Washington, DC Personal Injury Lawyer - Miscellaneous

Public Justice Announces 2009 Trial Lawyers of the Year

Christopher Nace — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:09:31 GMT

There's a great organization that I'm a member of called Public Justice. Public Justice is America's public interest law firm; that is, unlike many public interest legal organizations, Public Justice actually files lawsuits in court on a wide range of topics from mandatory arbitration agreements, environmental issues, class actions, and so on. There is a ton of great information on their website, which was recently revamped and re-launched. This is a great site to check out if you need info on public interest topics or if you just want to read about Public Justice's victories.

Public Justice recently named the 2009 Trial Lawyers of the Year:

Two legal teams that each prevailed in long and hard-fought cases against formidable corporate and government defendants were named co-winners of the Public Justice Foundation’s 2009 Trial Lawyer of the Year Award at ceremonies in San Francisco on Tuesday night.

More specifically,

Ten attorneys from Philadelphia, Cincinnati and Denver were cited for their work in Cook v. Rockwell International Corp., in which they held the operators of Colorado’s Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant accountable for persistent radioactive contamination from the facility.

They shared honors with a team of five New York lawyers who recovered substantial damages for the families of the victims in the deadly 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.

The attorneys for the winning teams were:

Exposing the Truth About Reckless Nuclear Weapons Makers: Cook v. Rockwell International Corp. Merrill G. Davidoff - Peter Nordberg - David F. Sorensen - Ellen Noteware - Jenna MacNaughton Wong - Louise Roselle -Jean Geoppinger - Gary Blum - Steve Kelly - Bruce DeBoskey

Holding Terrorists Accountable: Lockerbie , Scotland – Pan Am Flight 103 Litigation. James P. Kreindler - Steven R. Pounian - Michel "Mitch" F. Baumeister - Frank H. Granito Jr. - Frank Granito, III

The other finalists were equally as impressive in their victories:

Winning Equal Access to City Services for African Americans: Kennedy v. City of Zanesville. Reed Colfax - John Relman - Jennifer Klar - Kerstin Sjoberg-Witt - Rachel K. Robinson - Stefan Schmidt

Bringing Philip Morris to Justice: Williams v. Philip Morris. William A. Gaylord - Ray Thomas - James S. Coon - Charles S. Tauman - Richard Daynard - Cliff Douglas - Robert S. Peck - Maureen Leonard - Kathryn Clarke

Making Water Safe to Drink: In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Productions Liability Litigation MDL 1358. Scott Summy - Rob Gordon - Celeste Evangelisti - Carla Burke - Robin Greenwald - Perry Weitz

The actions of the defendants in these cases are nothing short of outrageous. We should celebrate the efforts of all five finalists for securing justice for their clients and all Americans.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Christopher Nace

New Report Shows Malpractice Costs Irrelevant to Health Care Costs

Jonathan Nace — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:23:30 GMT

A new report has shown the cost of medical malpractice lawsuits is insignificant to the total cost of health care. As detailed in the report, the total share of malpractice costs was less than 1% of health care costs, or more precisely 0.6%. Furthermore, while malpractice payments in 2008 hit an all time low, and dropped for the third consecutive year, health care costs continued to rise.

National media blogs have begun to pick up on the truth of so called "lawsuit abuse." And have even begun to receive agreement on the issue of "lawsuit abuse" from those who represent doctors in malpractice lawsuits. "There is no question that it is very rare that frivolous suits are brought against doctors. They are too expensive to bring," Washington defense lawyer Victor Schwartz said in 2004.

The fact of the matter is that "lawsuit abuse" is nothing more than a scarecrow to push a political agenda to protect insurance companies.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jonathan Nace

Information Regarding the Washington Metro Accident

Christopher Nace — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:42:19 GMT

As someone who rides the Metro Red Line to and from work most days, today's crash was a chilling reminder of how vulnerable we are and how no matter how safe we act, some things are out of our control. Right now, the investigation into the crash is only just under way. But if you are looking for information about loved ones there are a few phone numbers you should know.

In the District of Columbia, you can dial 311 for information. Outside of DC, you can dial 202-737-4404. Just about every news site is reporting on the incident, including here and here.

Tuesday's Metro Red Line schedule is already being altered and Metro is asking people to avoid the Red Line.

DC's Metro system is one of the most advanced and safest in the world, but today's accident highlights the need to always keep a safety plan just in case tragedy strikes. Text messaging is a short and efficient way to communicate in an emergency. Consider texting someone you know watches their cell phone regularly so that a message isn't missed. Or, use tools like Twitter to get the message out to a wider audience.

Finally, when riding Metro, always be sure to maintain a secure grasp on a handrail if you can't find a seat.

Our thoughts and prayers are with all of the victims of today's crash.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Christopher Nace

Raptiva Voluntarily Withdrawn from Market

Jonathan Nace — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 09:17:17 GMT

The FDA issued a statement that Raptiva was being voluntarily withdrawn from the market by its manufacturer Genentech.

Raptiva is a once weekly injection for adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. However, recent studies have shown that Raptiva may increase the risk of developing progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML). PML is a rare, but serious, progressive neurologic disease caused by a virus that affects the central nervous system and is most common in individuals immune difficiency disorders such as AIDS.

Patients should speak to their physician immediately about alternatives to Raptiva. If they have developed PML or other neurological disorders during the course of use of Raptiva, they may have a cause of action and should contact an attorney to review their case.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jonathan Nace

Essential Information Regarding Birth Injuries

Jonathan Nace — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:53:27 GMT

Birth injuries are often some of the most devastating injuries a family can encounter. Frequently though, families are confused by the cause of an injury and this may cause them to lose a cause of action.

It is currently being reported that eight to ten births in 1000 are resulting in birth injury due to medical malpractice. These injuries can present themselves in a wide variety of fashions, including cerebral palsy, fractured bones, and other symptoms.

Cerebral palsy, itself, is a broad term that can be defined as any number of neurological disorders. These injuries, usually related to brain function, are often undetected for the first years of a child's life, and only present as it slowly becomes apparent that a child is developing more slowly.

For this reason, it is important for parents of children whom they suspect may be showing signs of cerebral palsy to understand that they may have a viable claim for medical malpractice. Parents should act quickly upon initial symptoms, but should also realize that most state laws will preserve their right to seek compensation for their children's injuries so long as they act reasonably to discover the injury.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jonathan Nace

Plaintiff's Attorney Plays Prominent Role in Changeling

Christopher Nace — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:22:40 GMT

Last night I watched Angelina Jolie and John Malkovich in Changeling. I didn't know anything about the movie when I sat down to watch it, other than that a little boy goes missing and the police return a different little boy to the first boy's mother:

But this scene really struck me:

The movie goes on and the attorney who visited Ms. Collins (Jolie) ultimately has a hand in releasing several women who were wrongly held at a psychiatric ward. After that, the attorney cross-exams the police detective at the heart of the cover up. His cross examination results in the police chief being removed, the detective suspended, and, most importantly, new rules regarding the process that the police must follow to have someone committed.

People often criticize attorneys, and plaintiffs lawyers in particular. But notice in the film that when Ms. Collins is preparing to take on an entity as powerful as the L.A. Police, the first thing she says is that she better hire a lawyer. This movie relates just one example of how attorneys and the civil justice system have been used to protect the little guy from the oppression of the powerful.

This is why I'm proud to be a trial lawyer.

Oh yeah, and the movie was very entertaining. I would highly recommend watching it.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Christopher Nace

Have You Been the Victim of Mortgage Fraud?

Christopher Nace — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:55:16 GMT

If you are sitting at home trying to figure out how to save your home from the black hole of our current economy, you may want to take a minute to think about how you got in this situation in the first place. The economic crisis has happened so quickly that many of us haven't had a chance to take stock of the situation.

But it appears that the United States Justice Department has an idea who might be to blame:

Federal law enforcement officials said today they are targeting lawyers, mortgage brokers, real estate brokers, and other “gatekeepers” who perpetrated fraud that contributed to the current economic crisis -- a clear warning shot as the federal government is pumping billions of dollars into the financial sector.

As Americans, we take pride in taking responsibility for our own actions. But we can't be held responsible for all aspects of the economic mess. There are players involved who had much greater control over our financial lives. Unfortunately, those players--mortgage brokers, corporate lawyers and real estate brokers--played fast and loose with our lives so that they could make a buck. Or millions of bucks.

Compared to the $160 million lost during the S&L crisis, the current situation is far direr, with financial institutions globally reducing their assets by more than $1 trillion. But the Justice Department’s focus on national security has diminished the fraud ranks. Pistole said 240 agents, supplemented by investigators from other agencies, are working on fraud cases stemming from the economic crisis.

It would appear that in many ways the federal government is a day late and a dollar short in these investigations. Had they been prosecuting these crimes more consistently, we might not be in this situation.

Of course, you might have a private right of action against any of these players who committed fraud against you. If you believe that you have been the victim of mortgage fraud, you shouldn't hesitate to contact an attorney. While the inclination might be to blame yourself, there were forces at work beyond an individuals control. Those forces should be held accountable.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Christopher Nace

Pennsylvania Finding Tort Reform Balancing Act not What was Proposed

Jonathan Nace — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 09:32:49 GMT

Tort reform is often offered as a solution to the problem of growing malpractice insurance rates for doctors, and as a solution to a given state's "doctor's exodus." However, after 30 years of tort reform throughout the country, individual states are finding that tort reform is not tipping the scales for doctors at all, though it does tip them against consumers.

A Pennsylvania editorial, written by Leonard Sloane, recently nailed the real objective behind tort reform: corporate cronyism. Mr. Sloane compared Texas, the beacon of light State for tort reformers, to Pennsylvania:

Texas is the national model for so called “tort reform,” but medical-malpractice insurance premiums there only went down by 1.2 percent. In our state, because of a more competitive market, doctors saw their insurance bills go down by an average of 10.2 percent.

The doctors are not leaving our state. The number of doctors here has steadily grown since 1992 by 5,322. Lawsuits are down dramatically, as are verdicts.

While tort reform does NOT lower doctors' malpractice premiums (which are actually more affected by the stock market and the investments insurance companies make), tort reform in Texas is keeping injured parties out of the court room. But it is also having a broad effect on health care in Texas:

“Tort reform” leads to unsafe health care. What is even more ironic is the quality of health care in Texas has declined precipitously in the past year. According to a just-released study by the United Health Foundation, it fell behind six other states compared to the past year’s ranking.

It is curious that malpractice lawsuits are not seen by free-market proponents as a sufficient check on the health insurance industry. Instead, it is pre-determined by tort reform advocates that it is good for the health care market to not hold people accountable for their mistakes.

As Pennsylvania has shown, with its drop in malpractice lawsuits, and steady growth of doctors, tort reform does not promote the market the way it claims. It merely promotes the insurance industry and corporate America by placing them in a bubble of protection from accountability.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jonathan Nace

"Pants" Suit Must Not Be A Rallying Cry to Close the Courthouse Door to Worthy Cases

Christopher Nace — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:29:28 GMT

By now most everyone is familiar with the so-called "Pants" suit, where an administrative law judge filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit after a dry cleaner damaged a pair of his pants. The lawsuit has been the butt of many a (deserving) joke. It has also been a rallying cry for those in favor of "tort reform."

Let's cover the easy ground first: this wasn't a "tort" action. It was a breach of contract case alleging that the dry cleaners breached their "satisfaction guaranteed" advertisement. So "tort reform" wouldn't have anything to do with the pants suit. Anyone who tells you this is why we need "tort" reform doesn't know what a tort is.

Regardless, we can agree that this was a in fact a frivolous claim. But consider how our civil justice system treated it: The plaintiff filed his lawsuit seeking a large amount of damages. The parties went through the necessary steps, a trial was conducted, and the defendant prevailed. In fact, the plaintiff was ordered to pay court costs and other certain expenses incurred by the defendants. Now his appeal has been denied. In other words, the system worked.

Was it a frivolous suit? Sure. But what was outrageous about it was the amount of damages the plaintiff sought. If in fact the dry cleaner had destroyed a pair of the man's pants, shouldn't he have been entitled to some compensation? Many of us have had our dry cleaner lose or destroy an item of clothing. It's frustrating. I wouldn't advocate for a minute that anyone file a multi-million dollar lawsuit over such a thing.

But, this is the type of suit that our courts, on occasion, must tolerate to assure that worthy lawsuits have their day in court. The plaintiff didn't collect any damages. The system heard his case and threw him out of court, without compensation (and even made him pay most of the costs).

Our democracy and our civil justice system demands a lot of give and take. You can't defend the merits of this case. But our strong civil justice system helps keep families safe, so every so often we have to tolerate this type of abuse of the system. We can cringe, but it cannot become a rallying cry for closing the court house door.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Christopher Nace

Olberman's Take on Midnight Regulations: Complete Corporate Immunity?

Christopher Nace — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:46:02 GMT

I've posted twice (here and here) on the Bush Administration's efforts to curtail liability for corporations through so-called "Midnight Regulations." This issue was recently picked up and discussed on Countdown with Keith Olberman.

Pay attention to the discussion about "outsourcing" government regulation:

The point is that for those who say that there is a tort tax or that lawsuits hamper the economy, consider that the alternative is bigger government and more regulation.

For instance, if you own a construction company you can either have all sorts of government intervention and regulation or you can face the threat of being held responsible by a jury of your peers in a court of law. Now the honest and safe business person would prefer to have less government intervention knowing that he or she runs a safe business and that his or her business will not face any lawsuits, so long as they act responsibly.

So we can either have government regulate everyone--including the safe companies who then have to deal with government intervention--or we keep the court house door open so that reckless companies are held accountable.

A strong civil justice system thus makes government intervention less necessary. Of course, the purpose of these midnight regulations is to remove both safety checks, government regulation and access to the court house. Such midnight regulations put American families at risk.

A strong civil justice system, on the other hand, strikes a balance between less regulation and an incentive to act responsibly.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Christopher Nace