In the News

Arbitration sounds fair, but forced arbitration is the exact opposite

This post was originally published on Hightower Lowdown and can be found here.

Arbitration sounds fair, but forced arbitration is the exact opposite

Corporate kangaroo courts have quietly usurped our constitutional right to trial by judge and jury

Edited by Jim Hightower and Phillip Frazer 

Being wronged by a corporation is painful enough, but getting your day in court is no picnic either. Aside from having to go up against a deep-pocket corporation's pack of snarling lawyers, the judicial system itself is cumbersome, slow, and costly. And to us uninitiated outsiders, a courtroom's cult-like rituals, punctilious language, and black-robed authoritarians are intimidating. No wonder so many of the workers, consumers, small businesses, and others who get stomped on by the corporate powers shy away from taking their legitimate grievances into those chambers.

AAJ: Patient Safety at Risk with SCOTUS Mutual v. Bartlett

Washington, DC—For the third time in a matter of minutes, Karen Bartlett puts drops in her eyes to substitute for the tears she no longer produces.  Legally blind, Karen's eyes are a noticeable injury from her Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), a lifetime condition resulting from taking sulindac, a generic drug prescribed for shoulder pain.   

When Generic Drugs Harm Patients, Can't Count On FDA; Lawsuits Play Role

This post was originally published on Public Justice’s blog and can be found here.

By Claire Prestel, Staff Attorney, Public Justice 

On Tuesday the U.S. Supreme Court will hear argument in a case called Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, which will decide whether generic drug makers can be held responsible for the harm their products cause. Public Justice joined an amicus brief filed by the American Association for Justice because this case presents a critical access to justice issue for millions of American patients: the Supreme Court will decide whether patients injured by generic drugs can recover from the profitable drug companies that caused them harm, or whether the drug makers can force patients to bear all the costs of their drug-caused injuries.

The SHIELD ACT will stack the deck against small business, impair innovation

The House Judiciary Committee is holding a subcommittee hearing today on a one-sided bill that would have a chilling effect on innovation and small businesses by unfairly stacking the deck in favor of corporate giants and impairing the value of intellectual property. 

What “Lies” Beneath the Wall Street Journal Asbestos Article, Myths and Facts Exposed

On March 11, 2013, the Wall Street Journal published an article that fits neatly in the play book of Big Asbestos’ campaign to avoid compensating the asbestos victims they deliberately harmed by vilifying the victims and accusing them and their families of “fraud.”  The goal of this campaign, led by asbestos corporations, their insurers and their front groups, is to delay and deny until asbestos victims die.  

Q & A with Col. Adele Connell

Col. Adele Connell served our country for 34 years in the Army and National Guard.  Connell learned she had breast cancer while still active duty and this meant she had no choice on where the surgery would be done or who would do it; it would be handled in a military hospital.  

Will the U.S. Supreme Court deny justice for Karen Bartlett?

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case known as Mutual Pharmaceutical v. Bartlett on March 19, 2013.  It centers around a woman who suffered devastating side-effects after taking the generic drug sulindac for shoulder pain.

Will cruise passengers be victimized again – by forced arbitration

This post was originally published on the Alliance for Justice’s blog and can be found here.

As they suffered in sweltering heat, walked through sewage and defecated in plastic bags, some of the passengers aboard the Carnival Cruise Lines ship Triumph probably were thinking “At least when we finally get home we can sue the b-----ds.”

The Carnival Triumph in happier times (including working toilets) Well, they can try – and some already have. But the U.S. Supreme Court has made it a lot harder than it should be.

Avery's Heartaches

Avery de Groh, now 9 years old, is facing an all too familiar anguish: her life saving heart defibrillator has again been recalled. Stuck with the impossible decision of leaving a faulty device in their child or risk an intense surgery to take it out, the de Groh’s are wrestling with what to do. While unnecessary shocks and a second recall are alarming enough, more so is the fact that the de Groh’s learned about this recall a year after the fact through a chance newsletter. But the medical devices industry enjoys near total immunity from being taken to court if their devices were once approved by the FDA.  The result is a financial and emotional burden for the de Groh’s, who have already paid once for such a removal surgery and will be forced to pay out of pocket yet again.

The Oklahoman Relies On Corporate Lobbyists' PR Campaign To Promote Myth Of Lawsuit Abuse

This post was originally published on Media Matters for America’s blog and can be found here.


Subscribe to RSS - blogs