Posts Tagged ‘ Pleading Ignorance ’

How New Overdraft Protection Rules Don’t Protect You

August 16th, 2010. By Kristine B

So as of August 15, new banking regulations went into effect for overdraft protection—meaning you are no longer automatically opted-in for overdraft protection. That’s good news, because it could save you some money. The bad news is that the protection doesn’t extend to ALL overdraft transactions. Making matters worse, some banks (okay, many banks) are trying to convince customers to sign up for overdraft protection. Because this is the first week for the new overdraft protection regulations, this week’s Pleading Ignorance looks at the new regulations, how they affect you and why banks still want you to sign up.

First, though, what is overdraft protection? Overdraft protection is a way of allowing a customer’s transaction to proceed even if the customer doesn’t have enough money in his account for that transaction. If you buy a $10 lunch but only have $5 in your account, without overdraft protection that transaction will be denied. But if you have overdraft protection, the bank will authorize the payment.

The catch, though, is that overdraft protection can be expensive—up to $35 per transaction. So, that $10 lunch winds up costing you $45. Worse, you may not realize you were enrolled in overdraft protection. Some banks automatically enroll customers in the program. So you might have expected that the transaction would be denied (hopefully, you have a back-up plan for payment) but it was approved—complete with fees.

Making matters worse is that the banks have been accused of reordering Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Excessive Overdraft Fees, Pleading Ignorance
Posted in Consumer Fraud, Pleading Ignorance | 1 Comment »

Slander, Libel and a Handy Trick to Tell them Apart

July 20th, 2010. By Kristine B

This one reminds me of that line—the one that goes, “If you haven’t got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me”. It’s usually attributed to Alice Roosevelt Longworth, though most folks probably think it’s from a Maxine greeting card. Regardless, talking trash about someone—whether it’s idle gossip or careless whispers (insert a nod to George Michael here)—can get you in serious trouble. Read on…

Slander and libel are two often-misunderstood (and misused) legal terms, but they could actually affect you at some point in your life, especially if you do a lot of writing online. Slander and libel are basically two sides of the same coin—they involve different forms of the same legal concept. So let’s back it up a bit and first, let’s look at defamation of character.

What is Defamation of Character?

Both slander and libel refer to defamation of character. Defamation of character is the passing along of false information that is stated as fact. To be considered defamation, the information must also do two things:

1. It has to bring harm to either a person or an organization (including a business), and

2. It has to be told (in writing or verbally) to at least one other person than the victim.

So, telling Sandra (not her real name!) that she is “a no good lying rotten thief” is not defamation of character. Telling other people that Sandra is a no good lying rotten thief could be defamation if that information harms Sandra.

Now, for the information to really be defamation of character, it must be untrue. So, if you publicly call Sandra a thief and you have evidence to back it up—for example, she’s already been found guilty in court of theft—you’re probably safe. But, if you publicly call her a thief based only on your hunch about her—with no evidence—prepare for a lawsuit.

So What are Slander and Libel?

Slander and libel are both forms of defamation of character. Slander is when Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Defamation, libel, Pleading Ignorance, slander
Posted in Emerging Issues | 4 Comments »

How the FDA Advisory Panel Vote Affects Avandia Patients

July 15th, 2010. By Kristine B

If you’re like other Avandia patients out there, you probably waited for the FDA advisory panel’s vote yesterday with some concern (or maybe you didn’t). Yesterday was the day the FDA advisory panel voted on whether or not to remove Avandia from the market. So, today we examine how the panel voted and what that means for you.

First, what you need to know about the panel. The panel is only advisory. This means that the FDA doesn’t have to follow the panel’s recommendations. Sure, it usually does, but that doesn’t mean it always will. So, all the panel can do is make recommendations. Whether those recommendations will be followed is up to the FDA.

So, what did the panel recommend? Well, depending on how you view it (and whose articles you read) Avandia was either dealt a severe blow by the FDA or won a major victory. Hunter’s Avandia post today calls it a “muted win” for GSK, which probably sums it up best.

On the question of what to do with Avandia, panel members voted as follows:

12 voted to withdraw the drug entirely

10 voted to allow it to remain on the market with strong label revisions and possible sales restrictions

7 voted to add further warnings to Avandia’s label

3 voted to allow continued sale of Avandia with no changes

1 abstained

So, there are two ways of looking at this: Either the majority of panelists (22) voted to either withdraw Avandia from the market entirely or only allow it under stronger warnings and sales restrictions, or the majority of panelists (20) voted to keep Avandia on the market rather than withdrawing it. Nothing is ever simple when it comes to pharmaceutical decisions.

What does that mean for patients taking Avandia? Right now, it doesn’t mean anything. You haven’t been told to stop taking the drug, although 18 panel members voted that they are concerned Avandia causes heart attacks (nine said they weren’t sure about the risk of heart attacks and six said they weren’t concerned about the risk of heart attacks).

So, if you’re concerned about taking Avandia, you should speak with your doctor about the risks. But don’t stop taking it without first speaking to your doctor about your concerns.

The FDA will make a decision later about whether or not to continue to allow Avandia on the market.

Meanwhile, GlaxoSmithKline has reportedly settled 10,000 Avandia lawsuits for approximately $460 million. If you think you may have an Avandia claim, your best bet is to file your claim with a lawyer who is specializing in Avandia claims.

Tags: Avandia, Avandia Lawsuit, FDA, GSK, Pleading Ignorance
Posted in Drugs/Medical, Emerging Issues | No Comments »

Ever Wonder if Lawsuit Settlements and Verdicts are Taxable?

July 8th, 2010. By Kristine B

It’s probably one of the biggest questions people involved in lawsuits ask. Is my settlement money taxable? (In other words, how much of this money do I get to keep and how much of it goes to the government?) This week, Pleading Ignorance examines settlements/verdicts, and how much of the money really is yours.

Like everything in life, what is and isn’t taxable is complicated. Whether or not the money in a settlement is taxable depends on a number of factors, because nothing in income tax is ever simple. According to Jeff Schnepper at moneycentral.msn.com (12/04/09), there must be a physical injury for the settlement to be free from tax. So, an award for wrongful termination would be taxable because there is no physical injury.

In fact, there are two requirements to ensure a settlement (or a verdict) is tax-free. The first, as mentioned before, is that there must be a physical injury (which includes illness). Without physical injury, you’re paying taxes.

The second is that the injury must have been caused by a wrongful act. This means that the other party must have committed a wrongful act, which caused your injury. So, if someone was negligent and injured you, your award or settlement would be tax-free. But, if the lawsuit was caused by a dispute that didn’t involve wrongdoing, the award would be taxable.

Punitive damages are taxable, regardless of whether or not they are related to a physical injury. The government taxes citizens on income and punitive damages; because they are not compensating the plaintiff for money lost, those damages are seen as above and beyond what would be needed to make the victim whole.

Emotional distress is not considered a physical injury. So, even if emotional distress results in your feeling ill, emotional distress on its own is taxable. Emotional distress is tax-free when it is linked to a physical injury. For example, if you injure your neck and this results in emotional distress, your award for emotional distress is tax-free.

If, however, you were wrongfully terminated from your job and this resulted in emotional distress, any award for emotional distress is taxable.

Awards for lost wages are, in most cases, taxable because they replace income that would have been taxable.

Tags: Pleading Ignorance, Settlement, Settlement Money, Tax
Posted in Emerging Issues, Pleading Ignorance, Settlement | 10 Comments »

Should I File a BP Claim? Do I Need to File a BP Lawsuit?

June 24th, 2010. By Kristine B

Ok, so for the past week, there’s been a lot of news on the BP $20 billion fund. And you’ve been reading about how quickly BP wants to release the monies to claimants. But many of you who’ve been affected by the BP oil spill may not know just what you’re supposed to do. You’ve probably got questions like…

Do I have to file a claim with BP?

Should I get a lawyer for my BP claim—or just submit a claim to BP?

Will my BP claim be enough to fully compensate me?

If I file a claim with BP, can I also file a lawsuit against BP?

Questions, questions. And a lot of confusion. Well, recently LawyersAndSettlements.com interviewed attorney Wes Pittman of The Pittman Firm, P.A. on this very subject. And I thought it would make a good topic for Pleading Ignorance—so here goes…

Yes, BP has indeed set aside a $20 billion fund for legitimate claims from people affected by the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Although the news is good, that doesn’t mean it’s smooth sailing for all victims of the spill. Your first question is probably: 

Do I have to file a claim if I’ve been affected by the BP oil spill? 

One of the main ways that the claim fund affects victims is that victims must file a claim before they can file a lawsuit, according to attorney Wes Pittman. Pittman says filing a claim is a prerequisite for filing a lawsuit. So, if you intend to file a lawsuit, you must first file a claim with BP.

Fair enough. But…

Does filing a claim with BP mean I don’t have to file a lawsuit?

In a perfect world, that’s what this would mean. But this is not a perfect world and there are many variables in each claim. For example, BP says it will pay out all “legitimate” claims—take a look and you’ll see most quotes about the claims BP will pay mention the word “legitimate”. But, what BP sees as legitimate and what you and your lawyer see as legitimate may not be the same.

For example, there are many people indirectly affected by the oil spill. Consider event planners who make money planning events along the coast and have lost income because people don’t want Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: BP, BP Oil Spill, Pleading Ignorance
Posted in Environment, Pleading Ignorance | 3 Comments »