The New York State Legislature is once again considering legislation that would provide a 1 year window for sexual abuse lawsuits that were previously barred by the statute of limitations. This is not a new occurrence in NY. However, a new Democratic majority has provided priest abuse advocates with the hope and confidence the new legislation would become law in NY.
As usual, the Catholic Church in NY is lobbying hard to stop the legislation and may still prove successful as they have done in so many other states trying to pass sex abuse window legislation. If the bill becomes law, those who were abused years ago and were not able to bring a lawsuit may have the opportunity given this one year window. Just as in California and Delaware, if you’ve been abused by a Catholic priest or nun, it’s important to contact a sex abuse lawyer sooner rather than later. The one year window, if passed into law, will come and pass quickly and with it your opportunity for justice.

In what experts are calling perhaps the largest academic fraud ever perpetrated, Dr. Scott S. Reuben, an anesthesiologist who practiced at Bay State Medical Center has admitted that the clinical trials he purported to have performed never happened. The fraud has widespread implications both academically and practically since 21 journal articles were written based upon the phantom clinical findings. Additionally and perhaps more importantly, doctors relied on his findings to make decisions about prescriptions.
According to an article in the Boston Globe, many of Reuben’s studies were largely underwritten by Pfizer whose painkiller Celebrex was included in those studies.
“When researchers are beholden to companies for much of their income, there is an incredible tendency to get results that are favorable to the company,” said Dr. Jerome Kassirer, a former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine and the author of a book about conflicts of interest.
Unfortunately, this is a huge blow for consumer safety as well as clinical research. Reuben was not an insignificant player in the research field and his bogus findings will set the industry back considerably. “He was one of the most prolific investigators in the area of postoperative pain management,” Dr. Shafer said. His fraud “sets back our knowledge in the field tremendously.” Shafer is the editor in chief of of Anesthesia & Analgesia, which published many of Reuben’s findings.
At this point, no one is certain the motive behind Reuben’s fraud. What we do know is that he should be held accountable. He put patients at risk and gave doctors information that was not based on anything but deception, putting lives potentially at risk.

FDA officials first discovered the problem with Teva Pharmaceutical’s fentanyl transdermal patch in January. The patch contained a metal element on portion of the patch that was not designed for contact with the skin. However, when the patch wearer underwent an MRI, the result was serious skin burns at the area of the fentanyl patch. It seems that such patches carried no warnings about the metal and the potential burn dangers such patches may cause when associated with MRIs. While the fentanyl patch was the one that caught the attention of the FDA, it is not the only such patch without a proper warning label. Many prescription and generic patches contain the same type of metal that conducts electricity in an MRI, thus causing the patch to heat and potentially burn the skin.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Holy See (more commonly known as the Vatican) can be held liable in civil lawsuits for priest abuse. The ruling held that a priest is essentially an employee of the Vatican under the Respondeat Superior theory, which is a Latin phrase meaning “Let the master answer. Essentially, it holds that an employer is responsible for the actions of an employee if those actions were within the scope of employment.
This particular case involves a deceased Catholic priest, Andrew Ronan, who was transferred from Ireland after molesting boys there. He wound up in Chicago where he continued to molest.
This marks the first time in the history of the Catholic priest sexual abuse crisis that the Vatican has been successfully held liable for the actions of a Catholic priest.
The hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church certainly makes the legal case especially since the Vatican has, from time to time issued secret directivesconcerning the handling of priest pedophiles. While we’ve known for years that the secrecy and coverup has its origins in the Vatican, we’ve not been able to obtain the Vatican documents or question Catholic Church leaders in the Vatican about such cases of sex abuse.

The US Supreme Court has just ruled in favor of a woman who was severely injured by a defective drug. The case had been closely watched by big pharma as well as consumer justice attorneys for quite some time. The case had far reaching implications because Wyeth Pharmaceuticals had argued that those hurt by dangerous drugs should not be allowed to sue drug manufactuers if the FDA had already approved the drug in question. The legal issue concerned pre-emption and was rejected in a 6-3 Supreme Court vote. Justice John Paul Stevens, in writing the majority opinion, stated the lawsuit before the Justices, “The question we must decide is whether the FDA’s approvals provide Wyeth with a complete defense to Levine’s tort claims. We conclude that they do not. . . In short, Wyeth has not persuaded us that failure-to-warn claims like Levine’s obstruct the federal regulation of drug labeling. Congress has repeatedly declined to preempt state law, and the FDA’s recently adopted position that state tort suits interfere with its statutory mandate is entitled to no weight. Although we recognize that some state law claims might well frustrate the achievement of congressional objectives, this is not such a case.”
This is a significant victory for all those concerned with consumer safety, especially in the wake of the FDA’s recent history of errors concerning drugs and medical devices. It is also an important victory for state’s rights and their role in promoting and safeguarding consumer safety.

In discussing the company’s financial future, executives of Zimmer Holdings, Inc. have determined that the recent Zimmer Durom Cup lawsuits as well as the temporary suspension of hip cup sales in July of last year, had a profound effect on their sales numbers as well as their future sales forecast.
Referring to the Zimmer Durom Cup lawsuits as a “distraction”, company officials have neglected to mention that leading hip replacement surgeons complained directly to the company that their medical device was defective. The financial release which was posted on Market Watch, did not refer directly to lawsuits. Rather, it euphemistically referred to them as “claims from a number of Durom Cup patients seeking reimbursement for costs and payments for alleged pain and suffering and we expect to receive additional similar claims.” In fact, the company has put aside $69 million to cover Zimmer Durom Cup lawsuits.
As a consumer justice attorney, representing victims who’ve suffered a great deal due to these defective Zimmer Durom Cups, I can tell you their pain and suffering is real. Their lives have been limited and severely altered by problems with these hip devices. Many if not all Durom Cup patients have been forced to endure the agony of revision surgery to correct the problem. In fact, one of our clients is still waiting for a new hip. She had had a Zimmer Durom Cup but if failed and went in for revision surgery. Unfortunately, she developed an infection and still has no hip! She’s getting around her house with spacers in her hip joint. This is a single mother who just bought a house last year. When her disability runs out, she’ll lose her job in the warehouse where she was working. This isn’t a distraction, it’s a tragedy. Perhaps, Zimmer should focus on the human side of these “distractions” instead of their own bottom line and financial forecast.