The New York Personal Injury Law Blog presents the week that was:

Lawyers, drugs and money were big in the news this week, so we’ll alter the format a bit:

Let’s start with the money, before going to drugs and lawyers, and money starts with tort “reform.” Michael Townes Watson discusses at TortDeform, the fact that Medical Malpractice Reforms Don’t Increase Healthcare Safety;

And since we start with tort “reform,” I’ll point out that both Day on Torts and The Hartford Courant have stories on medical malpractice premiums dropping. That tends to happen when Mr. Market goes up, and a malpractice “crisis” develops when Mr. Market goes down;

Tort “reform” also leads to discussion of damage caps. But sometimes caps aren’t instituted by the legislature but by the limits of an insurance policy. Unfortunately, the merits of the action often take a back-seat to the practical realities of insurance coverage, as noted by Charles Silver at TortDeform in How Much Malpractice Coverage Does Your Doctor Have?

Now on to drugs: There was big drug news this week on Avandia, GlaxoSmithKline‘s diabetes drug now implicated in cardiac deaths, courtesy of an article in the New England Journal of Medicine. A round-up of many medical posts can be found at the Clinical Cases and Images Blog. New TortsProf blogger Sheila B. Scheuerman collects some posts on the problems at FDA regarding its approval process at Hearing on FDA’s Role In Evaluating Drug Safety. And perhaps most significantly from a medico-legal (and political) perspective, Public Citizen has stated that the FDA knew back in 2002 of the heart problems (via Pharmalot); And if you can’t get enough of the subject, Kevin, M.D. (the Howard Bashman of the medical world) has links to many more;

Can we bring a state-based pharmaceutical case based on the drug’s labeling, or does the drug company enjoy immunity because it was FDA approved? This goes to the heart of a state-federal power struggle that has roiled the nation since it was born, with the feds now wanting to claim it can preempt state laws without congressional approval, but with mere FDA support. Ironically, the seizure of such power is taking place under a Republican administration. Ed Silverman’s Pharmalot brings us the action for a case the Supreme Court may want to hear;

It could be, of course, that the drug problem isn’t from the labelling, but from dispensing too much. How does that happen you ask? Automatically. OnThePharm fills us in on the sad facts of auto-refills;

Did we check out that doctor that urged us to have surgery? Ben Stevens at the South Carolina Personal Injury Law Blog tells us of three doctors facing up to 50 years in prison for recruiting patients to undergo needless surgeries in order to defraud insurance companies;

Now on to the lawyers: As we look for an attorney, we wonder in this day and age of scams and con artists, is this person really an attorney? Solo Carolyn Elefant of My Shingle fame helps us find out;

It used to be that many would use Martindale–Hubbell to find, or at least research, counsel. But that seems to be going the way of the dinosaur, as Robert Ambrogi lets us know at Law.ComBlog in Firms Opt Out of Martindale–Hubbell;

But just being a member of the bar is no guarantee you have the right counsel. As Ken Shigley writes at his Atlanta Injury law and Civil Litigation Blog, there are unethical chiropractors, lawyers and runners out there, and it disgusts him. According to Ken, The Bar should act to penalize and deter illegal and unethical case solicitation. Yell it loud, Ken, I think the vast majority of us are in your corner. I hit a similar mark in one of my first posts as a blogger, discussing how to find a personal injury attorney;

In a similar vein, Tony Caggiano from the Orlando Injury Lawyer Blog reports: Federal Judge Acts on Improper Solicitation by Counsel. The reality is that if we don’t get rid of the bad apples, they will continue to tarnish the reputations of us all;

How will the lawyer get paid is an important issue, and more so since President Bush decided he didn’t want the federal government hiring lawyers on contingency. Better to let a firm run the hourly meter, I guess, than to pay for the efficiency of the contingent fee arrangement. The padding of those hourly bills is part of the opening to Enrico Schaefer’s Blawg Review #109 at The Greatest American Lawyer. Beck/Herrmann (Drug and Device Law) rounds up a slew of posts on the subject of the contingency fee arrangement, but never seems to address the fact that padded hourly rates could be far worse;

The judge you are assigned to might be in issue, if your case is in Florida and the insurance company doesn’t like the judge. According to Ronald Miller of the Maryland Personal Injury Law Blog, it seems one general counsel went so far as to accuse a judge of being “paid off.” While we’re over at that blog, we might as well rummage the many pleadings, motions and discovery devices that make up their Attorney Help Center to see if they can be of use to us;

And on to a few lawsuits: Some actions are easier than others, and no one will say the September 11th suits regarding post-attack air quality are easy. Sheila B. Scheuerman at TortsProf reports that the New York Medical Examiner has now confirmed a new death was due to the bad air, and discusses the ramifications for those pending lawsuits;

Since we are at TortsProf, Williams Childs lets us know of two odd amusement park lawsuits that struck his interest;

This New York legal malpractice case was premised on a medical malpractice case with a result the plaintiff didn’t like. Plaintiff’s counsel rejected a $1m offer and there was a subsequent $350 jury verdict. Plaintiff claims she was not properly informed of the offer. The case speaks to many different issues including jury risks, communications with client, and properly prepping your client for trial (via New York Attorney Malpractice blog);

And now for some quirky weekend reading/viewing:

MonkeyGirl isn’t pleased about all those pharma ads she sees, and figures out a way to wrap them into one with Men and their Pee-Pees; She also wants asks you….make that begs you…to make sure you and your children wear their seat belts, or else…

Biker-lawyer Norman Fernandez at the Biker Law Blog gets euphoric over the perfect commercial, while also showing us via video How to Get Yourself Killed Speeding on A Motorcycle in a Curve;

One more video, a classic Monty Python skit about lawyers (well, it’s about arguing) brought to you by Nicole Black at Legal Antics;

And finally, David Lat at Above the Law teaches us one thing to never say to a judge: “I suggest to you with respect, Your Honor, that you’re a few French fries short of a Happy Meal in terms of what’s likely to take place.” And without peeking, any thoughts on what the judge did?

Put up the flag and enjoy the weekend.

(Submissions for next week’s edition may be made to blog[at]TurkewitzLaw.com)

The New York Personal Injury Law Blog presents the week that was, taking you from pre-litigation through verdict and appeal:

Before heading into the courtroom, we look in on risky conduct that leads to lawsuits, check to see that the courthouse doors are open, and that we’ve selected the right attorney for the job:

Are our consumer products safe for us to use? Depends on who you ask. But if President Bush has his way with the nomination of Michael Baroody to head the Consumer Product Safety Commission, you will certainly think twice about it. Seems Pres. Bush wants the lobbyist for the National Association of Manufacturers to watch out for safety. David Arkush at the Consumer Law and Policy Blog has the action;

Do you think our drugs are safe? What if the pharmacist can’t even read the chicken-scratch that passes for a prescription? On The Pharm has a few examples of illegible prescriptions;

When does a Good Samaritan law apply? Well, not in the emergency room in North Dakota when a doctor expects to be paid, (OnPoint LegalNews) even if he was called in an emergency while waiting to operate on another (via Kevin M.D.);

Do we have the right counsel? Well, if the gov’t hired private counsel on a contingency, there may be an issue at stake, as Howard Erichson discusses at the Mass Tort Litigation Blog in States Revise Policies on Outside Counsel. Subsequent to that post, Pres. Bush signed an executive order banishing the practice on a federal level, though the order doesn’t seem to me to make much sense;

Before we start a suit, we better make sure it’s good. Unlike the matter of the horse that lost the Triple Crown because of an article in the newspaper (via WSJ Law Blog). Yeah, you read that right. In dumping the suit, Florida’s Judge Gary Farmer ripped into traditional judicial style style in this concurring opinion in Funny Cide Ventures v. The Miami Herald (via Orin Kerr at Volokh who hated the piece);

Our case hasn’t settled and we believe we have the all-clear for litigation, so off we go:

We need to carefully consider the causes of action for that medical malpractice case, because it might also be a breach of warranty case as Jacob Goldstein of the WSJ HealthBlog notes in A Warranty for Heart Surgery;

We also need to make sure we have the right parties. Demonstrating that an injury can have multiple causes, this lawsuit was brought against State Farm for denying coverage for surgery that doctors agree could have prevented her paralysis (via the Injury Blog);

If our state has one of those one-size-fits-all caps that deprives the most badly injured of fair compensation, we might have a problem. As Justinian Lane at TortDeform points out in a man-bites-dog type of story, however, at least one Oregon hospital wants to see the cap raised;

Discovery can sometimes be tricky. Here, the Florida Supreme Court weighed in on a medical malpractice case regarding discovery requests for hospitals to turn over lists of hospital privileges granted to physicians by the facilities’ credentials committees;

Also on the subject of medical malpractice, pediatrician and med-blogger Flea, who had started live-blogging his own malpractice case, first took down three recent posts last week, and has now taken down the whole site without explanation. Kevin M.D. wonders if we are seeing the demise of the medical blogosphere with other docs taking down their sites;

Did cross-examination go as well as we thought when we caught that particular witness with prior inconsistent statements? The Drug and Device Law Blog has An Empirical Study Of The Value of Impeaching With Prior Inconsistent Statements;

Sometimes we settle during discovery. Jim Higgins reports, from the Tennessee Law Blog, a $64 million class-action settlement regarding the effectiveness and dangers of Paxil on minors;

Will the verdict withstand appeal? In a Ford rollover case with a $55M punitive damage award, the US Supreme Court has remanded the punitive damages for consideration in light of the recent case of Philip Morris v. Williams regarding jury instructions in such cases. The problem, as readers of this space know, is that the Supreme Court had issued a very confusing opinion in Philip Morris; As it happens, Traci M. Braun and Thalia L. Myrianthopoulos wrote on the subject this week for Law.com in ‘Philip Morris’ Decision May Be Hazardous to Jurors’ Comprehension; And Rob Luke has yet more on at LegalNewsLine;

With the week done, we pack our trial bag up and go home with some lighter weekend reading:

• Ever wonder what it was like to actually cut open the body? Find out at SurgeonsBlog in Operation, Deconstructed. Two: cutting in;

• A new legal humor blog debuts, Legal Antics, brought to you by Nicole Black of Sui Generis fame;

• And finally, at Lowering The Bar, Fake-Lawsuit Plan Derailed by Chance, Stupidity.

Enjoy the weekend.

(Submissions for next week’s edition may be made to blog[at]TurkewitzLaw.com)

The New York Personal Injury Law Blog presents the week that was, taking you from pre-litigation through verdict and appeal:

Before heading into the courtroom, we look in on risky conduct that leads to lawsuits, check to see that the courthouse doors are open, and that we’ve selected the right attorney for the job:

We start with drugs, as Byron Stier at the Mass Torts Litigation Blog reports that Amgen and Johnson & Johnson, manufacturers of Epogen and Procrit, may have to cut back the over prescription of the drug. Why was it over prescribed? Well, the New York Times reports that millions in “rebates” were given to doctors who administer the drug. Of course, one man’s rebate might be viewed as another man’s kickback. Think the over prescribing and the, uhh, “rebates” are related? Jacob Goldstein at WSJ Health Blog writes it up at Anemia Drug Rebates to Docs May Spur Overuse;

Epogen, by the way, is a favorite of counterfeiters. So from the risk management department, we bring you the dangers of counterfeit drugs, also featured on the front page of the New York Times this week;

Prof. Stier reported on another drug issue this week, as he wrote of Mothers’ Depakote Use Linked to Mental Deficits in Children;

And lastly on drugs this week, Ed Silverman at Pharmalot reports that Purdue Pharma agreed to a whopping $634M fine for misbranding the powerful narcotic, OxyContin In addition, three executives including its president and the top lawyer pleaded guilty for the misbranding; Howard Erichson discusses the likely impact on other OxyContin cases;

From drugs to food: KFC got some good news when a federal judge tossed a case against it, that was based on KFC concealing the fact it was using transfat. Scott Greenfield at Simple Justice reports on what he considers finger-licking good news. I guess even criminal defense lawyers have to eat. An in-depth view of the KFC case is done at the Drug and Device Law Blog (Beck/Herrmann). True, fried chicken is neither a drug or a device but I guess it’s close enough, and these guys have to eat too;

From mere risk to real loss: Why do hospital patients call lawyers? Some like to think it’s always about the money. But the reality is that the emotionally devastated know that money is often meaningless. At Paul Levy’s Running a Hospital, he reprints an award winning essay from Cameron Page, entitled “You Lied To Me.” It’s not just a heart-breaking example of loss, but shows the circumstances under which that loss may be seen as betrayal;

And Tales Of An Emergency Room Nurse writes a headline that succinctly speaks to her concerns after a patient dies after discharge from the ER: Call The Malpractice Lawyer Quick; (via Kevin, M.D.);

Since we’re hanging out in the ER at the moment, you can check out CharityDocs‘ tale of unrelenting horror as he tries to get a child admitted in Dereliction of Duty. It would make a nice law school exam of issue-spotting, if it weren’t a real-life Danteseque tale of parents, doctors and administrators all facing down one very angry doctor trying to save a beaten child from limbo or worse;

We’re hiring a lawyer now, because we think it’s clear there’s a problem, and we need to make sure we have the right one for the job…but you probably wouldn’t want the firm that ran this miserable ad representing you…for anything…(via Overlawyered)

Before heading into litigation, we check in with Jon Coppelman at the Workers’ Comp Insider for a look around California and proposed legislative changes, in California Apportionment: Pennies for your Pain?

Our case hasn’t settled and we believe we have the all-clear for litigation, so off we go:

This lawsuit started in an unusual way: Racial epithets were being spewed by a nursing home patient, leading to allegations of abuse. Before you get outraged, consider that the patient suffers from dementia (via Illinois Nursing Home Abuse Blog);

And yet more unusual, Kevin Underhill at Lowering the Bar brings us Cardinals Fan Sues Over Botched Tattoo:

Finding an expert is one thing, finding a good one that won’t get torn apart on cross-examination is another: From American Medical News (via Kevin, M.D.) — In search of truthful testimony: Scrutinizing expert witnesses;

Ben Stevens at South Carolina Personal Injury Law Blog lays out some strategies for pursuing products liability cases;

But wait. Are we in the right court? Philip Morris is again in the Supreme Court, not testing the limits of punitive damages, but as Tony Sebok relates at FindLaw, about its claim the case should be in federal court instead of state. The claim in Watson v. Philip Morris is based on the thin argument that, because the cigarette company performed the tests rating the tar and nicotine in “light” cigarettes that are the heart of the plaintiffs’ suit, they themselves were acting as “federal officers” since the tests were required by the Federal Trade Commission. Ergo, federal court;

Sometimes our cases settle, such as this $7.4M settlement for 305 Louisiana patients who said they had unnecessary heart procedures;

But ours didn’t settle, so let’s go pick our jury. Have a question about it? No problem, because the National Center for State Courts just released a wealth of data on the subject. How extensive? More Americans Than Ever Serving on Juries. Most Comprehensive Study of Jury Practices Ever Conducted. Sounds good to me. (via Deliberations)

As our trial starts, the courtroom is tense, the anxiety palpable. In part of an extraordinary medical-legal series, pediatrician (and blogger) Flea repeatedly let loose with his observations and emotions regarding his own medical malpractice trial: as defendant in a wrongful death case. Jury selection is now complete, and he reflected on the jurors chosen and the traumatized parents. Except that Flea has now taken down some, though not all, of those the posts on the subject. Why has he chosen some, but not all? With the death of a child at stake, it is clear Flea’s trial is not just about money, as David Nieporent at Overlawyered likes to think. Will the nail-biting drama end in verdict or sigh-producing settlement? I’m guessing we haven’t heard the last of this. (Addendum, 5/15/07, the site has now been taken down completely);

With our trial underway, we have to worry not only about our questions, evidence and witnesses, but about naked attempts to influence the jury by passing out “newspapers” to jurors on the issue of tort “reform,” as discussed by NPR in Texas Newspaper Accused of Tort-Reform Bias (via TortsProf);

Part of trying the case is the time-honored exercise of pacing the hallway. Why? Because the jury is deliberating and there is nothing for you to do but wait, wait, wait, as the folks trying the Equal v. Splenda case are now doing, as discussed in the Legal Intelligencer (Law.com) in: Splenda’s Not Equal, But Is It Separate From Sugar?

We have the verdict, now will we withstand appeal? In New York, I wrote how an intermediate appellate court knocked down the verdict in this AIDS phobia case from $592,5000 to $250,000, and in doing so dismissed all claims for post traumatic stress disorder starting at six months after her exposure, under the theory a person shouldn’t be any further emotionally damaged;

Meanwhile, in Massachusetts, our TortsProf William Childs tells us this plaintiff sees his $2M libel verdict holds up at that state’s highest court;

And in San Francisco, the retrial of a tobacco case that I mentioned in Personal Injury Law Round-Up #10 that had resulted in an increase in compensatory damages from $1.7 to $2.5M, has now also resulted in a punitive damages award of only $250K compared to the original $20M;

With the week done, we pack our trial bag up and go home with some weekend reading:

• Prof. Childs prints a long abstract of a new paper about physician supply in Pennsylvania, testing a tort “reform” theory that during the most recent malpractice “crisis” rising liability insurance costs lead physicians to relocate to lower-cost states, restrict the scope of their practice (for example, by eliminating high-risk procedures), or stop practicing altogether. Tort “reformers” are unlikely to be happy with the results.

• Dispatches from the Tort Wars: A Review Essay, from Anthony Sebok, reviews three different books on tort “reform” and is available at the Social Science Research Network in advance of its publication in the Texas Law Review;

• The Drug and Device Law blog (Beck/Herrmann) was so delighted at all the attention they got last week from doing a nice round-up of blogs in their areas of expertise, that they have a sequel, more blogs on the subjects of complex litigation, mass torts and Daubert hearings;

• If you haven’t read it yet, check out Blawg Review #107 by Prof. Kingsfield at Blawg Review; and finally,

• Midwife with a Knife brings us the hair-raising tale of delivering twins, both breach (with pictures!), in Twins! Breech! Stat!; (via The Blog That Ate Manhattan)

Enjoy the weekend.

(Submissions for next week’s edition may be made to blog[at]TurkewitzLaw.com)

The New York Personal Injury Law Blog presents the week that was, taking you from pre-litigation through verdict and appeal:

Before heading into the courtroom, we better check to see that the courthouse doors haven’t been closed on us and take a look at the risks around us:

In this story from NorthJersey.com, a doctor insists that you sign away your rights to bring a lawsuit before treatment is even administered;

A new Oklahoma Tort “reform” law was vetoed, from Tulsa World (via Point of Law). The old law had been ruled unconstitutional, as I had discussed here some months back and again here (with a copy of decision). Legal Newsline tells us why the Governor vetoed the new law (via TortsProf);

There was a particularly nasty WSJ op-ed by Kim Strassel claiming that trial lawyers are “deeply loathed” (via Overlawyered). Can that be true? Not from my experience questioning 1,000+ jurors, and having them all answer “yes” when I ask if they would hire an attorney to bring suit if they felt it necessary. WSJ fantasy world, meet real world;

Ted Frank discusses at Point of Law a response by the authors of Jackpot Justice to Judge Richard Posner’s critique of it. An interesting part of the response is that the authors were unable to come up with a good answer to this critique: That the data they used came from industry-funded Tillinghast-Towers Perrin, and that:

It is impossible to determine from Tillinghast-Towers Perrin’s report what the sources for most of its data are, and so the figures I have quoted must be taken with a grain of salt

The response, in part, reads like “just trust them” because “Tillinghast’s unique experience as a consulting company for insurers also has given them inside knowledge and historical experience with the industry.” Like asking the fox to guard the henhouse.

Byron Stier at the Mass Torts Litigation Blog brings up this Washington Post story, Pet Deaths Spur Call for Better FDA Screening:Imports Raise Concern About Human Foods. It seems that, from the perspective of the food industry, a little extra work in risk management may be in order;

And more on risk management, MonkeyGirl’s view from the emergency room is that a certain nearby nursing home ought to review its procedures about who gets sent to the hospital and when, as she reviews an extraordinary nursing home dichotomy. It seems that, if they don’t work on their procedures, some very angry patients (or their families) will be visiting an attorney’s office nearby;

An unhappy Professor Stephen Bainbridge, steamed about plastic clamshell packaging designed by the devil, adds a bit more on risks he sees that look like a class action waiting to happen;

And before we start any suit, we want to do a little research. Thanks to Robert Ambrogi for pointing us to: New Site Collects Hundreds of Legal Articles. And yes, Litilaw is free.

And now that litigation is under way:

Our case could get tossed out on summary judgment, even when there is a disagreement as to the facts. You say courts aren’t supposed to be fact-finders, only jurors? Well, tell it to Judge Scalia and the Supreme Court, which this week decided in Scott v. Harris (via SCOTUSBlog) that it likes its own view of the facts, thank you very much, and not the views taken by other judges. Scott Greenfield has a scorching blog posting on the subject in Beer with a Cop Chaser; And then, within 24 hours of his posting, a chase after a car thief results in a bus full of children overturning, discussed in Sadly, Another Point Proven;

A deposition can be an ugly war, both as Steven Lubet reports from The American Lawyer (via How Appealing), and as Above the Law reports where a nasty bench slap was delivered in rhymed couplets;

At Overlawyered, Ted Frank offers a practice tip on how to deal with objectionable questions at deposition, while trying not to run afoul of the prohibitions that may exist for directing a witness not to answer;

And to help us along a bit during discovery, Ronald Miller from The Maryland Injury Law Blog hands out a few tips on Protecting the Injury Victim During Deposition, especially if you think there may be a claims history;

While our trials often deal with lost wages, this is sometimes difficult when the victim is a stay-at-home mom. John Day at Day on Torts reports on an article that works to put a number on the value of mom’s services;

Objecting during summations is also sometimes a problem, as Matt Lerner discusses in New York Civil Law, in the context of a judge that prohibited summation objections;

As the jury goes out to deliberate, we wonder about how the jurors will decide issues of fact and truthfulness, and whether race played any factor. We think about this as Anne Reed at Deliberations points to a study in the New York Times on the subject, in Another Day, Another Unconscious Bias Study;

As we go from verdict to appeal and back for retrial, it seems that second time can be worse than the first for an appellant. A smoker suit had resulted in 1.7M in compensatory damages the first time, and on retrial, a jury came back with $2.5M (Calif. Smoker Gets Higher Compensatory Damages in Second Trial). There had also been $20M in punitive damages the first time, and as of this writing the punitive phase of the second trial had not been completed. The court will now have to craft jury instructions in accordance with the confusing, recent SCOTUS decision in Philip Morris v. Williams.

And finally:

• Drug and Device Law (Beck/Herrmann) has a nice round-up of different health law blogs.

• 12 Important U.S. Laws Every Blogger Needs to Know, from Aviva Directory (I don’t know how good the cited law is, but it does a good job of issue identification)

• This isn’t legal, but medical — From CharityDoc, a story of a bullet’s travels after it enters the body and the efforts to save the patient.

Enjoy the weekend.

(Submissions for next week’s edition may be made to blog[at]TurkewitzLaw.com)

The New York Personal Injury Law Blog presents the week that was:

We’ll start with pre-litigation issues and risks that we see:

William Childs at TortsProf brings us the dueling “state rankings” from the US Chamber of Commerce (worst states for litigation) and the American Association of Justice’s (formerly ATLA) sharp response with a list of the “ten worst states to get sick or injured in”. (With criticism of that sharpness by Stephanie Mencimer at The Tortellini, and more from Law.com)

Were you given the best drug for your illness? At MassTorts, Byron Stier writes of Pharmaceutical Industry Influence on Doctors. The peddling of drugs to doctors by Pharma was big this week and covered also at the Public Library of Science, in Following the Script: How Drug Reps Make Friends and Influence Doctors. Here’s a sample quote, that you shouldn’t read if you are on meds:

It’s my job to figure out what a physician’s price is. For some it’s dinner at the finest restaurants, for others it’s enough convincing data to let them prescribe confidently and for others it’s my attention and friendship…but at the most basic level, everything is for sale and everything is an exchange.

Other articles on the cozy relationship between docs and Pharma at WSJ Health Blog, the New England Journal of Medicine, and Pharmalot. Do you still have confidence in the prescription you were given?

And there’s yet more on drugs at Tom Lamb’s Drug Injury Watch as he discusses the high number of adverse drug reactions in hospitals, some of whom were given the wrong drug or the wrong dose;

Over at TortDeform, New York State Senator Eric Schneiderman blogs on the 44,000 and 98,000 hospital deaths each year attributed to preventable medical errors, and his sponsorship of legislation that would require doctors to inform patients when significant medical errors take place;

So what makes people call an attorney after a bad experience? Often is it is anger. Or a sense that a trust was betrayed. Paul Levy at Running A Hospital brings a classic complaint from a patient about the care he was rendered in Who can blame him? The patient is apparently also a physician. Imagine how a patient without medical training would feel;

As we sit in the office and sort through the medical records of an unhappy potential client we consider taking for litigation, both we and the medical profession need to be mindful of HIPPA. Thankfully, we can turn here to Jayne Juvan’s Health Law Update, as she has information on HIPPA violations, in particular violations of the Privacy Rule and enforcement by the FDA’s Office of Civil Rights;

Into the onset of litigation we go: With Howard Erichson at MassTorts reporting that class action lawsuits against Menu Foods, maker of the tainted pet food, are piling up fast. (I had previously written that individual claims might cost more to prosecute than they are worth.)

From pets to people, we go to the recent food poisoning outbreaks in the news that occurred with peanut butter and spinach. This has resulted in a troubling new issue: That the FDA knew of the contamination problems for years (Washington Post via TortsProf);

As we litigate along, we hope our clients are candid with us, unlike this woman who claimed to be permanently paralyzed but was videotaped walking down the street with a cane. As this case shows, litigation can be expensive, in oh so many different ways;

Now on toward trial: Medblogger Flea opens a rare and enlightening public window into preparing for cross-examination for his malpractice trial two weeks from now, in Flea Takes a Screen Test and What Do Malpractice Juries Care About? (Flea seems to have good counsel on how to conduct himself, but not such good counsel when told medical facts matter only 3% of the time);

Flea will be happy to know, however, courtesy of Charles Toutant at the New Jersey Law Journal, that juries tend to side with doctors. This is also covered this week at the Orlando Injury Blog, from Tony Caggiano (Orlando Medical Malpractice Lawyers Find Truth in Jury Bias Study) and was previously covered here (with link to original source);

As the trial starts, we take a few tips from James W. McElhaney at his monthly column in the ABA Journal about how needing themes when you talk to jurors during the trial;

Since we are now standing in the well of the courtroom, Anne Reed at Deliberations has a nice primer on exposing a lie from a witness. You would correctly presume that shouting at the witness is not one of the methods that works with jurors (or anyone else, for that matter);

From cross-exam to summation, we move to Lowell Steiger at the Los Angeles Personal Injury Law Blog and this story of highly prejudicial arguments by the defense that warrants a new trial after a defense verdict: Defense Tricks: Frivolous Lawsuits? I Think Not (hat tip to TortDeform);

With our trial over: Tiffany Sanders at The Total Injury Blog deviates from the blog’s usual fare of verdicts and settlements to note that their entire content is being scraped by another blog. One day these intellectual property issues will result in litigation for sure, if it hasn’t happened already;

Since the case is resolved, by settlement or verdict, we turn to legal fees (if any). Two posts from Andrew Bluestone’s New York Attorney Malpractice Blog on legal fees when the first hired attorney is discharged, in Attorney Fees and Termination, and More Fee Issues;

Legal fees come up in another context, as Walter Olson discusses at Point of Law, this being the issue of government hiring private sector counsel on contingency, setting up a conflict between the neutrality a government attorney must have, and the zealous advocacy that private counsel is ethically bound to provide; In another posting he plugs this round-up as “Invariably worth reading,” no doubt knowing I am a sucker for flattery and will now have to buy him a beer if we meet;

As we empty the trial bag with our week done: We welcome a new blogger cutting his teeth at Massachusettes Auto Accident Blog (via California Personal Injury and Insurance Blog). Let’s hope they follow the sage advice of Kevin O’Keefe and refrain from making it just another “Call me if you are injured!” island of self-promotion, but instead an interesting, linkable and integrated site. Unless, of course, that island of blogospheric purgatory is the desired result.

And finally, Evan Schaeffer’s Legal Underground collects some hits from the past with his description of different types of lawyers, for some kick-off-the-shoes weekend reading; (Schaeffer also plugged the Personal Injury Law Round-Up last month…if this keeps up, I’ll move from Z-list blogger to Y-list. And owe a few more beers.)

Enjoy the weekend.

(Submissions for next week’s edition may be made to blog[at]TurkewitzLaw.com)