Asbestos News Roundup: 5.7.10

May 7th, 2010. By LucyC

A roundup of recent asbestos-related news and information that you should be aware of. 

Asbestos Lawsuits

South East Texas: The children of a recently deceased man have filed an asbestos lawsuit against the petroleum giant Chevron, alleging their father was lethally exposed to asbestos during his career with company as a helper electrician and operator.

According to the lawsuit, Cyrus Kugler developed asbestos-related lung cancer from which he died on July 15, 2008. His children cite Chevron for a number of negligent acts, including allowing their father to work around the substance when Chevron knew of its hazards, exposing him to asbestos, failing to timely and adequately warn him of the dangers of asbestos exposure and failing to take proper precautions to ensure that he was not exposed to asbestos. (setexasrecord.com)

Charleston, WV: The widow of James A. Boggs has filed an asbestos-related lawsuit over her late husband’s cause of death which names 85 companies as defendants.

Deborah E. Boggs’ late husband was a production foreman and plant operator at Conoco Venco in Moundsville. He was diagnosed with asbestosis and lung cancer, according to a complaint filed April 12 in Kanawha Circuit Court.

Mrs. Boggs alleges that her husband was exposed to asbestos products during the years he worked for the defendants and that they failed to warn him of the dangers of the products to which he was exposed. Mrs. Boggs further claims that the defendants knew or should have known that exposure to the asbestos-containing products would cause disease and injury. Mr. Boggs was diagnosed with asbestosis and lung cancer.

The 85 defendant companies are: 20th Century Glove Corporation; Allied Glove Corporation; Anchor Packing Company; Armstrong International, Inc.; Aurora Pump Company; A.W. Chesterton Read the rest of this entry »

Antidepressant Guide: the Brands, the Generics & Who Makes Them

May 6th, 2010. By Kristine B

These days, there are many drugs to keep track of. It’s not just the brand name drug anymore; patients could be taking a generic equivalent. So, this week, Pleading Ignorance looks at the SSRIs and SNRIs to give you the brand name, manufacturer, generic version and the generic’s manufacturer. Consider it your one-stop cheat sheet on some of the more commonly prescribed antidepressants.

Brand name	Ingredient	Made By	Generic	Made By
Celexa (SSRI)	citalopram hydrobromide	Forest Laboratories	citalopram	Eon Labs, Inc., Aurobindo Pharma Limited, Purepac Pharmaceutical Co., Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited, Corepharma LLC
Lexapro (SSRI)	escitalopram oxalate	Forest Laboratories	escitalopram	Alphrapharm
Paxil/Seroxat    (SSRI)	paroxetine hydrochloride	GlaxoSmithKline	paroxetine	Apotex, Alphapharm, Teva, Aurobindo Pharma, Zydus Pharms USA, Caraco
Prozac (SSRI)	fluoxetine hydrochloride	Eli Lilly and Company	fluoxetine	ESI Lederle (tentative approval)
Symbyax (SSRI)	olanzapine and fluoxetine hydrochloride	Eli Lilly and Company	olanzapine/ fluoxetine	Teva Pharms (tentative approval, July 17, 2007)
Zoloft (SSRI)	sertraline hydrochloride	Pfizer Pharmaceuticals	sertraline	Dr Reddy’s Labs Ltd, Teva, Genpharm, Aurobindo Pharma, Sandoz and many others
Zyprexa (atypical antipsychotic)	olanzapine	Eli Lilly and Company	olanzapine	All tentative approval: Dr. Reddy’s Labs Inc, Teva Pharms, Mylan PHarma, Sandoz, Barr Pharms, Roxane
Cymbalta (SNRI)	duloxetine hydrochloride	Eli Lilly and Company	duloxetine	No generic so far as I can tell
Effexor (SNRI)	venlafaxine	Wyeth	venlafaxine hydrochloride	Aurobindo, Mylan, Teva, Dr Reddy’s Labs Ltd, Caraco and others

The information in the chart above was found at either drugs@fda, or on the individual drug manufacturer’s website. As far as I can tell, this information is correct as of the date it was written—and it is not intended to replace the information you might receive from your doctor or medical practitioner (hey, have to say it, we’re a legal site). Talk to your doctor or pharmicist for medical advice.

Mad as Hell at Moneygram and the FTC

May 6th, 2010. By AbiK

I’m having a “Network” moment—for those of you old enough to recall the classic cult flick.

I just read another comment from a reader whose father—only YESTERDAY—was the victim of a Moneygram scam. It was your run-of-the-mill scam story. Someone in Canada calls to tell Dad that his son was in a car accident. And, unfortunately, son didn’t buy the rental car insurance. They need $3,000 or they will detain son and he won’t make flight home. They need the money now. Via Moneygram.

Dad sends the cash. Dad then calls son’s cell phone. Dad finds out truth. Dad not happy. Dad files complaint with Moneygram—and gets a bit of a brush off as he tries to glean any info about the situation. Kudos to the Moneygram Customer Service Department (sarcasm dripping from my fingertips). Dad also files a police report. Dad does most everything he’s supposed to. (You can read my post on what to do if you’ve been Moneygram scammed). Only other thing he should do is…

File a complaint with the FTC at ftc.gov or at 1-877-FTC-HELP.

And here’s what ticks me off.

Only last week the FTC began mailing out the over 34,000 redress checks—on average $520 per victim—to close the loop on the Moneygram fine the FTC ordered Moneygram to pay. But keep in mind, the redress checks—and the FTC’s fine—only applied to folks who were victimized during the years 2004-2008. It’s 2010. And it’s still happening.

It was only this past February we’d posted about the $18 million fine that Moneygram was ordered, in October ’09, to cough up to the FTC to help offset the losses—to the tune of $84 million—that victims unwittingly lost in Moneygram scams. That post also included the list of things that the folks at Moneygram were supposed to enact to help stop Moneygram fraud. That list, to refresh your memory, stated that Moneygram was to:

• Not knowingly provide substantial help or support to any sellers or telemarketers that are violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule.
• Implement a comprehensive anti-fraud program, that includes background checks on prospective agents; consumer fraud education and training for Moneygram’s employees; agent monitoring; and disciplinary action for those agents who do not comply with the rules.
• Provide a clear and conspicuous fraud warning on the front of all its money transfer forms.
• Develop and maintain a system for receiving consumer complaints and data, and to provide that information to the FTC upon request.
• Take all reasonable steps to identify agents who are involved in fraud. This means Moneygram must Read the rest of this entry »

Stop Spokeo.com in its Tracks and Protect Your Privacy – NOW

May 5th, 2010. By AbiK

If you hadn’t been aware of a newer site in town called Spokeo.com, it’s time you gave them a visit.

As you can see from the image here, you can “Uncover personal photos, videos, and secrets…GUARANTEED”. Tantalizing and titillating, yes. Acting with a shred of integrity or a nod to Internet privacy and online protection? No.

As they say, “It’s not your grandma’s phonebook.”

No, it sure isn’t. For a mere $2.95 a month (one year subscription) you and just about the entire webosphere can access quite a bit of info about you. What types of info? Take a little look-see…

Your address

Photos of you

Your online profiles

Credit rating information

The demographics of where you live

How many people (and children) are in your household

Your zodiac sign

Your interests and hobbies

Your home’s worth

Your marital status

Your ethnicity

Your education level

And more!

Now, yes, one can argue that all of this information is generally available online in various places—some free, some not. But, Spokeo.com comes along and aggregates all that info for anyone to see and puts it in a neat little package—a package of YOU—for a mere $2.95. It reminds me of actuarial work where values are placed on a life, or a limb—and they always seem a tad bit low given what a life or limb truly represent to those who own the life or limb. I’m thinking $2.95 is a pretty low value being placed on our personal details and online privacy.

GET YOURSELF OFF SPOKEO.COM NOW.

Here’s how:

Visit www.Spokeo.com. Enter your name and location in the search box. You’ll see a bunch of info come up. Some of it will be accurate, some not.

Scroll down to the very bottom of the page…to the teeny gray-colored type at the bottom and look for the word “Privacy”. Click on it.

A pop up window will appear. This is the screen where you can remove yourself, your information, your life from Spokeo.com.

Toggle back to the original page you were on. Go to the URL bar at the top and copy that URL.

Return to the privacy page. Paste the URL you just copied into the first box where they ask for your URL.

Enter your email—you need to do this so they can bounce back an email to you to verify that you’re removing your information.

Finally, in the last box, type in the squiggly characters you see. And click “Submit”.

You’ll receive a confirmation email in your inbox. Click the link in the email to verify, and double check (search your name again on Spokeo.com) to ensure you’ve been removed.

Do it now.

On Disability by Day. Stripper by Night. It’s Totally Tortelicious

May 4th, 2010. By LucyC

Welcome to Totally Tortelicious—a review of some of the more bizarre legal stories making news—and there’s certainly no shortage of them.

What was in that drink? Some woman in Chicago is suing a hair salon because she fell through their plate glass window from the sidewalk—the result of her attempt to kick (and presumably do damage to) her husband, whom she was fighting with. Now that’s attractive.

Did I mention she’d had a few drinks? Well, she had, and she did, mention it to the lawyer she hired that is. In fact that was her point—she claimed that the window should have been made of stronger stuff—fortified somehow—because it’s located on a sidewalk “frequently traveled by intoxicated pedestrians.”

Are you kidding me? What on earth was in her Kool-Aid? Sounds to me like she just likes to pick fights…

She won’t be jiggling out of this one. I think this one’s a little unfair. A waitress in Pennsylvania recently got nabbed for fraud for claiming disability while working at a ‘jiggle joint’. (Haven’t heard that one before).

She had apparently claimed she had a back injury, but was spotted by private investigators dancing at C.R. Fanny’s Gentleman’s Club (I love that term…) while taking $27,000 in disability benefits.

I don’t know, I think she demonstrated a very enterprising spirit. And, besides, I don’t think a perfectly healthy back is a primary requirement in that line of work…

What interests me is who hired the private investigators?

Hide and Seek—or would that be Seek and Hide? A 28-year old man was found hiding under a neighbor’s sport utility vehicle after stealing some prescription Xanax from his mother—and hey—the goods were stashed in her bra in an effort to prevent just such a situation.

Apparently she woke up to find him stealing the prescription medication. But the report doesn’t say whether she was wearing her bra at the time.

FYI—Xanax is benzodiazepine used to treat anxiety and panic. Getting a picture here?

The son, showing equal ingenuity, notwithstanding managing to squeeze himself under an SUV, had managed to get his hands on 22 pills and wrapped 15 of them in toilet paper then hidden them in his sock. When the police searched his room they found more pills and various drug-related stuff. So, he’s in jail with a bond set at $40K.

Well, maybe his mother will sleep a little better now…at least she won’t be interrupted.