Top 10 Whistleblower Cases of 2012 Net Over $7.5B

February 4th, 2013. By AbiK

A recent report by the Federal Elections Commission has come out putting the cost of the recent election cycle at more than $7 billion. That’s a lot of money. Enough that the folks over at Newsy put together the little video clip (above) about it.

But $7 billion ironically pops up in another tally for 2012—the top 10 whistleblower settlements for the year add up to more than $7.5 billion. It’s a staggering amount—not only for an election, but also for whistleblower cases as, think about it, it only represents the tip of the iceberg.

If you’re wondering what those whistleblower settlements were, here’s the list:

1. GlaxoSmithKine – $3 billion

Reason: Illegally marketing some of its prescription drugs such as Paxil, Avandia, Advair, Wellbutrin, Zofran, Imitrex, Lamictal, Lotronex, Floven and Valtrex.

2. Abbott Laboratories – $1.5 billion

Reason: Abbott’s off-label marketing of Depakote.

3. Bank of America – $1 billion

Reason: Mortgage and bank fraud.

4. Merck – $950 million

Reason: Marketing Vioxx illegally

5. Pfizer – $491 million

Reason: Kickbacks and using off-label marketing for organ transplant rejection drug, Rapamune

6. Senior Care Action Network – $323 million

Reason: California Medicaid and HMO cost reporting fraud.

7. Actavis – $202 million

Reason: to settle numerous claims that the company reported inflated prices of its drugs, causing the US and four state governments to overpay.

8. Deutsche Bank – $202 million

Reason: False certification for HUD/FHA loans

9. Oracle – $199 million

Reason: Failure to provide discount pricing

10. McKesson – $190 million

Reason: Accusations that the company inflated prices of numerous prescription drugs, resulting in Medicaid overpaying for those drugs.

Asbestos News Roundup: 1.31.13 – Construction Materials & Asbestos Risk

January 31st, 2013. By LucyC

This week’s asbestos news roundup includes all the recent asbestos-related news and information that you should be aware of. An ongoing list of reported asbestos hot spots in the US from the Asbestos News Roundup archive appears on our asbestos map.

Construction Materials and Asbestos Risk

Many of the materials used in construction, including welding, pipefitting, and millwright work, contained, or in some cases still contain asbestos. By the mid-20th century asbestos was being used in fire retardant coatings, concrete, bricks, pipes and fireplace cement, heat, fire, and acid resistant gaskets, pipe insulation, ceiling insulation, fireproof drywall, flooring, roofing, lawn furniture, and drywall joint compound.

It wasn’t until the 1980s that the knowledge of the dangers of asbestos exposure and related asbestos disease became more widely known amongst the general public. Consequently, millions of men and women likely worked on or around asbestos without any protection for decades.

It would not be uncommon for people to work with asbestos-containing products, either installing or removing them, which would send asbestos fibers into the air. The fibers are inhaled, and settle on people’s clothing—and that’s how asbestos disease begins. People who become ill from asbestos are usually exposed to it on a regular basis, hence the hundreds of asbestos lawsuits we are seeing now.

Asbestos Lawsuits

Jefferson County, TX: Union Pacific Railroad Co, is facing an asbestos lawsuit filed by employees who allege they developed asbestos-related lung disease due to decades’ worth of work-related exposure.

The plaintiffs, Henry J. Buckley, Gilbert A. Curtis, Ronald Morale, Jesse Sasser Jr. and Walter Williams III were employed as track laborers by Union Pacific from various times starting from 1969 to approximately 2012. In their lawsuit, the men claim that during their employment they were exposed to asbestos and asbestos-containing materials and have been diagnosed with an asbestos-related lung disease.

The defendant is accused of negligence for using asbestos-containing materials for decades after Union Pacific became aware of the harmful and/or hazardous nature of these materials; failing to inspect and remove its cars and equipment for the presence of asbestos; failing to warn the plaintiffs regarding the presence of asbestos or of the synergistic effect between smoking and asbestos exposure; failing to properly train the plaintiffs, failing to provide proper respirators or to conduct air monitoring to determine the levels of asbestos; failing to provide comprehensive medical examinations; and failing to medically monitor plaintiffs for asbestos-related conditions.

The plaintiffs are seeking an award of damages for medical expenses, mental anguish, physical pain and suffering, fear of cancer, physical impairment, interest and court costs. (setexasrecord.com)

Baton Rouge, LA: Melvin Toups has filed an asbestos lawsuit against his former employer, Ethyl Corporation, as well as manufacturers Anco Insulations, Inc., Eagle, Inc., Georgia Pacific Corporation, The McCarty Corporation, Reilly-Benton Co., Inc., Taylor-Seindenbach, Inc. and Union Carbide Corporation. Toups alleges he was exposed to the asbestos between the 1950s-70s while he worked as a boiler tender, operator and construction contractor, and it was this asbestos exposure that caused his lung cancer.

According to the lawsuit, each defendant named has allegedly engaged in the mining, processing, manufacturing, installation, maintenance, sale, use and/or distribution of asbestos and asbestos-containing products or machinery requiring or calling for the use of asbestos.

Toups alleges he was exposed to asbestos on numerous occasions and inhaled great quantities of asbestos fibers.

The defendants allegedly failed to warn Toups in a timely and adequate fashion about the dangerous health hazards associated with asbestos exposure. Further, the lawsuit claims the defendants failed to provide Toups with adequate information and reasonably safe and sufficient wearing apparel and proper protective equipment and appliances.

Additionally, the lawsuit states the defendants failed to take reasonable precautions or exercise reasonable care to publish, adopt or enforce a safety plan of handling and installing asbestos; failed to develop and utilize a substance material to eliminate asbestos fibers in the asbestos-containing products; failed to properly design and manufacture asbestos; failed to properly test products; and failed to recall and/remove asbestos-containing products from the stream of commerce.

The plaintiff’s employers and employers’ executive officers and directors are accused of failing to provide and ensure a safe workplace for their employees, failing to inspect, approve and supervise the work of the plaintiff, failing to make health and hygiene decision on any questions regarding the use of respiratory protection devices, failing to provide adequate warnings, physical examinations, safety equipment, ventilation and breathing apparatus, failing to properly hire and train their employees and failing to comply with applicable state and federal regulations regarding workplace asbestos exposure.

Toups alleges Ethyl Corporation specifically negligently failed to disclose, warn or reveal critical medical and safety information regarding asbestos to the plaintiff; failed to remove asbestos hazards from the work place; failed to properly supervise or monitor work areas for compliance with safety regulation; and failed to provide a safe and suitable means of eliminating the amount of asbestos dust in the air.

Toups is alleging negligence, fault, strict liability and willful misconduct of the defendants has resulted in his asbestos-related disease.

Toups is seeking an unspecified amount in damages for physical pain, mental anguish, medical expenses, pharmaceutical expenses, asbestos-related lung cancer, loss of earning capacity, lost earnings, loss of consortium, love affection, services and society and loss of quality of life. (louisianarecord.com)

Niners Fans Screwed in Superbowl Scam with a Twist

January 31st, 2013. By AbiK

A couple of Niners fans have been screwed out of almost $6,000 after they thought they were buying legitimate Superbowl XLVII tickets. The scam itself wasn’t unusual, but this ticket scam had a bit of a twist.

It goes without saying that tickets to the Superbowl are hotly pursued in the weeks leading up to the big game. And ticket scammers are fully aware of that, taking to sites like Craigslist to hock their would-be seats at the Superdome in New Orleans.

It was, indeed, an ad on Craigslist that Hayward, California couple Sharon Osgood and her boyfriend responded to when they agreed to wire $5,900 cross-country for four 49ers-Ravens tickets. After all, the seller had even spoken with them live on the phone, telling them he had to skip the game due to his wife being eight months pregnant. So they went ahead.

Here’s the twist: what they received in return for their money wire, however, was a picture of quarterbacks Colin Kaepernick and Joe Flacco with a note underneath that said: “Enjoy the game!!!! Go Ravens!!! LOL”.

No tickets.

The fact that they received anything at all is really quite unusual as scams go.

According to the Mercury News, Osgood was quoted as saying, “I’m just sick—like, physically sick. All over the envelope it says ‘go Ravens’ —even on the FedEx label.” (Undoubtedly, she is also sick over the loss of close to $6,000—but clearly, in the immediate aftermath of the scam, her loyalty to the 49ers must have outweighed her disgust and anger over being duped and losing the money…)

The News goes on to report that, undaunted by their loss, Osgood and her boyfriend plan on still trekking to New Orleans—in their RV—for the game, even if it means they’ll wind up watching the game from a bar on Bourbon Street.

But there’s more—a follow-up twist: it seems after reports of this scam got out, the News reported that Nathan Hubbard, CEO at Ticketmaster, offered Osgood four free tickets to the game—and a breakfast with Troy Aikman.

Additionally, Osgood heard from the 49ers front office—they offered a free ticket as well.

In some way, all’s well that ends well when the ending you want is tickets to the Superbowl. Osgood is still out the $5,900; a police report has been filed but whether the scamming perp will be caught is anyone’s guess.

Sex Offenders Have a Right to be on Social Media! (so says Indiana)

January 30th, 2013. By AbiK

Newsflash: An Indiana court has ruled that it’s unconstitutional to ban sex offenders from using social media sites (like Facebook).

Question: Don’t a lot of kids use social media sites (like Facebook)?

Yes, upon being hit with a civil rights class action lawsuit—filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Indiana on behalf of sex offenders—the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago overturned a decision made last June that upheld an Indiana law barring most registered sex offenders from using social networking websites.

The law had been in place since 2008—and, according to a press release issued by the ACLU-IN, Indiana already has a law that prohibits inappropriate communication with children, which in theory would cover social media.

The ACLU of Indiana had argued that the ban was so broad that it prevented someone who might have been convicted of an offense years ago from engaging in even innocent conversations on social media channels. This meant that a sex offender could not only not engage in conversation on Facebook, but also could not post a resume on LinkedIn, or as Ken Falk, legal director for the ACLU-IN was quoted as pointing out, “It would even bar someone who was convicted 40 years ago from participating in a Twitter feed with the pope.”

Now, given the amount of press on alleged predatory behavior within the church over the past few years, I’m not sure Mr. Falk used the best social media example—go ahead and cock your head to the side and raise an eyebrow as you ponder that one for a minute—go ahead, I’ll wait for you.

Now admittedly, I haven’t studied recidivism among sex offenders, but I do ascribe to the “leopards don’t change their spots” view of life—for the most part. Here, however, are some stats from the Bureau of Justice Statistics on sex offender recidivism for sex offenders who were released from prison in 1994:

Presents, for the first time, data on the rearrest, reconviction, and reimprisonment of 9,691 male sex offenders, including 4,295 child molesters, who were tracked for 3 years after their release from prisons in 15 States in 1994. The 9,691 are two-thirds of all the male sex offenders released from prisons in the United States in 1994. The study represents the largest followup ever conducted of convicted sex offenders following discharge from prison and provides the most comprehensive assessment of their behavior after release.

Highlights:

• Within 3 years following their release, 5.3% of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime.
• On average the 9,691 sex offenders served 3 1/2 years of their 8-year sentence.
• Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, released sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime.
• The 9,691 released sex offenders included 4,295 men who were in prison for child molesting.

Something else I know is that putting a kid in a candy store is a surefire way to watch a full-blown sugar rush play out. Personal views or hypotheses aside, Mark Schaefer of Schaefer Marketing Solutions points out on his “Grow” blog,

According to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, there are approximately 750,000 registered sex offenders in the United States, a number that has soared 23 percent in five years, in part due to web-based predatory behavior.

Hmm. You thinking what I’m thinking? That maybe, just maybe, there’s a lot of predatory targeting going on online, what with numbers like those?

Well, for now at least, the decision is being reviewed by Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller—he’ll assess the state’s options regarding the ruling. Let’s hope his assessment includes the recollection of why the sex offender social media laws was put into place in the first place: to protect our kids.

More to come on this one…

 

 

Who the Hell is Kevin Butler? Sony Sued Him, Thinking You Know Him

January 29th, 2013. By AbiK

http://youtu.be/9ONtyilKg8Q

You are so out of the loop if you don’t know Kevin Butler. But don’t feel bad—we took a completely non-scientific poll over on our Facebook page and found that no one we asked knows who the hell Kevin Butler is. Nor do they apparently care.

But Sony cared.

See, Kevin Butler is the fictitious character played by ad actor Jerry Lambert in Sony’s PlayStation commercials. Going out on a limb here, but guessing you don’t know who Jerry Lambert is either. Both Jerry and Kevin are pretty comical in the Sony commercials—but that’s neither here nor there.

Apparently, Sony thinks you know Jerry—or Kevin—and that you watch and internalize his every move. And so when Jerry went and did a commercial for Bridgestone earlier in 2012 in which a Nintendo Wii was offered as part of a promotion, and in which Jerry (not Kevin) happens to play on a Wii along with a cast of other Bridgestone “employees”, well…

You can imagine how the phones were ringing off the hook over at Sony with pissed-off consumers getting all confused at seeing Jerry play on a Wii when everyone knows his fake character, Kevin, endorses PlayStation. (That would be sarcasm for those who missed it).

In October 2012, Sony sued Jerry (they couldn’t quite sue a fictitious character, so Kevin was off the hook here) for violating the Lanham Act, misappropriation, breach of contract and tortious interference with a contractual relationship. The Lanham Act covers things like trademark infringement and trademark dilution as well as false advertising. Of course, by having a fictitious spokesperson be seen using two different video game systems, well, you can imagine the alleged damage done to PlayStation.

Regardless, Jerry (the real actor) did admit that his appearance in both company’s commercials with two different video game systems might confuse some folks. And so, the two—Jerry and Sony—settled (Bridgestone also took Jerry out of their ad).

According to the terms of the settlement as reported by Joystiq, Jerry Lambert has agreed to not appear in any advertisements that feature or mention “any other video game or computer entertainment system or video game company” for two years. Additionally, for another two years after that, he must notify Sony if he wants to appear in gaming ads so Sony can assess whether his intended performance will infringe on the Kevin Butler character.

So that’s who the heck Kevin Butler is. We’re glad the air’s been cleared as clearly a ton of folks—who didn’t even know who Kevin Butler was—were confused over which video gaming system he really preferred. Phew—disaster averted!

By the way, one astute fan of ours—named Jay (go Jay!)—did actually know that Kevin Butler was a placekicker for the University of Georgia. He went on to play in the NFL for the Bears and the Cardinals. We did not attempt to contact him for this story. Another fan, Sam, suggested that he might have been Rhett’s brother… Thanks to all who participated in our survey!