Lawsuit Finance Blog

Apparently, the United States Supreme Court is going to take up the issue of absolute immunity for drug manufacturers if their dangerous products are FDA approved. Levine v Wyeth has been a topic of much discussion in legal circles and the case causes significant concern. As reported previously in this blog, my home state, Michigan, is currently the only state that gives drug manufacturers complete immunity if their horrendous drug was first FDA approved. As a result, disabled and disfigured Michigan citizens as well as the survivors of those killed by these bad drugs have been completely shut out of any chance of recovery. Thus, Vioxx, Fen-Phen, Redux, etc. victims can be compensated in 49 states; Michigan citizens are shut out.

A Supreme Court ruling for Wyeth in Levine v Wyeth would nationalize the Michigan disaster and prevent all United States citizens from pursuing big pharmacuetical companies for the devastating consequences of bad drugs. We lock up people for selling drugs that make us high; but we should give a free pass to those who sell drugs that kill and maim? What's wrong with this picture? Here's an interesting quote from the article that prompted this post:

"With 11,000 regulated drugs on the market and almost 100 more approved every year, the understaffed agency [the FDA] doesn't have the resources to adequately ensure both efficacy and reasonable safety... The FDA alone simply lacks the ability to serve as the sole guarantor of drug safety,'' said editors of the New England Journal of Medicine. This marks the first time that every editor-in- chief of the medical journal signed a Supreme Court brief. Obviously, FDA approval does not even approach a guarantee of safety for any drug; it is illogical and almost criminal to grant immunity simply because this overtaxed agency grants approval to a dangerous pharmaceutical.

Complete immunity for FDA approved drugs has been a disaster for Michigan citizens. It is my fervent hope that the United States Supreme Court has the wisdom and compassion to realize that drug company immunity is a free pass to the drug industry to injure, maim and kill our citizens without regard to safety. The most important safety tool available to our citizens is the threat of a lawsuit against an offending drug manufacturer. The elimination of this vital tool will permit the industry to "self-regulate". If we have learned anything from the country's financial crisis, we have learned that self-regulation does not work.

Lawsuit Financial is a nationwide legal funding company that provides litigation plaintiffs with interim financial help while they wait for their litigation to resolve. This important lawsuit financing service is available for many drug liability cases and for auto accidents and/or any other type of personal injury case. Please visit our website at www.lawsuitfinancial.com our call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT(7848).

The parents of a young, very unfortunate boy, of Eastman, WI, have won $11.4 million in a Medical Malpractice lawsuit. The case, brilliantly pursued by attorney Jeff Goldberg, alleged negligent care by a nurse and nurse midwife during the child's birth.

The question often arises whether Lawsuit Financial can provide legal funding or lawsuit finance assistance to minors or brain damaged individuals. The short answer is, usually, no, we can't. However, in the case that is the subject of the article, money has been earmarked for the parents to assist in the care and treatment of the child. The reader should notice that the birth and alleged medical malpractice took place in 2005, three long years ago. How have the parents paid for treatment and care for the child during this long, three year process? Lawsuit funding is available to parents or guardians of adult or minor brain damage victims or minor injury victims against litigation proceeds that are earmarked for payment to the healthy, caregiving adults for care and treatment of the victim. It is extremely expensive to care for someone in this situation and to have to do it without financial assistance is almost impossible. Lawsuit Financial is pleased to offer legal financial assistance to those families struggling to provide adequate care for a disabled loved one. For more information about this "exception" to the usual "non-funding" rule in case of incapacity, please call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848).

The police show up at your door. You ask "may I help you?" or "what's this all about?" They announce that they have a warrant for your arrest for committing a crime. You must be the criminal, right? Wrong! Innocent people are often arrested, tried, and even convicted of crimes that they did not convict. Barry Scheck of O.J. Simpson fame even started a non-profit called the "Innocence Project" which uses DNA to establish the innocence of those wrongfully accused and convicted. Several citizens who have served long prison sentences have been released as a result of his project's work.

This all too familiar scenario is on display in Fort Collins, Colorado, where Tim Masters was cleared, by advanced DNA evidence, of a murder after spending 10 years in prison and 20 years as a suspect.

Fortunately, the law recognizes the right to sue authorities for their abuse of power and negligence in wrongfully arresting and wrongfully imprisoning someone. The devastation of 20 years of suspicion and 10 years of incarceration for a crime that you did not commit is unimaginable. Lawsuit Financial is happy to report that the company provides necessities of life funding for victims of false arrest, wrongful prosecution, and/or false imprisonment. All that is required is a lawsuit and a good lawyer, which Tim Masters has, obviously, found in David Lane, of Denver, CO.

Lawsuit Financial provides legal funding for personal injury victims. Visit us on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com or call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) for a free analysis of your lawsuit funding situation. Our friendly staff of lawyers and paraprofessionals are standing by to assist you.

Most Michigan citizens are focused on the Presidential race; I understand that. But of almost equal importance to Michigan voters is the race for a seat on the Michigan Supreme Court. The incumbent, Clifford Taylor, is the most anti-justice candidate to ever sit on the high court, voting against the rights of citizens and for huge corporations and insurance companies almost every time. His opponent, Judge Diane Marie Hathaway is a pro-justice alternative. Many citizens are unaware of the important differences between these two candidates or even how to vote the non-partisan section of the ballot. It is extremely important to vote in the race for Supreme Court and, in my opinion, you should cast your vote for Judge Hathaway.

Why? There are seven Michigan Supreme Court Justices. Currently, the anti-justice forces enjoy a 4-3 majority. Thus, a one-vote swing is crucial. Below is just a sampling of anti-citizen pro-big insurance decisions made by Cliff Taylor; it is a long and troubling list. Here are my least favorite 25:

1. Lugo v Ameritech, 464 Mich 512 (2001). The Taylor Court adopts an "open and obvious" doctrine in slip and fall cases. If you can see it and you fall on it, you lose. Forget that Michigan is a comparative negligence State. In slip and fall, only the plaintiff's negligence counts. The defendant can be negligent as hell and it doesn't count. The court actually states that no typical person could ever be seriously injured from falling in a pothole or on a sidewalk. Tell that to Dr. Atkins or Ed MacMahon!

2. Reed v Breton, 475 Mich 531 (2006). The Taylor court ignores and overrules decades of common law that allowed circumstantial evidence to prove an illegal sale of alcohol in a drunk driving case. Defendant admitted to drinking 20 beers before he killed someone while driving at 100 mph and had a .21 blood alcohol level, but the bar that served him was excused under this new standard. Is that justice?

3. Kreiner v Fischer, 471 Mich 109 (2004). This Taylor Court decision denies seriously injured auto accident victims from recovery in accidents caused by negligent and even drunk drivers.

4 & 5. Roberts v Mecosta General Hospital, 466 Mich 57 (2002), after remand 470 Mich 679 (2004) and Burton v Reed City Hospital Corp, 471 Mich 745 (2005) The Taylor Court denies court access to persons injured by medical negligence based on minor technicalities.

6. Waltz v Wyse, 469 Mich 642 (2004). The Taylor Court, suddenly, without precedent, and without warning, changes the way the wrongful death statute of limitations is calculated and denies the relatives of persons killed by medical negligence access to court.
.
7. Nawrocki v Macomb Co Road Commn, 463 Mich 143 (2000). The Taylor Court virtually eliminates governmental responsibility to maintain public roads.

8. Cameron v ACIA, 476 Mich 55( 2006). The Taylor Court, despite existing law to the contrary, shortens the statute of limitations to one year for minors and brain injured persons in auto accidents in claims seeking no-fault benefits, screwing innocent, seriously injured, kids out of needed and justified benefits.

9. Wickens v Oakwood Healthcare System, 465 Mich 53 (2001). This one is shocking even for Taylor! The Taylor Court holds that an injured person who dies, must die within the two year statute of limitations or the deceased's heirs are denied the right to sue for his loss! Can you believe this nonsense?

10. Zsigo v Hurley Medical Center, 475 Mich 215 (2006). A hospital employee rapes a
helpless patient in the hospital and the Taylor Court holds that a hospital has no responsibility to protect patients from employees who engage in intentional or criminal acts.

11. McKim v Forward Lodging Inc, 474 Mich 947 (2005). The Taylor Court decides that an EMT could not sue for injuries received while trying to assist injured patient.

12. Robinson v City of Detroit, 462 Mich 439 (2000). The Taylor Court excuses the government from any liability when it injures persons so long as they can prove that someone else was also
partly at fault.

13. MacDonald v PKT, Inc., 464 Mich 322 (2001). The Taylor Court decides that businesses have no duty to protect customers from dangers until they see an immediate risk of harm to a customer and their only duty is to call the police.

14. Garg v Macomb Mental Health, 472 Mich 263 (2005). The Taylor Court overrules precedent and allows employers to escape liability for sexual harassment if it has been going on for a long time.

15. Michalski v Bar-Levav, 463 Mich 723 (2001). The Taylor Court eliminates the rights of handicapped workers to safe and reasonable working conditions.

16. Griffith v State Farm, 472 Mich 521 (2005). The Taylor Court holds that there is no requirement to pay for food for a quadriplegic who chooses to live with a guardian rather than in an institution. Do you see the distinction?

17. Haynie v State, 468 Mich 302 (2003). The Taylor Court decides that harassment of female coworkers that is gender-based, but not sexual in nature, is no longer actionable.

18. Devillers v Auto Club Ins Ass'n, 473 Mich 562 (2005). This Taylor Court decision allows
Michigan no- fault insurers to avoid paying claims if it waits long enough before processing them. I guess if you screw people around for a long enough time, you win!

19. Greene v AP Products Ltd., 475 Mich 502 (2006). The Taylor Court decides that a bottle of hair oil did not require a warning that the contents could be deadly and should be kept out of the reach of children.

20. Elezovic v Ford Motor Co, 472 Mich 408 (2005). The Taylor Court decides that there was insufficient notice of workplace harassment, despite that fact that plaintiff notified two supervisors and filed numerous grievances against the alleged harasser.

21. Gilbert v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 470 Mich 749 (2004). The Taylor Court overturns a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff because, according to dissenting Michigan Supreme Court Justices, Taylor and other majority justices disliked the plaintiff's attorney.

22. Magee v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 472 Mich 108 (2005). The Taylor Court rules that even though the plaintiff's claims of sexual harassment, sex and age discrimination and retaliation were filed within three years of the date she resigned, the suit was too late because none of the alleged conduct occurred within the three years before filing the complaint.

23. Sington v Chrysler Corporation, 467 Mich 144 (2002).The Taylor Court consults a dictionary and overrules the existing Workers Compensation definition of "disability", overturning the statutory definition and making it far more difficult to be compensated for a work place injury.

24. Grimes v Dep't of Transportation, 475 Mich 72 (2006). A quadriplegic could not pursue justice because the Taylor Court holds that the shoulder of a roadway is not part of the "improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel" which eliminates the government's duty to maintain them free of serious defects. In Hanson v Mecosta Co Road Comm, 465 Mich 492 (2002) the Taylor Court similarly holds that the state has no liability for the defective design of a public highway.

25. Henry v Dow Chemical, 473 Mich 63 (2006). The Taylor Court decides that people negligently exposed to carcinogens are precluded from bringing claims because they didn't get cancer quickly enough (some cancers take years to manifest). Similarly, in Creech v Foot Memorial, 474 Mich 1135 (2006), the Taylor Court denies the claims of multiple
patients who had been negligently exposed to an infection while receiving medical treatment because they had not develop symptoms yet (which may take years to develop).

Scary stuff, isn't it? Want to stop the assault on civil justice? Then listen to Judge Hathaway's own words and vote on the non-partisan section of the ballot. In some cases, the voter must turn the ballot over and vote on the opposite side to vote for Judge Hathaway for Supreme Court. Please remember to do this.

"I urge everybody to vote the non-partisan part of the ballot vote because that part usually has such a huge falloff rate" (people who forget to vote the non-partisan section or don't realize there are more decisions to make on the back of the ballot) says Judge Hathaway.

Judge Hathaway has served as a Wayne County Circuit Court judge for over 15 years and presides over criminal, civil and and family law matters. She is is 54, a graduate of the Detroit College of Law and a wife and mother of five children.

Judge Hathaway is running for the Supreme Court because she believes that Justice Taylor has ignored existing law and precedent and has supported special interest groups at the expense of individual rights. She cites a University of Chicago Law School study that ranks Michigan's Supreme Court last among our 50 United States when it comes to judicial independence (defined as the ability to withstand partisan pressure).

"I want to protect individual rights and not make rulings that take them away and I want to be fair and impartial in rendering decisions," says Hathaway. Michigan Lawyer's Weekly and practicing Michigan attorneys rank Taylor worst in preparedness, efficiency and overall knowledge of law, and thoroughness of opinion.

Hathaway also criticizes a ruling that compromises our environment and limits application of the Michigan Environmental Protection Act of 1970. Hathaway believes that the intent of the law is to allow everyday citizens to act as watchdogs on environmental issues and that the Taylor Court compromised that intent with their ruling. She said she plans to restore the power to the people if elected to the Supreme Court and promises to treat every person fairly and to take their concerns seriously. "I will protect...individual rights and not make rulings that take them away. I also want to treat everyone the same, with the dignity and respect that they deserve. I want to make decisions on the merits of their case without any concern for national origin, sexual orientation, and things of that nature, and I will be a fair judge who will listen to their concerns."

Do you want a Michigan Supreme Court Justice who treats everyone fairly and protects individual rights? If so, you must vote the non-partisan section of your ballot (don't forget that this section might be on the back of the ballot) and vote for Diane Marie Hathaway for the Michigan Supreme Court. Vote "All the way for Hathaway". Thank you.