Enough with the Hot Beverage Lawsuits

July 3rd, 2010. By AbiK

Flashback, 1992. Stella Liebeck. Hot coffee. From McDonald’s. You remember the case. Personal injury. She was in a car—I believe her grandson’s—riding shotgun when the coffee she received from a McDonald’s drive-thru. Apparently the car was not in motion when she went to take the lid off the coffee to add cream and sugar. And, apparently there had been a fair number of claims over the ten years prior to this incident where folks had complained about Mickey Dee’s coffee being too hot. Yes, temps were taken and the coffee you have at home is apparently 135 to 140 degrees; the drive-thru coffee was 185 degrees (plus or minus five degrees). So yeah, it was hot. And Liebeck got burned.

There was a fair amount of public outcry about this case—even though Ms. Liebeck did get burned. It seemed frivolous to many—myself included. Not because McDonald’s was in the right. But because of this question: What is the reasonable expectation that a person might get burned by a cup of hot coffee?. If you ask me, it’s pretty reasonable to expect that such might happen. Contrast with the very sad and unfortunate case that just happened last week in New York City—the baby that died as a result of a tree limb falling at the Central Park Zoo. There is no reasonable expectation that a tree limb—one that hangs on trees that are reportedly pruned regularly—will fall out of the blue and strike someone. It’s a freak of nature. Unexpected. Inexplicable. And with terrible consequences.

Not so the coffee. You buy it knowing and expecting it to be hot. Don’t believe me? Try grabbing a quick cup of Joe from Dunkin Donuts—and take a sip pronto. You’ll know what hot is. And yet, hot is an expectation of its customers. And along with that comes some risk. Risk that I know to bear personally—and to drink responsibly as a result of.

So here we are…fast-forward to 2010. Scene: Starbucks in Bensonhurst, NY. Villona Maryash orders tea. She’s in the Starbucks with her 5-month old son in a stroller next to her. She receives the tea, and according to nypost.com, awaits her food order. She picks up the tea to take a sip, and heavens to Betsy—realizes it’s hot. So she drops it. The tea spills over her son, “causing ‘serious injuries'”.

Here’s the beef: the lawsuit claims the tea was “improperly served”. That it did not have the omnipresent protective sleeve on it (and gee, is it now enough for coffee houses to simply provide a stack of the sleeves at the milk and sugar bar, as so many do?). Maryash’s lawyer goes as far as to say “proper” serving would’ve also meant it would’ve come on a tray as well. When was the last time you ordered a drink—sans food as the food wasn’t there yet—and got it on a tray at an establishment where, I’m guessing, 85% of the patrons order drinks to-go?

I don’t know what damages are being sought. And I am certainly sorry that a young, innocent and helpless child was on the receiving end of the spilled tea. That’s not in question here. But when will we learn that a hot beverage is, uh, HOT? That extra care needs to be taken upon taking a hot drink from the cashier. That it’s reasonable to expect that the hot drink may be just hot enough to cause a burn…

Asbestos News Roundup: 7.2.10

July 2nd, 2010. By LucyC

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

Asbestos Hot Spots

Quebec, CA: The Canadian Public Health Association (CPHA) and the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) have joined the Canadian Cancer Society’s appeal to the Quebec government urging them not to approve a $58 million loan guarantee for the Jeffrey Asbestos mine in Quebec.

If the loan is approved, it would give the mine, which is currently under bankruptcy protection, another 25 years of life. The 131-year old mine is one of a handful that remain in Canada, the fifth-largest exporter of chrysotile to developing countries, including India and Indonesia.

The mine is located in the town of Asbestos, east of the provincial capital of Quebec, Montreal. (The Montreal Gazette.com)

Asbestos Law

Chicago, IL: Three Illinois real estate developers, Michael J. Pinski, 41, of Kankakee, Duane L. O’Malley, 57, of Bourbonnais, and James A. Mikrut, 47, of Manteno, have been indicted for illegally dumping asbestos in an open field in Hopkins Park, Illinois. 

Pinski and his associates are each charged with five felony counts of violating the Clean Air Act for their alleged actions in illegally removing and disposing of asbestos from a building owned by Pinski’s company, Dearborn Management, Inc. 

The allegations state that 127 trash bags were removed from the Kankakee building in 2009, after Pinski hired O’Malley and his company, Origin Fire Protection, for the remediation work. The plastic bags reportedly contained asbestos, which O’Malley and his employees were not trained or certified to Read the rest of this entry »

How to Scam A Lawyer…?

July 2nd, 2010. By AbiK

This is priceless. I’m doing my morning download/debrief from all the media and legal sites I follow and I come across a gem from over at ABAJournal.com. It’s a story about a 50-year old con artist who—and here’s the priceless part—was SCAMMING LAW FIRMS.

You have to take pause with this one.

Not because the perp was charged with second-degree forgery and petit larceny—hopefully he wasn’t engaging in such activity as his catch-up plan for boosting retirement savings—but because of the nature of the scam itself.

Here’s the deal: apparently this guy calls law firms, says he’s “Jimmy” (aka James Hill) and that he “found” a package—on the subway–that was addressed to the aforementioned firm. Ok, perhaps Good Samaritan, right? But here’s where the scam part comes in. He tells whoever’s on the phone at the law firm that he will deliver the package if the firm pays for his cab fare. 

Now, no, this is not some case of “please get a Moneygram wired to me at the corner of Walk and Don’t Walk” (yes, a nod to Lily Tomlin). No—this guy actually had a package that he would deliver. And then the law firm would reimburse “Jimmy” for his cab fare—and according the the abajournal post, sometimes that included tips!

That’s the low-down, and here’s my list of what’s wrong with this picture…

1. Crime scene is NYC. Is there any true, native New Yorker that would not raise an eyebrow upon receiving such a call?

2. It’s a law firm. These guys litigate this stuff all the time. Hello?

3. “Jimmy” “finds” the package on a subway. Ok, you could argue Read the rest of this entry »

80% of Approved US Drug Trials Done Outside US – What?!?

July 1st, 2010. By Hunter West

 

“As sponsors increase the number of foreign clinical trials in support of FDA marketing applications, the agency’s current method of using inspections to ensure human subject protections and data validity is becoming increasingly strained.”

– Daniel R. Levinson

A recent report by the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services reveals just how much pharmaceutical drug testing is going on in the shadow of foreign shores… 

Eighty percent, according to Daniel R. Levinson. That’s 80 percent for trials of all drugs approved for sale in the US by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2008. 

Wow. 

What’s more, 78 percent of all subjects who participated in clinical trials were enrolled in foreign sites for drugs given the nod that year. 

For some time now, there has been concern about the quality of drugs manufactured offshore. China comes to mind. Look at the heparin debacle of a few years ago. While there is massive incentive for drug companies to manufacture on foreign soil for the cost savings (and the better bottom line that goes along with it), the downside is that often you don’t know what you’re getting. 

And now, the revelation that most drug testing is going on somewhere else. 

That’s troubling, because in both cases—manufacturing and testing—the FDA lacks both the financial and staff resources to properly monitor things. 

Check out some of the numbers contained in Levinson’s report, released towards the end of June and summarized in The New York Times. The FDA inspected fewer foreign clinical trial sites, than Read the rest of this entry »

Avandia Study Conflicts – and Conflicts of Interest?

June 30th, 2010. By AbiK

So after the latest two Avandia studies came out earlier this week, we then see a third Avandia study—this one will also be debating fodder for the advisory panels at the FDA’s July meeting—the one that will determine Avandia‘s fate. The study was presented late Monday at the American Diabetes Association’s annual meeting by Dr. Richard Bach, associate professor of medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

Here’s the thing though—the fist two studies basically added a few nails in Avandia’s ever-growing coffin. But this latest study to hit the airwaves actually digresses from the previous two in its findings—it states that there is no increased risk of heart attack, stroke or death associated with taking Avandia.

Hmm. Doesn’t that just make things a little…less definitive?

However, upon looking more deeply into this third study, some things about it just sort of pop out. For example, according to an article from healthfinder.gov, this third study if of a smaller sample size: 2,400 patients—compared to over 35,000 from the study done at the Cleveland Clinic.

There’s more..

• The third study was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Oh, and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). Oh, and if you recall, GSK just happens to make Avandia. Conflict of interest? (just asking).
• While death, heart attack and stroke incidence rates were apparently 28 percent lower in the third study for those taking Avandia vs. those not taking a thiazolidinedione (TZD) medication, congestive heart failure was higher—just not at a rate “considered significant”. What was significant was a 45 percent increase in risk of fractures for those who took Avandia. (Ok—not heart-related, but 45 percent sounds more than significant to me).
• Apparently the ages of the participants in the third study were lower than that of the other studies. Translation: the other studies’ participants may have been more frail. Two things here: first, I don’t care what ages folks are who are affected by a drug–everyone’s well-being matters. So if an older population is more adversely affected, they’re still adversely affected. And second, so the tests are not comparing apples to apples–which should detract from the ability to make comparisons and draw conclusions.

Hard to say where the FDA advisory panel will net out in July. Will we still see Avandia on the market? Stay tuned.