Frivolous lawsuits clog the courts and delay justice for those who have been injured.
- A clogged court system means that on average, successful litigation claimants must wait 1,825 days for compensation after their injury takes place. (Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law before the House Judiciary Committee, testimony presented by Physicians Insurance Association, June 12, 2002)
- In Madison County, Illinois, a famously clogged courthouse, there was one lawsuit filed for every 124 people in 2003. With a caseload more than twice that of Cook County, Illinois, the Madison County court system takes nearly 27 months from when a lawsuit is filed to reach a verdict. (“Litigation Imbalance: The Need for Venue Reform in Illinois,” Illinois Civil Justice League, November 2005).
Junk Science = Junk Lawsuits.
Junk science is questionable, unfounded or misleading information that is put forth as medical or scientific fact. Junk science is medical or scientific claims that are not supported by fact and not validated by others within the scientific and medical community. Some warning signs of junk science include:
- Doctors and scientists who provide expert opinions outside of their areas of expertise or without having the necessary educational background and training.
- Doctors or scientists who are paid on the basis of their findings.
- Sensational “findings” and “studies” that are released through the media without the endorsement of other scientific or medical experts.
Junk science can needlessly confuse and scare consumers and is often used to support junk lawsuits and questionable claims. These baseless cases clog our courtrooms and delay justice for the truly injured. Additionally, so-called “expert” witnesses who peddle junk science undermine the integrity of our legal system, the medical profession and qualified expert witnesses.
A recent survey of physician specialists commissioned by Sick of Lawsuits and the American Tort Reform Association found:
- Nearly 9 out of 10 physician specialists surveyed (88%) believe there is a problem with medical expert witnesses providing testimony on issues beyond their specialties.
- More than half (57%) have personally seen or heard medical expert testimony in a courtroom they believe was inaccurate or based on questionable science.
- Three-quarters (76%) believe medical expert witnesses have had a negative impact on the integrity of the medical profession.
- Nearly all physician specialists surveyed (95%) support the creation of a code of ethics to govern physicians’ conduct in providing expert witness testimony.
Below are examples of the dangerous impact that partnerships between personal injury lawyers and unethical expert witnesses can have on the delivery of justice:
- Fen-phen litigation: Approximately 10 echocardiogram companies, along with a number of law firms, set-up several “echo-mills” in hotel rooms and other locations to perform echocardiograms on individuals who took the diet drug Fen-phen. The firms and the companies cast as wide a net as possible for potential plaintiffs, reportedly spending millions of dollars on advertisements to recruit tens of thousands of respondents that they could test of eligibility. An independent review of 120 echocardiograms diagnosed with heart damage by two cardiologists hired by plaintiffs’ attorneys in the litigation found that only 6 percent actually showed heart problems. One of the doctors who diagnosed the claims received an extra $1,500 for every positive reading. The other doctor’s sonographer was trained by an employee of the plaintiff’s attorney. (“False Witness”, The Wall Street Journal, December 2, 2006; “Tough Questions Are Raised On Fen-Phen Compensation,” The New York Times, October 7, 2003; “The Fen-Phen Follies,” The American Lawyer, March 1, 2005)
- Silicosis: In 2005, U.S. District Court Judge Jack of the Southern District of Texas tossed out thousands of silicosis claims as manufactured diagnoses. One doctor had his secretary fill out patient diagnoses on blank forms, while another analyzed 1,239 patients in 72 hours. A careful study by Daniel J. Mulholland, an attorney defending silica companies against thousands of claims, has discovered thousands of potentially “fraudulent diagnoses.” Of the nine doctors that diagnosed 99 percent of 10,000 plaintiffs, one doctor was responsible for a third (3,600) of the positive diagnoses in plaintiffs. Approximately 60 percent of the silica plaintiffs were “retreads” – individuals who had also filed complaints for asbestos exposure. (“Defense lawyers ferrets out potential tort scam”, Kansas City Daily Record, March 4, 2006; “A Break For The Defense,” BusinessWeek, November 7, 2005)
- Asbestosis: A study comparing x-ray analyses of asbestos-related lung damage revealed that while physicians hired by the plaintiff's lawyers reported that 95.9 percent of 492 chest x-rays had possible asbestos-related lung damage, unaffiliated doctors found that only 4.5 percent of them showed possible damage (“Comparison of ‘B’-Readers’ Interpretations of Chest Radiographs for Asbestos Related Changes,” Academic Radiology, 8/04; “The Great Asbestos Deception,” San Diego Union-Tribune, August 13, 2004)
- Silicone:Tens of thousands of claims have been filed in connection with silicone breast implants. Examinations – sometimes performed in lawyer’s offices – were conducted in “assembly lines” with doctors charging up to $6,000 per exam. Not surprisingly, more than 90 percent of the women tested by these exam mills were diagnosed with symptoms that make them eligible for compensation. The National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine concluded that, “there is no evidence that silicone breast implants contribute to an increase in autoimmune (connective tissue) disease.” (“False Witness”, The Wall Street Journal, December 2, 2006)
- “Toxic” mold: In California, Dr. Gary Ordog has appeared as an expert witness for $9,800 up front plus $975 an hour in (by his estimate) hundreds of lawsuits to testify that mold can cause a terrifying array of diseases, from lung cancer to cirrhosis of the liver. The American College of Occupational & Environmental Medicine and the Federal Institute of Medicine say there's no evidence for such claims. The vice president of Ordog's own professional association, the American College of Medical Toxicology, agrees. Ordog also falsely testified that he was chief toxicologist at a Santa Clarita hospital that had no such department, leading a California judge to declare that he “lacks credibility completely.” (“Dr. Mold,” Forbes Magazine, April, 11, 2005)
- Welding rod litigation: Seventy percent of the 4,500 patients involved in welding rod related lawsuits before a Cleveland federal judge were “diagnosed” in mass screenings. Of these cases, only 14 percent of the patients incurred medical expenses due to treatment for illnesses associated with the alleged negative health effects of welding rods. In addition, 40 percent of the plaintiffs previously filed lawsuits alleged negative health effects due to asbestos or silica exposure. Despite earlier testimony that, “the neurological community generally does not accept welding fumes as a cause of Parkinson’s disease,” Dr. Paul Nausieda received a $10,000 payment for his testimony in a welding rod trial in the infamous lawsuit jurisdiction of Madison County, Illinois. (“Plaintiffs in Welding-Fumes Case Win a Skirmish in Federal Court,” The Wall Street Journal, July 26, 2005; “Medical expert testifies in weld rod trial,” Madison-St. Clair Record, November 8, 2005)
Junk lawsuits are no laughing matter.
Personal injury lawyers make a living from inventing new ways to sue anyone who can pay. Some of the lawsuit schemes they conceive are so ridiculous that we find ourselves laughing, but the cost of this kind of lawsuit abuse quickly ceases to be funny. All lawsuits, even unsuccessful ones, cost money and the public foots the bill.
Below are some examples of recent frivolous lawsuits that would be funnier if not for the accumulated cost to citizens they represent:
- A New York securities trader sued a Manhattan strip joint for “serious injuries” he sustained during a lap dance. The man, who is married, alleged that a stripper employed by the Hot Lap Dance Club near Madison Square Garden swiveled and smacked him in the eye with the heel of her shoe during an early morning performance last November. (The Associated Press, March 17, 2008)
- A Washington, D.C. woman sued Best Buy for $54 million because the store purportedly lost her laptop computer. Although the electronics retailer apologized, provided reimbursement for the cost of the computer, and gave the woman a $900 gift card for her inconvenience, she remains unsatisfied. She acknowledges that $54 million unreasonable but will nevertheless pursue the lawsuit. (MSNBC, February 15, 2008)
- A Connecticut woman sued L’Oreal Inc., alleging that the company ruined her social life when she accidentally dyed her hair brunette with one of its products. The woman said she can never return to her natural blonde hue, a shock that left her so traumatized she needed anti-depressants and had to stay home and wear hats most of the time. (The Associated Press, October 9, 2008)
- Sitting D.C. judge Roy Pearson sued his dry cleaners for $54 million over a lost pair of paints, alleging their “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign was a fraud. After two years of battle, Soo and Jin Chung, owners of Custom Cleaners and victims of this abusive lawsuit, won the case. Sadly, however, they were forced to close one of their three stores as a result of the costly and tiring lawsuit. Judge Pearson continues to abuse the system and is appealing the verdict. (The Washington Post, October 23, 2008)
- A Los Angeles traffic cop sued Victoria’s Secret after a piece of her rhinestone-decorated undergarment, described as “saucy” and “slingshot-like,” was launched into her eye. Despite having received only minimal medical attention the following morning and laundering the thong several times before the incident, The woman and her lawyer believe the lingerie chain is responsible for monetary compensation. (MSNBC, June 19, 2008)
- A Baltimore woman filed a class-action lawsuit against a major airline because she was denied a free in-flight meal en route to the Dominican Republic. The woman was told the breakfast would cost an additional $3.00 due to a change in airline policy. She is seeking compensation plus interest for herself and on behalf of others in her situation. (Daily Record, February 6, 2007)
- A Mississippi mother sued her local school district for $1.75 million alleging that three teachers at the school scared her child by dressing up in witch costumes. (Clarion Ledger, February 13, 2007)
- A Northbrook, Illinois parent sued a concert facility after a traffic jam caused her and her family to miss an ‘N Sync concert. Although 45,000 people made it into the facility on time for the concert, the plaintiff blamed her tardiness on the sponsors, saying they weren’t adequately prepared for the large crowds. (Chicago Sun-Times, February 10, 2007)
- A New Jersey doctor who collided with his then 11-year-old inline skating neighbor when he was on his bicycle is suing the child for pain and suffering. The doctor claims the child was negligent and caused the collision by stepping into his path while trying to get out of his way. (Daily Record, March 1, 2007)
- A New Jersey woman who fell off a bar while dancing with her friends in a “Shake-it-like-Shakira” contest sued the Manhattan bar that sponsored the shake-off, claiming the bar should have known the contest was “dangerous.” (WCBS-TV, November 7, 2007)
- A Chicago man sued a fellow golfer for failing to yell “fore” after hitting the golf ball that struck him in the head. After being struck, the plaintiff finished his golf round, ate dinner and drank some cocktails at the clubhouse but claims he later developed headaches and blurred vision. In a bizarre twist of fate (and perhaps karma), the defendant happens to be one of Chicago’s most prominent personal injury lawyers. (Chicago Sun-Times, December 1, 2006)
- When a dump-truck backed into a Lodi, CA man’s car he decided to sue the city for damages. The only problem being, he was the one driving the dump truck. This minor detail, however, didn’t stop this upstanding city employee from filing a $3,600 claim for the accident even after admitting the crash was his fault. When the city rejected the claim, the man and his wife refiled the lawsuit under her name. (Associated Press, March 16, 2006)
- A psychologist who was denied a pink tote bag during a Mother’s Day giveaway at a Los Angeles Angels’ baseball game has sued the team, alleging that thousands of males and fans under 18 were “treated unequally” and entitled to $4,000 each in damages. (Los Angeles Times, May 11, 2006
|
