What Happens to Your Image After the Airport Scan?

August 23rd, 2010. By Hunter West

A group known as the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), working through a Freedom of Information Act request, obtained what was described as a “representative sample” of more than 35,000 ‘whole body images’ of attendees at a US courthouse in Orlando. 

The images are captured by millimeter wave technology and are ghost-like, not showing much detail. 

However, what bothers the EPIC and privacy advocates everywhere, is that the images were even available at all. 

The Bijot Gen2 imaging system scans and captures the images of people entering the court facility, for security purposes. US marshals have the capacity to view the current image, and the previous two images, while on security detail. 

But instead of being automatically purged the images—according to an August 4^th CNN report—are automatically stored in the system’s hard drive. While the images are available for viewing after the fact, they can only be accessed with the use of a system pass code. 

Privacy advocates maintain that this type of archiving makes them nervous with regard to the use of backscatter X-ray machines at the nation’s airports. While the full-body scans Read the rest of this entry »

Chantix Turned Mother into Momzilla

August 20th, 2010. By janem

I don’t know what’s worse: second-hand cigarette smoke or second-hand Chantix. After 62 years of smoking, my 78-year-old mother decided it was time to quit so she asked her doctor to prescribe Chantix. She drove me crazy.

Fortunately for me, my mum lives a few thousand miles away. My crummy sister Jill, who warned me about our mother’s sudden change in temperament, is not so lucky—she lives a stone’s throw away. I say crummy because it was Jill who suggested that mum visit me for two weeks, just after Mum finished taking two month’s worth of Chantix. Crummy because she warned me about Mum’s anger issues just a day before mum arrived. If I’d known our mother had turned into Momzilla, I would never have let her get on the plane to visit me. (Good thing she wasn’t Steven Slater’s passenger—his hissy fit would have likely resulted in fisticuffs!)

Mum arrived August 6^th and by nightfall I was drinking heavily. The first thing she commented on was my appearance. “Your hair is too dark; when you get older you should go lighter,” she advised. “You’d look better as a blonde.” I guess she doesn’t know any stupid blonde jokes. “You’ve got quite the pot,” was her next remark, and she wasn’t referring to anything in my kitchen.

“I’m thinking about making a new will and leaving everything to your brother because he doesn’t have much, what do you think?” she asked/said. I suggested that might not bode well for the rest of us (I have three sisters) and would likely cause a rift in the family. “Well that’s what I’ve decided.” Why bother asking me?

She’s a bit hard of hearing so the TV was blasting at full volume and always tuned into programs I hate: afternoon soaps, reality shows. I started drinking in the daytime. Cabin fever set in just a few days after her arrival so we went on a road trip. Big mistake. My mother doesn’t drive but she sure knows how to instruct.

And she argued with everything I said, right up until it was time to leave. “I have to be at the airport two hours before my plane takes off,” she insisted. “OK Mum, but it’s a domestic flight so you just have to be there an hour beforehand,” I replied. “No, it’s two hours.” As I was hauling her 200 lb suitcase down the stairs, she said “I don’t have to be there until 60 minutes beforehand.”  I should have told her she had to be there a day beforehand.

And the glass was always half-empty. “There probably isn’t any parking” or “There likely won’t be any seats left” when I suggested we see a movie. “I bet they [the airline] make me pay extra for all this added weight” because I gave her a book for my sister—the crummy one.

Of course I love my mum. Even my friends love her and say she is the sweetest lady. But that was pre-Chantix. I just hope she gets this drug out of her system and back to normal before someone loses their patience. Before she turns her family and friends into raving alcoholics. Of course she is blissfully unaware that she has become Momzilla.

Mum, if you are reading this, it’s for your own good. I have to go now and pour myself a gin and tonic.

Good to Know: How Statute of Limitations is like Final Jeopardy

August 20th, 2010. By Kristine B

I’ll wager a bet. If every time you took a prescription drug you heard the “Final Jeopardy” theme song (aka, “Think Music”) in the background to alert you that time could be ticking away on your ability to recover any damages for side effects you may be having from the meds, well, you’d be mighty aware of the concept of statute of limitations. You’d also probably avoid hearing Alex Trebec say, “Oh, I’m sorry…time is up…” But alas, statutes of limitations have this way of lurking quietly in the background—unnoticed until it’s too late.

Lots of legal articles mention the statute of limitations, but many people don’t know what it actually means or how it affects them. They also don’t know how complex figuring out the statute of limitations can be. So this week, Pleading Ignorance examines the Statute of Limitations and the complex role it plays in prescription drug lawsuits. 

We previously posted about the statute of limitations. Basically, the statute of limitations sets out how long a potential plaintiff has to file a lawsuit following an alleged wrong. So, for example: if the statute of limitations in a personal injury case is two years and you’re in a car accident on Feb 1, 2010, you have until Feb 1, 2012 to file a lawsuit. 

Now, you may ask, why even have a statute of limitations? After all, if someone wronged someone else it shouldn’t matter how long it takes to file the lawsuit–wrong is wrong, right? Well, wrong. Let’s take a look at some simple examples. Think about the car accident above. Say it’s now five or eight years later. And say that now the victim has some new physical maladies—like maybe joint pain that limits movement—and the victim is blaming it on the accident. Oh, but by the way, osteoporosis and arthritis run in the victim’s family. Hmm. Now we’re in muddy waters and can’t really figure out just what’s attributable to the accident.

And think of it another way—say part of a tree—yourtree—falls on your neighbors house, and damages a window. The neighbor drags their heels on doing any repairs. Fast-forward a bit and now the neighbor comes after you with a lawsuit claiming there is water damage caused by a leak from that branch falling eons ago. What’s your reaction? I’ll tell you: “Hell no it ain’t from that branch!” So there are reasons why time limits are put on someone’s ability to file a lawsuit.

Sounds simple so far, right? Not so fast. The statute of limitations varies by state and by type of wrong. So in one state there may be a two-year statute of limitations on personal injury cases but a six-year statute of limitations on property damage.  Another state may have a three-year statute of limitations for personal injury. 

Even in relatively straight-forward cases, the statute of limitations can make things complex, but when you enter the murky world of pharmaceutical litigation, things get downright tricky. 

Because different states have different statutes of limitations and because the plaintiff may be in a different state than the defendant, it becomes critical to determine where the lawsuit will be tried. 

Furthermore, the statute of limitations starts running when the harm has occurred or when the victim becomes aware of the harm (or should have been aware of the harm). But for patients, determining when the harm occurred, or when the harm was linked to the medication, can be tricky. 

Some patients suffer side effects from medications for years without realizing the medication is linked to their health problems. Even if there is a warning from the FDA about a drug, if the patient isn’t diagnosed by a doctor, he may have no reason to suspect a drug is causing him harm. For many drugs, the statute of limitations runs once the FDA has issued a warning or announced a new black box label on a drug, but not all patients link their health problems to the medication at this point.

That’s an important part of this that’s worth repeating: …the statute of limitations runs once the FDA has issued a warning or announced a new black box label on a drug. Unfortunately, many patients who become aware that a side effect is specifically related to a drug find themselves outside of the statute of limitations for litigation for that drug—that is, they connect the dots too late to really do anything about it. And that’s why sites like LawyersAndSettlements.com, and law firms and consumer advocate groups, share the “need to file by” dates with consumers—see our Heparin and Avandia post on statute of limitations.  

The bottom line? If you think you’ve been harmed by a medication, the sooner you speak to a lawyer the better. The last thing you want to hear is that you could have had a case against the drug company, but you let too much time pass before talking to a lawyer. 

And, don’t leave it until the statute of limitations is almost up. After all, the lawyer still has to collect evidence before a lawsuit can be filed. Collecting evidence takes time, too.

Asbestos News Roundup: 8.19.10

August 19th, 2010. By LucyC

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

Asbestos Lawsuits

Everett, WA: Dozens of firefighters in the city of Everett have filed asbestos lawsuits totaling a reported $9 million, and some are moving toward a multimillion dollar lawsuit against the city, alleging they and their spouses were exposed to asbestos during training exercises in city-owned buildings known to contain asbestos. Those exercises included chopping holes in several of the homes on North Broadway and Tower streets. 

However, unlike a real-life situation, the firefighters were not wearing self-contained breathing gear during the exercises. According to a report on the Heraldnet.com, “At least one fire official knew the houses contained asbestos before the training, but the exercise went on anyway, apparently because of miscommunication.” 

The firefighters don’t want money, apparently, but instead want the city to undertake to pay for lifetime medical monitoring for asbestos-related health problems. And they want that undertaking in writing. 

City spokesperson Kate Reardon told the Heraldnet.com that the city has offered lifetime medical monitoring to 27 of the firefighters who are named in the claim. They were thought Read the rest of this entry »

Paris Hilton’s Bad Hair Day Could Cost Her $3.5 Million

August 19th, 2010. By LucyC

We’ve all had bad hair days—but Paris Hilton, in her usual fashion, has managed to take it to a whole new level. She is reportedly being sued (yes, hard to believe, I know) for wearing the wrong hair extensions. In fact, she’s being sued for breach of contract. And the company wants damages 10 times the amount of the contract…ummm 

The suit, and I have not read it personally so caveat emptor, claims that Paris wore a competitor’s hair extensions in 2008, presumably out to an event, instead of those made by Hairtech International Inc. They apparently manufacture a line of hair extensions called “DreamCatchers,” (‘bad dream’-catchers might have been more appropriate) that Paris agreed to front beginning in 2007. The suit also claims that Paris missed a launch party for a new product in 2007 because she was in jail. 

FYI, you can see Paris and the—er, her—DreamCatcher hair extensions on the DreamCatcher website. Yes, hard feelings aside, according to the website, it’s not just Paris lending her face to DreamCatchers—it’s “DreamCatchers by Paris Hilton”—which begs the question, Read the rest of this entry »