comment.

Both Driver and Night Club Found Liable After a Night of Heavy Drinking

Driving after a night of heavy drinking can be just as dangerous as driving home from the bar itself–a fact that was tragically highlighted by a recent accident in which a drunk driver caused a head-on collision the morning after a night of drinking that left the other car’s driver with a traumatic brain injury. Moreover, the legal liability for accidents such as these does not rest only with the drunk driver himself; bars and restaurants who serve such drivers open themselves up to lawsuits from accident victims, even if the accident did not occur on the driver’s way home.

Following the above-mentioned accident, the victim sued not only the driver himself but also the night club that had served the driver alcohol the night before. After the drunk driver failed to respond to the lawsuit, the court found in the victim’s favor in a default proof hearing. The court then determined the extent of the victim’s damages in a May 3, 2016 hearing. On August 3, the court entered a judgment against the drunk driver for $975,000, which was brought to $1.022 million with pre-judgement interest included.

dram-shop-lawsHowever, what is particularly notable about this case is that the accident victim settled her claim for $725,000 against the night club that had served the drunk driver. Many states have what are known as “dram shop laws”, which enable the victims of drunk drivers to sue the bar or restaurant that served the driver alcohol. Bartenders and alcohol vendors are typically held to the “obvious intoxication” standard; under this standard, an alcohol vendor can be found responsible for any damages caused by their patrons if they continue to serve alcohol past the point that they either knew or should have known that the customer was intoxicated to a degree that posed a threat to the customer himself or others on the road.

This case is unique because the night club settled with the victim even though the accident occurred many hours after the drunk driver left the establishment, potentially indicating a trend towards interpreting an alcohol vendor’s responsibility even more broadly.

 

Lawsuit Filed Against Chicago Cop Who Allegedly Beat Mentally Disabled Teen

Recently, a lawsuit was filed against a veteran Chicago police officer who allegedly beat a mentally disabled teen. The lawsuit accuses the police officer of sticking a gun in the teen’s mouth and then filing a fake police report to cover up the incident. Both the Cook County state’s attorney’s office and the Independent Police Review Authority are investigating the incident, which allegedly occurred in September 2015.

While heading home from school, Nathaniel Taylor crossed onto Jackson’s lawn. Jackson, the Chicago police officer and veteran of the force, became angry and beat the 18-year-old boy with his fists and stuck his revolver into the boy’s mouth. This attack caused a number richard-drovark-quoteof lacerations, according to the lawsuit.

Taylor, who possesses an IQ of 44, was sent to Mount Sinai Hospital for Treatment, and then arrested on charges of resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer. According to the lawsuit, Taylor experienced severe emotional trauma due to spending a week behind bars under electronic monitoring.

Richard Drovark, the attorney representing the legal guardian and aunt of Taylor, provided photographs that seem to depict Taylor’s blood splattered on the sidewalk outside Jackson’s home. There are also photographs of Taylor with a fat lip, a bloodied nose, and blood stains on his school uniform.

According to Dvorak, the severe mental impairment Taylor suffers makes Jackson’s actions even more traumatic and tragic. Dvorak said, “He’s not someone who should be subjected to this kind of treatement.” The attorney accuses Jackson of placing felony charges against Taylor to cover up his own actions.

In a police report, Jackson filed a police report claiming that Taylor had tried to enter his home at 1200 block of South Albany Avenue. Jackson claims he opened the door and informed Taylor that he was a police officer. The police officer claims that Taylor tried to run, but Jackson managed to catch him and a “struggle ensued.” Jackson accuses Taylor of trying to grab his gun, which is when the gun “made contact with the face and mouth area” of Taylor, allegedly.

In April, the aggravated battery charge against Taylor was dropped and Taylor pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor trespassing, according to court records.

 

4,000 Units Available to L.A. Residents with Disabilities Over Next Decade

In a landmark federal settlement, Los Angeles City Council officials agreed to spend $200 million over the next 10 years to ensure people with disabilities have access to apartments in public housing. A total of 4,000 units will become available to the disabled within the next decade via new construction and redesign of existing dwellings.

The ruling sends a message nationwide that accessible housing is needed for the disabled community. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti notes that the city stands for inclusiveness and access for all, and the settlement allows it to resolve a “long-standing legal issue with a predictable level of investment.” The settlement does not require the city to admit wrongdoing or concede violation of anti-discrimination statutes. The city must also pay $4.5 million to the nonprofits initiating the suit, as well as $1 million in court costs and up to $20 million in legal fees.

Under the terms of the settlement, Los Angeles must pay at least $20 million annually to ensure that 2,655 of the 4,000 units are wheelchair-accessible. The agreement also requires a larger percentage of affordable housing for the disabled than mandated under current law.

Officials are not certain how far short the city fell in providing housing for the disabled. That information will only come after an evaluation of every unit.

nonprofit-housing-organizations-quote-disabled-residentsIn 2012, three nonprofit housing organizations filed suit, alleging that the city flouted state and federal anti-discrimination laws regarding housing for the disabled. The suit claimed people with disabilities were shown supposedly accessible apartments with doorways too narrow for wheelchair accommodation and bathrooms and kitchens without sufficient space for wheelchair users. Under federal law, such apartments require features such as bathroom grab bars and lower counters in kitchens. In addition, the relatively few apartments designed for the disabled often had non-disabled residents residing in them. Although complaints were filed, the city and its redevelopment agency reportedly failed to take action.

City Administrative Officer Miguel Santana stated Los Angeles housing officials are taking steps to prevent such issues in the future. Because the settlement goes back into the community in terms of affordable housing units for the disabled, Santana says that Angelenos are “the biggest beneficiaries.”

Former College Football Players in Kentucky Join Concussion Class Action Lawsuits

Three more former college football players have joined an already ongoing collection of class-action lawsuits against the NCAA and their individual conferences this week, claiming that there exists within the organization a “reckless disregard for the health and safety” of its athletes. These allegations refer specifically to the organization’s failure to properly treat players who have sustained concussive head injuries during practice or games, leaving them with negative side effects that last long after their college football careers have ended.

The newest players to join the increasing series of lawsuits have disturbing tales to tell about the alleged disregard of serious head trauma that they experienced throughout their college years. Willie Johnson, the former linebacker for Louisville from 2003 to 2005, claims that he suffered several sub-concussive and concussive head injuries throughout his college career that went untreated, and was instructed to “shake off” the injuries after they occurred and return to the game. James Harrison, former Murray State fullback from 2000 to 2005, states that he sustained injuries during practice and gameplay which were significant enough that he completely lost consciousness a few times.

Athlete-DeMoreo-Ford-quoteMost unsettling are the claims made by former UK wide receiver DeMoreo Ford, who played from 2005 to 2009. Ford’s coach at this time, Rich Brooks, told reporters in 2008 that Ford had been advised by his doctors to end his career in football due to number of concussive injuries he had sustained at that point. Ford alleges that he was instructed to return to play on several occasions following serious concussive injuries during games and practices, including a 2007 game in which he sustained a concussion in the second quarter and was sent back into the game in the third quarter, in spite of the fact that he was vomiting during the halftime break between those quarters. Ford’s lawsuit states that he continues to suffer the residual effects of untreated head trauma, experiencing severe headaches, depression, mood swings and more.

These lawsuits are an addition to numerous similar suits that have already been filed in federal court by the Edelson PC law firm in Chicago. According to Edelson PC partner Christopher Dore, more lawsuits are on the way, which will continue to add wider coverage of accusation to schools across the nation. Dore stated that the wide reach of these lawsuits are meant to be a “demonstration that this is not a unique problem to just a small minority of schools”.

 

iPhone 6 Touchscreen Problem Sparks Lawsuit

The iPhone has had different problems in every generation, but the iPhone 6 seems to have had more than its fair share of that criticism due to its battery, charging site and overall functionality. Now, owners are suing the company because they say that the design of the iPhone has a defect that causes them to become unusable.

Plaintiffs Claim Apple Was Aware

The class-action lawsuit was brought upon by people from across the US (California, Delaware and Pennsylvania), and alleges that Apple did know about the problem, but decided to do nothing about it. The progression of the issue is such that users will get a grey bar at the top of their screen, and then shortly after the screen will cease to respond to touch. The iPhone 5 had a type of shield on the screen that was meant to protect this from happening to people, but plaintiffs state Apple chose not to include this on their latest versions.

Consumer Protection Laws

Those who filed the lawsuit state the phones cannot do what they were designed to do, based on the fact that the touchscreen is the heart and soul of the operation. It also poses safety issues should a screen malfunction in the middle of an emergency. They did not state exactly what they wanted in damages, but they are claiming that Apple committed fraud and filing under the California consumer protection laws. So far Apple has not responded on record. iFixit, a company that sells repair parts for Apple iPhones and laptops, has already run an article on this problem. This company has analyzed Apple products from an objective light in the past, noting what they do well and how they can improve. They’ve nicknamed this problem with the iPhone 6 Touch Disease.

A Formidable Opponent

Apple is known for being extremely tight with the amount of money they give out, but it’s unclear if this lawsuit will be worth it to them to fight. The company has already made $108.5 billion dollars just this year alone. It seems unlikely that they will admit they made a mistake based on their continued sales of this iPhone, if only do discourage people from bringing about similar lawsuits.

 

Skyslide’s Operators Not Responsible for Broken Ankle or Lack of Sex, According to Ruling

It didn’t take long before L.A.’s latest attraction claimed its first injury, but according to a recently rejected lawsuit, the operators and managers of the U.S. Bank building’s Skyslide may be off the hook for now. According to recently filed legal papers, the Los Angeles Superior Court threw out a lawsuit against the Skyslide’s operator, Legends Hospitality LLC. and the building’s landlord, OUE Skyspace LLC., for damages stemming from a broken ankle, among other injuries.

Gayle Yashar, 57, filed suit against both companies on July 13. According to the lawsuit, Yashar suffered a broken ankle while riding the Skyslide on July 3, just eight days after the attraction opened to the public. The 1-1/4 inch slide, suspended nearly 1,000 feet above downtown Los Angeles, is designed to take riders from the 70th floor of the U.S. Bank to the 69th floor. There are also a set of stacked mats at the end of the slide to help cushion riders as they exit the slide.
Skyslide-plaintiff-quote
In the lawsuit, Yashar alleged that not only did the owners fail to warn riders of the risks involved, but that the stacked mats created a gap that was capable of trapping riders’ feet, increasing their risk of serious injury. According to Yashar, this risk was well beyond what unsuspecting riders would assume.

However, a broken ankle wasn’t the only injury included in the lawsuit. Yashar’s husband and co-plaintiff, Morty Yashar, also alleges a “loss of consortium” due to the incident. According to the Cornell University Law School’s Legal Information Institute, this means “deprivation of the benefits of a family relationship, including affection and,” in Morty Yashar’s case, “sexual relations.”

Unfortunately, for the Yashars, there were several reasons the courts found in favor of the defendants. For starters, the defense stated that neither OUE Skyspace nor Legends Hospitality had control of the area where Yashar suffered her injuries and that both were unaware of any dangerous conditions, leaving them with no time to correct the problem before the accident occurred.

The defense also pointed out that Yashar released both OUE Skyspace and Legends Hospitality from any liability for injury prior to getting on the ride. As for the “loss of consortium” claim, the defense argued that they were unaware of the plaintiff’s “peculiar susceptibility” to emotional distress.

Photo Credit: hiconsumption.com

Birth Defects Research Center Sues to Keep Employee Names Private

Employees at the University of Washington’s Birth Defects Research Center filed a federal class-action lawsuit to prevent release of their names. The employees fear harassment and violence from anti-abortion activists because the Center uses fetal tissue in its research.

The Center’s workers seek an injunction to prevent the sharing of their names with an anti-abortion group, Center for Medical Progress, that filed a public disclosure request. The PDR also covers home addresses and home phone numbers of the employees. According to the lawsuit, the plaintiffs would willingly release laboratory documents and invoices, but with employee names removed.

After the release last summer of edited videos purportedly of Planned Parenthood representatives selling fetal tissue, the Center’s workers concern for their safety increased. Since 1964, the federally funded Center has collected and distributed donated fetal tissues for research conducted by academic and non-profit research facilities. Its tissue collection includes donations from miscarriages, stillbirths and abortions. Some of its tissue donations come from a Washington state Planned Parenthood clinic.

According to the Seattle Times, during 2014, the Center collected 596 fetal samples from two local hospitals and seven clinics. These were donations by consent of the women who had carried the fetuses. Of the 3,000 abortions performed at the Washington state Planned Parenthood clinic that donates to the Center, 20 women donated tissue. The Center does not purchase or sell tissue. In 2014, it distributed 1,109 fetal tissues to more than 60 researchers. Its funding, $700,000 per year, comes from the National Institutes of Health.

The plaintiffs number about 150, including employees of the Center, and its affiliates, Evergreen Hospital Medical Center, Planned Parenthood of Greater Washington and Idaho, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and the Cedar River Clinics. The lawsuit cites prior violent actions by abortion activists as reason to withhold the employees’ personally identifiable information. It specifically cites the November 2015 Colorado Springs shooting at a Planned Parenthood office that resulted in three deaths and wounded nine as an example.

The lawsuit names as defendants the University of Washington, and David Daleiden and Zachary Freeman of the Family Policy Institute of Washington. U.S. District Judge James Robart serves as presiding judge, but has not yet scheduled a hearing.

Jury Sends Message to Healthcare Industry with $16 Million Award

After a two-week trial, held before Jefferson County Circuit Judge Joseph Boohaker, and ten hours of deliberation, a Jefferson County jury awarded the Malatesta family $16 million in a medical negligence and reckless fraud lawsuit against Brookwood Women’s Medical Center and its parent company, Tenet Healthcare Corporation.

The jury awarded Caroline Malatesta $10 million in compensatory damages for the pudendal neuralgia nerve injury she suffered during childbirth. Her husband was awarded $1 million for loss of consortium.  The award included $5 million in punitive damages for medical negligence and reckless fraud linked to the hospital’s 2012 natural birth advertising campaign.

In 2011, Caroline Malatesta, pregnant with her fourth child, became interested in natural childbirth after seeing a television ad.  According to the lawsuit, the marketing campaign, including the ad in question, was not reviewed by medical staff and did not undergo an internal fraud review process before being aired.

Caroline and J.T. Malatesta were represented by Birmingham attorneys David Marsh and Rip Andrews.  In response to the verdict, Marsh said that “While the verdict is large, it is consistent with the costs and future costs for Mrs. Malatesta’s care and treatment for chronic debilitating pelvic pain caused by the birthing procedure.”

According to a blog post on the law firm’s website, “The Brookwood ads emphasized a mother’s choice, individual birthing plans, freedom of movement and even mentioned water births. Caroline met with her newly chosen doctor at Brookwood and asked lots of questions before finally committing to a delivery at Brookwood…Caroline had no freedom of movement; instead, she was restrained, sometimes forcibly”.

While the baby was not injured during the delivery, according to attorney Rip Andrews, the jury concluded that her permanent nerve injury was a direct result of the actions of medical staff to delay delivery for 6 minutes until her doctor arrived.  In response to the verdict, he said “I’ve never seen a jury more committed to doing the right thing.”

If the verdict stands after post-trial review by the judge, the hospital could file an appeal with the Alabama Supreme Court. The lawsuit, filed in 2014, was one of several filed in recent years against Tenet, which has also been under federal investigation for charges of healthcare fraud.

Property Owners Sue Pokémon Go Players in Federal Court

A lawsuit against Niantic Inc. and Nintendo Co., the makers of  “Pokémon Go,” was filed in federal court on Friday in California. In an effort to keep “Pokemon Go” players away from his property, Jeffrey Marder, a California resident from West Orange, New Jersey, claims that users of the smartphone app known as Pokémon Go have been loitering on his property since the release of the game in July 2016. According to the suit, at least five people, whom he identified as complete strangers, have knocked on the front door of his private residence requesting access to the backyard of his home to catch a Pokémon placed there virtually by the game. The defendants “have shown a flagrant disregard for the foreseeable consequences of populating the real world with virtual Pokémon without seeking the permission of property owners.”  The suit is currently seeking class action status to include others with Pokemon “stops” and “gyms” located on their private property.

Pokestops-safty-concern-child-care-center-quoteDesignated locations within the game called “Pokestops,” require that players visit each of one the sites to receive rewards, and it appears that even more sensitive locations, such as the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum haven’t been spared the intrusion. Holocaust Memorial spokesman Andrew Hollinger said that the museum has been subsequently removed from the game per its wishes. Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park in Japan, as well as the Arlington National Cemetery in Washington, D.C., have also requested removal from the “Pokémon Go” location maps.

“Pokestops” became a serious safety concern when a large number of strangers were sighted walking about the grounds and parking lot of the Little Blessings Child Care Center. The Portsmouth Herald reported that daycare director Diane Lewis sent letters to parents and its two dozen employees alerting them of the potential danger. The daycare has since taken action to be removed from the game. Another complaint to the “Pokemon Go” company came from a daycare center in New Hampshire and was reportedly removed from the game after repeated incidences of strangers lurking about the property.

Spokespersons for Niantic Inc. and Nintendo Co. were not immediately available for comment. However, Pokémon Company Marketing director J.C. Smith stated in an interview this week that updates are currently being made to the game.