Archive for News – Page 77

Unprecedented $53 million verdict 12 years after birth

Lisa Ewing and her son Isaiah were awarded a record $53 million as the result of a 2013 lawsuit filed against the University of Chicago Medical Center after Isaiah was born with a brain injury, leaving him unable to walk or talk. This is the largest birth injury verdict recorded in Cook County–the result of a 4-hour jury deliberation.

According to the lawsuit, Lisa Ewing arrived at the hospital about 40 weeks pregnant feeling limited movement from her baby. Hospital protocol–including monitoring the mother and baby, ordering a timely C-section, obtaining critical cord blood gases, assessing fetal heart rate patterns–were not followed and as many as 20 missteps occurred. As a result, Isaiah Ewing suffered 12 hours of fetal distress during an unnecessarily prolonged delivery. According to records, Isaiah was not breathing when he was born on April 20, 2004. Physicians rushed him to the neonatal intensive care where he was placed on life support. Weeks of critical care followed.

As a 12-year-old, Isaiah has severe cerebral palsy and relies on a wheelchair and on his mother for feeding, bathing, and dressing. His prognosis includes a shorter-than-average life span and round-the-clock daily care for the rest of his life.

According to Ewings’ lawyer, the hospital has refused to provide any clear explanation for the decisions made the day of Isaiah’s birth. Additionally, they have offered no apology and taken no responsibility.

The jury decided Isaiah’s injuries were the primary result of not being properly attended to by doctors and nurses. Had hospital personnel followed protocol, the jury believes they would have caught and responded to Isaiah’s fetal distress and conducted a timely C-section. Their mistakes will result in two lives being radically changed. Of the $53 million, $28 million was awarded for future caretaking expenses, and $7.2 million will go toward future medical care.

The hospital maintains Isaiah and his mother were treated for an infection that can cause cerebral palsy. Additionally, they insist Isaiah was born with normal oxygen blood levels, indicating the injury could not be connected to the care Lisa Ewing received. The University of Chicago Hospital quickly appealed the decision and claims the jury was improperly influenced by Ewings’ lawyer during the proceedings.

Lawsuit Pending for Kings’ Matt Barnes and DeMarcus Cousins

A lawsuit has been filed in federal court against Matt Barnes and DeMarcus Cousins. This is stemming from an alleged fight at Avenue Nightclub in the VIP area of the club early on the morning of Monday, December 5th.

Jasmine Besiso has made the allegation that Barnes grabbed and choked her then elbowed her in the face knocking her unconscious. Myrone Powell alleges that both players took him to the ground and repeatedly kicked him “in the head, torso and lower body.” It is also alleged that the players were videotaped bragging about the incident. The NYCPD was called, but Cousins and Barnes had already left the scene when they arrived. Allegedly, the 911 call says that a man at the bar assaulted another man and two women and Barnes was the one reported as the man causing the incident. No criminal charges have yet been filed. Besiso and Powell have filed a civil complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint states that Besisi and Powell were treated for injuries sustained in the alleged altercation at Lenox Hill Hospital. According to the plantiff’s attorney, Michael Lamonsoff, Besiso and Powell are suing for more than $75,000 in damages for the players causing “serious injuries and to suffer pain, shock and mental anguish.”

The Sacramento Kings players are being represented by New York attorney Alex Spiro who says that Barnes is “hopeful no charges will be pressed.”

Barnes posted on Instagram that “There’s always two sides to every story.” According to a representative who spoke with TMZ Sports, their side of the story is that Cousins bumped into a woman in a nearby booth and others attempted to start a physical altercation with Barnes and Cousins attempted to defend his teammate. Barnes alleges that he has photographic evidence that he was injured during the altercation.

The following statement was released by the Sacramento Kings following the incident:

“We have clear standards of conduct and behavior expected of the entire Kings organization – on and off the court. We are working with all parties involved to gather information in order to take any appropriate next steps.”

 

Former Coach Briles Sues University Representatives for Libel, Slander

Art Briles, the former head football coach of Baylor University, brought suit in Llano County (Texas) district court in early December 2016 against four people associated with the university. He charged libel, slander and conspiracy against three members of the university’s Board of Regents and a senior administrator. The four were identified as Board Chairman Ron Murff, Regents J. Cary Gray and David Harper and Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Reagan Ramsower.

The lawsuit states, in part, “These defendants have been relentless in their false attacks upon Coach Briles in the media despite his repeated requests that they cease and retract their onslaught of untruths.”

Sexual assault allegations

Briles was fired in May amidst sexual abuse allegations made by several women against Baylor University football players for actions that were said to have taken place over a several-year period. The scandal also resulted in the termination of Ken Starr as Baylor president and the probation and later resignation of former athletic director Ian McCaw.

Two former Baylor football players have been convicted on sexual assault charges related to the allegations.

One centerpiece of the December lawsuit is an October Wall Street Journal article in which the regents stated that, since 2011, a total of 17 women had reported sexual or domestic violence against 19 of the school’s football players. This tally was said to include four gang rapes.

Briles said that these were false statements that had been made by the school’s public relations firm. He also denied the truth of a statement given the Journal that he had personally known of one case of violence by one of his players that was never reported to the police or to the school’s judicial affairs staff or Title IX office.

Among other claims, Briles say that these and similar comments have made him unable to find another head football coaching job. His lawyer, Ernest Cannon, said that the former coach had plenty of opportunities for employment until the latest news surfaced.

In filing the lawsuit, Briles reserved the right to add Baylor University, it’s public relations firm—G.F. Bunting & Company—and other regents to the suit at a later time.

 

Could A Recent Lawsuit Settlement Mean A Ban On Trucker Cell Phone Use?

The trucking industry has been subject to a number of safety regulations and environmental restrictions over the past decade, from rules on the maximum amount of driving time per day to the minimum number of miles per gallon for fleet vehicles. An end to driver phone calls and texts while on the road could be next on the list, at least for certain South Carolina truckers. Read on to learn more about the recent multi-million dollar personal injury settlement agreement that could change cell phone policy throughout the Carolinas.

What settlement was reached regarding cell phone use?

A personal injury claim was brought against North Carolina-based Unifi, Inc. by a Bennettsville, S.C. couple who were severely injured when a company driver talking on his cell phone struck their vehicle as they were turning into their driveway. This couple filed suit against both the driver and the company, alleging negligence and lack of oversight — although Unifi did have an employee cell phone policy in place at the time of the accident, shift supervisors never enforced these rules or conducted spot checks of call logs, and the lawsuit alleged some drivers were spending nearly their entire trips texting or engaging in three-way calls.

Unifi agreed to settle this federal lawsuit for $3.75 million and has adopted a cell phone ban for all its drivers while their trucks are on the road. This ban even includes hands-free devices, which are often billed as a safer alternative.

What could this settlement mean for other truckers? 

While this settlement legally applies only to Unifi (as it was never litigated to a final judgment in federal court), given the scope of liability assessed, other trucking companies around the country — particularly those without a cell phone policy in place or with an only loosely-enforced one — are likely to follow suit and ban their drivers from using cell phones. Companies that don’t ban cell phones entirely are more likely to enact additional safety and monitoring measures like tracking phone calls and regularly reviewing call logs to ensure that drivers aren’t texting or talking while driving. Taking these measures is a good way for them to avoid, or at least minimize, liability in accidents between their trucks and passenger vehicles.

FDA Investigates Hospitals Failing to Report Deaths and Injuries

Three major Massachusetts hospitals have been investigated by the FDA following concerns that the hospitals were failing to report deaths and injuries caused by medical equipment. Massachusetts General, Brigham and Women’s, and UMass Memorial were among 17 other hospitals nationwide also investigated for the ill reporting.

The FDA is cracking down on reports of death and injuries that may have been caused by specific medical equipment in hospitals. The FDA is increasing their efforts to detect problems in certain equipment before widespread harm occurs. One main concern was based on the duodenoscopes, which is a medical instrument used to examine the small intestine. These instruments are used in more than 500,000 procedures in the United States each year, according to the FDA. This instrument has been linked to spreading infection in the body. The power morcellator device is also under investigation, based on speculation that the surgical device spreads uterine cancer.

The FDA investigation showed that 15 of the 17 hospitals were either late to report medical device related deaths or injuries or failed to report some altogether. The main concern for regulators is making sure that these reports are investigated and that changes are made to certain medical devices if there is a pattern of incidents.

It is required by hospitals to report any information that may suggest a medical device may have caused a serious injury or death within 10 days. Some hospitals under fault explained that some injuries and deaths were not reported because it was not certain that the medical devices were the the main cause of the problems.

At UMass Memorial Medical Center, the FDA found multiple failures in reporting for patients that were infected after undergoing procedures that used a duodenoscope. Three of the patients infected later died from their illnesses. The chief of gastroenterology at UMass Memorial, Dr. Dominic Nompleggi, explained that although infections were developed by patients, the hospital failed to link the same bacteria from the infections to the scopes, and therefore could not link the scopes to the patient’s illnesses.

There have been no legal actions taken against these hospitals by the FDA, because the main concern is to improve reporting for the safety of patients. The investigated hospitals will be closely watched for accurate reporting of medical instrument related injuries and deaths moving forward.

Federal Judge Allows Airline Antitrust Case to Proceed

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly suspected that conspiracy might be in the air—literally. In a 41-page decision released October 28, 2016, the federal court judge allowed a class-action antitrust lawsuit initiated by passengers to proceed against four of the nation’s largest commercial airlines.

From her Washington D.C. courtroom, Kollar-Kotelly wrote that she could “reasonably infer the existence of a conspiracy” on the part of the airline industry leaders.

As a result, she refused to dismiss the accusations of price fixing and antitrust violations brought against American Airlines Group Inc., Delta Air Lines Inc., Southwest Airlines Company and United Continental Holdings Inc.

The litigants, combining 105 separate cases into the single class-action lawsuit, allege that the four major carriers conspired to limit seating capacity growth on their flights, thereby driving up the cost of air travel. Kollar-Kotelly said that there was evidence of such suspicions, citing, in part, statements by airline executives about the need for “discipline” in seating capacity.

She also wrote that, “This restriction on growing capacity was a marked change within the industry. The court is satisfied that at this stage, plaintiffs sufficiently pled parallel conduct.”

The plaintiffs insisted that the carriers started working together to make moves that would jack up fares in a supply-and-demand strategy as far back as early 2009.

If the airlines acted as accused, they appeared to have been highly successful at it. The four main players control about 69 percent of the domestic market. In 2015, the big four nabbed a combined $21.7 billion profit, a staggering figure for an industry that was on the ropes only a few years previously. Low fuel prices and a boost in fees for bag check-in and litigants-attorney-quoteother add-on flier services also contributed to the windfall.

The litigants’ attorney, Michael Hausfeld, celebrated the decision. “We look forward to moving forward aggressively to secure the relief the public deserves,” he said.

An attorney for one of the carriers derided the decision and said that there was no proof of price-fixing or that the airlines acted in unison.

The case is In re: Domestic Airline Travel Antitrust Litigation, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, No. 15-mc-01404.

The U.S. Justice Department is also looking into similar charges, as of 2015.

Loveland Detective Cleared of Criminal Charges Now Faces Civil Suits

Detective Brian Koopman was acquitted in April 2016 on a felony charge of trying to influence a public official, but his legal troubles are far from over. The detective now faces two civil suits also based on cases related to his work for the Loveland Police Department. Both suits have been in the system for some time but are now moving forward.

Jeremy C. Myers v. Brian Koopman

Mr. Myers brought suit against Koopman in 2009 for violating his constitutional rights following an arrest. Mr. Myers was arrested on charges of manufacturing methamphetamine. The charges were dropped when lab testing determined that the “drugs” found on the scene were actually sugar. Mr. Myers lived near an abandoned sugar factory at the time, and the arrest took place on his property. Police said at the time that field testing falsely determined that the sugar was detectives-lawyer-quotein fact meth.

While the initial suit named several plaintiffs, the only remaining defendant is Detective Koopman. According to Mr. Myers, Koopman conducted surveillance for months and found nothing. Detective Koopman then went forward with getting an arrest warrant based on what he says is the word of a confidential informant. Koopman’s lawyer filed a motion asking that the lawsuit be dismissed because his client had immunity while acting in his duties as a police officer. So far no judge has granted that motion and the trial can proceed.

Tammy Fisher v. Brian Koopman and Luke Hecker

Ms. Fisher is a former Lakeland police officer who also claims that her rights were violated when Koopman investigated her for tipping off the wife of an alleged child pornographer. Ms. Fisher claimed that the charges against her were invalid, and that her constitutional rights were violated. According to the plaintiff, she talked to a defendant’s wife about earlier charges against him that had been dropped, but she never tipped him off to the new charges.

Ms. Fisher also named Luke Hecker, Koopman’s supervisor, as a party in the lawsuit, which was dismissed by a lower court in August. Ms. Fisher is in the process of appealing that lower court decision to the United States Court of Appeals.

Lawsuits Hit High Tide After Billionaire Tries to Prevent Access to Well-Loved Beach

Martin’s Beach was once a popular spot in which to relax, surf, and fish. The family who owned the property let people enjoy the tranquil beach near Half Moon Bay for nearly 100 years before selling the property in 2008.

But while the previous family had added amenities such as parking, a store, and restrooms, the buyer, billionaire Vinod Khosla of Sun Microsystems, tried to block access to the beach instead.

The Surfrider Foundation and a group called Friends of Martin’s Beach have filed lawsuits, demanding that the beach remain open to the public. Khosla himself has filed suits as well against the California Coastal Commission, San Mateo County, and the State Lands Commission. One lawsuit alleges harassment on the part of government martins-beach-lawsuit-friends-quoteagencies. Khosla claims he’s been singled out.

Central to the issue is whether Khosla has cut off access to two particular parcels of land. He’s been accused of closing down an access road in winter, and the California Coastal Commission and San Mateo County tried to keep the road open. Khosla’s lawsuit against the two agencies in 2009 was dismissed on the grounds that Khosla had not gone through enforcement procedures or the permitting process before filing the lawsuit. In 2012, after a group of surfers were arrested for trespassing on the land, Friends of Martin’s Beach sued Khosla for public access to the beach.

Since then, the road has remained closed to car traffic but open to foot traffic. The courts have gone back and forth between allowing and denying right of access, though later rulings have centered on how the beach was privately owned before the concept of public access became law. One ruling, however, in 2013, stated that since Khosla had not gotten a coastal development permit before closing off the beach, his restrictions were illegal.

Khosla’s latest lawsuit claims the County and Commissions never intervened in anything the previous family did when they tried to develop part of the land. The suit also notes that other restricted beach areas have not received the same treatment as Martin’s Beach.

New Database Lets Consumers Check Pending Class Action Lawsuits

You’ve probably received a piece of mail or two with “CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT” written across the top in dark bold type. Maybe you took a moment to read what the lawsuit was about, but chances are you tossed it into the trash with the other junk mail. Some disregard these letters as scams trying to get you to give out your personal information. What you may not know is that many of these are real, and you could be missing out on a pretty large claim by throwing them away.

Companies dole out millions of dollars in settlements of class action lawsuits each year, but only a small percentage of entitled people claim their awards. Many times this is due to the fact that consumers have little or no knowledge about the lawsuit at all. For this reason, Consumer Action, an organization that aims to empower those underrepresented consumers to financially prosper, created the Class Action Lawsuit Database. The website lists notable class action lawsuits so that consumers can check to see if they maybe be eligible to participate. Through the website, you can learn more about a lawsuit, join a pending action, or make a claim of your own.

Currently, there are active lawsuits involving companies such as Starbucks, Vizio, Sony, Honda, and Whirlpool. It is important that you read the terms of the suit thoroughly. Some require proofs of purchase in order to claim your part of the settlement. Though, this is not the case for others.

Since a good number of people are usually involved in these types of situations, it is the lawyers who end up making the most money. That said, just the threat of the lawsuit itself scares companies into owning up to any of their wrongdoings. If nothing else, it keeps them honest.

If you are certain that you are eligible to participate in a class action lawsuit found on the database, then do not hesitate another second to join a pending suit. You want to act fast to claim your money before time runs out. Any unclaimed funds ends up going to consumer organizations, like Consumer Action. On the other hand, if you apply for a part of a settlement that you know you should not receive, you could be accused of fraud. Be sure to read all information before going for a piece of the pie.

Emotional, Sexual Abuse of Former U.S. Gymnast Is Subject of Lawsuit

A 24-year-old woman who is a former member of the USA Gymnastics team filed a lawsuit accusing the team’s former doctor of sexual assault, and the team’s coaches of emotional and physical abuse. The suit claims the doctor assaulted the unidentified woman during medical examinations and that the coaches would not halt the abuse even though they knew about it.

gymnastic-sexual-misconduct-espn-quoteThe lawsuit alleges that Larry Nassar, who was the team doctor when the woman was a member between ages 12 and 18, would assault her during her medical exams by digitally penetrating her vagina and claiming that the action was supposed to adjust her bones. Nassar is the defendant in another lawsuit filed in September by another former gymnast who made similar allegations against him.

Nassar is also the subject of an investigation in Michigan; ESPN uncovered over 30 criminal complaints against him, accusing him of sexual misconduct. He has also been accused of additional sexual misconduct disguised as medical exams; this batch of accusations lead USA Gymnastics to fire him in 2015.

This latest lawsuit alleges that Nassar and Bela and Marta Karolyi engaged in repeated abuse of the gymnasts on the team at the Karolyis‘ ranch in Texas. The ranch became the team’s training facility in 2001. The Karolyis have been accused of turning “a blind-eye to Nassar’s sexual abuse of children at the ranch” as well as maintaining “a regime of intimidation and fear” among the gymnasts. The lawsuit claims the Karolyis would physically hurt the gymnasts by scratching and hitting them, taunt the gymnasts about their weight and call them fat, limit their food and water to the point of deprivation, and make them remove their clothing and stand in only their underwear while requiring their teammates to judge them.

In addition to Nassar and both Karolyis, the lawsuit names USA Gymnastics; two private coaches, Artur Akopyan and Galina Marinova; former president Robert Colarossi, and current president Steve Penny as defendants. None of the defendants have issued any comments regarding the accusations or the lawsuit.

 

Original story by John Barr ESPN.com video