LPGA Votes to End “Female at Birth” Discrimination

Tuesday, December 7th, 2010 | Uncategorized | No Comments

Players of the LPGA tour this week voted to remove a contentious “female at birth” requirement from the tour constitution. This came as a response to a California civil rights lawsuit brought by a transgender woman, who had a gender reassignment surgery performed five years ago.

The lawsuit had been filed by 57-year-old Lana Lawless, a former police officer who had a gender reassignment surgery in 2005. In 2008, she won the world women’s championship in long drive golf, but in 2010, Long Drivers of America which oversees the contest, changed its rules to match the policies followed by the LPGA. The new rules found Lawless ineligible for the tournament.

She wrote a letter to the LPGA qualifying tournament, but was turned down. She filed a lawsuit against the LPGA, Long Drivers of America, and a few tournament sponsors. The lawsuit, which was filed in San Francisco, claims damages as well as a permanent injunction preventing the LPGA from holding tournaments in California, while it continues to discriminate against transgender players.

This week, players of the LPGA Tour tried try to undo some of the damage from the lawsuit by voting to modify the Constitution, removing the clause that requires players to be female at birth. The LPGA tour will soon implement the revised policy.

This is a more unusual case, but it is not entirely unheard of for California civil rights lawyers. At least one other female transgender golfer, Denmark’s Mianne Bagger has toured Europe and Australia. However, the LPGA has retained the same policies even as more and more transgender athletes have made inroads into the sporting arena. Even the International Olympic Committee has begun to allow transgender people to compete, provided they have had gender reassignment surgery and have undergone at least two years of postoperative hormone replacement.

Johnson & Johnson Unit Continues to Battle Quality-Control Issues

Tuesday, November 30th, 2010 | Lawyer Marketing | No Comments

Johnson & Johnson’s struggle to regain its reputation after a string of embarrassing recalls suffered another hit this week, after an investigation by the Food and Drug Administration showed that the company needed to do much more to improve quality standards at its facilities.

The unit in question, McNeil Consumer Healthcare, was behind the recall of millions of bottles of children’s over-the-counter medications, include blockbuster drugs Tylenol and Motrin. Those drugs were recalled for a range of safety issues. Some of the bottles came with musty and moldy odors from the chemicals in the packaging, which leached into the product. Other recalls had to do with excessive active ingredients in the formulation.

Earlier this month, Food and Drug Administration officials filed an inspection report, outlining their opinion of a McNeil Consumer Healthcare plant in Puerto Rico that has been at the center of the quality control furor. The agency’s special report indicates that problems at the plant remained, and not all of the problems have been corrected.  The plant has been battling a variety of problems, including failure of quality control standards, failure to identify product defects during testing, failure to properly investigate problems, failure to detect incorrect expiration dates on the labels of drugs, lab control failure and improper training of staff.

Those problems had been outlined in a warning letter earlier this year that the Food and Drug Administration had sent to McNeil Consumer Healthcare. The new inspections show that many of those problems have not been corrected, and the agency was concerned about it.

Earlier this year, surveys of pediatricians and parents found that both groups seem to have lost their faith in Johnson & Johnson. This is even as the company faces California pharmaceutical liability lawyers through its DePuy orthopedic device recall lawsuits. The company is looking at an uphill battle to regain its reputation.

Goldman Sachs Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Dismissed

Monday, November 29th, 2010 | Lawyer Marketing | No Comments

A judge in New York has dismissed a lawsuit brought by a former employee against Goldman Sachs, alleging that the company engaged in rampant discrimination based on gender. According to the so-called “mommy track” lawsuit filed by Charlotte Hanna, Goldman Sachs terminated her services while she was still on her maternity leave.

California employment lawyers have not been given any indication about why the suit was dismissed. It is possible that a settlement was reached between the company and Hanna. It is also possible that the lawsuit was dismissed on legal grounds.

According to Hanna, after her first maternity leave, she was demoted by the bank, and made to feel excluded from all operations. According to Hanna, the company functioned as a “boys’ club,” and she was made to feel unwelcome. She was fired in 2009 after she had put in 11 years of service at the company. The termination of her services came just one week before she planned to return to work from a second leave. According to Hanna’s lawsuit, Goldman Sachs looks at working mothers as second class citizens.

The company continues to deny the discrimination allegations. However, Goldman Sachs still needs to deal with two other prominent lawsuits brought by other former female employees, who are also alleging gender discrimination. The other two plaintiffs in those lawsuits are Christina Chen-Oster, a former vice president of the company, Lisa Parisi, a former managing director in asset management, and Shana Orlich, former trading associate. Those lawsuits will proceed against Goldman Sachs.

The Goldman Sachs lawsuits are proceeding against a backdrop in which fewer and fewer women are taking up jobs on Wall Street. California employment attorneys wonder whether these high-profile gender discrimination lawsuits and horror tales of boys’ clubs and sexism, have managed to discourage women from seeking employment on Wall Street.

Preventing Hospital Infections in Arizona

Monday, October 25th, 2010 | Lawyer Marketing | No Comments

It’s a record that any Arizona medical malpractice attorney would be concerned about.  According to Arizona health director Will Humble, more people die from infections they contract when they are admitted into a hospital in the state than from automobile accidents.  In spite of this, Arizona continues to remain one of the few states where hospitals and healthcare facilities have been able to get away with not making infection data available to the public.

According to the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths, 27 states now have laws that require public reporting of health care-acquired infections.  Residents of these states can visit a website where they can see each hospital’s infection rates for a number of medical procedures.  Besides these states, at least two other states have a confidential reporting system in which hospitals report infection data only to the health authorities.  However in the state of Arizona, people and patients still don’t have access to such transparent information.

Approximately 2,000 Arizonans are killed every year from hospital infections.  These deaths could be prevented if people had access to data that would inform them about the hospitals in the state that have high rates of infections.  This would allow them to avoid these hospitals and make an informed choice.

We now have a special panel in Arizona looking at ways to prevent and minimize hospitalizations in Arizona.  However, this panel does not seem to be looking at mandatory reporting of data as a means of minimizing infection control rates.  According to the panel, we need to focus on controlling infection rates, not so much on reporting of infection data.

Around the country, states are adopting more open and transparent healthcare regulations that allow people access to information about hospital infections before they sign up for a procedure.  It is about time Arizona health authorities decided to have something similar for our state too.

FDA Cracking down on Chelation Therapy-Related Products & Devices

Tuesday, October 19th, 2010 | Lawyer Marketing | No Comments

California pharmaceutical liability attorneys who had been pleased to note the FDA’s new found aggressiveness will also be pleased to see that the agency is now targeting promoters of chelation therapy-related products.  Chelation therapy involves the administration of agents in the body to remove metal compounds.  These treatments have been widely used for many years. However, with the popularity of this therapy has come a boom in the number of so-called practitioners offering these therapies as a cure for everything from Alzheimer’s disease and autism, using products that are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration.  It is these companies that the FDA is cracking down on.

The FDA has sent out warning letters to several companies, informing them that the chelation-related products that they are promoting have not been approved by the agency.  The companies include World Health Products, Cardio Renew, EvenBetterNow and Doctor Rhonda Henry and others.

These therapies and treatments are widely available over the Internet, and have been promoted as a cure for autism and other conditions.  These claims are entirely unsubstantiated, and there is no proof to confirm that there are any benefits from these treatments.  That doesn’t stop the companies from selling their products online.  There’s an autism epidemic in the United States and there are hundreds of thousands of people who suffer from Parkinson’s disease and other conditions.  These persons may be desperate for relief, and could easily fall prey to unethical companies promoting their products as a cure.

The Food and Drug Administration’s warning letters clearly mention that the sale of these unapproved drugs and devices constitute illegal activity.  According to the FDA, using these products could actually cause serious health complications, including kidney failure and cardiac complications.  Persons could even die from these therapies.  According to the FDA, it has a confirmed report of at least one autistic child who underwent chelation therapy and died.  The FDA only approves  chelation therapy practiced by a trained medical professional, using FDA-approved products and devices, and administered only via a prescription.

John Steinbeck Estate Tussle Denotes Importance of Planning

Tuesday, October 5th, 2010 | Lawyer Marketing | No Comments

A New York home that was used by author John Steinbeck during the composition of some of his masterpieces is in the midst of a nasty estate tussle involving his family and relatives of his wife.  While providing all the drama that you would expect from a home used by Steinbeck, the entire episode also brings home to Los Angeles probate litigation lawyers the importance of planning your estate well in advance.

Steinbeck owned a retreat in New York where the author wrote some of his bestsellers, including The Winter of Our Discontent.  The home is a two bedroom bungalow, and it is now the bone of contention between Steinbeck’s son and the sister of his wife.  On one side of the tussle is the author’s son, who insists that the home belongs to Steinbeck’s blood heirs.  On the other side is his wife’s sister, who says that the house was left to her by her sister after her death.

Steinbeck’s wife Elaine, married the author in 1950.  She was his third wife. She died in 2003, and her will left most of her estate to her children from a previous marriage and her sister.  The sister, Jean Boone, insists that the house was left to her as part of a trust, and that she intends to leave it to her heirs.

Steinbeck’s son, Arthur Steinbeck, filed a lawsuit which initially named the publisher which owned the rights to the author’s works, aiming to recover them for the author’s descendents.  The lawsuit claimed there was a conspiracy to cheat the Steinbeck heirs of royalties and copyright control.  The suit was dismissed when the court decided that there was no case because Elaine had agreed to allow the publisher to keep the rights.  Steinbeck and his niece Blake Smyle appealed.  The appeal is due to be heard in October in Manhattan.

It’s a complex family drama that could spin off a Steinbeck yarn of its own.  It doesn’t appear that this appeal will have different results, especially since Steinbeck left his house to his wife, and his wife was under no obligation to take into consideration her husband’s children from a previous marriage.  It is a case that perfectly illustrates the need to plan your estate while you are still living.

Is Los Angeles Ready for More Pets?

Monday, September 27th, 2010 | Lawyer Marketing | No Comments

If a city councilman has his way, residents in Los Angeles will be able to keep more pets in their homes.  It’s not the noise and environmental fallout that Los Angeles dog bite lawyers are concerned about.  It’s the prospect that many of these owners may likely take on more animals than they can handle, increasing the risks of animal attacks and dog bites.

In June, Councilmen Bill Rosendahl and Paul Koretz introduced a motion that would increase the number of pets allowed in a home, from three dogs and/or cats, to five of each.  A series of town hall meetings are being held to consider the effectiveness and viability of such a plan.

The motion comes in response to the growing stress on the city’s animal shelters, many of which are struggling with limited resources and far too many animals to care for.  Most shelters are filled to bursting capacity, and the situation has become even worse since the recession began.  Many pet owners are without jobs, and in a situation like this, many residents have simply abandoned their pets at the nearest animal shelter.  In fact, the number of pets abandoned at these animal shelters has jumped by 20% since the beginning of the recession.  Many animal shelters often have no other choice but to euthanize these animals, because they don’t have the resources or the space to take care of them.

The Department of Animal Services supports this measure because it would help more dogs and cats live with owners who can care for them.  Besides, the city can also benefit from increased canine registration fees, amounting to an estimated $800,000 that it can expect from the owners of dogs that are allowed to live.

However, Los Angeles dog bite attorneys also have concerns about the number of dogs that could end up with owners who are simply not equipped to care for them.  Raising a dog doesn’t just take time, but also money.  Owners who not prepared to invest in giving their pet plenty of exercise, training and all the other things that a dog requires, could be raising a dangerous animal.

The supposed dangers of pit bull breeds can largely be traced to the fact that many of the owners of these dogs are not financially, emotionally or mentally equipped, to care for these animals.  We could possibly be increasing the risks if we allow more such dog owners.

Repeal of Birthright Citizenship Would Increase Undocumented Worker numbers

Monday, September 20th, 2010 | Lawyer Marketing | No Comments

Any move to alter the 14th amendment which grants US citizenship to any child born on US soil, would actually lead to more numbers of unauthorized workers in the country.  A new study says that a repeal of birthright citizenship would actually end up causing more immigration-related problems.

The analysis was conducted by the nonpartisan group Migration Policy Institute, and says that the number of illegal US-born immigrants would increase to 5 million by the year 2050 if birthright citizenship is withdrawn.  That is a conservative estimate based on the repeal of birthright citizenship in the case of both parents being illegal immigrants.  In case of birthright citizenship being repealed for children with even one undocumented parent, the numbers could be much, much higher.  In other words, not only would repeal of birthright citizenship not stem illegal immigration, it would actually increase the numbers of undocumented workers in the country.

There is currently much talk about altering the 14^th amendment to the Constitution, which grants children born on US soil American citizenship.  Much of the talk has been promoted by politicians who see immigration-related issues as a hot ticket to victory in an election year.  Even advocates of such a repeal know that this will do nothing to reduce the numbers of illegal immigrants in the country.  However, they do believe that the prospect of automatic US citizenship for their children encourages foreign women to cross into the country illegally to have their children.

Los Angeles immigration lawyers have debunked that theory.  Studies have proven that there is no mass exodus of pregnant women from Mexico crossing the border illegally every day to have babies.  Unfortunately, paranoid delusions like this have been given credence because of fears resulting from the weak economy.

1 in 12 American Motorists Drove Under the Influence During Previous Year

Friday, August 27th, 2010 | Lawyer Marketing | No Comments

Approximately 8% of American drivers who responded to a survey by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration admitted to driving under the influence on at least one occasion in the previous 12 months.  The survey was conducted in 2008, and the agency has released its findings just in time for its annual Labor Day anti-DWI crackdown.

The survey findings translate into approximately one in every twelve drivers in the US admitting to driving under the influence the previous year.  Twenty percent admit they have driven within two hours of drinking alcohol.  Another 8% of the population admitted to having been a passenger in a car that had a drunk driver at the wheel.  Approximately a quarter of these passengers were men aged between 16 and 24.

Law enforcement officers and drunk driving accident lawyers in Las Vegas should be on increased alert at those findings, although none of the findings in the survey really surprise us.  Our city sees large hordes of partiers over the Labor Day weekend.  Authorities in Las Vegas and the state of Nevada have a lot to do if they want to make progress on the drunk driving problem here.  This continues to be a serious traffic safety menace, and in fact, is the biggest contributor to fatal auto accidents in the United States.  In 2008, the year that the survey was taken, there were more than 10,600 fatal accidents caused by drunk driving crashes.  That makes it approximately 31% of all fatal accidents.  There have been some progress made in bringing down the numbers of DUI-related crashes, but there’s still plenty of work to do, as this report indicates.

As the Labor Day weekend creeps up, Las Vegas auto accident lawyers advise  residents, tourists and holidaymakers alike to avoid driving under the influence, drive at safe speeds and wear seat belts at all times.

Glaxo Smith Kline Settles Hundreds of Paxil Birth Defect Lawsuits for More Than $1 Billion

Monday, July 26th, 2010 | Lawyer Marketing | No Comments

Still reeling from an FDA panel decision last week to recommend either the withdrawal of its anti-diabetes drug Avandia from the market, or restrict sales, GlaxoSmithKline has decided to settle hundreds of lawsuits arising from birth defects caused by its antidepressant, Paxil.  The company agreed to pay more than $1 billion to settle these lawsuits.

The lawsuits arise from birth defects suffered by children whose mothers took Paxil during their pregnancy.  GlaxoSmithKline marketed Paxil for use in the treatment of major depression, social anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder and in other anxiety disorders.  It has been one of the company’s biggest blockbusters, generating sales of millions of dollars a year.

In 2005 however, women who had taken Paxil during their pregnancy, and delivered babies with birth defects, began to come forward with their stories.  Since then, hundreds of women have sued Glaxo.  This week, the company decided to settle more than 800 of these lawsuits for $1 billion.  Each plaintiff in the lawsuit will receive approximately $1.2 million from the settlement.  Several other birth defect lawsuits against Glaxo are still pending, including three that are expected to go to trial later this year.  According to the company, it decided to settle the lawsuit because of the costs involved in long-term litigation.

The billion-dollar payout to settle Paxil birth defect lawsuits coincided with the company announcing that it was now in the red, with a loss of $464 million from its $2.4 billion legal expense charge.  The company had announced that it would set aside the legal expense fund in order to meet Paxil birth defect lawsuit payments, as well as Avandia settlements.  The company is also expected to pay out millions of dollars after an investigation into its Puerto Rico plant found quality-control problems.  All in all, it hasn’t been a great week for Glaxo. As long as the company continues to be reckless about its manufacturing and sales practices, it will continue to come up against California pharmaceutical liability lawyers.