Evaluating the Low Impact Auto Case
Low impact auto cases may be simple or complex. A simple case would be one of clear liability with significant property damage, a likable client and a medical doctor who is able to easily describe the injury and its relationship to the accident. A complex case involves accident reconstructionist and biomechanical experts, very little property damage, a connective tissue or “soft tissue” injury, a client with pre-existing conditions, and a variety of health care providers ranging from a neurologist to a chiropractor. Obviously, it is extremely important at the outset of any case to recognize the difference between a simple and a complex low impact auto case especially in terms of value, costs, and expenses of litigating the case.
Vioxx Should we Litigate this Drug
The question of whether to pursue litigation over Cox-2 inhibitors — which currently include, primarily, Vioxx (Rofecoxib) and Celebrex (Celecoxib) — is a question that many firms are pondering at the present time.
Proper Use of Focus Groups
Focus groups are more important to civil litigation than you may think. Dr. Richard A. Krueger, describes focus groups as: “(1) people, (2) assembled in a series of groups, (3) possessing certain characteristics …, (4) providing data, (5) of a qualitative nature, (6) in a focused discussion. “ Focus groups were designed for attorneys to test their case theories and strategies on a sample “jury.” The tests produce a meaningful method for the attorney to try his or her case. Some consultants suggest that focus groups do not determine a jury’s vote, but the information gathered can determine how the jury reacts to different information. While focus groups are extremely helpful in forming trial strategies, it is imperative that each attorney understand the concept and structure of focus groups.
Alabama Trial Lawyers
On February 21, 2001, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Buckman Company v. Plaintiffs Legal Committee, 531 U.S. 431, 2001 U.S. LEXIS (Feb. 21, 2001). Buckman stands for the proposition that state law fraud-on-the-FDA claim’s and nothing more, are impliedly preempted by the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act. See, Globetti v. Sandoz Pharmaceutical Corporation, 2001 WL 41960 (N.D. Ala. 2001).
Recent Developments in Punitive Damages
The recent development with the most impact on punitive damages is the United States Supreme Court opinion in State Farm v. Campbell, 123 S.Ct. 1513, 538 U.S. 408, 155 L.Ed.2d 585 (2003). In Campbell, insureds brought an action against State Farm to recover for bad faith failure to settle within the policy limits, fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The underlying case was filed in Utah. At the trial court level, the jury entered a verdict in favor of the insureds and awarded $145 million dollars in punitive and $1 million in compensatory damages. The United States Supreme Court, Justice Kennedy, held that an award of $145 million dollars in punitives on $1 million dollars in compensatory damages violated due process. Here, the United States Supreme Court went to great lengths to declare the punitive damages award excessive.
Recent Developments in Fraud Law
Recent developments in fraud law include litigation over reasonable reliance, arbitration issues, standing and damages. This paper will examine some of the recent Alabama Supreme Court decisions which discuss these issues. The law of insurance fraud in Alabama is still developing in the wake of the Alabama Supreme Court’s monumental decision, Foremost Insurance Company v. Parham, 693 So.2d 409 (Ala.1997). Before Foremost, most insurance fraud cases reached the jury under the standard of “justifiable reliance.” In Foremost, the Alabama Supreme Court undertook to raise the bar for insurance fraud cases, changing the standard to “reasonable reliance.”Recent Developments in Fraud Law
Pattern & Practice Evidence
The use of pattern and practice evidence before a jury may be the most effective evidence that the plaintiff can present in any case involving consumer fraud. The discovery of this type of evidence is relatively difficult without the assistance of the trial court ordering that a defendant produce a customer list of the defendant of the type of product that the plaintiff alleges to have been sold fraudulently. Because of the extreme burden placed on plaintiffs in proving their case, there is a most compelling argument that plaintiff is entitled to this evidence especially given the recent restrictions placed on the plaintiff in the consumer fraud cases by the courts.
Introduction and History of Mass Torts
From asbestos to tobacco to pharmaceutical products, mass tort litigation has become a powerful form of litigation in both state and federal courts. Mass tort litigation is a growing area of the law, which shows no signs of slowing down in the near future. Mass tort claims find their origins barely twenty- five years ago.1 Some scholars trace true mass tort cases back even further to the late 1960′s and early 1970′s. In the 60′s lawyers began to represent passengers in plane crashes on a structured basis. They represented a multitude of plaintiffs and victims against a myriad of defendants including manufacturers, suppliers and the airline companies themselves. These cases, referred to as “mass accident” claims, where a catastrophic event results in a number of serious and fatal injuries, are usually followed by mass litigation. 2 In mass accident litigation, injuries generally occur at a central location and usually manifest themselves immediately.
Keep a Mass Tort From Becoming Mass Confusion
Listening to the radio on your daily commute, you hear news that a popular prescription drug has been pulled from the market. You have heard earlier accounts of problems with this drug and have been doing some preliminary research. You know that it was “fast tracked” by the FDA and approved after a six-month review process, over the objections of the agency’s medical review officer and advisory committee. Now, after the FDA has linked more than 100 deaths to the drug, the manufacturer is announcing its “voluntary withdrawal.” At the office, your phone is ringing; all lines are lit up. Dozens of potential clients call to report injuries suffered while taking the drug. You have seen this scenario before and know you must organize quickly. At this stage, there are many unknowns: What injuries are truly linked to this drug? Does a particular dosage pose a greater risk? Are certain patients more susceptible to adverse reactions? When did the company learn of the problems? You develop an initial questionnaire to obtain as many pertinent facts as possible, and set up a database to track and sort client information.
The Pursuit of Electronic Discovery
The pursuit of electronic discovery by lawyers and the legal battles that ensue are now a routine part of pharmaceutical litigation. “Today, it is black letter law that computerized data is discoverable if relevant.”3 Attorneys today are faced with new challenges and hurdles in this world of new-age technology and digital discovery. With this progressive electronic evolution, attorneys and their support staff must learn to navigate through various types of computer programs including word processing documents, databases, spreadsheets, personal and business e- mails and other electronic files. However, diligent efforts on the part of an attorney may lead to an abundance of relevant electronic evidence and discovery of “smoking gun” documents illustrating corporate misconduct.
