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

Johnson & Johnson Loses Third Talc-Cancer Trial; Ordered to Pay Nearly $70 Million

A St. Louis court has ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay over $70 million to a California woman who developed ovarian cancer after using the company’s talcum powder. The decision came after the third loss for Johnson & Johnson in a series of trials dealing with accusations that the company knew of a connection between use of its product and an increased risk of the disease.

Lawyers for the woman, 62-year-old Deborah Giannecchini, claimed her use of Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder for over 40 years led to the ovarian cancer that has required her to have chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation treatments. Bloomberg notes that her lawyers also claim that she has only a 20 percent chance of surviving past two years from now because of the cancer.

johnsonjohnson-jurors-quoteGiannecchini will receive both punitive damages and medical costs; $65 million will come from Johnson & Johnson and $2.5 million will come from Imerys Talc America for punitive damages, and almost $2.5 million will come from Johnson & Johnson for suffering and medical reimbursement. Giannecchini was pleased by the verdict, which she said she had been waiting for.

Jurors noted Johnson & Johnson’s seeming lack of concern. One St. Louis woman who served on the jury suggested that Johnson & Johnson could have added warning labels on products that contained talcum powder, saying that the company just didn’t seem to care.

A spokeswoman for Johnson & Johnson confirmed the company would appeal the decision, claiming that the science about talcum powder was on the company’s side. However, Allen Smith, who was Giannecchini’s lawyer, argued during the trial that the company did know about an extensive record of studies showing talc use was connected to increased ovarian cancer rates. Smith claimed the company decided to hunker down in self-protection rather than openly warning consumers of the increased risk. “They knew, and they knew the public was unaware of the risk,” he said. Smith also claimed the company did what it could to avoid government regulation that could have affected its products.

Johnson & Johnson face about 1,700 federal and state lawsuits regarding its Shower-to-Shower and baby powder product lines.

 

Death with Dignity for a Retired Falmouth Physician

 

Who would understand the implications of a “Death with Dignity,” or physician-assisted death, option more thoroughly than physicians? Dr. Roger M. Kligler and Dr. Alan Steinbach have long believed in and advocated for a patient’s right to obtain medication from their doctor in order to avoid extreme suffering due to terminal illness. As a physician, Dr. Kligler has has witnessed his own patients’ quality of life deteriorate during the final stages of cancer. Now that he is dealing with stage 4 metastatic prostate cancer, the fight is personal. He has expressed the desire to simply have the option to self-administer the lethal medication if his pain and suffering become unbearable without it resulting in the prosecution of his doctors.

Is a lawsuit the best way to move forward?

Unfortunately, Dr. Kligler may not have the time to wait for the next legislative session before receiving an answer. Ideally, a bill would pass successfully through the state house and senate in order to become a state law. Representative Louis Kafka (D-Stoughton) has filed at least four previous versions of an assisted death bill, beginning in 2011. He notes that each bill has garnered more support than the prior version even though the bills have not yet made it out of committee. The latest Compassionate Care for the Terminally Ill Act was co-sponsored by 39 Massachusetts lawmakers was filed in January 2015. The Joint Committee on Public Health essentially shut the bill down in June of 2016 by suggesting it be massachusetts-falmouth-physician-kliglerreviewed further.

Another option that would allow such a law to take effect would be a ballot initiative. The problem for Dr. Kligler is once again time. Because of Massachusetts ballot initiative rules, the next time a Death with Dignity bill can be presented to the public for a vote is in 2018. Although nearly 60% of the Commonwealth was in favor of a patient’s right to choose physician-assisted death, the 2012 ballot initiative was defeated 51% to 49%.

At this point, Dr. Kligler’s only hope at gaining the dignity to choose when and how he dies is if the court steps in to clarify the issue. On a positive note, there is not a law in Massachusetts that prohibits doctors from providing assistance to terminally ill patients who are ready to end their own lives. Compassion & Choices is a national organization that helped file the lawsuit on behalf of Kligler and Steinbach. The lawsuit seeks to determine what is actually allowed and what is explicitly forbidden according to current laws. After a statement made in a separate case in which justices seemed to acknowledge that a mature adult suffering from a terminal illness who may seek support, comfort and eventually assistance in ending their own life is a unique situation worthy of consideration.

 

 

Lawsuit Around 2011 Lake Death Settled

Tony and Paulette Bieker only desired to have a relaxing weekend in the outdoors on Antelope Lake. Unfortunately, the camping and lake weekend the couple had planned out quickly turned into a disaster during mid-July of 2011.

Antelope lake is located slightly northwest of Hays and is controlled by the Parks and Tourism division of the Kansas Department of Wildlife. On July 16 and 17, 2011, Bieker’s boat had somehow become pinned to slightly concealed obstacles that were hidden by the water. Although the boat was around 150 feet from shore, the boat was completely stuck. Bieker tried desperately to dislodge his boat from the obstacles but was unable to. He settled in and waited for sunlight to return when he intended to shout for help. His wife remained on land at their camping site.

As darkness arrived, an officer of the Kansas Department of Wildlife named Michael McGinnis saw that the boat remained on the water despite darkness setting in. The boat turned its emergency lights on and bieker-last-words-quotedirected them at Bieker. While Bieker may have thought this was help arriving, the officer instead ordered Bieker and his boat to get off of the water.

Bieker obeyed orders and donned a lifejacket. He entered the water and attempted to knock the boat free from its captors. Bieker’s wife saw that he had entered the water and shouted that is wasn’t safe to swim at night. Bieker was again unable to free the boat but was unable to climb back into the boat. He realized he was in trouble and shouted the words “I love you” to his wife.

Bieker slipped under the water. McGinnis tried three times to throw a rescue device to Bieker. He did not allow Bieker’s wife to swim to her husband’s assistance. McGinnis never called for backup. McGinnis dragged Bieker to shore and attempted emergency treatment unsuccessfully. He was pronounced dead at Hays Medical Center.

The lawsuit against the state was settled in the amount of $33,000. The state argued for dismissal of the lawsuit on the grounds that a law enforcement officer does not have any duty to provide extraordinary medical care. The plaintiff had sought over $75,000 in damages. $15,000 of the amount will come from the state’s treasury fund with the rest coming directly from the Kansas Wildlife Department.