August 17th, 2009

Minivan Mom Tasered in Syracuse

A mom with two kids in her car in Syracuse was pulled over by a cop for allegedly talking on her cell phone. But she wasn’t. And because this is easy enough to prove with records, the cop was obviously pissed.

So he did the next logical thing, claiming he was going to give her a ticket for going 50 in a 45 mph zone. Because that is just the sort of thing that police do every day.

The mom at issue, Audra Harmon, said she wanted to see “the tape” from the cop’s radar gun and got out of the car. Bad move. Deputy Sean Andrews told her to get back in the car. She complied.

Then he demanded she get out again. I’m not making this up. Finally he yanked her out, and while she stood there in the most inoffensive manner possible, no more threatening to the officer’s safety than a butterfly, he tasered her. Twice.

Let’s roll the videotape, which you can see with the full story here (because I’m unable for some reason to embed the video here.)

I usually leave the stories of cops tasering people without good cause to Scott Greenfield. But I’m back from a tranquil beach vacation and this jumped out at me.

She will sue, of course. As she should. And with any luck at all Deputy Andrews will be flipping burgers someplace where an assault with a spatula will be less likely to do harm.

One last note: This comes to light in August, but it happened in January. Local officials say the matter is under review. That’s a long time to review a simple incident, if you ask me, and isn’t exactly a credit to the investigating authorities.

Links to this post:

flustered cop turns taser on syracuse mom
a stun gun making an electrical arc between it… you are not going to believe this video! i was alerted to it by a post on attorney eric turkewitz’s blog. eric practices personal injury law in new york city, but “minivan mom tasered in
posted by Jim Reed @ August 24, 2009 11:45 AM

 

August 7th, 2009

Linkworthy


In the wake of the 68-31 vote confirming Judge Sotomayor, Prof. Michael Dorf does a quick review of the prior votes going back to 1975 and how things have changed;

Last week a New York woman was ticketed for breastfeeding in her car. So this week state senator Liz Krueger has organized a Breastfeeding Mothers’ Subway Caravan.

Ron Miller rounds up some personal injury posts;

A 101 year old lawyer, who says the key to longevity is “not dying;”

Where does a 500 pound man hide a gun he is trying to smuggle into a jail?

Sui Generis with a weekly New York Legal News Round Up;

TortsProf with this week’s Personal Injury Round-Up, which they have now been doing for over one year;

And Scott Greenfield pinch hits at Blawg Review for a reviewer that when AWOL. Seems some lawyer marketing type signed up to do the review but then didn’t do the actual work. Greenfield isn’t happy. Or surprised. It’s a good thing he’s good at venting. And in a two-fer, the anonymous Editor of Blawg Review does a part two of Blawg Review.

 

August 6th, 2009

Michael Jackson: Malpractice or Manslaughter (Or Something Else)?


The news that’s been leaking out of Los Angeles is that Michael Jackson was administered the anesthesia drug propofol by his doctor, Conrad Murray, the night before he died. And that a manslaughter investigation is under way. Other news is that his doctor may have prescribed drugs to Jackson under multiple names.

So it’s time to revisit the post I made the day after he died (Michael Jackson: The Mother of All Malpractice Suits?). At that time I wrote of three potential issues for a doctor that was seeing him if medication issues lead to his death, which I re-examine below:

1. Medical license issues;
2. Medical malpractice; and
3. Criminal prosecution.

I had a number of questions the day after he died, most of which remain unanswered since the autopsy results are not public nor are the toxicology reports. But I wrote this at the time regarding criminal liability:

A. Criminal liability is the big concern if there was one doctor prescribing a bucket load of drugs to Jackson without having the nerve to cut off the famous patient. While prosecutors don’t generally bring these kinds of actions, they also don’t usually deal with such a high profile figure. That could alter the decision-making process of prosecutors. That doctor would also have separate licensing concerns.

So, assuming that Murray gave the drug, and also assuming that Murray prescribed drugs to Jackson under multiple names (both of which are just rumors), how does this change the equation?

First, let’s be clear that the only reason this manslaughter investigation is going on is because the decedent was big-time famous. This type of investigation would not go on for the other 99.999% of the population.

Second, I’ll assume without bothering to look it up that giving out prescriptions under phony names violates a few laws.

That being said, if those two things are true, then I predict the following:

1. His license to practice medicine will be revoked. The alternative of suspension doesn’t really exist because of the big, bright media spotlight.

2. A malpractice case will be brought and the insurance company (if any) will try to settle quickly for the limits of the policy (in New York the usual primary policy is $1.3M). There are a few reasons for this, the first being it is rare to have government workers do your investigation for you in a malpractice case, but that is the case here. Discovery will all be done by the police and District Attorney. Add in that the insurance carrier won’t want to throw good money after bad in a case like this while the world is watching. So while a million bucks might not mean much in terms of Michael Jackson, it’s still a million bucks and better in the pockets of the kids then in the pockets of the insurance company.

The big wrench thrown in to this kind of quick settlement is that the lawyer that brings the case for the family will likely have intense pressure to get more than the insurance policy; they will want a whopper of a punitive damage judgment against Dr. Murray.

Why? While I’m guessing that this doctor probably won’t have much in the way of assets after he pays his criminal defense fees, he could still make a bucket of money writing a book or otherwise selling the rights to his story. A judgment against him allows him to be pursued for those fees, the same way that OJ Simpson has been pursued by the Goldman family after they collected a big civil judgment against him. The family will want this done so that Murray cannot profit from his conduct.

3. Criminal law. Dr. Murray will likely face fraud charges regarding the phony prescriptions. And I’m guessing he might face a Martha Stewart Charge (obstruction of justice) for lying to the police regarding his actions. That opinion is based on the doctor being interviewed by the police shortly after Jackson’s death, but that the room was apparently not treated as a crime scene until much later. A search warrant was issued three weeks after Jackson’s death. I therefore guess that Dr. Murray wasn’t particularly candid about the degree to which he had been medicating Jackson (if the rumours are true) and that will expose him to an obstruction charge.

But will he face a manslaughter charge based on reckless conduct? If it was my family or yours the answer would be an easy no because the investigation never would have happened. If it happens here, it is only because of the notoriety of the case. So my best guess is no, though the all-important toxicology results have not been made public. If I’m wrong about the charge I think it will be because of community or political pressure or publicity-seeking by the DA, or something truly remarkable in the toxicology results.

So here is my guess from the cheap seats:
1. Loss of license;

2. Malpractice case that nets the limits of any insurance policy, with continued pursuit for a judgment against Murray so that the doctor can’t profit by selling the story; and

3. Criminal charges regarding obstruction of justice and fraud regarding the prescriptions. If charged with manslaughter, he will be found not guilty based on what we know right now, but the toxicology results can change that in a New York second.

Update: See Michael Jackson’s Mom To Start Wrongful Death Action Against Concert Promoter? (8/18/09)

 

August 3rd, 2009

Ambulance Chasers, Runners and Other Creeps


Today’s post is inspired by a trifecta of recent stories on people chasing victims for profit. This includes:

1. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo last month indicting 14 people involved in a health care fraud scam involving doctors and at least one lawyer;

2. A Florida hospital employee selling patient medical records to a middle man who turns them over to a personal injury attorney; and

3. Two Brooklyn lawyers, David Resnick and Serge Binder, last week becoming the 13th and 14th lawyers to lose their licenses in a “runner” investigation going back to 1999 (previously here on 8/2/07: New York Personal Injury Attorney Probe Catches Another Ambulance Chaser).

Now every business and every profession has its scoundrels. Regardless of whether the lure is one of the big three of money, sex or drugs, it happens to doctors, lawyers, clergy, schoolteachers and every other group you can imagine. Every race, religion and group of any kind will have its problem participants.

But unlike the police and their Blue Code of Silence or the doctors and their White Coat of Silence, or the priests and their Collar of Silence, I don’t ever want to see such silence by lawyers.

The message should be loud and clear: If you employ runners to chase cases at the local hospitals you shouldn’t be practicing law. And it should be equally clear that the vast, vast majority of attorneys look down with utter disdain on such conduct. Without question, most of the lawyers that I run into, on both the plaintiffs and defense side, practice law conscientiously and ethically. The corrupt ones should not expect others to come to their defense.

When lawyers practice unethically it tarnishes the entire profession and makes it more difficult to represent those in need of legal services.

When I wrote my first piece on this two years ago, I wrote the following words, which I reaffirm today:

…I know this crap happens and I want it stopped. I have heard it through the grapevine as new clients reported on how they were approached by others after being hospitalized. It is utterly infuriating, and I am pleased that the Manhattan District Attorney is working on the issue. I have often quietly hoped (and today, not so quietly) that District Attorneys in the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island would follow suit, not only investigating based on tips they receive, but even running sting operations.

Links to this post:

september 15 roundup
it’s almost as if arizona wants to encourage broken-windshield fraud [coyote]; “they are so greedy that — how awful! — they are selling food cheap.” [ann althouse takes out after michael pollan]; tom freeland examines “clarksdale sugar

posted by Walter Olson @ September 15, 2009 7:47 AM

personal injury roundup of links
wisconsin supreme court begins to lean to the right, notwithstanding last week’s informed consent holding. <1 million malpractice settlement in chicago (dallas fort worth injury lawyer) . advice on coordinating pip and workers’
posted by @ August 03, 2009 3:21 PM

 

July 31st, 2009

Linkworthy


Another tort “reform” champion brings his own medical malpractice suit. And loses at trial. I wonder how many of his jurors had been prejudiced by all that nonsense about frivolous lawsuits that his favorite group has been peddling?

A blogger threatens a Crocs rep that, if he doesn’t cough up free shoes for her, she’ll write something bad about the company on her blog;

The Associated Press claims that using their headlines and a link to their articles requires a licensing agreement. In response, Scott Greenfield tells the AP to go suck eggs.

The Horizon Realty Group of Chicago did a bad thing. They sued a Twitter user with 20 followers for writing:

Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment is bad for you? Horizon realty thinks its okay.

Why did they sue the Twitterer? Because, as their spokesman says, “We’re a sue first, ask questions later kind of an organization.” This makes them (rightfully) this week’s laughingstock of the web, despite their later attempt at damage control;

One defense lawyer tries to claim that while the number of class actions suits have dropped, the plaintiffs’ lawyers haven’t gone away, premising his argument on this comment (via PofL):

Let’s be honest — fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, and plaintiffs’ lawyers make their living filing lawsuits.

OK, send him back to law school. Plaintiff’s lawyers don’t make their living by filing suits. They only get paid for winning suits. Simply filing suits is the path to their own bankruptcy.

Pennsylvania wants to hire attorneys on contingency to bring drug legislation. But objections come up, as some folks think the state should be forced instead to run the billable hour meter.

Dr. Wes shows the importance of examining not only the patient, but what the patient brings with him to the exam room.

Does a Michael Jackson wrongful death suit have value, even if the issue of negligence can be proved? Hans Pope investigates;

Bill Childs has extensive Personal Injury Law Round-Up at TortsProf. My heartfelt condolences for his loss; and

Blawg Review #222 is up at the IP Think Tank.

Links to this post:

personal injury roundup of links
wisconsin supreme court begins to lean to the right, notwithstanding last week’s informed consent holding. <1 million malpractice settlement in chicago (dallas fort worth injury lawyer) . advice on coordinating pip and workers’
posted by @ August 03, 2009 3:21 PM