Vested Interest - Tort Briefs - July 2006 Issue

Pacemaker Firm No Duty to Warn

A pacemaker manufacturer did not have a duty to warn a 75-year-old patient about the dangers of undergoing implantation of the device at his doctor’s clinic instead of a hospital, the 1st District Appellate Court has held. The wrongful death suit alleged that Medtronic was negligent in selling the pacemaker to the doctor who performed the surgery and implanted the pacemaker in an inadequate facility. A registered nurse who worked for Medtronic as a clinical specialist was present during the surgery to ensure the device was functioning properly. The doctor admitted he deviated from the standard of care and previously reached a settlement with the family. The court ruled “It would be unreasonable, and potentially harmful” for the specialist to determine if the setting were appropriate and the doctor qualified. (Chicago Daily Law Bulletin – June 6, 2006)

Hospital Agrees to Settlement in Stillborn Death of Obese Mother

An Illinois Hospital agreed to a settlement with the family of a stillborn child. The mother, who weighed more than 400 pounds in the final trimester of her pregnancy, suffered from hypertension and preeclampsia. She was sent to the hospital for fetal monitoring when she reported decreased fetal movement at a regular appointment. The hospital sent her home without performing any tests. The baby died in utero as the cord became wrapped around his neck. (Press Release)

Asbestos Claims to be Settled

The USG Corporation, the maker of gypsum wallboard, received court approval for a plan to emerge from bankruptcy by paying as much as $3.95 billion to resolve asbestos liability claims. The settlement of about 250,000 claims will be financed in part by the sale of $1.8 billion in shares, guaranteed by the company controlled by the billionaire investor Warren E. Buffett. (ATLA Law News Digest – June 22, 2006)

Nursing Wage Plot Alleged in Lawsuit

Nurses backed by the biggest U.S. healthcare union filed four class-action lawsuits against some of the biggest U.S. hospitals claiming they conspired to depress wages amid a national shortage of nurses. The lawsuits allege that the hospitals regularly discussed nurses’ wages in meetings, over the telephone and in written surveys in an effort to coordinate and suppress pay. The suits, filed in federal courts in Chicago; Memphis, Tennessee; Albany, N.Y.; and San Antonio seek back compensation and legal costs totaling hundreds of millions of dollars under federal antitrust laws. (ATLA Law News Digest – June 22, 2006)

Loss of Pet Consortium Rejected

An Oregon attorney recently won a record verdict for a family whose neighbor ran over their family dog, but fell short of establishing a new tort law allowing pet owners to sue for loss of companionship. Outraged jurors awarded the family $400 for the value of their dog, $6,000 for emotional distress and $50,000 in punitive damages. However, on the first day of trial, the circuit court judge reversed earlier rulings that allowed a claim of loss of pet companionship to go before the jury. If those rulings had survived, it would have established a new cause of action in animal law. (ATLA Law News Digest – June 22, 2006)

McDonald’s Moves to Consolidate “French Fry Actions”

In litigation closely watched by the national restaurant industry, McDonald’s Corp. is seeking to consolidate about a dozen lawsuits alleging that the company provided misleading information to consumers that its french fries were not made of wheat-based proteins. The suits allege that McDonald’s made misleading statements on its website that its french fries did not contain wheat ingredients. (ATLA Law News Digest – June 22, 2006)

Welding Rod Makers Not Liable

An Ohio jury found makers of welding rods were not liable for the health problems of a former civilian worker at a Navy base. The lawsuit was brought by a former welder who suffers arm tremors and other movement problems that he says could be Parkinson’s. It was the first trial among about 3,800 lawsuits from around the country that have been consolidated in federal court in Cleveland. (Chicago Daily Law Bulletin – June 27, 2006)

Court Expands Right to Sue Over Retaliation on the Job

The Supreme Court made it easier for workers in most parts of the country to sue employers for retaliating against them when they complain about sexual harassment or other discrimination. The court has ruled that employees may collect damages, even in some cases where the punishment did not involve getting fired or losing wages. The decision, which had the full support of eight justices, expands the legal rights of millions of workers who are covered by the Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the main federal law against job discrimination, and their employers. (ATLA Law News Digest – June 29, 2006)