St. Cloud Personal Injury Lawyer - Civil Trials

Toby Keith: What Are You Talking About?

Mike Bryant — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:20:00 GMT

I've always been a big fan and own a couple of his albums. I think I've watched "Beer For My Horses" too many times, probably. It's because I like listening, that I pay attention to the lines of his song. Which surprised me a little when he threw, "Spill a cup of coffee, make a million dollars" into American Ride. I would guess a lot of people missed it or guess that they know what it is, but the reality is that it's so untrue it deserves a comment.

It's the McDonald's case. Yes, that great place that loves to sue others and mistreat employees. It's the case where so many tort reform lies sprung, but almost no one has ever seen the woman. The 79-year-old woman went to a McDonald's in New Mexico with her son. She was sitting in the car, not driving as the story goes. She was attempting
to remove the lid when the coffee spilled and was burned by a liquid that was 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit when served and that it was between 165 and 170 degrees Fahrenheit when it was spilled. The coffee you make at home is 135-140 degrees Fahrenheit. She suffered horrific third degree burns to her inner thighs and buttocks. She went to McDonald's and asked for her $10,000.00 in medical costs, including the cost for debridement and skin grafting. They said no.

A jury listened to all the evidence and found that the coffee was way too hot and that McDonald's was well aware of that. But they also found the woman 20% at fault. The verdict was $200,000.00 in compensatory damages and $2,700,000.00 in punitive damages. Right off the bat, the court by rule reduced the compensatory amount by her negligence of 20%. The judge also reduced the punitive damages to $480,000.00 . The case was then appealed and reduced again. Following this the case was settled with a nondisclosure agreement. Both the woman and her lawyer have been forced to remain silent while the story has gotten bigger and bigger with each telling.

It was later disclosed that the jury came up with their number by using the amount McDonald's made in coffee sales for a day. That they came into the case thinking this would be nothing and were surprised with the way McDonald's didn't seem to care and that they had over 800 similar incidents.

Why have McDonald's and other tort reformers continued to tell the one sided story? Well, to get juries to make sure "that never happens again". To convince people that they need insurance, because it could happen to you. And to attack a good system of justice that allows ordinary people to get protection. The system worked as it should in this case, unfortunately people don't often know what really happened.

I'll continue to listen, Toby, but you missed the mark on this one. Or at the very least you are helping big business continue to take the consumer for a ride.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Pharmaceutical Company Writing Good Stuff About Their Product

Mike Bryant — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 09:19:00 GMT

Usually when pharmaceutical companies are writing good stuff about themselves they are called advertisements. But, when they write it about themselves, except do so in ghostwritten "scientific papers", it should be called fraud. I guess it was a way to save money from just paying doctors to make up test results.

This past week, the New York Times reported the recently released court documents show that Wyeth Pharmaceuticals produced 26 scientific papers backing the use of hormone replacement therapy in women. They hired a medical communications firm to publish their papers in medical journals between 1998 and 2005.

Addressing the hormone drugs Premarin (conjugated estrogens) and Prempro (conjugated estrogens/medroxyprogesterone acetate), the papers emphasized the benefits and de-emphasized the risks of taking hormones to protect against maladies like aging skin, heart disease and dementia. At the same time, Wyeth saw sales rise to nearly $2 billion in 2001.

These were companies that until recently were protected by federal preemption from many lawsuits. Companies that paid defense lawyers millions of dollars to question the honesty and integrity of injured plaintiffs. It's to bad none of this evidence was available before too uncover the lies so many of these cases were based on.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Happy Fourth Of July

Mike Bryant — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 07:13:00 GMT

It's Independence Day. It was always one of the greatest days each year when I got to enjoy it back in Rhode Island as I was growing up. There was a 3-4 hour parade, clam bakes and fireworks at night. The whole town of Bristol was electric as people returned home and there were parties everywhere. It was such a fun time.

Since then I've usually watched the local fireworks and have enjoyed watching my boys get used to the bright lights and loud sounds. I've also spent some time talking to them about the freedoms that those symbols represent. The Independence that our forefathers and many generations have since fought for. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights that describe our freedoms. Many of the same things that I get the privilege of talking to juries about.

I hope every reader has the chance to enjoy the day. Also to remember what the day is really about.

Happy Fourth.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Sotomayor A Good Choice For Justice?

Mike Bryant — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:50:00 GMT

I've been following the Sotomayer talk for awhile with a little bit of indifference. Don't get me wrong, a seat on the U S Supreme Court has importance for every single American. It's nine people who could change a lot about the way we live. But as a candidate, I really didn't see someone who was going to be a great champion for the consumer. Her rulings have been pretty middle of the road, so for the clients we represent, there wasn't a lot of excitement.

Recent statements may change my mind. The U S Chamber is coming out against her. Apparently, they are very concerned not so much about her , but the vote for big business that they will be losing. “Souter was a critical fifth vote in a bunch of punitive damages cases,” said Roy Englert, a Washington appellate lawyer who has represented the U.S. Chamber of Commerce before the Supreme Court. “Without the assurance that she will be as ready to rein in punitive damages as he was, there is a significant worry.”

The analysis of their argument is very revealing and easily discloses the following keys:

1) They want to disregard the Jury system.

2) They want an activist court

3) It's really all about money.

It's time that they get over the belief that they still run this country the way they have for the last eight years. Frankly, they did a very poor job. If this nomination means consumers are protected or at least won't be shortshrifted, I'm all for it.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

June 9th Provides Every Minnesotan Another Reason To Buckle Up

Mike Bryant — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 09:18:00 GMT

Starting June 9th, it is against the law to not be wearing a seat belt in your car. The difference is that it is now a primary offense, which means that the police can pull you over and ticket you for that violation alone. Up till now, it was a secondary offense, which meant that you needed to be stopped for another reason and have some other violation. It was the second or extra charge that you received.

I was at the capitol on the last day to see the debate. It was interesting to hear two of the major arguments:

That it would lead to more racial profiling. The response was a little startling, that the profiling would take place anyway if that was the intent. The concern as I saw it wasn't that there would actually be more stops, but that there was would be another supposed justification for the stop.

The second argument was interesting as Representative Paul Kohls and Tom Emmers argued for the lifting of the gag rule to allow jurors to hear the truth as to if a person was wearing a seatbelt in civil cases. It was heartening to hear them talk about an issue that is dear to my heart and will hopefully be their position as we talk about direct action and the tort thresholds. Subject to relevancy and prejudicial issues it would be much better if the jury was told about all issues.

Congratulations to Representative Kim Norton on moving the bill through this debate and getting the bill passed. It's clear from looking at the traffic death numbers, it's a bill that should save lives, as fellow Injuryboard member, Wayne Parsons recently pointed out, it is a simple thing that makes a big difference.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Question of the day: Will I be going to trial?

Mike Bryant — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:50:00 GMT

During the month of June, I am addressing common questions that get asked in our practice. Today's Question is: Will I be going to trial?

While we don't take cases just to settle them, the reality is that most cases do settle. Most cases settle without being put into suit. Of those cases that do get put into suit, many of them settle in mediation or prior to trial. We have the trial experience to try your case. By trying the cases we do each year, we find that many others benefit with their cases settling.

These questions are not intended to replace a consultation with an attorney, nor do they take into consideration facts that may differ about your particular case. Here at the Injuryboard, we have experienced attorneys who can deal with your individual questions and best help you with your case. Feel free to get the help you need by contacting one of us.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Senator Grassley Is Looking At Doctor Yes For Big Pharma

Mike Bryant — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 09:21:00 GMT

Iowa Senator Grassley is leading the investigation into Dr. Joseph Biederman, the doctor who was cooking the books on the trial testing of pharmaceuticals. The testing to determine whether drugs are safe for kids. Last week, it was revealed that he was giving the companies the results they needed.

Senator Grassley's inquiry is based upon slides that were presented to Johnson and Johnson by the "doctor" that were under the heading "Key Projects for 2005". One of the slides offered "critical competitive data on safety and efficacy of risperidone (an antipsychotic) in children" others talked about other ways to use the drug Concerta for teenagers with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. These were slides from the person selling the product. These were slides by the guy doing the safety testing, before there was even a test. He surely was selling something.

Medical malpractice cases are tough to deal with. Product cases on pharmaceutical issues can be even tougher. Clients are questioned about all aspects of their lives, they are attacked over the smallest consistency, and it's a fight from beginning to end. It's interesting to see what some of the defenses have been based on. Joe Biederman, a Harvard Medical School professor and a psychiatrist at Mass. General, what a great guy.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Doctor Admits Pain Studies Were Made Up

Mike Bryant — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 09:18:00 GMT

Dr. Scott S. Reuben, an anesthesiologist at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass., falsified clinical trials that he wrote about in 21 journals. Going back to 1996 he was providing support concerning pain drugs that went on the market.

The articles in question claimed research results concerning drugs for Pfizer and support for postoperative use of Vioxx, Celebrex, Effexor, and Lyrica. Pfizer issued a response that they didn't know about what was done:

“Independent clinical research advances disease treatments and improves the lives of patients,” said Raymond F. Kerins Jr., a Pfizer spokesman. “As part of such research, we count on independent researchers to be truthful and motivated by a desire to advance care for patients. It is very disappointing to learn about Dr. Scott Reuben’s alleged actions.”

His conclusions that it is better to use aspirin like drugs vs. narcotics after surgery is now being questioned. How many surgeries were compromised or pain caused as a result of this fraud? He was known for working with the FDA and using his own "research" to help get drugs approved.

Injuryboard member Mike Ferrara, has a list available of all of the studies. It's another one of the recent revelations that the Doctors behind pharmaceutical research may be only giving the answers that support certain conclusions. It's important that both the criminal and the civil issues see justice as a result of what took place here.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Kobe Bryant And Jury Duty

Mike Bryant — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 09:58:00 GMT

I've never been a fan. I like the Celtics and the Timberwolves and I question what really happened with him and his own case, but I have to say his recent actions in court are commendable. He was called to jury duty in Santa Ana, California. He showed up and he was questioned.

I would have assumed the questioning judge and lawyers probably thought this would be interesting. He's answers included : “everyone has to do their duty … This is important. You have to take it seriously".

“I don’t think anybody wants to do jury duty,” he added. “But it’s your responsibility.” This is a great explanation of the duty of each juror.

Our civil system is based upon citizens making decisions on the facts. It's an excellent system that works well. But, it needs ordinary people to make it work. As the court system cuts what each juror is paid and people are hesitant to take the time from work and their lives, it truly can be a burden. Kobe hit this one from the outside.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Trial Work: Picking The Civil Jury

Mike Bryant — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:20:00 GMT

In Minnesota, a civil jury trial is usually consists of seven jurors. For a number of years, the seventh juror was an alternate. But, after enduring years of complaints from people who sat through the whole trial only to be told to go home before deliberation, it was decided that all jurors would deliberate. In longer trials, the court and the attorneys will increase the number to ensure that they don't ever end up with less then six, in the cases where a juror can't last though the trial.

The process for selecting the jury is calling four more jurors than are necessary from the jury pool. The judge, followed by the defense attorney and finally the plaintiff's attorney will then question the panel. Not to embarrass them , but to see if there is anyone with an obvious bias to the case itself or the overall issues involved. If a person is found to have a bias the judge may dismiss them for cause. A new person is then called from the pool.

After all of the questions, the two sides , starting with the defendant, alternately each strike two jurors. I make this choice by asking my client who they want to strike, getting advice from members of my staff who are watching the trial , and finally relying upon my own gut.

Recently, the New York Times looked at the peremptory strikes for the reasons used to dismiss the juror. Particularly, the article pointed out that race, gender or ethnicity were not to be used in making strikes, but almost anything else was allowable. The article concluded with the thought that a good solution might be to reduce these strikes because the wrong reasons are used to strike jurors.

Personally, I had a number of jurors dismissed through the initial questions. While I can't ask them, it often seems that the jurors know the case isn't the right one for them and that they really don't belong on that particular panel. I'm thankful for the jurors who answer the questions in a straightforward manner. It is much better than hearing after the trial that one of the jurors knew a party, was involved in the case issues, or was on the jury with a particular agenda. Occasionally, you will hear one of those jurors calling Rush with the news that they were able to get on and screw a plaintiff. I guess that juror missed the point when they swore to tell the truth and follow the law.

The present system relies heavily upon the information that is gained through the questioning that is done. If peremptory challenges were eliminated or reduced, it would make those questions even more important. Before the questions, we get basic information including name, age, city of residence, job, number of children and spousal information. With out the chance to ask the necessary questions, all we would be doing is making random prejudicial guess about people.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant