Archive for News – Page 77

Baltimore Woman Fights Taser Ban, Argues the Right to Protect Herself

According to the Baltimore Sun, while the state of Maryland has passed a state law allowing ownership of Tasers, Baltimore County has banned purchasing them. The County Council unanimously voted to prohibit the devices. The law adds these electronic devices to an existing ban on the “use, possession, sale or discharge of a stun gun.” Violators can receive a fine of up to $1,000 and six months in prison. The ban excludes those in law enforcement.

According to the Washington post, at least one woman is negatively impacted by the ban. In 2012, Leah Elizabeth Baran was attacked and left for dead by an ex-boyfriend. He had broken into her apartment, beating and raping her. When Baran fled, he choked her until she was unconscious.  After he was found guilty, he threatened to kill Baran. She decided to look into personal protection. Although Baran’s ex-boyfriend, Joseph Dwayne Caudill, may not get out of prison until 2032, she has been preparing for that possibility ever since.  The Washington Post reported that Baran purchased a gun and practiced shooting.

Baran is now suing two Maryland counties, Baltimore and Howard, to get permission to carry an electronic stun gun. This is a constitutional challenge she says she believes will save lives. A recent Supreme Court ruling questions the constitutionality of bans on stun gun, but there was no conclusive ruling.

In Baran’s lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Maryland, she argued that her only recourse if attacked would be to take her attackers life first. She worried that she could be arrested for using force to protect herself. Baran said that she would then be “at the mercy of police, prosecutors and jurors who will have weeks or months to second guess a decision to use deadly force made in seconds,” the lawsuit said.

An injured attacker has legal recourse to sue for damages. Baran worried that her ex-boyfriend would live up to his promise to take her life. She’d be forced to defend herself all over again.

A stun gun uses paralyzing force via an electric shock that incapacitates a person and causes intense pain. It is not a lethal option, which many people find more appealing than a deadly gun. The suit states that the right to carry a Taser is part of the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

This case is a fascinating contradiction in that it pits the right to harm to avoid being harmed. There are no easy answers, but victims like Baran are likely to have something to say about their need to feel safe.

Federal Lawsuit Against Orlando Officer Reaches Settlement

The federal lawsuit against the city of Orlando concerning a man who accused an unnamed police officer of excessive force and sexual assault ended in settlement after a trial in the matter had ended in a hung jury this past January.

Cassandra Lafser, a spokesperson for the city the settlement was based on financial considerations and not the guilt or innocence of the officer. The plaintiff accused the officer of putting his hand down the back of his pants while searching for drugs. The officer was not charged with a crime or misconduct.

Clinton Fair, a passenger in a car pulled over by Officer Jonathan Mills in August 2014 testified to the assault but Mills has consistently denied the allegations. Fair contested that the officer used “non-consensual, harmful … physical contact” while performing a drug search.

Fair, of Apopka,FL said in the lawsuit that the incident caused bodily injury and a “loss of dignity.”

Because Orlando Police Internal Affairs could not verify the actions, it offered no reprimand in the matter.

Officer Mills is still facing another ongoing federal lawsuit alleging excessive force.

In that case, Louis Fedrick was pulled over in October 2013 for driving on a suspended license. Sixty-one year old Fedrick claims that when he was pulled over at a traffic stop he was tasered by Mills. Fredrick says this happened in spite of the fact he put his hands up in a non-threatening manner.

Mills’ wrote in a sworn affidavit that Fedrick resisted arrest and tried to get away. According to the lawsuit, “Officer Mills then slammed Mr. Fedrick to the pavement and while arresting/handcuffing Mr. Fedrick, twisted and yanked on Mr Fedrick’s arms in a forceful manner.”

Those charges of resisting an officer were dismissed.

Officer Mills has been the focus of multiple citizen complaints with 15 filed from 2012 to 2015. He has not received discipline for any of those complaints though he has been orally reprimanded for making racist remarks about bystanders at a traffic stop.

He has been reassigned to patrol from the department’s TAC team, a unit that specializes in the arrest of violent offenders.

An Already Vulnerable Yahoo Hit with Class Action Lawsuit for Hacking Attacks

Over 500 million Yahoo accounts are claimed to have been breached by a “state-sponsored” system of hackers. Yahoo revealed that this has been going on since 2014. Some of the stolen information includes passwords, usernames, e-mail addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, and security questions and answers. No bank or credit card information was taken, however the other information can be used to access financial data from financial institutions.

This is the largest central data breach of any one site that has ever occurred. The FBI is also investigating the breach.

Now Yahoo has been hit with a class action lawsuit, which comes at an already very vulnerable time for the company as they are getting ready to be bought by Verizon for $4.8 billion dollars. This lawsuit comes from several people with Yahoo user accounts who realized their identity theft may have been the result of the data breach at Yahoo. The plaintiffs claim that Yahoo failed to protect users’ personal information. There has also been a lot of criticism leveled against Yahoo for its slow reaction time in dealing with the initial intrusion which occurred in August of 2013. Another main factor in the lawsuit is Yahoo’s negligence in helping victims of the attack recover from the effects of identity theft. Unlike other companies who have suffered a data breach, Yahoo failed to provide users with identity theft protection, in spite of the fact that they knew their users would be more likely to suffer an identity theft after the initial breach.

The suit followed within hours of Yahoo’s revelation that there was a second security breach which may have affected as many as one billion user accounts. Amy Vail from New York, represented by Labaton Sucharow LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, leads the multiple class action lawsuits that will be presented before a judge in San Jose, California. The team will be pursuing a jury trial and unspecified damages.

An initial case-management conference is set for March 2.

The case is Vail v. Yahoo! Inc., 16-cv-07154, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).

Essure Injury Lawsuits Moving Forward

A Missouri federal judge’s ruling in early December allows 32 women alleging serious and permanent injury from Essure Permanent Birth Control to move forward with their lawsuit against Bayer, in spite of the pharmaceutical giant’s attempts to get the case dismissed.

Essure Permanent Birth Control was first approved by the FDA in 2002 and–according to Bayer–is nearly 100 percent successful at preventing pregnancy. Doctors implant a tiny, flexible steel coil in both of the patient’s fallopian tubes, after which, scar tissue builds up, preventing sperm from reaching the egg. Women have historically chosen the birth control because they believed it to be affordable, non-invasive, and effective.

Despite these claims, thousands of women in recent years have reported serious complications–including chronic pain and autoimmune disorders–linked to Essure. According to New York Times article in November 2016, officials at Bayer are placing the blame for Essure complications on poor surgical skills. In response to the complaints of chronic pain and autoimmune disorders, Bayer Vice President for U.S. medical affairs, Dr. Edio Zampaglione, stated, “These are so common to women.” The article also noted 10,000 reports of injuries and pregnancies related to Essure, as well as a small number of fatalities.

The FDA does not agree that Essure complications should be blamed on poor surgical skills.

In March 2016 the FDA required a black box warning be added and more safety studies be done on the device. The FDA has also taken the unprecedented step of assisting Bayer in creating a risk checklist to be shared and discussed with patients considering the device. This lengthy checklist includes space for the patient to initial each of five sections and includes a line for both the patient and the doctor to sign. While at this point doctors are not being required to share the checklist with patients, they are being strongly encouraged to share the information.

Critics warn that an optional checklist is not sufficient to protect women from the devastating consequences of using Essure Permanent Birth Control. Some attorneys are strongly urging women not to sign the checklist. Regardless, the Missouri ruling is expected to pave the way for future claims against Bayer from women who have been adversely affected by the device.

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.