Texas AG defends state medical malpractice reforms
BY CHRIS RIZO
Greg Abbott (R)
AUSTIN, Texas (Legal Newsline)-The Texas attorney general has urged the state Supreme Court to leave intact medical malpractice reforms.The Texas Legislature in 2003 imposed a strict 10-year statute of repose on medical malpractice claims. The law -- House Bill 4 -- was aimed at helping to control skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance premiums, which were blamed for doctors leaving the Lone Star State at the time.In Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott's brief to the Supreme Court, state Solicitor General James Ho noted law was enacted because "the Legislature concluded that indeterminate and unpredictable liability regimes drive up the cost of health care and reduce access to physicians."The attorney general's friend-of-the-court brief also argues that Texas's 10-year statute of repose does not interfere with an individual's right to file a medical malpractice lawsuit. "The Legislature struck a fair balance between the rights of plaintiffs to obtain redress for injuries and the rights of physicians and other health care providers from having to litigate stale claims," the AG's amicus brief said. "The balance struck by the Legislature was reasonable -- and constitutional."Abbott's brief was filed in the case of Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio v. Rankin.The case stems from a 2006 lawsuit Emmalene Rankin filed against two physicians and the Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio 11 years after a surgical sponge was allegedly left behind in her body after her hysterectomy in 1995.The sponge was found lodged in Rankin's abdomen more than a decade after her hysterectomy at Southwest Texas Methodist Hospital in San Antonio.At trial, Rankin's lawyers said the state's statute of repose violated the Texas Constitution's Open Courts provision that provides that "all courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done to him, in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law." The Bexar County district court found that Rankin's lawsuit exceeded the statute of limitations, but the decision was reversed last year by the Fourth Court of Appeals, which also struck down the statute of repose under the Open Courts provision."The Legislature is certainly entitled to set a period of time within which claims must be brought, but it may not deny a plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to discover the alleged wrong and bring suit," the appeals court ruled.From Legal Newsline: Reach staff reporter Chris Rizo at chrisrizo@legalnewsline.com.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
Lawyers using "runners"
Ezine Articles
November 13, 2009
Comment: Subject: Barratry
Stephanie Gibson writes:
House Bill 148 would have allowed Texas to recover significant civil damages for such harassment and illegal, unwanted solicitations by unscrupulous lawyers or their representatives. While the bill did pass, it was quietly gutted.Initially, HB 148 would have empowered clients to collect triple damages from lawyers who engage in illegal case solicitation. This civil remedy would have penalized such practices as lawyers using “runners” to covertly solicit cases or to otherwise exploit the vulnerability of hospitalized accident victims and their families. The new civil treble damage claim would also have applied to private investigators, chiropractors, doctors, and other health care workers who participated in the illegal solicitation of cases. This provision was stripped from the bill, despite all sides claiming to support the change. Also removed were civil triple damage claims penalizing solicitations involving false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, or unfair statements or claims, or that included coercion, duress, overreaching, harassment, intimidation, or undue influence. Brazen case solicitation has been practiced with impunity in some parts of Texas for years, particularly in South Texas. The San Antonio Express-News reported in May that the situation there has grown so severe that “warfare has broken out over barratry” in Corpus Christi. The paper reported that “lawyers are suing lawyers, seeking to overturn multimillion-dollar settlements of cases they claim were acquired improperly.”
Comment provided November 13, 2009 at 10:59 am
November 13, 2009
Comment: Subject: Barratry
Stephanie Gibson writes:
House Bill 148 would have allowed Texas to recover significant civil damages for such harassment and illegal, unwanted solicitations by unscrupulous lawyers or their representatives. While the bill did pass, it was quietly gutted.Initially, HB 148 would have empowered clients to collect triple damages from lawyers who engage in illegal case solicitation. This civil remedy would have penalized such practices as lawyers using “runners” to covertly solicit cases or to otherwise exploit the vulnerability of hospitalized accident victims and their families. The new civil treble damage claim would also have applied to private investigators, chiropractors, doctors, and other health care workers who participated in the illegal solicitation of cases. This provision was stripped from the bill, despite all sides claiming to support the change. Also removed were civil triple damage claims penalizing solicitations involving false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, or unfair statements or claims, or that included coercion, duress, overreaching, harassment, intimidation, or undue influence. Brazen case solicitation has been practiced with impunity in some parts of Texas for years, particularly in South Texas. The San Antonio Express-News reported in May that the situation there has grown so severe that “warfare has broken out over barratry” in Corpus Christi. The paper reported that “lawyers are suing lawyers, seeking to overturn multimillion-dollar settlements of cases they claim were acquired improperly.”
Comment provided November 13, 2009 at 10:59 am
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Jury Service Awareness Month!
Called For Jury Duty? Don’t Forget Your Tinfoil Hat
Life Is A Funny Place by Ned Hickson
Tuesday, November 10 2009 08:43 pm
There comes a time when we, as U.S. citizens, are called to step forward and — just as Americans have been doing for over 200 years — devise a lame excuse to get out of jury duty. This time-honored tradition dates back to the very first jury pool, which John Handcock was excused from after complaining of hand cramps “of the severest nature.” As it stands, I’ve been excused from jury duty twice, despite expressing my willingness to serve.
So when my latest summons came in the mail, my first instinct was to make a tinfoil hat with the words, Hello: My Name Is Quandar written across the front, which, along with my silver jump suit, can usually get me dismissed in under 30 minutes (depending on how quickly my tinfoil hat clears security). But this time something was different. Maybe because I’m older, maybe because my daughter is studying the U.S. Constitution, or maybe because we’re out of tinfoil — whatever the reason — I’ve decided to dress appropriately, show up for jury duty, and take a chance on being sequestered with 11 others to determine, by way of evidence and testimony, who is at fault when someone burns themselves with a hot pickle slice.
Admitedly, I once found myself driving down the road with an 800-degree onion ring searing my flesh. I had just left a Burger King drive-through and, after maintaining my composure long enough to exit the parking lot, pounced on my combo meal like a hyena at a gazelle feed — laughing and eating, laughing and eating.
So, when I ripped into an enormous onion ring and felt the breading fall away into my lap, I had no one but myself to blame when my appetizer became a sizzling, onion-flavored chin strap that turned my frenzied laughing to screaming on I-5. But I never once thought of calling a lawyer in an effort to seek damages against Burger King (and the onion growers of America) for supplying me the means with which to do something stupid.
I believe stupid lawsuits are the reason a lot of people aren’t willing to serve as jurists. For example, a study conducted in California found that of the 4.4 million people summoned for jury duty in Orange County last year, only nine percent actually participated in the judicial process. Of course, this doesn’t include those who became part of that process after being fingerprinted.
In all fairness, I should mention that not every potential juror would’ve qualified for duty anyway. That’s because there are strict guidelines in place for the initial phase of the jury selection process — the first of which is that you actually have to be ALIVE in order to render a verdict. In spite of these stringent guidelines, a report commissioned by the American Tort Reform Association discovered that Los Angeles County not only summoned dead people for jury duty, but also people’s pets. While this is certainly shocking, there is some good news in that none of these pets were dead.
While the study was able to determine that absolutely no pets had played a part in the final outcome of any cases, according to the bailif in one case, “It was because that little cockapoo couldn’t read the verdict.”
The only way to increase participation in the jury process is to restore the respectability of the judicial system by eliminating stupid lawsuits that waste everybody’s time. How? By requiring the people who file them to serve as jurors.
In the meantime, I’ll be on my way to court next week.
Assuming I don’t burn myself on a hot pickle.
Life Is A Funny Place by Ned Hickson
Tuesday, November 10 2009 08:43 pm
There comes a time when we, as U.S. citizens, are called to step forward and — just as Americans have been doing for over 200 years — devise a lame excuse to get out of jury duty. This time-honored tradition dates back to the very first jury pool, which John Handcock was excused from after complaining of hand cramps “of the severest nature.” As it stands, I’ve been excused from jury duty twice, despite expressing my willingness to serve.
So when my latest summons came in the mail, my first instinct was to make a tinfoil hat with the words, Hello: My Name Is Quandar written across the front, which, along with my silver jump suit, can usually get me dismissed in under 30 minutes (depending on how quickly my tinfoil hat clears security). But this time something was different. Maybe because I’m older, maybe because my daughter is studying the U.S. Constitution, or maybe because we’re out of tinfoil — whatever the reason — I’ve decided to dress appropriately, show up for jury duty, and take a chance on being sequestered with 11 others to determine, by way of evidence and testimony, who is at fault when someone burns themselves with a hot pickle slice.
Admitedly, I once found myself driving down the road with an 800-degree onion ring searing my flesh. I had just left a Burger King drive-through and, after maintaining my composure long enough to exit the parking lot, pounced on my combo meal like a hyena at a gazelle feed — laughing and eating, laughing and eating.
So, when I ripped into an enormous onion ring and felt the breading fall away into my lap, I had no one but myself to blame when my appetizer became a sizzling, onion-flavored chin strap that turned my frenzied laughing to screaming on I-5. But I never once thought of calling a lawyer in an effort to seek damages against Burger King (and the onion growers of America) for supplying me the means with which to do something stupid.
I believe stupid lawsuits are the reason a lot of people aren’t willing to serve as jurists. For example, a study conducted in California found that of the 4.4 million people summoned for jury duty in Orange County last year, only nine percent actually participated in the judicial process. Of course, this doesn’t include those who became part of that process after being fingerprinted.
In all fairness, I should mention that not every potential juror would’ve qualified for duty anyway. That’s because there are strict guidelines in place for the initial phase of the jury selection process — the first of which is that you actually have to be ALIVE in order to render a verdict. In spite of these stringent guidelines, a report commissioned by the American Tort Reform Association discovered that Los Angeles County not only summoned dead people for jury duty, but also people’s pets. While this is certainly shocking, there is some good news in that none of these pets were dead.
While the study was able to determine that absolutely no pets had played a part in the final outcome of any cases, according to the bailif in one case, “It was because that little cockapoo couldn’t read the verdict.”
The only way to increase participation in the jury process is to restore the respectability of the judicial system by eliminating stupid lawsuits that waste everybody’s time. How? By requiring the people who file them to serve as jurors.
In the meantime, I’ll be on my way to court next week.
Assuming I don’t burn myself on a hot pickle.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Perry Promotes Texas in the Big Apple
Austin American-Statesman
October 26, 2009
Gov. Perry promotes Texas in the Big Apple
By Corrie MacLaggan
Gov. Rick Perry is in New York City today and tomorrow to promote Texas as a business and relocation destination.
Today, the governor spoke at the NASDAQ Closing Bell Ceremony, where he said that Texas is about more than boots, hats and barbecue.
“We all know that the global economy is struggling and our country’s going through one of the toughest economic cycles in our lifetimes, but we’ve come here with a message of optimism, with word that there’s still a place in this country where jobs are welcome, where taxes are low, where regulations are predictable and, you might say also, frivolous lawsuits are a rare occurrence,” Perry said, “and that place is Texas.”
To watch video of that, click here and in the “event profile” section, click on “watch the event video.”
Perry, who is facing a GOP primary battle in March against U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Debra Medina, is being accompanied on the New York trip by Texas Secretary of State Hope
Andrade, Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert and DeSoto Mayor Bobby Waddle. Also with him, according to the governor’s office, are economic development representatives from the cities of
DeSoto, Waco , Lubbock, Pearland, Plano and Temple and representatives from:
American Electric Power
AT&T
Beirne, Maynard and Parsons LLP
Burlington North Santa Fe Railway Co.
Community Development Associates
Locke Lord Bissell and Liddell LLP
Mansfield Economic Development Partnership
Shell Oil Company
Greater Houston Partnership
Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce
October 26, 2009
Gov. Perry promotes Texas in the Big Apple
By Corrie MacLaggan
Gov. Rick Perry is in New York City today and tomorrow to promote Texas as a business and relocation destination.
Today, the governor spoke at the NASDAQ Closing Bell Ceremony, where he said that Texas is about more than boots, hats and barbecue.
“We all know that the global economy is struggling and our country’s going through one of the toughest economic cycles in our lifetimes, but we’ve come here with a message of optimism, with word that there’s still a place in this country where jobs are welcome, where taxes are low, where regulations are predictable and, you might say also, frivolous lawsuits are a rare occurrence,” Perry said, “and that place is Texas.”
To watch video of that, click here and in the “event profile” section, click on “watch the event video.”
Perry, who is facing a GOP primary battle in March against U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Debra Medina, is being accompanied on the New York trip by Texas Secretary of State Hope
Andrade, Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert and DeSoto Mayor Bobby Waddle. Also with him, according to the governor’s office, are economic development representatives from the cities of
DeSoto, Waco , Lubbock, Pearland, Plano and Temple and representatives from:
American Electric Power
AT&T
Beirne, Maynard and Parsons LLP
Burlington North Santa Fe Railway Co.
Community Development Associates
Locke Lord Bissell and Liddell LLP
Mansfield Economic Development Partnership
Shell Oil Company
Greater Houston Partnership
Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce
Monday, October 26, 2009
Reform affects the cost and quality of health care
Joe Nixon - Special to the Express-News
Does medical liability reform affect the cost and quality of health care? Supporters of President Obama's health agenda allege, not much. CHRISTUS Health, however, might beg to differ.
Founded in 1866 by the Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word, CHRISTUS Health now has hospitals, long-term care facilities, and clinics in more than 60 cities throughout Texas (including San Antonio), the south central United States, and Mexico. CHRISTUS Health's mission is to give exemplary health care to the poor and underserved.
In the year prior to the Texas Legislature's 2003 tort reform, CHRISTUS Health spent $153 million in liability defense payments in medical malpractice lawsuits. Last year, its lawsuit-expense payments totaled only $2.3 million. Why the dramatic decrease?
Dr. Tom Royer, CHRISTUS Health's CEO, has stated the savings are due entirely from the tort reform measures enacted by the Legislature. Half of its facilities are in Texas and Texas' lawsuit reform had a dramatic impact.
While $150 million per year is a large number for CHRISTUS, how does that translate to the patient? CHRISTUS has made the conscientious effort to use those savings to substantially increase the charity care it provides and to invest in quality initiatives that further improve the care it provides its patients.
Ten years ago, CHRISTUS Health provided $353 million a year in charity care. By 2008, that number increased to $565 million. CHRISTUS is on pace to spend $700 million on charity care this year — almost 12 percent of its budget.
CHRISTUS Health measures its expenses as a cost per bed. Since the reforms, the cost per bed in CHRISTUS Health's Texas facilities is significantly less than in its facilities in states without the tort reform.
It is also using liability savings to extend its outreach into communities that need charitable primary-care services and in a manner most efficient for both the patient and provider. Recognizing that people often receive their primary care in emergency rooms where it is most expensive and not an emergency, CHRISTUS Health has opened primary-care clinics in poorer neighborhoods.
CHRISTUS Health is one example of a hospital system which, before tort reform, was needlessly spending money defending itself from frivolous claims. Now that money is being spent on its primary mission of providing charitable health care to those most in need.
While the goal of tort reform was to rein in the cost of health care to individuals, the cost to taxpayers for indigent care cannot be discounted. Royer recently assigned $60 million of the liability savings to quality-care initiatives, such as updating and retraining the obstetrical nursing staff in fetal monitoring. The program has greatly improved care for patients. Currently, there is not a single lawsuit against CHRISTUS Health involving an allegation of obstetrical malpractice.
So not only is CHRISTUS Health providing more health care, it is committing new resources to ensure its health care is of the highest, mistake-free quality.
We have been told throughout the federal health care debate that our goals should be increased access, higher quality, and lower costs. The CHRISTUS story illustrates why medical liability reform is an essential element of federal health care reform.
Former Rep. Joe Nixon is a Senior Fellow with the Texas Public Policy Foundation.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/Medical_liability_reform_crucial_to_health_care.html
Does medical liability reform affect the cost and quality of health care? Supporters of President Obama's health agenda allege, not much. CHRISTUS Health, however, might beg to differ.
Founded in 1866 by the Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word, CHRISTUS Health now has hospitals, long-term care facilities, and clinics in more than 60 cities throughout Texas (including San Antonio), the south central United States, and Mexico. CHRISTUS Health's mission is to give exemplary health care to the poor and underserved.
In the year prior to the Texas Legislature's 2003 tort reform, CHRISTUS Health spent $153 million in liability defense payments in medical malpractice lawsuits. Last year, its lawsuit-expense payments totaled only $2.3 million. Why the dramatic decrease?
Dr. Tom Royer, CHRISTUS Health's CEO, has stated the savings are due entirely from the tort reform measures enacted by the Legislature. Half of its facilities are in Texas and Texas' lawsuit reform had a dramatic impact.
While $150 million per year is a large number for CHRISTUS, how does that translate to the patient? CHRISTUS has made the conscientious effort to use those savings to substantially increase the charity care it provides and to invest in quality initiatives that further improve the care it provides its patients.
Ten years ago, CHRISTUS Health provided $353 million a year in charity care. By 2008, that number increased to $565 million. CHRISTUS is on pace to spend $700 million on charity care this year — almost 12 percent of its budget.
CHRISTUS Health measures its expenses as a cost per bed. Since the reforms, the cost per bed in CHRISTUS Health's Texas facilities is significantly less than in its facilities in states without the tort reform.
It is also using liability savings to extend its outreach into communities that need charitable primary-care services and in a manner most efficient for both the patient and provider. Recognizing that people often receive their primary care in emergency rooms where it is most expensive and not an emergency, CHRISTUS Health has opened primary-care clinics in poorer neighborhoods.
CHRISTUS Health is one example of a hospital system which, before tort reform, was needlessly spending money defending itself from frivolous claims. Now that money is being spent on its primary mission of providing charitable health care to those most in need.
While the goal of tort reform was to rein in the cost of health care to individuals, the cost to taxpayers for indigent care cannot be discounted. Royer recently assigned $60 million of the liability savings to quality-care initiatives, such as updating and retraining the obstetrical nursing staff in fetal monitoring. The program has greatly improved care for patients. Currently, there is not a single lawsuit against CHRISTUS Health involving an allegation of obstetrical malpractice.
So not only is CHRISTUS Health providing more health care, it is committing new resources to ensure its health care is of the highest, mistake-free quality.
We have been told throughout the federal health care debate that our goals should be increased access, higher quality, and lower costs. The CHRISTUS story illustrates why medical liability reform is an essential element of federal health care reform.
Former Rep. Joe Nixon is a Senior Fellow with the Texas Public Policy Foundation.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/Medical_liability_reform_crucial_to_health_care.html
Friday, October 23, 2009
Jury Finds Fraud by Forewoman
Houston Chronicle
October 22, 2009
Commentary: Jury finds fraud by forewoman
By RICK CASEYHOUSTON CHRONICLE
You may remember Cynthia Cortez, the self-appointed jury forewoman in Brownsville who appeared in this column six months ago for bamboozling Ford Motor Co. into settling a lawsuit for $3 million through an act of legal terror.
After a six-week trial, she began the deliberations by asking if anyone else wanted to be foreman. When nobody spoke up, she announced she would do the job.
A few days later, after a weekend off and a Monday on which she phoned claiming a sick child, she sent the judge a note asking, “What is the maximum amount that can be awarded?”
It was punctuated with a smiley face.
Now a second Brownsville jury has thrown the settlement out after hearing a week's worth of testimony. It found that Cortez sent the note “for the purpose of fraudulently inducing Ford to settle with the Castillo family.”
The note panicked the Ford lawyers, who thought the trial went well. After seeing the note, they quickly agreed to plaintiff's lawyer Mark Cantu's demand for the $3 million.
Only after the agreement was filed with the court did District Judge Abel Limas notify the jury that their work was done. As is customary in many courts, the lawyers met with the jurors to discuss the case.
Ford's lawyers were stunned when jurors asked why they had settled. The jurors had quickly determined that the Explorer's roof was not faulty and were nearing a consensus in favor of Ford on the only other issue — whether a design issue caused the Explorer to be unstable.
The jurors agreed they had not authorized Cortez to send her explosive note.
Based on these and further conversations with jurors, Ford refused to honor the settlement. Cantu, a McAllen lawyer who stood to earn nearly $2 million of the $3 million , sued the company for breach of contract.
But Limas (who was defeated for re-election last November) denied the company's request to be allowed to put Cortez (and other jurors) under oath and take her deposition. What's more, the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals, on a 2-1 vote, upheld his decision, citing the importance of jury secrecy.
But the Texas Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Ford's favor, and they were permitted to take sworn statements from the jurors.
Forewoman Cortez, both in a deposition and on the stand, insisted that she remembered almost nothing about what took place in the jury room. That was part of the evidence that led a jury last week to throw out the settlement.
Jury is questioned
So why would Cortez send the note? The jury was asked that question but does not appear to have given its opinion.
Judge Elia Cornejo Lopez presented the jury with a numbered, five-part question about the note, and one space at the bottom to answer.
The jury answered “yes” to the entire question but put check marks or a “y” by four of the parts, including whether the note was (1) “a material misrepresentation,” and was sent (2) “with the intent that Ford Motor Company rely on the representation.”
But they did not mark the portion that read (3) “sent by or at the direction of plaintiffs or their agents or representatives with the knowledge that it was false.”
Ford's in-house counsel Peter Tassie testified during the trial that the night before the final day of deliberations Cantu told him that if a note came out from the jury indicating they were deliberating on damages, his demand would go up from $1.96 million to $3 million.
“It was strange that he would give a specific figure, rather than just say the amount would go up,” said Jaime Saenz, a Brownsville lawyer for Ford.
Cantu did not return a phone call seeking comment. He and his clients can appeal this jury's decision, seek to retry its original case or drop the matter.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/casey/6681985.html
October 22, 2009
Commentary: Jury finds fraud by forewoman
By RICK CASEYHOUSTON CHRONICLE
You may remember Cynthia Cortez, the self-appointed jury forewoman in Brownsville who appeared in this column six months ago for bamboozling Ford Motor Co. into settling a lawsuit for $3 million through an act of legal terror.
After a six-week trial, she began the deliberations by asking if anyone else wanted to be foreman. When nobody spoke up, she announced she would do the job.
A few days later, after a weekend off and a Monday on which she phoned claiming a sick child, she sent the judge a note asking, “What is the maximum amount that can be awarded?”
It was punctuated with a smiley face.
Now a second Brownsville jury has thrown the settlement out after hearing a week's worth of testimony. It found that Cortez sent the note “for the purpose of fraudulently inducing Ford to settle with the Castillo family.”
The note panicked the Ford lawyers, who thought the trial went well. After seeing the note, they quickly agreed to plaintiff's lawyer Mark Cantu's demand for the $3 million.
Only after the agreement was filed with the court did District Judge Abel Limas notify the jury that their work was done. As is customary in many courts, the lawyers met with the jurors to discuss the case.
Ford's lawyers were stunned when jurors asked why they had settled. The jurors had quickly determined that the Explorer's roof was not faulty and were nearing a consensus in favor of Ford on the only other issue — whether a design issue caused the Explorer to be unstable.
The jurors agreed they had not authorized Cortez to send her explosive note.
Based on these and further conversations with jurors, Ford refused to honor the settlement. Cantu, a McAllen lawyer who stood to earn nearly $2 million of the $3 million , sued the company for breach of contract.
But Limas (who was defeated for re-election last November) denied the company's request to be allowed to put Cortez (and other jurors) under oath and take her deposition. What's more, the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals, on a 2-1 vote, upheld his decision, citing the importance of jury secrecy.
But the Texas Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Ford's favor, and they were permitted to take sworn statements from the jurors.
Forewoman Cortez, both in a deposition and on the stand, insisted that she remembered almost nothing about what took place in the jury room. That was part of the evidence that led a jury last week to throw out the settlement.
Jury is questioned
So why would Cortez send the note? The jury was asked that question but does not appear to have given its opinion.
Judge Elia Cornejo Lopez presented the jury with a numbered, five-part question about the note, and one space at the bottom to answer.
The jury answered “yes” to the entire question but put check marks or a “y” by four of the parts, including whether the note was (1) “a material misrepresentation,” and was sent (2) “with the intent that Ford Motor Company rely on the representation.”
But they did not mark the portion that read (3) “sent by or at the direction of plaintiffs or their agents or representatives with the knowledge that it was false.”
Ford's in-house counsel Peter Tassie testified during the trial that the night before the final day of deliberations Cantu told him that if a note came out from the jury indicating they were deliberating on damages, his demand would go up from $1.96 million to $3 million.
“It was strange that he would give a specific figure, rather than just say the amount would go up,” said Jaime Saenz, a Brownsville lawyer for Ford.
Cantu did not return a phone call seeking comment. He and his clients can appeal this jury's decision, seek to retry its original case or drop the matter.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/casey/6681985.html
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
$2.5 million for being grossed out?
Ridiculous Lawsuit #87: In 2005, 49 year-old part-time paralegal Austin Aitken sued NBC for $2.5 million. He claimed that an episode of “Fear Factor” caused him “suffering, injury, and great pain.” He said that watching the contestants eat liquified rats from a blender on television made him dizzy and light-headed, causing him to vomit and run into a doorway. He told the Associated Press he would have changed the channel, but couldn't get to the remote quickly enough. The judge said the case was frivolous and threw it out.
It's the point of "Fear Factor" to gross out the viewer. Hey, I have an idea. How about suing "Dateline" for being too newsy?
It's the point of "Fear Factor" to gross out the viewer. Hey, I have an idea. How about suing "Dateline" for being too newsy?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)