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.
Lots in legal news headlines from the past week that you might’ve missed including our weekly Asbestos News column and Week Adjourned—the weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements.
This week we heard about the Bumble Bee Tuna class action lawsuit (over false advertising claims) as well as the Vita Coco false advertising settlement. Big news with type 2 diabetes drug Actos as well–is it time for round #2 with Actos lawsuits? Find more in our Monday Minute update…
Sexual preference has long been a hot-button discrimination topic in the courts. Only typically, it tends to be a straight v. gay/bi/lesbian/transgender type of situation. Not a intra-LGBT thing. They’re supposed to all be on the same team, right? Which is why this latest lawsuit settlement makes you take pause.
Seems there was a lawsuit filed by three gay softballers after they were disqualified from a softball competition—the 2008 Gay Softball World Series (sidenote: the New York Times ran a priceless headline on the story: “Three Straights and You’re Out in Gay Softball League“)
Why? Because the men were thought to be too—don’t utter the word!—heterosexual. And, as the name of the Gay Softball World Series denotes, one must be gay—and gay enough—to play ball. Not hetero. Not even bi.
So the men—who claim to be varying degrees of gay—filed a discrimination lawsuit against the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance and sought not only to have their team’s second place standing in the Series restored, but also each sought $75,000 in damages for emotional distress.
The whole thing raises some interesting questions. For one, it puts the honor system of labelling oneself as “gay” in question. Well, is he or isn’t he? How can we be sure? In other amateur sports it’s common to self-declare your skill level—and you may indeed be challenged on that if, say, you declare yourself to be a much less-skilled player merely to boost your W-L ratio. But self-declaration in such instances is about the obvious—it’s about skill; and skill as such is fairly conspicuous.
But your level of gayness? That’s a behind-closed-doors type of thing—at least as far as proof is concerned.
It also presents a pretty ugly side of discrimination—”it’s not ok to treat me differently because I’m gay, but since you’re only half-gay (aka, “bi”), well, that’s different”. Uh-huh.
At the time of the 2008 Gay Softball World Series, there had been a “straight cap” that limited the number of heterosexual players a team could have to two—otherwise you had to be gay, as in 100% gay. (A bit odd that hetero’s were allowed at all, no?) However, the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance has since changed how it defines “gay”. Gay now includes bisexual and transgender people. How nice to be included.
The lawsuit, filed by San Francisco team members Steven Apilado, LaRon Charles and Jon Russ, has settled according to an NYT update, with the three men receiving an undisclosed sum—and their team will recoup their second place finish.
Good question—and this week, Pleading Ignorance answers it. It’s a question a lot of people have: Can I still file a lawsuit if there’s already a settlement? I spoke with attorney J. Benton Stewart of Stewart Law, P.L.L.C. to better understand the in’s and out’s of class action settlements and when it’s best to file your lawsuit.
Before we can answer that question, we have to first understand how class action lawsuits and settlements work.
Class action lawsuits can be opt-in or opt-out lawsuits.
If they are opt-in, then you have to ask to be part of the lawsuit. Typically, with an opt-in class action, you have to submit a claim form indicating that you wish to be a part of the class action—you have to officially “opt in”. If on opt-in class action lawsuit settles and you weren’t part of the class, you’re still free to bring about your own lawsuit. If you were part of the class, then you can’t bring one of your own.
In an opt-out lawsuit, you’re automatically part of the class regardless of whether or not you meant to be—you have to tell the claims administrator that you don’t want to be part of the class before you’ll be taken out. In this situation, if you haven’t told them that you do not want to be part of the class and the lawsuit settles, you can’t bring your own lawsuit. Basically, if you’re included in a class that settles, either because you chose to be or because you didn’t opt-out, you can’t bring your own lawsuit.
Bottom line, if you think you may want to file your own lawsuit against the defendant in the class action lawsuit, you cannot have been a member of the class (ie, the plaintiffs) of the class action. Still with me?
Of course, there’s more to it than that because of how settlements normally work.
Once a settlement is announced, usually a pool of money is set aside to pay all the claims. Instead Read the rest of this entry »
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.