June 8th, 2007

Robert Bork Brings Trip/Fall Suit for Over $1M, Plus Punitive Damages And Legal Fees


Former Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork has sued the Yale Club for an amount “in excess of $1,000,000,” plus punitive damages, as a result of a trip and fall accident on June 6, 2006. The Complaint is here via the WSJ. The accident happened while he was climbing to the dais for a speech, and there were no steps or handrail for the 79-year old Bork to hold on to.

The main injury he claims to have suffered were a hematoma in the leg that required surgery and months of rehabilitation. The New York Times notes that he proceeded to deliver the speech after he had fallen.

My thoughts on the Complaint:

  1. This is a routine New York personal injury case. There is nothing particularly exceptional about it from the Complaint other than the plaintiff, a noted conservative jurist who has been part of the American Enterprise Institute, which engages in tort “reform” activities.
  2. Since no hospitalization is mentioned, I assume that the surgery for the hematoma was out-patient and may have been a simple drainage of some kind. Perhaps the med-bloggers who visit here can offer up a bit more on what kind of surgery was likely;
  3. The Complaint doesn’t even come close to explaining why punitive damages would be warranted in such a routine negligence matter. My gut reaction is that it is frivolous.
  4. The Complaint asked for attorneys fees. Why? You can’t get them in New York for a standard personal injury claim.
  5. The Complaint asks for pre-judgment interest. Why? You can’t get that here either. Sad, but true. Interest runs from the date of the judgment not from the date of the accident, thereby giving insurance companies a reason to delay litigation as long as possible. Perhaps Judge Bork wants to come with me the next time I lobby the legislature to amend the law to include pre-judgment interest?
  6. The Complaint asks for an amount “in excess of $1,000,000” (not merely $1M, but in excess of). Where are the damages for making such a huge demand?

Ted Frank at Overlawyered has already jumped on this case and called it “embarrassingly silly,” noting the defenses of assumption of risk and a condition that was “open and obvious.” He adds in the comments, interestingly, that “it’s conceivable that there might be an [Americans with Disabilities Act] claim of some sort.”

A quote from Bork, from Bloomberg news:

In a 1995 opinion piece published in the Washington Times, Bork and Theodore Olson, who later became a top Justice Department official, criticized what they called the “expensive, capricious and unpredictable” civil justice system in the U.S.

“Today’s merchant enters the marketplace with trepidation — anticipating from the civil justice system the treatment that his ancestors experienced with the Barbary pirates,” they wrote.

I suspect that the folks at TortDeform will now add Bork to their roster of “Do as I say, not as I do” hypocrites of tort reform that suddenly changed their minds when it was no longer someone else’s injuries at stake.

Finally, the Complaint is signed by Bork’s counsel Randy Mastro, of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher. Mastro’s bio asserts that he “is a litigation partner who handles both civil and white collar criminal cases.” Also listed is Brian Lutz, who does “securities litigation, corporate control contests, antitrust matters (both civil and criminal), insurance/reinsurance coverage disputes, and white collar defense.” This is a white shoe firm with a dozen offices around the world. They apparently have lots of BigLaw experience. There is no personal injury law experience noted for either.

The case is Bork v. Yale Club, 07-cv-4826, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan)

Addendum:

  • More thoughts on choosing the right counsel from Carolyn Elefant: What Judge Bork’s Choice of PI Counsel Says About Lawyer Rankings like Avvo and Marketing;
  • Robert Bork, Jr. defends his father’s suit at Overlawyered;
  • This post now appears at Volokh, where I added the following comments in response to another:

    This was not a standard complaint. If it were, his counsel would have explicitly alleged that the Yale Club owned, operated and controlled the premises. (It can still be inferred, but it was poor drafting.)

    The complaint is filled with specifics about the incident (usually not done locally, it is usually very general), also meaning it is not boilerplate.

    They make multiple, unrelated , allegations in a single paragraph, making it impossible to admit or deny any of the facts in the answer (thereby destroying any benefit to putting in specifics) . And while not fatal, it is against the rules.

    It is certainly not boilerplate to allege punitive damages in a trip and fall case unless there is something particularly outrageous. And it isn’t a separate cause of action for punitives as they have alleged.

    And it is certainly not boilerplate to ask for things such as pre-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees in such an action, when they are clearly not allowed.

    Claiming something is boilerplate only works for a rookie lawyer who didn’t know better. Not for a former SCOTUS nominee with counsel from a BigLaw firm. (What would Bork say if he were on the bench and presented with such an excuse?)

    The reality is that there are thousands of solo and small firm practitioners who know this stuff cold, and Bork picked counsel with a lack of experience. That’s what I glean from the Complaint, and is the most likely reason frivolous claims appear.

A sampling of some other commentary:

Addendum 6/11/07 – I have a new post on the subject: What Should Bork Do Now?

Addendum 6/13/07 – I searched TownHall, a site with dozens of conservative commentators, to add additional viewpoints to this collection, but could find no reference whatsoever to the lawsuit.

Addendum 6/14/07 – New comments after New York Times weighs in with editorial: Bork’s New York Personal Injury Case and The New York Times

Addendum 6/29/07Bork Amends Lawsuit, Keeps Claim for Over $1,000,000 Plus Punitive Damages

Addendum 7/17/07 Bork Attorney Randy Mastro is picked by Rudy Giuliani to be on Justice Advisory Committee

(Eric Turkewitz is a personal injury attorney in New York)

 

May 23rd, 2007

New York Surgeon On Trial For Fatal Face Lift


From today’s New York Post:

May 23, 2007 — Dr. Sherrell Aston, one of the world’s most acclaimed cosmetic surgeons, is being sued by a Connecticut man who claims the renowned doctor’s “gross negligence” led to his wife’s death.

Susan Malitz, 56, had gone to Manhattan Eye, Ear and Throat Hospital in 2004 for what was supposed to be a routine face-lift operation by Aston, whose patients have reportedly included Tipper Gore, Anna Wintour and Catherine Deneuve.

Two hours later, Malitz was dead – the second patient to die during cosmetic surgery at the hospital in a two-month period.

The claim is lidocaine toxicity, as found by the New York Medical Examiner. Dr. Aston says the medical examiner is wrong. An article from 2004 in the New York Times on the matter is here.

Addendum 5/25/07 – The case has now settled for $3.1M, with the anesthesiologist, Dr. Gary Mellen, paying $2.7M and the hospital $400K. Settlement also appears in the New York Post.

 

May 23rd, 2007

Avandia Attorney Advertising Heats Up On Google


The story broke on Monday regarding the cardiac problems with Avandia, a diabetes drug by GlaxoSmithKline.

On Tuesday I took a look at Google’s sponsored links for the search phrase, “Avandia Attorneys” and it showed three results, shown here in this screen shot: AvandiaAttorneysMay22.pdf

I checked again this afternoon and, no big surprise, the number has jumped. Now there are 11 seen at this screen shot: AvandiaAttorneysMay23.pdf

[Addendum 5/24, 9:00 a.m. – Overnight, two new websites appeared in the pay-per-click Google ad space with Avandia as part of the domain name. A week from now, the landscape will no doubt be far more cluttered than today.]

For those interested in the subject of attorney advertising, it will be an interesting metric to watch.

And if, by chance, you were wondering if this violates New York’s new “30 day rule” that prohibits attorney advertising within that time frame for an incident, the New York State Bar Association has this helpful FAQ:

Question:

Do web sites which are aimed at lawsuits against specific manufacturers or causes of action (i.e., vioxx, etc.) fall in the “specific incident” provision of DR 7-111 such that, for example, once the FDA reports the danger of the drug publicly, the 30 day rule is triggered?

Answer: The use of the term “incident” in DR 7-111 apparently does not relate to the announcement of information. Rather it appears to relate to the injurious incident — i.e., an incident such as the Staten Island Ferry crash.

 

May 9th, 2007

Trial Lawyer Group Makes Ethics Charge In Dry Cleaning Case

Probably no group of people is more outraged over the $65M Pants Case than lawyers, as such outrageous behavior from another attorney works to disparage us all.

The American Association for Justice has therefore asked for a disciplinary investigation regarding the attorney (and administrative judge) and is also soliciting for the defense fund.

The details are here: Disciplinary Investigation Called for in Dry Cleaners Case.

The attorneys’ alleged favorite pants are at right.

 

April 30th, 2007

More Thoughts On Supreme Court Placing Video Online

Now that the Supreme Court has placed a police video online in his decision today in Scott v. Harris, the question presents itself: What other materials will be placed online? (Howard Bashman says in a headline: “Online Video Clips: Not Just for Porn Anymore.”)

The Court has set a precedent.

The evidence in pornography cases does indeed spring to mind in the never ending debate of what is, or is not, obscene.

According to The Brethren, there was Movie Day at the Supreme Court when the films were viewed. Is the Court now put in the odd position of hiding evidence over which there may be a difference of opinion? That is to say, using one standard for a car chase and a different one for porn? Did the Court just step on to a slippery slope with a multitude of grays between those extremes?

Would a lethal injection execution that was videotaped be placed online if and when the Court debates whether it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment?

Regarding porn, Potter Stewart said, “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . ” (Jacobellis v. Ohio, concurring)

But will the Court show it?