Liberty Law Office’s blog

A lawsuit was filed in Wayne County, Michigan Circuit Court against a pharmacy accused of dispensing the wrong dose of medicine, which the suit says caused the death of a Troy man.

According to the suit, filed last week, 54-year-old John Sheridan was prescribed the drug Temodar as part of his cancer treatment in September 2007. The prescription was written incorrectly, the suit alleges, prescribing Sheridan nearly 10 times the correct dose. A Rite Aid pharmacy in Troy dispensed the prescription to Sheridan, according to the suit.

Sheridan died the next month.

Sheridan’s family entered into a confidential settlement with his oncologist.

Detroit attorney Brian McKeen of McKeen and Associates represents Sheridan’s family. In a statement, he said Rite Aid pharmacists should have recognized the error and contacted Sheridan’s oncologist for a correction.

Liberty Law Office represents individuals who are victims of  personal injury, wrongful death, dangerous products, defective drugs and devices,  medical malpractice, discrimination, harassment, employment violations and civil rights violations.  If you or someone you know needs representation, contact us at info@libertylaw.com.

SAN FRANCISCO - Although San Francisco Superior Court has tried to avoid serious cutbacks by freezing open positions and travel, the $14.3 million deficit it faces for fiscal year 2010-2011 is forcing the court to consider more drastic measures.

Court officials are discussing the possibility of staff reductions, additional court closure days and shuttering 14 civil departments - about half of the court’s civil departments - moves that could cause delays in trials of about 13 months, according to an announcement the court released today.

San Francisco plaintiffs’ attorney Micha Star Liberty, who has several employment and personal injury cases pending in the court, expressed great concern at the idea of the delays.

“It would be devastating to my clients,” said Liberty, managing partner of Liberty Law Office. “I represent human beings who have been wronged, and they deserve their opportunities to seek justice. As the saying goes, justice delayed is justice denied.”

The state is facing a more than $20 billion shortfall between this fiscal year and next, causing the judicial branch to brace for more cuts. The San Francisco court has already used the majority of its reserve, leaving only $500,000 for the upcoming year, its announcement said.

In an attempt to minimize costs, the court has maintained a hiring, expenditure and travel freeze since April, and it closes the third Wednesday of each month, resulting in a 4.62 percent pay cut for its staff. It is currently keeping vacant 49 nonjudicial positions out of 590. Also, the court’s bench this month voted in favor of eliminating funding for the assistant chief executive officer position on Dec. 31 upon the retirement of Sherri D. Camps, according to Monday’s statement. Camps has held the job since January 2008 with a salary of $166,257.

Orange and Contra Costa counties have also chopped similar positions.

“Like other courts in the state, the San Francisco Superior Court has been forced to eliminate the ACEO position due to a budget scenario that is only getting worse,” Presiding Judge James J. McBride said in a statement.

San Francisco is still planning to fill its chief executive officer position after longtime CEO Gordon Park-Li retires in February, McBride said. The bench voted in a Dec. 1 meeting to appoint Claire Williams, director of the Unified Family Court, to serve as an interim CEO while the court searches for a permanent replacement.

Attorneys who deal with other aspects of civil litigation are concerned their trials will fall behind if the court decides to cut civil departments.

Eric J. Sinrod, a partner in the San Francisco office of Duane Morris who handles high-tech, real estate and patent disputes for both plaintiffs and defense clients, said delays usually hurt plaintiffs the most, but could also cost defendants money if they have experts and witnesses waiting around for trials to begin.

“If there really are delays in Superior Court, what do the parties do?” he said. “They could start pursuing more alternative dispute resolution. You don’t necessarily have to be dictated by the timing of the courts.”

By Dhyana Levey

Daily Journal Staff Writer

A deputy chief with the Camden, New Jersey Police Department has filed a lawsuit against the city, county, and state, alleging he was verbally abused and subjected to a hostile work environment because he is a white male.

Michael Tompkins, 50, a 23-year veteran, is on leave for a disability he says was created by the department’s top leaders, who repeatedly demeaned him, retaliated against him, and undermined his authority.

As a result of the “defendants’ discrimination and hostile work environment, plaintiff has been damaged,” said the lawsuit, filed late Wednesday afternoon.

Four current and former police officials are named as well, accused of discriminating against white, middle-aged men whom officials wanted to purge from the payroll, according to the lawsuit, which seeks monetary compensation.

City officials either declined to comment or did not return calls for comment.

It is the latest of several lawsuits pending against the police department that include similar allegations of discrimination and a hostile work environment.

The 500-member department, which polices a city ranked with the highest crime rate in the nation, has seen five leadership changes in five years.

According to Tompkins’ lawsuit, his troubles began in 2006, when the city hired Arturo Venegas, a retired police chief from Sacramento, Calif., as a civilian executive to oversee the Camden Police Department.

“Almost immediately upon assuming his position . . . Venegas began to discriminate against [Tompkins], based upon plaintiff’s status as a middle-aged white Caucasian male,” the lawsuit alleges, adding the discrimination continued under Chief Scott Thompson after Venegas left.

Venegas resigned from the $170,000-a-year job after 17 months.

According to the lawsuit, when Tompkins voiced concern about other white males being passed over for promotion for positions filled with minorities, the leadership began retaliating against him with disciplinary actions, one time suspending him for six months.

Prior to 2006, the lawsuit said, Tompkins had a clean record with the department.

“Venegas continued to engage in hostile, threatening, and abusive conduct,” the lawsuit said. “Routinely speaking to him in a condescending and derogatory manner, repeatedly threatening to fire the plaintiff, having expressed such threats in plaintiff’s presence on at least four occasions.”

On another occasion, Tompkins was told by another official he was “getting old” and a new statute would allow the city to fire those who were not doing their jobs, the lawsuit said. Tompkins’ office was given to another commander while Tompkins was reassigned to a smaller office not properly equipped and infested with ants, the lawsuit said.

Liberty Law Office represents individuals who are victims of  discrimination, harassment, employment violations, personal injury, wrongful death, dangerous products, defective drugs and devices,  medical malpractice and civil rights violations.  If you or someone you know needs representation, contact us at info@libertylaw.com.

The city of Columbia, MO has agreed to pay $300,000 to a man who was critically injured in July 2008 after being shocked with a Taser by Columbia police.

As part of a settlement agreement finalized last month, the city will pay $233,544.63 to Phillip Lee McDuffy and $66,455.37 to the Family Support Payment Center to cover McDuffy’s overdue child support payments, according to Sarah Perry, the city’s risk manager. She said the city’s insurance fund will cover the settlement.

“We felt that the city was at risk if it went to trial, so we figured this was in our best interest,” Finance Director Lori Fleming said. Although there was no lawsuit in this case, the city believed future legal proceedings would have cost the city more in the long run, she said.

According to previous Missourian articles, McDuffy, 46, was critically injured on July 25, 2008, after police shocked him with a Taser and he fell about 15 feet off a pedestrian walkway over Interstate 70 at Providence Road. He broke his jaw and both arms and suffered an orbital fracture in the fall.

Police had been negotiating with McDuffy for about 90 minutes before shocking him with a Taser. Traffic was backed up in all directions as he threatened to jump off the overpass.

A Police Department investigation found the use of a Taser against McDuffy was appropriate. No officers were found at fault in the incident, and no disciplinary action was taken. The department could not be reached for comment on the settlement.

The agreement comes almost a year after McDuffy submitted his original settlement offer - for $500,000 - to the city. In that time the Police Department has acknowledged two instances of improper Taser use - but not the incident involving McDuffy - and agreed to adopt new guidelines for the device.

In a letter submitted in December 2008 to the city, McDuffy’s attorney, Todd Johnson of Baty, Holm & Numrich, P.C., in Kansas City, argued that Columbia police should not have shocked McDuffy with a Taser because its policy says not to use the device on individuals who are standing near a ledge.

In a report following the investigation, the Police Department said McDuffy was only standing at a height of 5 feet when he was first shocked with a Taser, but he then moved toward the middle of the bridge, which was 15 feet above the ground. Four Taser shots were fired at him.

The report did acknowledge several mistakes made in command and communications at the scene and stated the department must address the weaknesses the incident exposed.

In April, as one of his first orders in the position, Police Chief Ken Burton chose to adopt a set of nationally recognized guidelines for Taser use.

After the incident, McDuffy underwent three surgeries and “has yet to regain normal range of motion in his arms, and his dominant arm is essentially locked at the elbow area,” Johnson wrote in his letter to the city. The letter also stated Johnson would receive 40 percent of the settlement. Neither he nor McDuffy could be reached for comment.

Fleming, the city’s finance director, said the cost of McDuffy’s medical treatment had been considered when deciding on a final settlement amount. The settlement was coordinated by the city’s claims administrator, Corporate Claims Management. The private company conducted an independent investigation and made the recommendation for the settlement, Perry said.

Opponents of the Police Department’s use of Tasers have argued that the device could become a financial liability to the city. In October, a group of community organizers calling itself the “TASER-Free Columbia Campaign” announced plans to introduce a ballot initiative that would ban all use of Tasers inside city limits.

Liberty Law Office represents individuals who are victims of  personal injury, discrimination, harassment, employment violations, wrongful death, dangerous products, defective drugs and devices,  medical malpractice, and civil rights violations.  If you or someone you know needs representation, contact us at info@libertylaw.com.

A  man whose Sikh faith requires him to wear a beard and turban is suing an airport shuttle company, claiming he was denied a job because of his religion.

In the 11-page lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for Southern Indiana, Inderjit Singh claims Air Serv Corp., which provides shuttle bus services at airports across the country, rejected his application to be a driver because he wouldn’t work without his turban and beard.

“I just want to work and earn a living, but Air Serv refused to give me a chance even after they understood that a turban and a beard are an integral part of my faith,” Singh said in a statement from attorneys at California-based Public Justice.

The 25 million Sikhs in the world and 500,000 in the U.S. follow a peaceful religion, “but there have been threats and acts against them, confusing them with terrorists, since the events of September 11,” said his local attorney, Kimberly D. Jeselskis.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigated Singh’s complaint and found that he “was denied employment because (the company) was unwilling to accommodate his need to wear a turban and beard.” The EEOC finding is included in court filings.

Air Serv’s attorney and personnel supervisor in Atlanta did not return calls for comment Wednesday.

According to the suit, company managers in Indianapolis denied Singh a driver’s job because he would not comply with the company’s grooming policy. That policy generally prohibits beards and headwear except hats that are part of a uniform.

Singh applied for the shuttle-driving job in late October 2007. He completed the written application at the Air Serv offices on the Westside of Indianapolis. He also passed the required drug test and a security check by Air Serv before an Indianapolis company official said he was not hired.

Singh, 51, claims in the suit that his religion requires Sikh followers to strictly observe several practices with regard to their appearance. He may not cut his hair, including facial hair. He claims he has never cut his hair and has kept it covered since he was a child.

Singh received a college education in India before moving to the U.S. and living many years in the Washington area, then moving to the Indianapolis area about three years ago, according to his attorneys. He is a U.S. citizen.

Jeselskis said Singh worked without a problem in similar jobs at Washington Dulles International Airport.

Indianapolis International Airport officials said the airport management does not get involved in hiring decisions by independent contractors.

The suit, which alleges violations of the Civil Rights Act that prohibits discrimination based on race, religion and other factors, asks for back pay for the two years since his application, plus punitive damages.

Liberty Law Office represents individuals who are victims of  discrimination, harassment, employment violations, wrongful death, personal injury, dangerous products, defective drugs and devices,  medical malpractice, and civil rights violations.  If you or someone you know needs representation, contact us at info@libertylaw.com

A dozen white firefighters have prevailed in their reverse discrimination lawsuits against the city of Bridgeport, Connecticut.

Settlement of the Bridgeport lawsuits filed was announced Tuesday, after lawyers representing the white firefighters said this summer that their position was bolstered by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that favored white firefighters in New Haven who had made similar arguments.

The 12 plaintiffs, including a Puerto Rican, filed suit in federal court in April, eight months after several of them were denied promotions to lieutenant when the city rescored a lieutenant promotional exam. The 2006 test was rescored and reranked after James Outtz, a nationally known test designer, found the results had been weighted unfavorably against minority candidates.

The city decided to change the original grading from 50 percent written, 45 percent oral and 5 percent seniority to 75 percent oral and 25 percent written, which allowed more minorities to pass. In doing so, the action prevented most of the 12 plaintiffs from being promoted to the higher grade and a larger salary.

"We got everything we wanted," said Richard L. Albrecht, a lawyer from the firm of Cohen and Wolf, who, with Courtney A. George, led the firm's representation of the white firefighters.

Lt. Shane Porter, president of the Firebird Society, an organization of black and Hispanic firefighters, said the settlement could have "a ripple effect" that could have an impact on the department's racial makeup all the way down to entry-level hiring and possibly influence fire and police department personnel policies in other communities.

"It's a disappointing decision that will have a long-term affect on how the fire service will look in the future," he said. "We need to be more diversified, and this kind of puts a damper on that. The fire, police departments should represent -- look like -- the communities they serve."

Porter asserted the settlement further undermines Title 7, the federal anti-discrimination law that prohibits disparate impact.

"Bridgeport set out to honor the law -- that was the right thing to do," he said. "Now, to reverse it back, we're like breaking the law all over again."

Plaintiffs in the suits were: Timothy Bottone of Newtown, Matthew Deysenroth of Redding, Michael Donovan of Hamden, Steven Earl and Francis McNellis Jr., both of Monroe, Joseph LaChioma of Derby, Robert Novak of Shelton, David Purcell of Milford, Mike Raffalo of Wethersfield, Phil Reeves of Wilton and Timothy Richmond of Oxford. Also a plaintiff in the lawsuit was Roberto Diaz of Naugatuck, listed as Caucasian and Puerto Rican.

All of the plaintiffs passed the initial promotional exam on Dec. 18, 2006, which was scored and ranked in September 2007. Based on those results, Novak, Ruffalo, Deysenroth, Bottone and Purcell finished among the top 15 candidates for the 15 vacancies. However, Ruffalo, Bottone and Purcell were removed from lieutenant positions and denied a promotion when the city in July 2008 decided to change the test scoring.

Only Novak and Deysenroth were promoted.

The settlement reinstates the firefighters to the rank they had in 2007 and promotes the firefighters who passed the exam, granting them back pay and seniority retroactive to August 2008 when the promotions took place.

The promotions to the rank of lieutenant could take effect as soon as Wednesday. The city will also have to pay $75,000 toward the plaintiffs' legal fees.

The filing comes months after the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the outcome in a similar case involving white New Haven firefighters seeking promotion to captain and lieutenant after achieving top scores on those exams and no black candidates passed.

In that case, New Haven had thrown out the two 2003 exams after upholding minority firefighters' claims it was discriminatory. The high court, however, found that the white firefighters' claims of reverse discrimination were justified, and ordered the original promotions to go forward.

"These cases are a major game changer in this business," said Albrecht. "They are really beneficial to the municipalities, which had been held hostage by a misinterpretation of the rules concerning discrimination claims. They will now be able to save a ton of money. This fight has been going on for a long time."

Fire Union President Robert Whitbread declined to comment beyond saying, "The union signed this agreement. That's it."

Mayor Bill Finch said, "The city believes that this settlement is in the best interests of the Bridgeport Fire Department, and it has been agreed to by the Bridgeport Firefighters Union, as well as all the parties to the litigation."

Liberty Law Office represents individuals who are victims of employment violations, discrimination, harassment, wrongful death, personal injury, dangerous products, defective drugs and devices,  medical malpractice, and civil rights violations.  If you or someone you know needs representation, contact us at info@libertylaw.com

San Francisco, CA— Micha Star Liberty has been named to the Board of Governors of the New Lawyers Division of the American Association for Justice (AAJ) for the 2009-2010 year.

The Mission of AAJ is to promote a fair and effective justice system—and to support the work of attorneys in their efforts to ensure that any person who is injured by the misconduct or negligence of others can obtain justice in America’s courtrooms, even when taking on the most powerful interests.  AAJ is the world’s largest trial bar, providing trial attorneys with information, professional support and a nationwide network that enables them to most effectively and expertly represent clients.

“I am excited for the opportunity to move AAJ’s mission forward by promoting a fair and just legal system for all Americans,” said Liberty. “I have worked to uphold these principles through my work with people in the community, and I look forward to continuing this as part of AAJ’s leadership.”

Members of the New Lawyers Division have practiced law for fewer than ten years.  New Lawyers Division Board of Governors work with AAJ to encourage continuing education, scholarships, and increased proficiency by developing and advancing affordable programs, materials, services, and products specifically designated to assist and benefit New Lawyers.  The Division provides a networking system with experienced attorneys and helps ensure that the next generation of AAJ members and their leadership are dedicated and reflect the diversity of American society.

Chip giant Intel Corp. has agreed to pay $1.25 billion to smaller rival Advanced Micro Devices in a settlement that ends a five-year complaint over Intel's aggressive business practices.

Intel, which AMD has accused of antitrust behavior and patent infringement, does not admit to wrongdoing but agreed to abide by a set of "business practice provisions."

Under the deal, AMD will withdraw its legal complaint in U.S. District Court in Delaware as well other cases around the world. AMD and Intel will establish a new five-year cross-licensing patent agreement and abandon previous breach of licensing claims. Also, AMD subsidiary GlobalFoundries will be allowed to operate as an independent company, allowing AMD to cut costs by separating itself from its manufacturing arm.

The settlement ends a long-running feud between the two Silicon Valley chipmakers and allows the industry to focus on growth as it tries to claw out of the economic recession. AMD's complaints centered on Intel's alleged practice of offering incentives to PC manufacturing partners to use Intel chips and threatening retaliation against those that didn't buy from Intel.

Intel owns about 80 percent of the market for processors that run PCs and servers while AMD controls much of the rest of the market.

The deal does not, however, end Intel's legal battles with regulators. In May, Intel was slapped with a $1.45 billion antitrust fine by the European Union. Last year, the Korea Fair Trade Commission fined Intel about $25 million for abusing its dominance in the chip market. Intel is appealing both cases.

Intel is facing a new antitrust suit filed by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. The Federal Trade Commission has also been weighing an investigation into Intel's behavior.

It's unclear how much Intel's adherence to the agreed set of business practices will satisfy regulators and help its legal appeals, though it should show that Intel is working in good faith with its chief rival. EU spokesman Jonathan Todd said Thursday that Intel's settlement with AMD does not change its obligation to comply with European antitrust laws.

AMD framed the settlement as a return to peace and an opportunity to move ahead with its larger ambitions.

"It is an important milestone for us, for our customers, our partners, and most important, for consumers and businesses worldwide," said AMD CEO Dirk Meyer during a conference call.

Intel CEO Paul Otellini sounded defiant, saying Intel did nothing wrong, but conceded that the two sides disagreed about Intel's business practices.

AMD's chief managing officer Nigel Dessau spelled out in a blog post some of the business practices that Intel will agree to. He said Intel will refrain from offering inducements to customers to either buy Intel chips or avoid purchases of AMD technology.

"What we are left with is competition based on strategy, design, marketing, sales and execution," he wrote. "A level playing field; a fair fight. That's all we ever wanted."

Analysts said the deal is positive for both companies, allowing them to focus on their individual businesses. In-Stat chief technology strategist Jim McGregor said Intel benefited in particular, ending its legal battle with AMD by paying a relatively small amount, less than the EU fine.

"It's a good day for Intel to put this behind them and move on," McGregor said. "They're in the processor business. They don't want to be dealing with this stuff."

Technology analyst Jack Gold of J. Gold Associates said the settlement gives AMD an infusion of cash as it tries to pay down $3.7 billion in debt.

For Intel, the deal preserves AMD as a competitor, which is good for encouraging innovation and avoiding even more regulatory scrutiny, he said. And it helps Intel prepare to better compete with ARM Holdings, a British chip-design company that provides the chip architecture for most of the world's cell phones and mobile devices.

Liberty Law Office represents direct and indirect purchasers in antitrust matters. If you or someone you know needs representation, contact us at info@libertylaw.com.

Micha Star Liberty was one of over 70 speakers from all over the nation to speak at the at the 48th Annual Convention of Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC), which occurred November 12-15, 2009 at The Fairmont in San Francisco.  Ms. Liberty's presentation entitled "Compelling Discovery Responses" was part of the Panel Topic "Nuts and Bolts and Effectively Litigating Your Case".  

"It is always an honor to participate in CAOC events", said Ms. Liberty.

ATLANTA — A former engineer for defense contractor Lockheed Martin Corp. claims in a federal whistleblower lawsuit that the company knowingly used "defective" stealth coatings when building its F-22 Raptor stealth jets.

Darrol Olsen, a stealth engineer who was fired by Lockheed in 1999, claims Lockheed "falsely certified" the coatings between September 1995 and June 1999, saying they had passed stealth tests and concealing results that showed otherwise. Olsen said in the lawsuit he was told to "stay out of it" when he complained to his superiors.

The whistleblower suit was originally filed in October 2007 in California and was unsealed earlier this year. It was transferred to federal court last week in Atlanta, near where the jets are assembled at Lockheed's facility in Marietta.

The case comes a month after President Barack Obama signed a measure ending production of the $140 million superfighter, which critics maintain is poorly suited for anti-insurgent battles in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Air Force would not immediately comment on the complaint. Lockheed said in a statement it "does not believe there is any merit to the allegations and will vigorously defend this matter in court."

Olsen contends Lockheed applied more than 600 pounds of extra layers of coatings so the jet could pass the stealth tests required by the Air Force. The layers were needed because the coating rubbed off when exposed to jet oil, fuel and water, the complaint said.

It left the supersonic fighters with "extremely thick coatings (that) have proved brittle" and the coatings designed to be paper-thin have now compromised the superfighter's velocity and maneuverability, the lawsuit said. It said the process has essentially painted a "bulls-eye target" on aircraft designed to avoid radar detection.

In the lawsuit, Olsen is asking the judge to order Lockheed to pay the federal government $50 million for each of the 183 F-22's built or under construction as part of the contract. He is also asking the judge to order Lockheed to pay his legal fees.

Several whistleblower lawsuits have been filed over the years targeting other high-profile Air Force projects, but this appears to be the first filed against the controversial Raptor project, said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst at the Teal Group, an aerospace consulting firm.

"There have been claims of huge cost overruns against the Raptor, but it's largely not been targeted by lawsuits," Aboulafia said. "This is not a typical charge - and it might be the only of its kind."

John D. Gresham, a researcher and defense analyst who is writing a book on the F-22, said Lockheed and the Air Force go to great lengths to preserve the coating and that engineers have an "absurdly small" margin for error. He said the aircraft has gone through several generations of development since Olsen left the company a decade ago.

"In our business, that's an eternity," he said. "If I was a judge, I'd throw it out on that basis alone."

Liberty Law Office represents individuals who are victims of dangerous products, defective drugs and devices, employment violations, discrimination, harassment, wrongful death, personal injury, medical malpractice, and civil rights violations.  If you or someone you know needs representation, contact us at info@libertylaw.com