Congratulations to my friends at Greg Kafoury, Mark MacDougal and the rest of their team for obtaining a multi-million dollar verdict on behalf of a patient who was sexually abused by an EMT.

According to this report in The Oregonian, the Portland jury returned a verdict totaling $2.25 million against American Medical Response amublance company. The jury apparently concluded that American Medical Response knew or had reason to know that its EMT, Lannie Haszard, might have sexually abused patients.

The news report explains that three women had complained to police and the company about prior sex abuse incidents. I imagine that the evidence of prior complaints had a major impact on the jury.

These cases are particularly challenging, especially for the victim who must come forward and rehash the events in the litigation and at trial. I’m appreciative that she found the strenght to do so and that the jury listened to the evidence and set the standard for our community.

David Sugerman

For those following the proposed class action against Western Culinary Institute and Career Education Corp., we filed our opening brief on class certification today. WCI and CEC will file an opposition, and then we’ll file a reply. Judge Baldwin is scheduled to hear oral argument on the motion at a hearing in Portland on October 29, 2009.

The filing contains materials that are currently subject to a confidentiality order. For that reason, I can’t publish it at this time.  For those keeping track, this case generated rather heated criticism. I was comfortable with the decision we made to file the case. It’s fair to say that nothing that’s happened since has done anything other than to confirm my take on the case.

There’s an elephant in the room in the health care debate. We’re hearing a lot about high medical costs and uninsured people. And then there are the fake controversies over things like “death panels.” But what isn’t being discussed is the issue of patient safety. Instead, we’re hearing about national medical malpractice reforms and damage caps.

Here’s a link to a recent post I authored on PDXpersonalinjuryattorney.com, a blog devoted to Oregon injury issues. Here, also, is an amusing piece debunking some of the myths about tort reform being recycled by desparate politicians.

The thing that people miss is that an estimated 48,000-98,000 people die in America every year from preventable medical errors. As my buddy, Oregon trial lawyer Mark Bocci points out, it’s a bit like losing all the crew and passengers on a commercial jetliner every day.

Against this backdrop, caps and limits don’t make much sense. Let’s instead resolve to focus on patient safety. I can’t help but wonder what kind of conversation we would be having if everyday our civil aviation lost a plane.

David Sugerman

So this is so off-topic that you might ought to just push on through. But promises were made, and I’m a firm believer in keeping my word.

The backstory is that I’ve been on Twitter for a while, and I have a compelling cast of characters who I follow and who follow me. Some our Portland linked. Others are law tweeps. (Yeah, I know, but that’s Twitter talk.)

More back story: I’ve been biking into work a good chunk of the summer, and I’m looking to keep on it into the rainy season. We had some major rain last week. My nylon running jacket and nylon shorts failed, leaving me prune skinned and water logged.

So I turned to my Twitter buds–my tweeps–for suggestions on foul weather biking. One of them asked me to compile into a post so that all could benefit, and now I’m at it.

The biggest point of agreement was that fenders are essential. So say @lancedgoddard and @AndyBarovick. (Yes for those not into the Twitter the @ character is the signifier of Twitter ID.) Of course, I have fenders on my slow but steady commuter bike. So I guess my pruning could have been worse?

Rain gear was a source of controversy. According to at least one person, @jwdoom, rain gear is a crock. Actually, he was a bit more graphic, but I’m trying to keep it clean here. On the other hand, @BeelJDPhd relates that a colleague swears by Pearl Izumi rain gear from REI.

And then there was a long list of suggestions from the ever helpful @AndyBarovick, but his bottom line was really simple: Don’t ride in the rain, unless you have to. I’m hoping that “rain” to the New York @AndyBarovick is different than rain to me, Portland’s @DavidSug (yes that’s my Twitter ID), but who knows?

In any event, my promise kept, I go back to the grind of today’s tasks. Thanks to all my Tweeps. It’s an engaging conversation, isn’t it? And for anyone who’s reading this who is on Twitter, feel free to check out those cited. They’re all engaging and interesting people with whom I’ve connected.

David Sugerman

Wonders never cease. Here’s a blog post at the Oregon Class Action blog about the California tort reform advocate who filed a class action against the City of Sacramento for towing his illegally parked car. Can’t hardly wait to see how this one comes out!

David Sugerman

I can’t stand the thought of kids going hungry. That’s why I’m stepping up to help the Oregon Business Hunger Initiative. Summer is coming, and kids who rely on school meals are at risk for going without. I’m doing my small part to help fill the hole. The problems we face are bigger than any one of us, but even so, responsible businesses that band together can help fill in the gaps.

There are never enough thanks for the hard working people at the Oregon Food Bank.  But thanks are always due, even so. For anyone in a position to help, here’s more information on their Oregon Business hunger initiative.

David Sugerman

p.s. I’ll be off line in trial next week in Pendleton.  I’ll have very little time to respond to comments and emails next week.

Along with my colleagues, Houston attorneys Michael Doyle and Jeff Raizner, I filed an injury case here in Portland in federal court today for a group of Oregon National Guard soldiers against KBR, Inc., a private contractors. The soldiers were exposed to sodium dichromate while serving in Iraq in 2003. The compound contains a very toxic component, hexavalent chromium. The exposure problems have been widely reported in The Oregonian by reporter Julie Sullivan.

Our soldiers face a long road ahead. It is honor to represent them. Here is the link to a copy for anyone interested in the Complaint: complaint-and-demand-for-jury-trial-filed

David Sugerman

Just came across this informative article from Rust Consulting on claim rates in class action settlements.

It’s a bit geeky or at least specialized, but the issue is important for lawyers who handle class actions and judges who oversee them. And actually, it’s important to consumers and businesses, too.

The question is: When a class action settles, how many people who are entitled to recover money will actually file claims? The article correctly explains that the rates vary, but there are some factors that allow for a prediction.

The claim process is one of those misunderstood things that leads to a lot of complaints about class actions. When a class action settles, and a consumer gets a claim form that will yield $6.26, it hardly seems worth the effort. It also leads to complaints that the lawyers earned “millions,” but the consumer only got $6.26.

I suppose it’s a predictable response, but it’s simply wrong. That hypothetical $6.26 must be multiplied by the number of consumers to look at the value of the class recovery. In other words, the true measure of damages is how much did wrongdoer have to pay out?

The other thing that consumers often miss is that class settlements frequently leave unclaimed money to the wrongdoer. That’s a problem because the wrongdoer profits for every claim form not returned. That’s a good reason for consumers to make claims, as businesses that act illegally shouldn’t profit from their gains, even if those gains are $6.26 at a time. One way to think about it is that it’s easy to make millions in nickels if you simply illegally collect enough nickels. It’s also important to file claims so that we can all stop illegal shakedowns of the middle class that drag all of us down.

David Sugerman

This is for all tort reform advocates, like those smart folks at the Wall Street Journal, who spout the simplistic suggestion that a loser pay rule would improve the American civil justice system. The Times Online reports on Lord Justice Jackson’s lengthy report on the United Kingdom’s civil justice system. The upshot is that Lord Justice Jackson recommends ending the United Kingdom’s loser pays rule.

Leave it to The Times to get to the heart of the matter: “The civil justice system has priced itself out of the reach of ordinary people; they face financial ruin if they venture into court and lose.”

The issue is access to justice. In a loser pay system, only the wealthy can access the courts. That is so contrary to the American way. Let’s all mark this lesson as a response when the smart folks at the Wall Street Journal start pushing for limits that treat justice as a luxury item.

David Sugerman

It’s one of those cases that causes those of us who represent consumers to shake our heads. An affluent woman who has been bleaching her hair since childhood sues an upscale salon for botched hair treatment. She seeks $50,000 in humiliation damages, plus substantial out-of-pocket expenses for hair treatment and childcare.

Deliberating for just an hour, the jury found against her by a margin of 11-1.  That’s about as quick and complete a rejection as you see in a jury trial case.

The lawyer representing the dissatisfied salon patron, Leta Gorman, is a shareholder at Bullivant Houser, a large west-coast law firm.  She  typically defends manufacturers in injury cases.  According to the news account, the lawyer defending the salon argued that this was a “frivolous lawsuit.”

Oddball cases get twisted, and I imagine this one will show up in the echo chamber of distortion. What the Chamber of Commerce and others who decry lawsuit abuse miss is this: most damage lawsuits are filed by businesses. Here, an affluent and sophisticated consumer seeking beauty in a bottle sued when things went bad. It’s fine for the Chamber of Commerce to complain, but it ought to be truthful about how only the wealthy can afford the luxury of litigation of thin cases.

For those of us who represent injured people, this is one of those eye rollers. It’s an eye roller because cases for people with profound injuries have to wait in line behind luxury litigators. It’s an eye roller because our judicial system–which is strained and underfunded–has to deal with this type of claim. And it’s an eye roller because it gives squawk box material to those who can’t discern between claims for those wrongfully injured and those who litigate simply because they can afford to do so.

For all the heat and the noise, the true story is about quiet wisdom. That wisdom came from the jury. One of the jurors, Del Shaw, was quoted in The Oregonian. His simple assessment is the real story: “We took a look at the facts and didn’t feel the facts supported the claim.” That left me smiling because it simply shows that the jury considered the evidence and made a decision based upon the merits.

In that way, the case proves what those of us who work in the trenches know. Juries generally get it right.

David Sugerman