Personal Injury Archive
POM Juice Misleads Again with “Doctored” Ads
May 25th, 2012. By AbiK
Unfortunately, advertising isn’t quite held to the same ethical bar that journalism (usually) is. There’s a careful and deliberate selection of each and every word in an ad—and you’re delusional if you think otherwise. But the folks over at POM Wonderful pomegranate juice have taken their selectivity a bit far this week in rolling out an ad campaign that serves as their rebuttal of sorts to the false advertising ruling made by Judge D. Michael Chappell.
Judge Chappell’s ruling was in response to an FTC complaint regarding the alleged health claims that POM was making about the popular juice. The bottom line? POM was found to have insufficient evidence to support its claims that its pomegranate juice reduced the risk of heart disease—as well as prostate cancer (and even impotence—gee, maybe they should’ve teamed up with Merck to help Propecia victims overcome ED while they were at it). The judge also issued a cease-and-desist order that forbids POM from making such claims for 20 years.
So what does POM do? In true catfight fashion, they stoop to childlike tactics and run some ads that use pull-quotes from the judge’s ruling—out of context. For example, one ad states (from the ruling) that, “Com
petent and reliable scientific evidence supports the conclusion that the consumption of pomegranate juice and pomegranate extract supports prostate health, including by prolonging PSA doubling time in men with rising PSA after primary treatment for prostate cancer”
But it cuts off there without the following statement: “However, the greater weight of the persuasive expert testimony shows that the evidence relied upon by the respondents is not adequate to substantiate claims that POM products treat, prevent or reduce the risk of prostate cancer or that they are clinically proven to do so.”
It’s an interesting ‘rebuttal’ as, without clinical studies supporting the health claims—studies that would stand up in a court of law, that is—the ads POM is running could actually backfire; after all, rather than just go quietly and not draw further attention to the ruling, now the media will be all over the ads (as we are). And without the ‘scientific proof’ it certainly starts to become transparent that this may well be more about sales and revenue impact than any grand gesture to promote the curative benefits of some medicinal elixir.
Well, as they say, you be the judge—and let us know what you think.
Bret Michaels Head Injury Lawsuit Settles
May 18th, 2012. By AbiK
Seems like ages ago now, but remember when Bret Michaels was all over the news after suffering that brain hemorrhage? Thankfully for him, his daughters and family, and Poison fans everywhere, he recovered—and we all got a glimpse of his ordeal when People magazine ran Michaels on its cover with the headline “I’m Lucky to be Alive”.
But while a hemorrhage can seemingly occur out of the blue, in Michaels case, there had been a head injury only the year before—in June, 2009. Michaels’ head injury occurred—rather publicly—during the 2009 Tony Awards, at which he and his band, Poison, were performing “Nothin’ But a Good Time”.
When the song was over, Michaels turned to leave the stage and that’s when a rather large piece of the set descended and appeared to hit Michaels in the head, knocking him down. He suffered a fractured nose and needed stitches in his lip.
Given the timing of the head injury, and then the brain hemorrhage less than a year later, Michaels filed a personal injury lawsuit in March, 2011 claiming the stage accident contributed to his life-threatening brain hemorrhage.
Both the Tony Awards and CBS were defendants in the lawsuit which alleged that the Tony Awards producers did not warn Michaels of a set change after his performance and CBS aired the accident thereby allowing it to be picked up by viewers who then made the accident go viral on sites like YouTube.
Needless to say, terms of the settlement—reached last week after a mediation session—are undisclosed. The head injury lawsuit did not specify the monetary damages being sought when Michaels filed it, however according to the Associated Press, Michaels did state that the injury hurt his ability to play at future shows.
Speaking of shows, now that Michaels is performing, fans can catch him on tour this summer–here’s list of Bret Michaels tour dates.
Occupy Movement Alive & Well beside Ben & The Boss in Philly
April 19th, 2012. By AbiK
It’s hard to put into words the feeling you get as you walk through Independence Mall in the heart of Philadelphia and reflect upon the fact that you’re not only walking past Ben Franklin’s grave, but also across the very ground that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton and so many others once trod. All in the name of independence. It’s beyond breathtaking—no matter how many times you make the trek.
Right now, however, that hallowed ground holds even more meaning—particularly as 2012 marks the 225th anniversary of the US Constitution and celebratory exhibits fill the National Constitution Center, which sits just opposite Independence Hall where both the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution were originally signed. Special exhibits in the Center currently include one with personal artifacts from The Boss, himself: “From Asbury Park to the Promised Land – The Life and Music of Bruce Springsteen”. Independence Mall, however, is also where Occupy Philly is stationed. Still. And the significance is surely not lost on anyone.
Most people probably think Occupy Philly, along with all the other Occupiers, simply rolled up their sleeping bags and headed for working toilets at home. Sure, there’d be the die-hards whipping out their MSR Reactor Stove Systems for yet another ramen noodle-based dinner, but the rest of them? Gone, right?
Well, yes—but no.
Turns out the Occupiers don’t like freezing their tails off. Valley Forge this is not, after all. And so after moving to remote locales and continuing to stoke the fires of discontent, they’re back.
As with the pre-winter Occupy movement, it’s hard to find the bullseye issue—sure, it’s about corporate greed, corporate involvement in politics, the mortgage crisis and foreclosures, predatory lending, racial inequality, the economy, unemployment, disproportionate tax burdens—collectively summed up by the symbolic moniker of the masses: the 99%.
But any one of those issues could stand on its own as a cause celebre. And that’s been the challenge for the Occupy movement from the get-go—which issue is so central, so quintessential, that it could serve as the key rallying cry? It’s more or less the philosophical version of “jack of all trades, master of none”. And yet, in its ambiguity, there is indeed clarity—that something is very wrong in this country right now.
On the day that I visited Independence Mall (and Hall), there were only a few Occupiers out on the lawn—that’s them in the picture above (see more pics on our Facebook page). Their main focus: Wells-Fargo, the bank that’s surely seen its name in print a few times on LawyersandSettlements.com. Their primary beef: Wells-Fargo outpaces any other Philadelphia bank when it comes to foreclosures—this, after getting bailed out by the government to the tune of $25 billion.
The group, PHARE (Philadelphians Allied for a Responsible Economy) —from #OccupyPhilly—has flyers circulating that invite you to “Join us in taking Wells Fargo to Trial”: June 13, 2012 at 9:00 a.m., Municipal Court, 1301 Filbert Street” in Philly. If you’re in town, you might want to stop by.
So Occupy Philly is indeed back—along with the peonies and clematis. And much like those perennials, the movement appears ready to keep coming back. But after all, when freedom is calling, don’t we all come back to it?
McDonald’s Hot Coffee Lawsuit Includes AWOL Sex Charges (Really)
April 12th, 2012. By AbiK
Rare is it, indeed, that you can write such a headline. But yes, there are two new McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuits—which is somehow fitting as we’re now celebrating the 20th anniversary of THE McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit—the one that gave birth to the whole hot coffee lawsuit genre. This time, while one lawsuit involves a distracted grandmother and her 4-year-old granddaughter, the other does, in fact, include an element of sex.
Let’s talk sex first. So how does one file a hot coffee lawsuit and somehow throw sex—specifically a lack of—into it? (I should use ‘loss of consortium’ here but really, who calls it ‘consortium’?)
Well, it appears that Melissa Pettigrew had ordered coffee at a McDonald’s drive-thru back in August, 2010. And the coffee spilled onto her lap—her thighs and abdomen to be specific—leading to a burn injury. According to a quote from her attorney, Ms. Pettigrew is still receiving treatment for her burns.
If you’ve ever had exceedingly hot coffee that you’ve ordered on-the-go, you know it can be pretty painful if it spills on you. You also know, however, that there are 50-50 odds at best that the person serving you the coffee has actually put the lid on properly. So it’s easy to see how Ms. Pettigrew might have wound up filing a personal injury complaint.
It’s her co-plaintiff that gives this hot coffee lawsuit it’s twist—yes, Ms. Pettigrew is not suing solo. Ms. Pettigrew’s husband is alleging that he’s suffered loss of consortium as a result of his wife’s hot coffee burn injuries. You know Mickey D’s in-house counsel said, “now we’ve seen everything” when this lawsuit landed on their desks.
Sadly, though, you can understand this one. We know—hot coffee lawsuit jokes aside—that the 1992 McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit was not actually frivolous—there was not only injury but what most would consider negligence on McDonald’s part (note, the ’92 lawsuit went to trial and ultimately settled). And, if the allegations in the Pettigrews’ lawsuit are true—i.e., that that McDonald’s employees served coffee that was too hot or without securing the lid, or that McDonald’s did not properly train and educate workers on handing hot coffee to customers—then shame on McDonald’s for not effectively institutionalizing processes and procedures to avoid such hot coffee injuries.
The second McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit has two sides to it—it’s not as seemingly straightforward as the one above.
In this one, Mona Abdelal was with her granddaughters, Lynn Abdelal (4 yrs. old) and her 2-year-old sister, at a McDonald’s in Harwood Heights, IL. The grandmother had finished her coffee and instructed little Lynn to throw the cup out. Lynn, not understanding, went up to the McDonald’s counter and ordered a refill for her grandmother. The little girl was told that fresh coffee was brewing, so the girl came back and was given a cup of coffee—allegedly with an unsecured lid and no protective cardboard holder.
According to the complaint, Lynn “could not hold the cup steady in her small hands. A lot of coffee spilled out of the cup onto (the girl’s) chest, causing (her) to sustain severe second-degree burns”.
There is absolutely no question that it is a travesty when a little child—any child—is harmed; and in this instance, the girl’s doctors have said she will have permanent scarring from the coffee burns.
There is also absolutely no question, that if the allegations are true—that a McDonald’s worker gave a 4-year-old hot coffee (beyond irresponsible) that was improperly contained (negligence)—that McDonald’s should at least in part be liable.
However, think of the time elapsed here—a little girl who is supposed to go to a trash bin and come right back instead goes to the restaurant counter, engages in at least some dialog, has to come back for the coffee, and then gingerly walk back to the table to Grandma. Where on earth was the grandmother’s attention all that time? According to reports, it was on the 2-year-old sister. Understandably, but a lack of attention on the 4-year-old as she’s wandering through McDonald’s seems a bit, well irresponsible.
So while this hot coffee lawsuit is seeking close to $4 million in damages, there are some grey areas and we’ll have to see where it all nets out.
LAS Newsletter: Top Legal News, Free Delivery, Every Week
April 2nd, 2012. By AbiK
Sign up for our free weekly newsletter to keep up on the latest legal news: class action lawsuits, lawsuit settlements, mass tort litigation, securities fraud lawsuits, and more.
The LawyersandSettlements.com newsletter is published weekly, and delivered free to your inbox.
This week’s top legal news: class action lawsuits for CarMax, GoDaddy, Dial Soap, Medicus Golf, Reebok Toning Shoes, Google Privacy, Yo-Plus Yogurt, Harley Davidson, and the Honda Hybrid.
Also, an update on Yasmin and Yaz lawsuits—what’s going on with talk of Bayer Yaz settlements and what does it mean for claimants?
Read all about it—and more—every week. Sign up now!
Find us on
Archive by Category
- Accidents (24)
- Airlines (9)
- Asbestos Mesothelioma (262)
- Automotive (25)
- Celebrity (14)
- Class Action (84)
- Complaints/Comments (15)
- Consumer Fraud (84)
- Contest (2)
- Court of Public Opinion (5)
- Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See (61)
- Criminal Law (4)
- Defective Products (111)
- DePuy ASR Hip Recall (2)
- Discrimination (22)
- Drugs/Medical (248)
- Elder Care Abuse (4)
- Emerging Issues (462)
- Employment (54)
- Environment (52)
- Financial (28)
- Food Illness (15)
- Human/Civil Rights (4)
- Insecurities (5)
- Insurance (16)
- Intellectual Property (16)
- Internet/E-commerce (19)
- lawsuits (161)
- Lawyers (20)
- Lawyers Giving Back (43)
- Lex Levity (10)
- Personal Injury (106)
- Pleading Ignorance (53)
- Real Estate (2)
- Recall (6)
- Scam (3)
- Securities (13)
- Settlement (81)
- Tort Reform (2)
- Totally Tortelicious (81)
- Veterans (11)
- Whistleblower (9)