Lawsuits Report

Microsoft loses case against Alcatel-Lucent

Neophyteblogger — Wed, 21 May 2008 19:25:11 +0000

>компютри втора употребаver what else, but patent violations. Microsoft had accused Alcatel-Lucent of infringing our patents for software in a system that integrates telephones with computers for calls, messages and videoconferences. The commission investigating the appeal however dismissed Microsoft’s case as it did not find an infringement of section 337 which covers trespassing on intellectual property. Alcatel-Lucent, on its part, had accused Microsoft of infringements over MP3 technology, game consoles, and terminal screen patents. Microsoft has expressed disappointment over the ruling but has not made it clear if it will appeal the ruling.

Good pointers for civil litigators

Neophyteblogger — Wed, 21 May 2008 18:59:55 +0000

An excellent piece at The Lawyers Weekly, in which the author Michael Rappaport offers practical tips to lawyers who rarely get to face a jury or a judge; the reason being that a majority of cases are settled before trial.

The article has Jack Fireman, one of the best known plaintiff-side trial lawyers in Ontario, holding forth on how to convince a jury. He touches upon issues such as opting for a jury or a judge; getting a jury to identify with you; collecting demonstrative evidence; powerful opening remarks; cross-examinations; and good closing remarks.

Craiglist vs eBay

Neophyteblogger — Tue, 20 May 2008 09:28:22 +0000

Craiglist has hit back strongly at eBay with a counter lawsuit after the eBay lawsuit against Craiglist filed two weeks ago. The eBay lawsuit claimed that Craiglist employees took steps that unfairly compromised eBay in an economic manner. Craiglist canceled some eBay rights after eBay decided to push its free classified service Kijiji in the US market. Cariglist views Kijiji as direct competition.

In its counter-lawsuit, Craiglist accuses eBay of pretty much everything that constitutes unfair business - it only stops short of kidnapping for ransom and murder. Here’s a snippet of the Craiglist lawsuit -

unlawful and unfair competition, misappropriation of proprietary information, deceptive passing-off, business interference, false advertising, phishing attacks, free-riding, trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and breaches of fiduciary duty.

Apparently eBay used its position as a major minority shareholder to glean as much information as possible and then used that knowledge to launch Kijiji. If true, its enough to burn somebody inside. It is a high-stake game with Kijiji reporting a growth of 104% last year. Here’s a nice piece about Kijiji’s take on how it hopes to better Craiglist.

Things will get interesting if customers decide to take sides; the internet will soon see some crisp punches thrown on behalf of both parties. eBay has the advantage of filing the case first and taking the offensive whereas Craiglist has the advantage of being the underdog.

Medical Malpractice Cases Are Killing the World - Even the Stars!

Neophyteblogger — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 09:35:28 +0000

Had the celebrated German composer, Ludwig van Beethoven died in the 20th century, the medical malpractice lawsuit against his doctor will surely be a controversial one. Just recently, a team of Viennese forensic experts lead by Christian Reiter made a very astonishing discovery: the great master composer was probably poisoned by his own doctor. The findings are substantial and significant to prove that there is a large amount of lead in Beethoven’s body… enough to cause death!

Malpractice is a specific legal term related to lawsuits alleging various different circumstances leading to damage to a patient. Malpractice suits may allege various mistakes made by doctors or other medical professionals, including misdiagnosis, mistreatment, and other types of negligence. But this does not go to say that all errors in medical diagnosis and treatment are necessarily considered a malpractice. There are certain risks that arise inherently in the practice of medicine and margins for error are established so that things will depend on the gravity and severity of a specific case.

Medical malpractice denotes a negligent act or incorrect medical practice or procedure resulting to damage, injury and possibly death of a patient. A malpractice suit is filed by a person or his family with a cause of action and with the assistance of a medical malpractice lawyer. It is wise to get the assistance of a lawyer first before confronting the physician or alleging malpractice against someone because not all mistakes are malpractices because the law gives allowance to errors that are inherent to medical care.

The support and guidance of a medical malpractice attorney is very important in cases like this so that the victim or the family are given the opportunity to make the medical practitioners answerable to the law, what rights were violated and what necessary courses of action are feasible.

Proving an alleged medical malpractice case is actually a bit difficult especially if the person filing it is not well-versed with the law covering it. Cases usually go on and on without much hope for the victims. More often than not, lawsuits of this nature are settled out of court. Those on the wrong might have ‘paid’ for the consequences of their actions or non-actions, but the consequences of all these will always be disastrous and, unfortunately, oftentimes fatal, for some cases.

There are several celebrated cases of medical malpractice cases which owe their notoriety to either the victim of malpractice or the scandal that’s attached to the case. This only goes to show that even celebrities are not immune to this kind of screw up.

Julie Andrew’s case is one tragic example of medical malpractice which caused her and the world the loss of her amazing singing voice. The well-known 64-year-old Sound of Music star underwent surgery in June 1997 to remove a non-cancerous nodule in her throat. The two doctors responsible for the operation, Scott Kessler and Jeffrey Libin, allegedly forgot to mention that the operation has a very high probability of ruining her ability to sing and to perform in musical theater.

According to Andrews, she filed a lawsuit because she had not been told that the operation carried the risk of permanent hoarseness and irreversible loss of vocal quality or other complication that might leave her unable to sing. Andrews further claimed that the doctors operated on both sides of her vocal organs when it was only the left side which was affected; thus, there was no reason to do anything to the right side. This case took years to discuss in court, until the two doctors made a settlement in 2000.

Another medical malpractice lawsuit filed is that of the famous ABC Television broadcasting company’s sports writer and broadcaster Richard Schaap, who went in for a hip replacement surgery at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York in 2001. Everything seemed to be okay when Mr. Schaap went home to recover, but three months later he died of a post-operation infection. Dick Schaap was only 67 and was still very active in his career. The first case was filed by the Schaap family against the hospital for allegedly lacking adequate hygiene standards, hence, the post-operation infection, which was the cause of Dick’s untimely death.

Unfortunately, the lawsuit was dismissed due to lack of evidence; the Schaap’s theory didn’t stand in court. The defense, through their lawyer, denied the accusation saying that the charge against them was but theoretical and did not have any legitimacy and weight in court.

Two years later, the Schaap family filed another lawsuit, this time against the three doctors who took care of Dick while in the hospital. The claim was that the doctors failed to diagnose lung damage from use of the drug, amiodarone. The jury convicted one doctor but exonerated the other two which, in a way, a controversial decision. Nevertheless, the Schaaps got what they were aiming for; they were awarded $1.9M for all the troubles and heartaches they endured.

Intriguingly enough is the fact that even after several years, the Center of Justice and Democracy always cites the ABC Primetime Live broadcast of the Schaap’s case as an argument against medical malpractice reforms.

Another such case often referred to by the Center of Justice and Democracy is the lawsuit filed by the family of Freddie Prinze of the famed Chico and the Man TV sitcom, who committed suicide in the presence of his manager in a hotel. The young TV actor is at that time well-received by the American public, but at the same time hooked into pills, on top of his family problems, with his wife leaving him together with their child.

The family accused Freddie’s psychiatrist with malpractice, for allegedly taking away then returning the 32 caliber pistol to young Prinze. This particular action of the doctor pushed Prinze to shoot and kill himself, the family claims. The doctor denied the allegations, but settled the indictment outside the court.

The case of actor, John Ritter, of the well-known TV sitcom, Three’s Company, is one of those cases where a patient was diagnosed and treated for another ailment and thus failing to provide the patient with the proper medication. The family alleged that the doctors at the Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Burbank, California misdiagnosed his condition as a heart attack and failed to properly treat the tear in his aorta, which eventually led to his death in 2003.

Three years after Ritter’s death, his widow and four children finally reached a settlement with the hospital.

A similar case, but not as fatal, is the double bypass surgery undergone by comedian actor, Dana Carvey. His heart surgeon operated on the wrong artery but, fortunately, it did not give Carvey any health problem. In fact, his publicist said ‘he (Carvey) has been given a clean bill of health.’

Even so, the actor still pushed through with the medical malpractice suit believing that the person who committed the mistake must be accountable for his actions. He also told the press that he will do everything to make sure that his experience will not happen to someone else ever again. A settlement for an undisclosed amount was given to Carvey which he eventually donated to charity.

One more case filed as medical malpractice suit, again, not so fatal, is that of the famous Notre Dame coach, Charlie Weiss, who filed a medical malpractice suit against the two doctors responsible for his near-fatal gastric bypass survey. He is seeking unspecified damages due to the complications developed after the surgery in June 2002.

But unlike Carvey, Weiss might not be able to collect any damages since July 2007, the jury has returned a favorable verdict for the defense. The jury believed that both doctors have exercised the proper and reasonable care for their patient under the circumstances.

The celebrity dermatologist Arnold Klein and Botox manufacturer Allegan Inc. faced a big problem when a Hollywood socialite and wife of film producer Mike Medavoy, Irene Medavoy, filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the said dermatologist and product manufacturer in January 2003. According to Medeavoy, after using Botox, she suffered numerous and serious illnesses, including four months of migraine attacks that left her bedridden.

Medeavoy says that several medical practitioners whom she had consulted had a unified feedback about the use of Botox. The drug can cause severe headaches and it had a great possibility of being responsible for Mrs. Medeavoy’s aches and problems.

The case was filed in the court and the defense team tried to discredit Mrs. Medeavoy as an unstable, overindulged and overmedicated woman; but it seemed that this would be of little consequence to the jury since Klein’ statements had actually revealed some questionable practices by the famous and celebrity dermatologist, Klein.
This is the very first (and very public)

medical malpractice lawsuit concerning the use of Botox. The end result of this particular case will have a lasting effect on the people using it — the cosmetic surgeons and the patients as well.

One notable and world-renowned case is not about any celebrity or famous medical practitioner but about the ‘struggle’ to live by an ordinary woman turned luminary because of the situation she was in. And the most interesting part of all these is that she can’t say anything about her case— she is in a coma.

This is the case of Terri Schiavo a woman who suffered brain damage and became dependent on a feeding tube starting February 25, 1990, when she experience respiratory and cardiac arrest. This led to 15 years of institutionalization and a diagnosis of persistent vegetative state.

Schiavo’s husband filed and won a malpractice suit against her obstetrician, Dr. Stephen Igel, who was treating Terri for amenorrhoea (absence of a menstrual period in a woman of reproductive age) but failing to recognize and diagnose bulimia. The jury awarded US$1 million as damages to Terri’s husband in 1992.

Eight years after her attack, her husband petitioned to have her feeding tube removed. This was opposed by her parents, arguing that she is conscious. The battle stretched for more than a decade involving a great number of people, including politicians, advocacy groups and the general public. The flow of events resulted in extensive national and international media coverage.

There are many types of harmful medical mistakes and potential mistakes for which malpractice suits can be filed, yet there is also some level of marginal error awarded to medical practitioners, as considerations to the reality that they can never assure 100% the life of a person. Proving medical malpractice is a tricky endeavor. Celebrity or not, we all have the right to a fair deal, whatever product or service we avail. Thanks to these celebrity and “celebritized” cases, however, more people are becoming aware of what they should do should they suspect anomalies.

Hollywood Movies: 8 movies that got the law wrong

Neophyteblogger — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 13:32:37 +0000

Imagine a great night out with your family and friends as you watch a popular movie. The loud fans and the conveniently louder “legit” movie critics grin and compel everyone to just sit and gobble it up - “The story of the year! Fast paced and grueling action!” How about one word catch phrases such as “amazing’ or “absolute eye candy!” and “can’t get enough of it!” Truly, movies have their own appeal to different audiences for different reasons. On a sour note, perhaps one question should be asked - Is it realistic? Or is it accurate?

Movies that fall on the broader realm of “reality” as opposed to “fantasy” are subject to different structures and paradigm that should accurately represent the real world. After all that is what “reality” is all about. Of course, in this big bad world, there are certain laws that reality falls in. The law of physics is one. An accurate movie would of course expect the jumping leading man falling from the sky to actually… well fall. As we realize the structure and setting of the movie, the audience builds a certain assumption to make the movie more or less real for them.

However, when we talk about the institution of law, well that could be a very dangerous line to walk into. While many contend that there are different ways to make meaning of the hundreds of thousands of law that we have today, at the end of the day it is a piece of paper that could be read telling us what to do and what not to do with the attached consequences for breaking it. That is why movies, in the effort to make their story realistic, have to make the plot work with what is correct, lest they get jeered for bastardizing it. Still the old comment about Hollywood has always been, “they cannot get the damn thing right!” Really? Let’s see.

Changing Lanes

There are movies where the law needs to change to get the bulk of the story going. “Changing Lanes” revolves around the characters played by Ben Affleck and Samuel Jackson, two attorneys that are strangers to each other, both rushing to get to their court appointments on time. In the rush, they end up getting their cars tied up in a fender bender. Affleck, a jerk that he is, decided to leave Jackson in the mess to get to his appointment in time. In the process, he left his important case files thrown out from the back of the car, which could mean jail time and removal of license if Affleck did not find it. The lucky Jackson found Affleck’s case file and in a twisted avenue for revenge, he ran away with it. That is how the chase took up the rest of the movie.

The breadth of this blunder is on the issue of chasing for these original files. The importance of these files is what started the ruckus in the first place. Of course, if you know that if the law says that in the event that the original document is lost accidentally, a copy would do just fine. If the story makes sense, all the parties involved including judge would have a copy long before Affleck walked into court and found he had lost the original. Then all the zip and turns to get back those files won’t be needed. Then, there won’t be a story to the movie. So forget the slight hiccup, we have a story here!

Double Jeopardy

In a sensational neighborhood of artsy people, filmmakers will not mind to get even strongly held law principles wrong as long as they get a very compelling climax to the story, even if it sadly puts viewers in a dangerously wrong impression of the law. In “Double Jeopardy”, Ashley Judd plays a suffering wife on the hands of her child-stealing husband who faked his death. As she cannot believe how her husband still got her chained even after his death, Judd got diced in court as the convicted murderer. After serving a long time in jail, Judd hunted her husband down across different states to kill him for real. Well the law said since she was convicted of a crime that ended up killing her husband, then it might as well be that her husband is truly dead. Right? There might be something cool in putting time in first then doing the job that you have been punished for after.

This is what the movie title - Double Jeopardy - means. Double Jeopardy in lingo-speak means you can’t be sentenced twice for the same offense. That gave Judd the license to kill. However, if we all think that we can accept the definition as is, then there is something wrong here. Remember that lawyers don’t get paid big bucks to make one sentence definitions.

We should know that there are different states in America with different courts independent of each other. While the basic definition holds true, it only applies for the same state. Since she killed her husband in a different state from where she was convicted, the ruling state can still sentence her, stripping her of the license to kill. Even then, her previous murder sentence would be vacated because no murder had really occurred. But she’d be convicted and sentenced on new murder charges.

Just imagine if someone ignorant of the law actually believes this. We would be playing with fire right now if not for Judd’s charming way of killing her husband. The logic that you can commit the crime you have been wrongly convicted of is utterly absurd.

Liar Liar

At the end of this Jim Carey starrer, the character being played by Jim Carey suddenly comes up with a way to get his client out of the clause of the pre-nuptial agreement clause that states she gets nothing if she cheated on her husband. The solution is that she was a minor at the time she was married and signed the pre-nup and, since she was a minor, the pre-nup was unenforceable. However, this is not completely accurate.

A contract (of which pre-nuptial agreements are a species) entered into by a minor is not void, but rather is voidable by the minor party. This means that the contract is enforceable until it is voided by the minor. The right to void the contract on the part of the minor is retained for a reasonable time after becoming an adult. However, and this is the point the writers really missed, if the party fails to declare the agreement void within a reasonable time after becoming an adult it would be deemed as “ratified” thereby making the contract fully enforceable against both parties as a matter of law.

In the movie, Jim Carey’s client was 26. It had been 8 years since she had turned 18 (the age of majority in all 50 states for contracts). It is not likely that there is court in this country that would not have accepted an argument of ratification and no high priced attorney worth his fees would have failed to recognize this argument.

In the Bedroom

The viewer can overlook sometimes even the most obvious legal principles as long the movie sells the suspense. In the 2001 box office success “In the Bedroom,” two parents find themselves in utmost resolution to avenge their loss of their murdered son. Apparently, they were shocked to see the case against the murderer too weak to warrant a conviction.
Well they ought to be shocked. Here is how it went.

The killer beats up the victim - because he is shacking up with the killer’s wife - then turned to threaten his wife. Next, the killer enters his wife’s house where the victim told him to just man up and go away. Man up he did as he came back anyway and shot down the wife’s boyfriend in the head. The wife who became the primary witness saw his husband on top of his boyfriend upon hearing the shot with gun in hand and his boyfriend dead.

In law circles, that is a clean murder with not much of a trial needed. But to stir things up, the movie tells us that the wife only heard the shot and did not see the killer shoot him; thus there is no case. Sound like Michael Jackson to me where you don’t see the M.J. doing something at night except for the fact that the 40 year old pop king is found in bed with the other children. Of course that is how the parents in the movie got the resolve to take the law upon themselves because obviously and literally, justice is blind anyway. The defense lawyer in this movie is that good.

Intolerable Cruelty

America loves divorce. In fact, much is portrayed in Hollywood movies about marriage breakups that are dark, pleasant, and twisted. Fast and clean as they say. While there are many dimension of a process of a divorce, we must remember that divorce is also a legal proceeding and not just a paper signed after a paltry dinner.

In the 2003 comedy “Intolerable Cruelty“. Once E.R. hotshot George Clooney turned divorce lawyer this time. His character played out as highly reckless, supra-unethical kind of a lawyer that every client would love to have. It would be nice to have a divorce attorney who can rip your ex off and strip him of all his money before you say a sweet goodbye. Thus, the movie contends a fast paced divorce trial set in sunny California. The shouts matching the threats are described as entertaining except for the fact that divorce is not really all of a jazz.

In this movie, the divorce trial is under the assumption that California has fault divorce. That is why this movie got into a habit of pointing who is the culprit of the failed marriage. Except that in real life, the democrats in California were the first to adopt no-fault divorce. In California, all you need to get a divorce is to say that you and your ex have “irreconcilable differences.” Sign the damn paper, get the half of what you have and move on with your lives. It seems like the directors coming from California forgot to get a real lawyer to look into the script because it would certainly put up a laugh.

Legally Blonde

When trend setter actress Reese Witherspoon turns into a law student in “Legally Blonde,” Reese, bridged a bunch of overpaid, tightly fit sneaky lawyers into a set of hip, hop, and most of all blonde lawyers. The antics of the movie meshed the airhead stereotype of a blonde against the rigid classroom of a law school all in good fun. However, when humor in law comes in, perhaps scriptwriters think funny first than to look right.

In the movie Reese Witherspoon first made her impression with the admissions committee of the Harvard Law School in a video where she is dressed in a bikini on a hut tub. In a twist of miracle, she got admitted after her stint in fashion design. She did not fit right in as she has to overcome bickering professors, scandalous classmates, and high-pitched case studies. In the end, she was allowed to represent a critical client though she is only a freshman. The court agreed citing a Massachusetts Rule of Court 3.03. Reese then wish-washed through the trial, won it over high profile attorneys, and then earned credit enough to speak at their graduation ceremony. Once again, the blonde conquered the world.

However that pivotal part in the story did not just go down right. The same cited rule clearly states it does not permit a freshman to represent a wealthy client in a major criminal case. The rule only applies to senior law students who have taken a course in evidence or trial practice and only if he represents the state or the not-so-rich clients. Well she got in anyway and there goes the story. The freshman even got the suspect to confess! Once again, a freshman lawyer is that good just like in any other law movie.

White Oleander

While we have been talking about how lawyers can turn into superstars with how they can play God because the law was made wrong for a good story, filmmakers can even go far to make a law process get junked altogether in favor of an engaging story. In the movie “White Oleander,” Michelle Pfeiffer plays the role of a mother who kills her boyfriend. Sentenced to life in prison - she patiently waits for freedom as she takes care of her daughter through her letters.

Through the trial, the movie shortcuts the details of how she got arrested up to the appeal for her crime. The shortcut might be suitable for the movie but it seems that the director forgot something. The trial went so fast that the jury was not given time to leave during the appeal. Maybe the jury is there to listen to Pfeiffers’ plight during her court appearance, but we all know that juries don’t decide on appeals. Like just what Hughes Jackman said in Runaway Jury, “trials are too important for juries too handle.” An appeal? get real.

Saving Private Ryan

Then of course when it comes to war movies there are real life depictions that should be highly accountable to the law of war. War is bad enough of a movie topic to teach children but when you get the procedures wrong, the error gap widens. In “Saving Private Ryan“ starring Tom Hanks, American soldiers searching for Mr. Ryan executed several German prisoners of war on the spot. The audience in awe of this war movie would say that the Germans deserved it.

The Geneva Convention clearly states that treatment of POW’s should not end up in summary execution. While it is ironic to point out this inaccuracy in a movie that depicts war, which is a crime in itself, the movie puts the blunder in another level by finding nothing wrong with no intention to justify that act. This is a very dangerous aspect in a justice system in a time of sensitivity over engaging wars.

Getting the Law Right in Movies

The law can be a part of a sub-genre just like professional drama that involves medicine, and law enforcement. While we could excuse these movies for getting the law wrong, it is also important that with these excuses, we actually acknowledge that they are flat wrong. After all, we do not want to rate a good movie because of their entertainment value then go on and think that the movie is possible in real life. It could teach dangerous things like “hey buddy you can do this because the law allows it.”

Remember that laws are written to create open and shut arguments. While the creative juices in movies have to contend with the letter of law, law and movies will always be an interesting mix. Whether we elect for courtroom comedy, or hard-core drama, just remember that it is just entertainment.

What is Pre Settlement Lawsuit Financing?

Neophyteblogger — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 13:57:48 +0000

Known by other names such as legal financing, legal funding, lawsuit loans and so on, pre settlement lawsuit financing is a little known concept in personal injury, medical malpractice, accident and other cases. Often times plaintiffs aren’t aware that they can receive funding to pay for pre trial expenses like hiring expert witnesses, conducting extensive witness research and to pay attorney fees.

Who is eligible for pre settlement lawsuit financing?

A person who has been involved in the following types of cases is eligible for a presettlement lawsuit financing scheme.

Injured in a car or other auto accident
Involved in a medical malpractice case
Involved in a wrongful death case
Involved in any other kind of commercial litigation case
Needs funds to pay for expert witnesses or witness research
Involved in a product liability case
Involved in an employment discrimination case
Injured in the performance of his job
Has family or relatives who have been victims of nursing home abuse
Involved in a breach of contract case
Involved in a fraud case

A person who’s involved in the above types of cases and is represented by an attorney is eligible for pre settlement legal funding.

A person who’s in need of such a loan is obviously one who is in financial hardship, and needs funding to tide the case over until such time as settlement is reached. Very often the financial hardship is due to work time lost as a result of the personal injury sustained in the accident or other situation as mentioned above. Say, for instance, a person who’s filing damage claims after being injured in an accident is unable to work and therefore unable to earn an income. This in turn means he is unable to fork out the sums of money that his attorney will need in order to proceed with the case. This is where pre settlement lawsuit financing steps in.

A presettlement loan is never given for the full amount of the expected settlement. It is usually about 10 to 15 per cent of the settlement amount. The absolute minimum amount is 250 dollars while the maximum loaned amount is a million dollars on a single case. There is no interest charged to the plaintiff in the form of weekly, monthly or yearly payouts. What happens is that fees are accumulated and paid back if and when the plaintiff wins his case and gets a settlement amount.

Typically a lawsuit funding company will not sanction a loan till the case is at least 6 months old. This gives the attorneys ample time to lay the groundwork for the case, collect information and conduct evaluation and other procedures that may take weeks and months.

Pre settlement lawsuit financing is not limited to those with great credit. Even unemployed persons can avail of a loan. However exceptions might be made by some legal funding companies against individuals who run the risk of a pending bankruptcy.

Such pre settlement legal funding can have a direct impact on the outcome of a case. Say for instance a person has been involved in a car accident and because of injuries sustained is unable to earn an income. The resulting financial burden might force him to opt for an early settlement of a lesser amount. Pre settlement funding can help him withhold settlement until his attorney has properly prepared his case and established the groundwork for a favorable outcome and settlement.

What is a Medical Malpractice Lawsuit?

Neophyteblogger — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 13:02:11 +0000

Medical malpractice is said to have taken place when a healthcare provider fails to provide adequate levels of care and medical supervision to a patient, resulting in injury or death of the patient or the loss of a better result or outcome of the procedure or operation. It can be taken to mean something that the physician or healthcare provider did that he or she wasn’t supposed to do, or something that he/she did not do that lead to the injury. Comparison of the healthcare provider’s skill in such instances is usually made against the skills and diligence of similar providers in the community. In such cases, a medical malpractice lawsuit is filed against the healthcare provider in question, usually a doctor.

The following are some of the grounds for a medical malpractice lawsuit to be filed.

If a patient suffers due to lack of adequate and immediate medical care

If the patient is injured or otherwise harmed due to defective medical equipment

Improper dental treatment

Birth injury causing negligence

If the doctor fails to correctly diagnose an illness

If the doctor fails to inform the patient of his diagnosis

If the doctor neglects to ask permission from the patient or relatives before performing a procedure

Any kind of physical or sexual abuse on inmates of a nursing home or other such care facility where care providers are trained health care professionals

If the doctor makes prescription errors

Grave surgical injury. For instance leaving a surgical instrument behind before sewing up

Time Frame to File a Medical Malpractice Lawsuit

Each state has its own statute of limitations before which a medical malpractice lawsuit must be filed. These time frames for the filing of a suit vary from state to state. An experienced attorney will be able to guide you along this process.

Filing a Medical Malpractice Lawsuit

A malpractice lawsuit is initiated by the delivery of a summons to the physician or healthcare facility. The physician in this case is known as the defendant and the person filing the suit is called the plaintiff. This summons or complaint will list the charges against the defendant and he/she is given a 90 day notice prior to the filing of the lawsuit.

Misdiagnosis of an ailment is a basis for a lawsuit only if the misdiagnosis contributes to the plaintiff’s poor health or causes him injury. In other words medicine isn’t an exact science, so a certain amount of room for misdiagnoses is offered to doctors.The plaintiff who cites misdiagnosis of his illness as the basis of his charges must be prepared to prove that he suffered injury or damage to his health as a result of the doctor’s misdiagnosis.

In order to prove that some form of negligence has occurred, expert witnesses have to be produced. Lay people lack the training or skills to gauge what a doctor needs to do and has to avoid in professional situations. Only another equally qualified doctor will be in a position to clarify these points.

For any damages to be awarded to the plaintiff, it has to be first determined whether there was any medical malpractice to begin with. Many times patients aren’t aware that there was any malpractice, and doctors themselves too might not be aware of the fact. And if they did, they might be predisposed to avoid telling the patient this. It’s the job of the attorney therefore to gauge whether there are grounds for a medical malpractice lawsuit against the doctor in question. This will be done by hiring an expert or consultant who is better equipped to decide if indeed there was malpractice.

Children of Holocaust survivors v. German government

Neophyteblogger — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 16:24:42 +0000

Now this looks to be a hee-yooge sticky mess of a massive international lawsuit.

There’s buzz all ‘round the world on this one, getting to as far a corner as Japan – an outlet called Asyura, to be exact: Via the non-profit organization The Fisher Fund, 4,000 children of Holocaust survivors have filed a class-action lawsuit in a Tel Aviv court against the government of Germany for reparations to pay for their psychological care.

Based in Israel, The Fisher Fund was established seven years ago by attorney Gideon Fisher, whose parents Mali and Yosef were Holocaust survivors. The fund grants scholarships and assists in places where other organizations are unable to help.

As Asyura beautifully puts it, “All this time they kept silent. Growing in the shadow of post-traumatic Holocaust surviving parents, they suffered from violence, over-protection and unrealistic expectations. Some of them succeeded and even became famous, while others collapsed.”

The Western equivalent of this story typically involves the term “dysfunctional,” but in fact the ‘suit seeks to address mostly problems related to post-traumatic stress disorder, with case studies of some five children of survivors making up part of the lawsuit.

Meanwhile, Der Spiegel, a mammoth voice in the German news world, last week introed a piece that set the stage for Sunday’s filing.

Der mag’s take: “The sums involved have been enormous. For decades, the German government has paid out billions to Holocaust survivors in an attempt at recompense for the brutal crimes committed by the Nazis. But even as the World War II generation is rapidly shrinking, a new conflict is looming over who is responsible for the suffering of the next generation. And
Germany may soon find itself having to pay millions for the psychological treatment needed by the children of Holocaust survivors.”

Fisher Fund general director Baruch Mazor is getting quoted all over the world for statements explaining that “We tried to negotiate out of court,” that “we had no choice but to go to court” that the Fisher Fund is interested in finding a solution to an “objective problem,” and that “It’s not just a lawsuit, it’s the beginning of a movement.”

And “People in Israel feel we are doing something moral and important,” he said. “They say we are doing holy work.”

The price tag, by the way, would be between $10 million and $20 million per year.

This will be one to watch…

(The Fisher Fund reminds that second generation members in need of assistance or organizations wishing to help the second generation members can receive information by calling 972.77.200.9798.)

Steven Seagal v. Loeb and Loeb

Neophyteblogger — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 16:17:47 +0000

He obviously should have just applied some aikido somewhere.

Yes, it’s true, bad – i mean, action – film fans. Perhaps the only takeshigemichi (not to mention the only tulku) who is also a household name in America, Steven Seagal, will soon be back in court.

And this time, it’s personal – i mean, this time, he’s the plaintiff.

Seagal has filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court against legal firm Loeb & Loeb, suing for $450,000 in damages for overcharging him in an extortion trial that began in 2002. (Or, as the only celebrity gossip website worth reading, TMZ, put it, he “got Opri’d.”

In February 2004, said extortion trial closed out with Seagal’s former business partner Julius R. Nasso sentenced to 366 days in prison for paying a mobster to threaten Seagal. Reported the New York Times at that time: “Mr. Nasso, who was once a close friend of Mr. Seagal’s and who produced his movies, was sentenced in Federal District Court after pleading guilty last summer to extortion conspiracy, admitting that he had conspired to threaten Mr. Seagal to collect a debt.”

Now, Seagal has turned on his original legal team. In Seagal and Steamroller Productions Inc. v. Loeb and Loeb, the action guy has “determined that he had been substantially overcharged and that he had already paid for substantially more than what was reasonable for the legal representation that he had authorized.”

As for the money, Loeb & Loeb’s books claims Seagal in still in arrears to the firm to the tune of $575,403.78 of some $1,084,202 charged.

As for the representation, Seagal paid half a million (beer money for the dude, no doubt) before he had “grown skeptical of [the defendant’s] experience, its representation and its billing practices” in July 2003.

No court date has been set.

Lassiters v. Six Flags Kentucky

Neophyteblogger — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 16:13:21 +0000

The sensationalist, rubbernecking lawsuit story of the week? The sad story of thirteen-year-old Kaitlyn Lassiter, who was severely injured atSix Flags Kentucky Kingdom.

As of this writing, some two hundred plus – many, but not nearly at all, in the Kentucky area – of media outlets have rewarmed the story of Lassiter, who had both her feet cut off due to a broken cable on the Superman – Tower of Power ride at the amusement park.

(This writer has no idea why the ride itself is prominently named in the great majority of reports; must have to do with ol’ Clark Kent’s iconic nature and such…)

On Friday, Lassiter’s parents announced they were bringing suit against Six Flags Kentucky for the accident, alleging negligence in inspecting the drop tower ride. The lawsuit also requests a temporary injunction to prevent park owners from altering or destroying the ride and the offending cable.

Meanwhile, Kentucky state agencies are investigating the June accident, according to Sara Cunningham of the Louisville Courier-Journal, and are “‘not even close’ what caused a cable to break free…”

Kentucky Department of Agriculture’s Office of Consumer and Environmental Protection Bill Clary stated an update on the investigation would be released sometime this week.