エピソード
-
エピソードを見逃しましたか？
-
In May 2021 a Federal Court jury awarded three plaintiffs 7.1 million in compensation for their hearing loss related to the defective earplugs after a five week trial. The award was composed of $830,500 in compensatory damages and $2.1 million in punitive damages for each plaintiff.
The basis of the claims were focused on the fact that 3M knew or should have known that the earplugs they distributed to military members between 2007 and 2013 were defective and provided inadequate hearing protection. This is the first of several 'bellwether' trials in the pending 3,349 pending lawsuit that have been filed against 3M.
Data shows that many U.S. veterans have hearing loss related to defective earplugs. Reuters reports that more than one million veterans have filed for disability related to complications from various types of hearing loss and deafness.
If you think you may qualify for a case, now is the time to talk to an attorney who can evaluate your legal rights and options. Talk to our legal team today for a free consultation.
Read the Transcript here: https://www.rosenfeldinjurylawyers.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/JR-3M-Full.pdf
Call our toll-free number ☎ (888) 424-5757. We can help. Free Consultation.
▶ Rosenfeld Injury Lawyers LLC
▶ https://g.page/rosenfeldinjurylawyerschicago?gm
▶ 225 W. Wacker Drive
▶ 1660
▶ Chicago, IL 60606
▶ RosenfeldInjuryLawyers.com
▶ Free Consultation • Call 24/7
▶ (847) 835-8895
▶ (888) 424-5757
-
In this episode Jonathan Rosenfeld chats with Martin D. Gould an Attorney at Romanucci & Blandin, LLC. Here, they discuss:
Zantac Lawsuit Update 2021
Read the Transcript
Download the PDF
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Hello. I am Jonathan Rosenfeld, and today I am joined by my colleague Marty Gould, and we are going to talk about the Zantac litigation. Marty, first off, thank you for joining me today. I appreciate it.
Marty Gould:
Thanks for having me on, Jon.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Marty, to begin with I want to talk about Zantac lawsuits in 2021. I'd like you to bring us up to date in terms of what the status of the Zantac litigation is. Lots of cases have been filed, lots of news headlines, but can you bring us up to date in terms of where the litigation stands as of today in 2021?
Marty Gould:
Sure. Thanks for having me on, Jon. In terms of where we're at with the Zantac cases, hundreds and hundreds of cases have been filed across the country, thousands of cases. They've been consolidated into a multi-district litigation in Florida, in the Southern District of Florida. This is done for efficiency purposes so that the discovery in the case can be performed at the same time and you don't have different rulings in hundreds of different courts. Each case is still an individual case because everybody's injuries and exposures are different, but this stage of the case is all being done at the same time. We can expect some of the first trials, what's called bellwether trials, to go at the end of 2022, that's that's the hope. And that will give us a good assessment of what's going to happen with this litigation.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
So one of the things that is related to every single type of civil action is the statute of limitations, the time that you have to file a lawsuit. How does the statute of limitations come into play with respect to Zantac lawsuits? In other words, if someone's watching this and they think they may have a potential case, and they're asking you, how long do I have to file a case? How would you respond to that?
Marty Gould:
Well the first question I would ask is, in what State did you take Zantac? So one of the most important things is for a client, or potential client, to immediately call a lawyer and have them assess their case, because the statute of limitations that would apply would be the one, typically, where the exposure happened, so where the client was buying the Zantac, taking it. And that State's statute of limitations for personal injury cases, for product liability cases, would apply. So that's why it's very important for somebody who may have a case to immediately call a lawyer experienced in this type of case, and find out when your statute of limitations is.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
In terms of civil cases, everything ultimately comes down to one thing, it's really about getting compensation, getting financial compensation for your particular injury, for your particular situation. In terms of the Zantac cases, a lot of times people are asking, is there a set payout for a Zantac lawsuit? What is the average settlement for a Zantac case? We know that these cases are still really much in their infancy as far as the litigation goes, but can you give us an idea as to the elements of damages in these cases, and how they may be valued?
Marty Gould:
So, like you mentioned, we're still in ?he earlier stages of the case, there's no cases that have settled yet. Every case is going to be different, the value of the case is going to be contingent on the individual diagnosis, the treatment, and the experience of that person. These are people who have cancer, many of them are undergoing chemotherapy, invasive surgeries. Some people have lost loved ones, these are catastrophic injuries. So in a personal injury case like this, you can pursue compensation for physical and emotional, pain and suffering, lost wages, lost earning capacity. If you lost a loved one, loss of society, loss of support, emotional distress. These are all things that you can legally seek compensation for, and everybody's case is going to be a little bit different based off their experiences, but these are very serious cases, and they're being treated as very serious cases.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
So potentially, people could be looking at substantial damages just in terms of their past and future medical care alone, in some of these situations, correct?
Marty Gould:
Exactly. And you can get the past medical expenses, which can be significant in a cancer case, future medical care, monitoring of somebody's cancer in those cases where someone, hopefully, has survived and is in remission. And at the end of the day, we're alleging that lives were lost, families were ruined, these are very serious and catastrophic injuries, and that's the way these cases should be treated.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Now, one of the things that people also look at, and when I say people look at, a lot of times you can see what is trending on the internet, but one of things that comes up periodically is, has anyone won a Zantac lawsuit as of today, as of August 2021? I think you mentioned earlier that these cases are really early on in terms of their litigation, but if someone's looking and saying, hey, has anyone won a Zantac lawsuit, the short answer is, what?
Marty Gould:
The short answer, Jon, is no. Nobody has tried these cases yet. The discovery is still ongoing, there's a lot being done right now. The goal is to have trials go in 2022. The expectation is probably toward the end of the year, there's much that has to be done before that. And those will be the bellwether cases, those first cases going to trial, which will be critical and important in terms of assessing what's going to happen with this litigation.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
In terms of who can file a Zantac lawsuit, who would qualify to file a lawsuit against the manufacturer of Zantac under the guidelines that we're using as of today? Is it the individual? Is it the family? Is it both? Can you give us an idea as to who may qualify to bring a case?
Marty Gould:
Sure. So in terms of who may bring the case, typically it would be the person who took the Zantac and has cancer. If it's a situation where, tragically, that person has already died, the family can bring the case on behalf of that loved one, so they would bring the case as the administrators of the estate of the family member who is now deceased. The criteria that we're looking at is, did the individual take Zantac on a daily or regular basis for at least six months, and after taking Zantac, were you diagnosed with any of the following cancers? And these are cancers that are most closely associated with links to NDMA and the gastrointestinal system which the drug was impacting. Those cancers are stomach and gastric cancer, intestinal cancer, bladder cancer, esophageal cancer, liver cancer, pancreatic cancer, and breast cancer. But every case is different, so that's why it's very important to speak to a lawyer who can tell you whether or not you meet that criteria.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
If someone's watching this video and they're saying to themselves, "You know what? I may have one of those conditions. I did take Zantac for a long period of time, but I don't have that product with me anymore. I either stopped taking it, I threw out." How does someone prove that they took Zantac at some point in their lives?
Marty Gould:
Step one is we always ask the potential client, do you have the Zantac box at your house? If you do, you want to preserve it, that's something that we're going to want to hold on to. That aside, there's many different ways where we can prove that you took Zantac. If there's any receipts from purchases, from like a Walgreens or CVS or any other drug store, medical records, sometimes there's going to be references to the fact that you were taking Zantac, or you might've been prescribed Zantac from your doctor, and that certainly will be in the record. Local pharmacy records, oftentimes people had rewards programs, rewards cards, where their name and their entire history of the drugs that they purchased at the store are documented.
Marty Gould:
And even in cases where you don't have any of that, this is something that could have been purchased over the counter, the testimony of the witness or family members, that's also evidence. We get an affidavit from you, or if you take a deposition and you say that you are purchasing Zantac, that's evidence in the case, or if you have a family member who can attest to that.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
So bottom line is, don't let the lack of immediate physical evidence dissuade you from bringing a potential case and filing a claim, correct?
Marty Gould:
Correct. So, in the Roundup cases, many people, they would sign off on affidavit attesting and the fact that they had purchased Roundup, or they were exposed to Roundup, in their backyard, gardening and what have you. So the testimony alone is also evidence in the case, in addition to everything else we talked about.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Marty, one of the, I guess, types of litigation that this falls under, that Zantac falls under, is this considered to be a mass tort? And the word mass tort seems to get thrown around a lot. Can you explain to us what a mass tort is, and what a class action is? Are they pretty much the same? Are they different? Give us a little bit of a breakdown of that, and how you would categorize the Zantac litigation.
Marty Gould:
So, we're taking these cases on as mass torts, and that's because we treat every client and every case as a separate case. Everybody had different exposures, different injuries resulting, and everybody's experiences are different. Some people tragically lost loved ones, some people beat the cancer. So these are all factors that are taken into a case, but in terms of how the case is managed, these are being managed as a multi-district litigation, where you have one judge who's presiding over essentially all the cases in the pre-trial stages. So you have rulings regarding discovery matters that are being handled in a consistent manner, and then cases are being tried on an individual basis, where the individual merits of each case is being tried. That's important too, because in some cases, people really did have catastrophic losses and that's important for the jury and the defendants to understand that.
Marty Gould:
In terms of a class action, it's similar in the respect that you have one court overseeing the discovery process, but you have a few plaintiffs that are filing a case representing the entire class. So each individual isn't necessarily having their case looked at, in an individual capacity. And in a class action case, generally, everybody gets the same amount of recovery. They have the same case, same amount of recovery, rather than having individual recoveries based off of individual experiences.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
So in the case of Zantac, and Roundup, where there's what's called an MDL that you mentioned, the damages and the cases are evaluated on an individual basis, as opposed to a holistic base where the damages are looked at on a specific basis, case by case basis, correct?
Marty Gould:
Exactly.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Marty, this was great information. I appreciate your time and your expertise with these updates, and I look forward to talking with you again as these cases continue to churn through the litigation process. Thank you.
Marty Gould:
Thanks for having me on.
-
In this episode Jonathan Rosenfeld chats with Bryce Hensley an Attorney at Romanucci & Blandin, LLC Here, they discuss:
Roundup Lawsuit Update 2021
Read the Transcript
Download the PDF
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Hello everybody. I am Jonathan Rosenfeld. And today I am joined by attorney Bryce Hensley, and we are going to talk about the Roundup litigation, the 2021 updates with respect to the Roundup Weed Killer litigation. Bryce, thanks for joining me today.
Bryce Hensley:
Thanks for having me, John.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Now, Bryce, one of the largest emerging trends in mass torts in the past several years involves Roundup Weed Killer, and specifically the correlation between non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and use of Roundup. Bryce, many people have contacted our office in relation to these cases and one of the ongoing things they ask is really what is the status of these cases? People have been watching the news, they see a lot of headlines, but can you sort of bring this up to date with the status of the Roundup cases in 2021.
Bryce Hensley:
Right now the status of the Roundup litigation is there have been cases pending for over five years in various courts across the country, those include California, St. Louis, here in Chicago and various other states. There've been three trials that have proceeded in California that resulted in such decisive victories for Roundup users against the manufacturers that those companies, which is Monsanto and Bayer, the company that purchased Monsanto, has set aside billions of dollars for Roundup users to settle their claims, which typically involve non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or various subsets of that type of cancer.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
So at this point, one of the followups that we're seeing with a lot of these potential clients is they're reading these news headlines that Bayer has set aside billions of dollars to resolve these cases. And obviously if you have a potential case, one of the followup questions that a lot of people are asking is really what is the settlement amounts per person when it comes to the Roundup lawsuit. Everything is ultimately about dollars and cents here and if someone's looking at this and saying, hey, Bayer, put aside all this money, how does that translate into what I'm going to get?
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
What is my piece of the pie? How would you respond to that? And what type of monetary recovery are we looking at here possibly?
Bryce Hensley:
Well, if you have been diagnosed with a form of cancer and you've used Roundup in the past, my first recommendation would be to reach out to an attorney, an attorney experienced in handling these types of cases. Our office has handled over dozens of cases, and we've also settled a case involving Roundup exposure. Each case is different though. And so the settlement values are really going to depend on a number of things, which include your diagnosis, the amount of Roundup you used, the extent of the treatment you received, the type of the treatment you received, your age and a number of other factors that may increase or decrease the value of your potential settlement.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Bryce, one of the things that I want to also ask you as sort of a follow up here is you mentioned that these cases have been going on now for years. In terms of the time to file a lawsuit and the time to file a Roundup lawsuit, ultimately everything is governed by a statute of limitations, a time requirement that you have to file a lawsuit. How are you looking at the statute of limitations with respect to potential Roundup cases?
Bryce Hensley:
John, that's a great question. There is still time to bring Roundup lawsuits, but there's two important things that have to be taken into consideration as to why people should move forward and call an attorney immediately. The first you already referenced, which is the statute of limitations. Every state in the United States has what's called a statute of limitations. That's a time period that governs the amount of time where you can actually file a lawsuit and move forward. Now that varies from state to state, and it's important to reach out to an attorney who has knowledge of various state statute of limitations.
Bryce Hensley:
What also may come into play there is when you first found out about the potential connection between Roundup and your cancer diagnosis. And a second important reason why it's important to reach out to an attorney immediately is because while these companies have set aside billions of dollars, there are also tens of thousands of individuals who have filed claims or filed lawsuits or are currently pending around the country. So it's important to reach out immediately before that money gets dispersed to other people.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Who qualifies to bring around a case? A lot of times people may be watching these videos and they may be saying to themselves, hey, I may not have a diagnosis of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or a different type of cancer, but my family member is. Who qualifies under the guise, the parameters of the Roundup litigation to file a lawsuit?
Bryce Hensley:
Anybody who had exposure to Roundup could qualify for a potential settlement. These could be landscapers. These could be farmers, or these could be individuals using Roundup around their homes. Now whether or not you qualify also depends on the type of cancer diagnosis that you have. Roundup settlements typically resolve when an individual has exposure to the product and was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or one of its subsets. Now whether or not an individual qualifies is ultimately going to depend on their diagnosis and then the value of that claim is going to depend on a number of things, including the type of diagnosis, the age that an individual was diagnosed.
Bryce Hensley:
It's going to depend on their Roundup, use the type of Roundup use that they had, and it's going to depend on a number of other risk factors that ultimately are used to determine the value of the case.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
So the bottom line is if you think you have a potential Roundup case, now is the time to really take action and really contact an attorney. If you've been sitting on the sidelines watching this play out, now is really the time to act. Bryce, I want to ask you, can you give us an idea of the volume of cases that have been filed, the volume of Roundup lawsuits that have been filed?
Bryce Hensley:
Right now, there are tens of thousands of lawsuits involving Roundup of exposure pending around the country. In fact, it's believed that the number may even exceed 100,000 cases. Our office is handling many of these cases all over the country in various states, and we're currently evaluating settlement opportunities in those cases. But because there's so many cases, it's important that you reach out to an attorney immediately. While all these companies have set aside billions of dollars to settle Roundup claims, there are thousands of people out there and that money can disappear pretty fast.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Now, if someone's watching this video and they're saying to themselves, well, I think I have a case. I've got a diagnosis of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. I may have lived in an agricultural area when I was younger. I may have used Roundup. But you know what, I mean, that was three houses ago. I don't have the product anymore. What would you tell those people about, how you would essentially show the evidence that you would use to show that they actually used and were exposed to Roundup if they don't have the product anymore?
Bryce Hensley:
Well, John, that's a great question. There are a lot of people out there who no longer have any proof of their Roundup use. They may have thrown out the Roundup. They may have tossed out the receipts. They may have never gotten the receipts in the first place. But in the Roundup litigation, what many individuals have done is they filled out what are called affidavits or sworn statements attesting their Roundup use, or they may have a family member fill out an affidavit or a sworn statement attesting to their Roundup use.
-
In this episode Jonathan Rosenfeld chats with Jim Hardy an Attorney at Taxman, Pollock, Murray, & Bekkerman, LLC. Here, they discuss:
What Should an Employee do if Hurt on the Job?
Read the Transcript
Download the PDF
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Hi, I am Jonathan Rosenfeld. And today on the Personal Injury podcast, I am joined by Jim Hardy, a work comp attorney in Chicago. And we are going to be talking about workers' compensation settlements, and how to value a work comp case in Illinois. Jim, thanks for joining me today. I appreciate it.
Jim Hardy:
Sure, no problem. Thank you, Jonathan. I glad to be here.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
So Jim, we spoke in an earlier podcast about the benefits that people are entitled to in Illinois, generally under work comp. The money while you're off work, the TTD, the medical benefits while you're injured. And the third prong to work comp cases in Illinois is generally this lump sum payment. When people are talking about, "Hey, I got X amount of dollars for my work comp case," this is what they're talking about. They're talking about that lump sum payment.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
And so today I want to talk with you and try to educate people a little bit about how this lump sum is derived, because it's not a random amount. It's a very methodical calculation. And I want you to help us get some insight into how these cases are valued under Illinois law.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
And I guess the first thing, can you take a step back and walk us through that settlement process. I guess first off, in order to begin with I guess, when is a case, a work comp case in Illinois right to settle?
Jim Hardy:
Okay. Thanks, Jonathan. So you're entitled to a settlement for a work injury, but you should not settle your case until the doctor has released you from medical treatment. And the docs call that MMI or maximum medical improvement. So some people want to try to settle their case as soon as they're released back to work in some capacity, but that's not the best time, or that's not the appropriate time to settle a case. Because even though you're back to work, the doctor may still recommend treatment, therapy, follow-up visit doctor visits.
Jim Hardy:
And once you settle the work comp case, then you close out your medical rights. So the work comp insurance carrier, once it's settled, they don't have to pay for any more medical bills. So that's why it's essential to not pursue settlement and sign off anything until your doctor has said that you are done treating, no more follow up visits, you're good to go and they release you from treatment. So that's the appropriate time and not before that.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
And so if you are injured on the job and your doctor's released you but you're not feeling 100%, it may be in your best interest to wait a little bit and see what happens and see what develops. See if you have any more problems.
Jim Hardy:
Sure. That's correct also. Just because the doctor has released you from treatment, that doesn't mean that you have to settle. It just means that it's an appropriate time to settle not until you're put at MMI by the doctor.
Jim Hardy:
But commonly I won't settle a case until a person feels comfortable, once their released from treatment, that they're confident that they don't need to follow up with the doctor any further. They're doing okay at work under the doctor's orders and they feel pretty good. Then it's safe to enter into a settlement because there wouldn't be any anticipated future medical anymore based on the old date of accident when they got hurt. So that's important.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Okay. And now I want to talk with you about how these settlements are derived. And ultimately these cases, they're about money, frankly. How much the case is valued is really dependent on the extent of your injury and how much money you were making at the time you were injured.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
And those two things, those two factors, can you explain a little bit how those two elements get calculated and how they figure into an ultimately to a lump sum settlement and work comp?
Jim Hardy:
Sure. So the benefits in a work comp case under state law are based on what they call the average weekly wage. And the average weekly wage is calculated using the earnings that you made before the date of accident. All right. So you go back and it's just that, it's the average weekly wage or average weekly earnings. You can go back a year per the statute. If you worked prior to the date of accident less than a year, well, then the calculation just is different, but it's still the average weekly earnings prior to the date of accident.
Jim Hardy:
Then once you have that average weekly wage, then all the other benefits of more comp flow from that. So for the off work benefit, for the TTD, temporary total disability, that's the check that you get every week, every two weeks from work comp. That's calculated under state law at a specific figure, two of the average weekly wage, but then you get that two thirds tax-free. That's why that TTD check is supposed to bring you about what you may take home prior to the date of accident.
Jim Hardy:
And then the average weekly wage calculation is also used to calculate what they call the permanency rate. And the permanency rate is what you use to settle a case at the end of the day for that specific person.
Jim Hardy:
So in a work comp case, the average weekly wage is important, and there are different ways to calculate it as well. The insurance company would be more than happy to calculate that average weekly wage for you, because they're going to calculate it to their advantage, which means to keep it as low as possible. Because then everything else, all the benefits that flow from that will be lower. That's why it's important to get an attorney involved to make sure that the average weekly wage is calculated correctly.
Jim Hardy:
So how we do that as we secure a wage statement from the employer, or look at the pay stubs if the injured worker has all of them for that specific period, and do our own calculation, that there are certain ... There's a lot of case law over the years in court about fighting about how that average weekly wage is calculated, and the adjuster isn't going to calculate it in your favor, that's for sure. So very, very important to calculate that average weekly wage correctly.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
So do you calculate the average weekly wage, you figure that out. And then there's a document, there's a schedule in Illinois as well as in other states, basically categorizing each part of the body. And it basically sets forth the amount of money or weeks in terms of compensation that you can recover based on the type of injury that you sustained.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Can you talk a little bit about that scheduled types of injury in Illinois? What that is and how that comes into play with a settlement?
Jim Hardy:
Sure. So the Work Comp Act lays out a series of body parts, and it goes from at the highest rate for the, they call it the person as a whole, which is the core of the body. Usually the spine or head injuries or shoulder comes from the person as a whole.
Jim Hardy:
And then from there, it goes to loss of use of an arm, and then a hand, and then actually the thumb. And then each of the fingers, it goes down to the little finger, pinky finger. And then it also breaks it down into legs, ankles, foot, and toes as well. So it's very specific and there are also different schedules for loss of hearing, for instance, loss of vision and so forth for eye juries.
Jim Hardy:
But so, and what the state law does is, people think that there's a set rate that you get for a work injury. It's only a set rate if you have 100% loss of use of that body part. So if you have a thumb amputated that would be all the way down to the base, then that would be 100% loss of use of the thumb. And you would get a benefit check for the 100% loss. There's no argument, it's medically determined that there's an amputation there. Bone loss all the way down, you lost your thumb.
Jim Hardy:
So anything short of an amputation though is lower than 100% of course, and that's what you get a settlement for. Say you injure your thumb and fracture it. It's not amputated, you fractured it or you have an injury where they have to go in and do surgery on the nerve and the thumb due to a deep laceration. That's loss of use of the thumb less than 100%.
Jim Hardy:
And that's what attorneys and insurance adjusters argue about for a settlement. It's the percentage loss of use of that body part, in this case the thumb. And the attorney is trying to get the percentage up as high as possible, because the higher the loss of use to the body part, the higher the dollar figure of your settlement. But it's not fixed because you got that variable of the percentage that we can argue.
Jim Hardy:
But it's also ... There's another variable there, and that's the average weekly wage that we were talking about. And that's why it's important to get that up as high as possible, because the higher the average weekly wage, the more you get for that whatever percentage loss of use is of that body part. So a person making 10 bucks an hour can have the same exact injury in a settlement for 20% loss of use of the thumb, for instance. That guy making 10 bucks an hour is going to get half the settlement in dollars and cents of a guy making 20 bucks an hour.
Jim Hardy:
So that's why it's important to get that average weekly wage up as high as possible so your settlement is higher. But that in a nutshell is how the settlement process works with a specific body part, loss of use of a certain body part.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Interesting. So I guess for any employee who's injured on the job and they're looking at the schedule on the Illinois Industrial Commission website, and they're like, "Agh, this is easy. I got a iPhone, I could punch these numbers in and figure this out." There's a lot more to it than just punching numbers. These are typically disputed cases too, correct?
Jim Hardy:
Right, that's correct. And you're going to have disputes over the calculation of the average weekly wage. You're going to have disputes over what ... Again, short of a full amputation, which fortunately is rare, you have an argument and disputes over what that percentage should be, and that's where the fight is.
Jim Hardy:
And that's why it's important to get an attorney to be on your side, to fight for you because the insurance company has no obligation to fight on your side, they're trying to save themselves money. So the more money they keep in their pocket, the less money goes into the injured worker's pocket.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Obviously this is great information for anyone who's injured and really anyone who's got a family member who may have a work-related injury. Jim, I want to thank you today for joining me. And if anyone has any questions about work comp settlements, we'll have your contact information in the show notes. But thank you, it's great information.
Jim Hardy:
Right, Jonathan. Thank you again. It was a pleasure to be with you today.
-
In this episode Jonathan Rosenfeld chats with Jim Hardy an Attorney at Taxman, Pollock, Murray, & Bekkerman, LLC. Here, they discuss:
Workers CompensationRead the Transcript
Download the PDF
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Hello everybody, thank you for tuning into the personal injury podcast. I am Jonathan Rosenfeld, and today I am joined by Jim Hardy. Jim is an experienced work comp attorney at Taxman, Pollock, Murray, and Bekkerman in Chicago. And we are going to talk today about the preliminary areas of workers' compensation. Jim, thanks for joining me today. I appreciate it.
Jim Hardy:
Thank you, Jonathan.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
I appreciate you joining me. Could you just give us a little bit of background about your position and your experience with work comp?
Jim Hardy:
Sure. I'm a partner at Taxman, Pollock, Murray, Bekkerman and we're a personal injury workers' comp law firm. I am the head of the department that handles the work comp claims in the office. I'd been doing work comp my entire career and exclusively, that's all I do is work comp cases. I've been involved in the Illinois Work Comp Lawyers Association for about 12 years now. That's the state bar association for work comp lawyers, 700 members strong. And I was a recent president two years ago of the organization after being on the board for about 10, 12 years prior to that. So a lot of experience in work comp and I'm happy to share my information and knowledge.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Awesome. So to begin with, I think one of the preliminary questions that a lot of people have, and this is sort of a massive question, but if you could just sort of give us a little breakdown of what workers' compensation is and sort of how the system came to be, that would be great.
Jim Hardy:
Sure. So the work comp system is something that started up back in the industrial age, back in the 1920s and each state has their own law with regard to work comp. It's not a federal system. So each state has an act and in Illinois, they have the Illinois Work Comp Act that lays out the rights and the benefits that injured workers have in the state of Illinois. And so basically it takes over if you're injured while performing your work duties. It takes over from your regular insurance that you might have, the group health carrier, it takes over from them and pays the medical bills. And that's the primary benefit. They pay all reasonable, necessary and related medical bills. And the second benefit in the Illinois Work Comp Act is payment for lost earnings. So in other words, due to the injury, if you have a doctor's note that takes you off work, then the work comp insurance pays you and they pay you a certain percentage of your old wages. And then you get that tax free. It comes to about what you may take home after taxes prior to the work accident.
Jim Hardy:
And the third benefit and the most important one is that you're entitled to and you have a right to a settlement in work comp, and that's based on the nature and extent of the injury, the permanency of the injury. And those are the three basic benefits, but they're all very important. And it's very common that if you have a work comp case, that you can start with an adjuster and the adjuster will give you benefits, but you don't know if she's giving you or he's giving you the correct amount in the benefits, doing the calculations correctly, paying the bills correctly, paying for all the treatment that's being recommended. So that's why, in addition to securing a settlement, that's why it's important to have an attorney on your side helping you through the process.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
So I guess to begin with, who is covered under workers' compensation? Is everyone covered under workers' compensation under the law?
Jim Hardy:
Almost everybody in the state of Illinois. There are certain exceptions to that and they're rare. In the statute, city of Chicago, policemen and firemen are excluded from the Illinois Work Comp Act because they have their own disability system, duty disability system. Other than that, there are exceptions for independent contractors. If you're, this is quite similar to what happens in the trucking industry where you're an owner-operator, you're an independent contractor and you get paid on a 1099, so you're really your own employee. You have your own company, even though you're working for a trucking company and they're paying you.
Jim Hardy:
So in that situation, the independent contractor wouldn't be covered under the trucking company's work comp insurance coverage, but frequently the independent contractor will have their own policy that they take out for themselves and they'd be covered under that. And then other than that, pretty much everybody is covered except for some exceptions, for family farm workers and so forth. But it's pretty wide ranging, if you're performing work for an employer and you're getting paid for it, even if it's cash, they are supposed to have work comp insurance that covers you under state law. So it's pretty wide ranging, if you're working in Illinois getting paid for your work, then you're likely covered.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
So this covers part-time employees, it would cover someone who's got a summer job or something as well?
Jim Hardy:
Sure. Yeah. Part-time employees you're covered doesn't matter, first day on the job, covered, doesn't matter. That's fine. You don't have to be there a certain length of time. You could even, a situation where you're doing temporary work, you're only going to work for somebody seasonal, for the summer or something like that. You're still covered because you're an employee and you're on the books there as an employee. And they, under state law, that employer has to cover you for the work comp insurance. So that's how it works and it's a fairly good system.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Under the law in Illinois, employers are required to carry workers' comp insurance. Is that correct?
Jim Hardy:
That's correct. If they don't, then the Illinois Department of Insurance can fine that employer and they do enforce that pretty heavily. And there are fines for the number of days that you're going without insurance. If the lapses, the employer can get hit with penalties and fines for that, or if it's an employer that simply does not, refuses just to carry work comp, the state of Illinois can come in and shut that business down until such time that they do purchase and buy a work comp insurance policy. They're pretty strict so it's rare to find a situation where the person is not covered when they're supposed to be.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Okay. So in Illinois, everyone's required to have work comp insurance. And I guess obviously, when we talk about workers' comp, we're typically talking about, for the most part, we're talking about an acute injury, an accident for the most part. And this could be a fall, this could be an auto accident. This could be really anything that an employee is doing in furtherance of their employment, correct?
Jim Hardy:
That's correct.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
That's basically the encompassing definition of work comp coverage in Illinois?
Jim Hardy:
That's correct. And that was the idea behind the law is to help injured workers who are performing their duties and they're injured. And so that they're not just, in the old days before they have work comp, of course they were just left hanging and there was no insurance, of course. Back in the old days, somebody would get hurt, they just keep working or they would, if they had any money to go to a doctor, they try and go to a doctor, but there was no safety net. So then the states came in with these laws and it's precisely that, to help people who are injured at work. And there are certain rules about what's covered. Some things, it's important to get an attorney to check, because some things that you think might not be covered under a work comp or some activities at which you were injured might not be covered, but they are.
Jim Hardy:
For instance, the classic parking lot cases. If you punch out and you're walking to your car in the company parking lot where you've been designated to park at and you slip and fall on ice on the way out there, or trip and fall on some landscaping or something like this, that's covered under work comp, because you're still covered. You're still in the furtherance of the employer and performing work duties because you have to park your car in order to help your employer by going into their facility to work. So the work comp law says that you're covered as long as you're parking in an employee owned and maintained and designated parking lot under work comp. But that's interesting, some people would think, oh, I punched out already, I'm not covering, but that's why it's important to contact an attorney to see if there's any angle there. And sometimes people are covered even when they think they're not.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
One of the other areas I know in work comp that sometimes people may not be aware of is, chronic injuries or overuse injuries. If you're lifting a sledgehammer, breaking concrete for years on end and you develop some tendinitis or you develop some chronic condition, that's something that's covered under work comp as well. Correct?
Jim Hardy:
Yes, that's true. It doesn't have to be a specific event. It can be continual or cumulative injury or what they call repetitive trauma injury. The classic example of that of course, is the carpal tunnel. Or if you're an electrician and you're pulling wire all day through conduit, you're gripping and pulling, that's a classic and they commonly develop carpal tunnel syndrome. That's covered even though there's not one specific event where they injure that wrist. It's repetitive, that's still covered under work comp, as long as the other requirements are met with regard to notice. As soon as the symptom start, you have to give notice to the employer. And actually there's a deadline for that notice to the employer of 45 days. It's a little bit different with a repetitive trauma because it's that 45 days from the day that you stopped doing the repetitive work. In this case, they electrician pulling the wire. But yeah, those repetitive trauma cases can be compensable. They're not excluded. And a lot of it depends on the doctor who's treating the injured worker. They give a causal connection opinion and say, yes, medically, I believe what this person was doing for that length of time could cause this ailment of carpal tunnel or cubital tunnel or whatever repetitive trauma ailment they have. But those are covered. Yes.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Now, one of the areas that I know your firm does quite a bit of work with, you guys handle a lot of construction accident cases, work-related injuries where someone's injured on a busy construction site, anywhere in Illinois or across the Midwest. In those situations, when you have someone, let's just talk a little bit hypothetically about an active construction site. Someone is, you may be a carpenter or something and you may get hit by falling debris, may fall from the roof from a different contractor, or a board may fall from a building. In a situation like that, obviously the employee would be covered under work comp. However, they also may have a separate case sometimes referred to as a third-party case. Obviously you handle the work comp case, there's other attorneys in your office who handle the third-party case. But a lot of times, in my experience I've seen employees sort of completely at a loss for the fact that they may have two separate cases. Can we talk a little bit about work comp in relation to a third-party case.
Jim Hardy:
Sure. So in any work comp case that we bring into the office, we always analyze it to see if there's any potential third-party case, what you were discussing. And that's a negligence case, a civil lawsuit that could be filed against a third party, meaning somebody other than the employer. But a third party would have to be negligently responsible for causing the accident and therefore the injury. So the construction site's a perfect example of that. So you have ABC Carpentry, they're hired by XYZ General Contractor to come in and do a couple of weeks to work on that project. And the carpenter, like you say, gets hit by a board that fell from up above, it was dropped by an employee of XYZ General Contractor, that's not a coworker there.
Jim Hardy:
So that carpenter then who was injured would have a work comp case that I would handle and then we do the immediate work of getting the benefits started, the off work, like we talked about, the medical bills paid and authorized, like we talked about. And then in the meantime, our firm would also start up a third-party case against that general contractor and the employer of the employee who dropped board on the carpenter. So you have two parallel concurrent claims going in the same law firm, one workers' comp that's filed at the Work Comp Commission and then one a personal injury or a negligent claim, a formal old fashioned lawsuit that's filed in circuit court. So you'd have the same law firm, two different lawyers handling that same accident date. And it's important to have a work comp attorney start the case up because then they will automatically have a look at the facts to see if there's any potential third party.
Jim Hardy:
Sometimes we find potential third-party cases where the injured worker would never think that anyone else would have been negligently responsible for the accident other than himself or the employer. So it's important to have us look at it to see if there is that angle, if there's any potential lawsuit against the third party, because that can increase the settlement value. And there's a short-term aspect of it, which is the work comp. You get the weekly benefit check going, you get the medical bills authorized and the treatment authorized and the bills paid. And then long-term, then we work on the third-party case to see what we can do about establishing a case against the negligent third party. And then we can settle both cases and you get two settlements from the two cases. And it's more beneficial to the injured worker.
Jim Hardy:
But without having a good law firm that handles both types of claims, work comp and third-party, like our firm does, you really put yourself at a disadvantage of missing some potential settlement recovery there. So it's a very important to look at. And it's not just a construction scenario. You can see these, the other classic example as you're driving for work, UPS driver, he's hit rear ended by a semi-truck. He has a work comp case with the insurance for UPS and then a separate personal injury case against the truck driver and the trucking company that hit him. But these are all very good examples.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
And those third-party cases, you can recover benefits. You talked about a little bit, but you can recover benefits that are not necessarily covered under the Work Comp Act in Illinois.
Jim Hardy:
That's correct.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
For example, you can recover pain and suffering. You can recover economic and non-economic damages that are not necessarily covered under the Work Comp Act in Illinois. So all the more reason to have an attorney really do a very thorough investigation to really make sure that all parties are held fully accountable for both the work comp perspective as well as the third-party case. Correct?
Jim Hardy:
Absolutely. And then you're covered whatever the rights are under the state law and the federal law and the circuit court laws. You're covered for all the benefits that you're entitled to when we maximize the value for you.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Now, I wanted to transition a little bit and talk about what an employee should do. If they're hurt on the job. Every single day millions of people go to work and statistically there's a fair amount of people who get hurt at work every day. And when you're doing training for work, they may teach you how to punch in and punch out and they may teach you about company protocol and everything else, but they don't tell you necessarily what you should be doing if you're hurt. And so a lot of people, an accident may happen, they may come home. They may, ah, my arm hurts, my shoulder hurts and they're sort of at a loss of what they should be doing. And I guess to begin with, if you are an employee and you're hurt at work, what would you suggest that that person do?
Jim Hardy:
That's a very good question. And it's very important too, because what the injured worker does initially after the accident is very important because that can impact the entire case months and years down the line. So if you're injured at work, it's absolutely essential that you give notice to a supervisor of the incident and the injury. What happened, what body part you injured as soon as possible. I always tell people that they should give notice immediately, or if not, before they punch out for the day, because once you go home, you hurt yourself during a shift, once you punch out and go home, then it becomes problematic because then the employer and the insurance company can say, after you tell them the next day or the next week that you got hurt back on last Tuesday, they can say, well, you didn't tell us the day you got hurt, how do we know you didn't get hurt at home or over the weekend or that night after you got home. So it opens up potential for the insurance company to deny the claim. But it's essential to give notice as soon as possible.
Jim Hardy:
There is a 45-day notice requirement. No matter how viable the work comp claim might've been, if you don't give notice to a supervisor until after 45 days, then the claim is barred under the state law. But the longer you wait to give notice, the more ammunition the insurance company would have for the work comp carrier to deny and dispute the case and the accident and how it happened and so forth. I always tell people, give notice as soon as you can immediately, if not, before you punch out that day and preferably do it in writing or have a witness there. If you go up to the supervisor, make sure you bring somebody with you who can witness the notice being given verbally to the supervisor. Then the supervisor can't say, well, I don't remember anything about that day or anyone telling me anything about a work injury. So that's very important.
Jim Hardy:
And also if you're injured, get treatment right away, don't put it off, go to your family doctor. Go to an immediate care, if need be. Go to the emergency room if need be. But the earlier you get treatment and get the accident documented in medical records, the better off the case will be. And I know a lot of people, they want to see if it gets better and put it off and all that. But that's fine, if it does get better, that's great. But you should still see a medical professional as soon as possible if you think something's wrong. And people know their own body, if you think something's not right and you hurt yourself, get it checked out. If in the next week you feel a hundred percent and fine, that's great, but at least it's documented if need be. So notice as soon as possible, preferably the same day and then medical treatment as soon as possible as well. Those are the two keys of what an injured worker should do to preserve their rights under the work comp law.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Now, in some situations, after an accident happens, someone may get medical treatment and they maybe start getting some benefits from their employer if a doctor takes them off work. They may start getting some temporary total disability checks if their off work and everything from their employer. But that does not necessarily mean that a work comp case has been filed. Correct? in other words, giving your employer notice, it's not the same as filing a work comp case, correct?
Jim Hardy:
Right. That's correct. The employer, once they have notice of the injury, they are supposed to report it to their work comp carrier, but that doesn't always happen. Sometimes the employers, they drag their feet and see if the person gets better right away or if the person just puts it through their regular insurance so they don't have to deal with it and claim it as a work comp case. But the only way to formally have a filing at the Work Comp Commission, which is the court for work comp cases in Illinois, is to have an attorney file a what they call an application, an application of claim at the Work Comp Commission. Prior to that, you don't have a formal claim and in order to get a settlement, you have to have a claim on file at the Illinois Work Comp Commission, or you don't get a settlement at the end of the case. And that's why it's important to, after you give notice, and after you get medical treatment as soon as possible, then you contact Jonathan Rosenfeld, the Rosenfeld injury lawyers, to start up the process of getting legal representation.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
And I think, just so everyone listening is a hundred percent clear, the way attorneys handle work comp cases in the state of Illinois is on a contingency fee basis. The state regulates what attorneys can charge people. It's not a, Hey, I like you, you get a discount. I'm not a big fan of yours, you're paying more. It's a straight fee schedule for work comp cases. And so, you as an attorney only get a fee when you're successful in getting benefits for that injured worker, correct?
Jim Hardy:
That's correct. Yes. So there's no hourly rates or there's no upfront fee that you have to cut a check to the attorney for at the beginning of the case. It's strictly a contingency fee and in Illinois, the state law caps that fee for attorney fees and work comp at 20%. So that's 20% of the settlement that we could secure at the end of the case when you're done treating. And that's the settlement for the nature and extent of the injury or the permanency of the injury. And that 20% is taken right out of the settlement from the insurance company. So you don't have to worry about paying anything upfront or watching, we don't bill by the hour, you don't have to watch that. We maximize the value of the work comp case and the fees are 20% of that. If there is no settlement, then you walk away, you wouldn't pay us anything. So that's how it works, strictly contingency fee basis.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
And these settlements and the attorney's fees, they're approved by an arbitrator who's essentially the judge assigned to the case. So it's just one more safeguard in place to make sure that everything is done properly. Correct?
Jim Hardy:
Right. That's true. Yeah, any settlement that we secure has to be approved by the work comp arbitrator assigned to the file at the Work Comp Commission. They stamp it as approved. And with the settlement, it's interesting to note that if you don't have an attorney, the insurance adjuster on the file for the work comp carrier may pay the medical benefits. They may pay the off work, you don't know if they're paying their correct amount or anything, but then they commonly, if you don't have an attorney, they won't offer you a settlement. They won't advise you of your right that you're entitled to a settlement. They have no obligation to do that. And frankly, it's their job not to because the insurance company's job is to keep money in their pocket and the more they pay out on the claim to the injured worker then the less money they have.
Jim Hardy:
So the goal for the insurance company is to keep the money and not give it to the injured worker. So that's commonly what happens is that they won't get a settlement. If the injured worker doesn't have an attorney, they might get an offer, it's rare, but that offer's going to be pennies on the dollar if you don't have an attorney because the adjuster will just float you a low settlement. People don't know what the true value might be and they might just believe the adjuster when she says, this is what you get, take it or leave it, sign on this line and take the check. But you're leaving a lot of money on the table without an attorney.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
So that is great information. We are going to talk about settlements and work comp cases in a new podcast, but this was great information. I think anyone who is injured on the job certainly would do themselves or their family of service in contacting you and just talking about their case. Again, you obviously work on a contingency. So if someone calls or asks you a question, there's no cost or anything to do that. But this was great information, I thank you for joining me today. I appreciate it.
Jim Hardy:
My pleasure, Jonathan. And all right, thank you for the opportunity. Glad to help.
-
In this episode Jonathan Rosenfeld chats with Martin D. Gould an Attorney at Romanucci & Blandin, LLC. Here, they discuss:
Paraquat Lawsuit Update: The Alleged Connection Between Paraquat and Parkinson's DiseaseRead the Transcript
Download the PDF
Johnathan Rosenfeld:
Hello, I am Johnathan Rosenfeld. Today, I am joined today with Marty Gould on the Personal Injury podcast, and I am going to talk with Marty about an emerging area of product liability litigation involving Paraquat herbicide. Marty, I appreciate you joining me today. Thank you.
Marty Gould:
Thanks for having me on, John.
Johnathan Rosenfeld:
Now, Marty, we are sort of really in the early, early, early phases of what may emerge to be a very, very significant piece of product liability litigation involving Paraquat. First off, can you just give us a little bit of overview in terms of what Paraquat is, and how it's used, and why it's used?
Marty Gould:
Paraquat is a chemical herbicide that's used primarily in farming. It can also be used to kill weeds. And if you're a farmer, or a landscaper, or a groundskeeper, a gardener, you probably come into contact with Paraquat. In 2011, a study by the National Institute of Health found that people exposed to Paraquat are approximately 2.5 times or 250% more likely to develop Parkinson's Disease.
Johnathan Rosenfeld:
So today we're seeing there's been a trickle of lawsuits that have been filed down in southern Illinois, but we're seeing a trickle of lawsuits that have been filed primarily by agricultural workers who have been exposed to Paraquat during their work. The allegations are that they were never warned of the potential dangers related to Paraquat. Is that correct?
Marty Gould:
That's correct. Now that we're publicly finding out about the links between Paraquat and Parkinson's, lawsuits have been filed. A lot of them in southern Illinois against various companies that manufactured it or sold it. Most of these plaintiffs are Illinois crop dusters, or farmers, landscapers, and it's essentially that there was knowledge about these harms that weren't disclosed to the consumers.
Johnathan Rosenfeld:
So, whenever you bring in a case in terms of product's liability, you have to make these allegations in your complaint. The primary allegation, I guess at this point, is that these manufacturers knew or should have known of these dangers but failed to put any warnings on the product while they were using this. Correct?
Marty Gould:
And that's essentially the basis of the complaints is that they knew about a harm. Just like in all the other cases with Zantec or Roundup, there was knowledge from studies in their own independent research about these harms, or the risk of harm, and the failure to warn the consumer that use of it could increase the risks of Parkinson's or whatever the disease might be. They have certain obligations to consumers in regards to putting them on notice.
Johnathan Rosenfeld:
Now, these cases are really in the early stages. I anticipate there's going to be many, many, many more of these cases coming forward, many more lawsuits coming forward. It's safe to say that there have not been any settlements related to Paraquat lawsuits at this time?
Marty Gould:
Not any on a wide-scale basis, but there has been a lot going on in terms of Paraquat and various countries is reviewing Paraquat, its safety. So the European Union banned the herbicide back in 2007. China, Brazil, and several other countries have abandoned its use. And I don't think we're too far away from seeing it banned in many other countries.
Johnathan Rosenfeld:
Now, we can talk a little bit about or look to the litigation involving Roundup weed killer herbicide and what we've seen in terms of those lawsuits and the damages and those lawsuits, can you talk a little bit about the damages that may be available in a Paraquat lawsuit?
Marty Gould:
So in a personal injury case, you can seek compensation for your lost income, your lost earning capacity if we established that you did have Parkinson's or increased your risk of Parkinson's and it caused all sorts of damages and you couldn't work, those are all things you can legally get compensated for. But also, more importantly, you get compensated for the physical and emotional pain and suffering, and the tremors that you're getting, the physical pains you get. These are all things that you can legally seek financial compensation for. And that's why it's important to speak with a lawyer to find out what your rights are and what types of compensation you can personally collect in your case.
Johnathan Rosenfeld:
Marty, some of these people who may be watching this video today or listening to this podcast, they may have been affected either individually or they may have a family member who's been impacted by the use of Paraquat or Paraquat exposure. What would you tell them in terms of moving forward? A lot of times, these people may be sitting back and they may be thinking, "Oh, you know what? This happened years ago. I may not have a claim. The time may have evaporated for me to pursue a case." What would you tell these people?
Marty Gould:
It's important to speak with a lawyer who can examine your specific facts and know your rights. Many states have laws that allow you to still bring claims even if your exposure was from decades ago or your Parkinson's that you had was diagnosed decades ago because many states have what's called the Discovery Rule. It's the point in time that you realize that your harm was caused by the defendant's negligence. So, it's important always consult with a lawyer even if you think maybe it's too late or maybe you think that there could be other causes of the Parkinson's to find out what your rights are and see if there's a possible connection.
Johnathan Rosenfeld:
Marty, this was great information. I appreciate you joining me today. Thank you.
Marty Gould:
Thanks for having me on, Jon.
-
In this episode Jonathan Rosenfeld chats with Martin D. Gould an Attorney at Romanucci & Blandin, LLC. Here, they discuss:
Zantac Cancer Lawsuit FAQ: 4 Most Asked QuestionsRead the Transcript
Download the PDF
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Hello, and good afternoon. I am Jonathan Rosenfeld, and today I am joined by Marty Gould. Marty is currently working on many lawsuits involving Zantac and the development of cancer. Marty, first off, thank you for joining me today, I appreciate it.
Marty Gould:
Thanks for having me on, Jon.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Now, Marty, this is a really quickly emerging area of mass tort litigation that we're seeing. A lot of people have been taking Zantac and the generic version of Zantac over the past 10, 20 years. And today we are learning that some of these people are developing various types of cancers after taking these drugs, both prescription and over the counter. Today I want to run through with you some of the most frequently asked questions by people related to this litigation. I want to run through the four most common questions asked by people who have a potential Zantac case. These are based on the data that we're seeing today from Google search, frankly. I wanted to go through with you quickly, so we can get this information to people in a concise way. First off, has Zantac been withdrawn from the market?
Marty Gould:
Yes, it has. Jon, in September, 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration reported that there was a link between one of the ingredients of Zantac and NDMA in cancer, and they issued a public warning. And then in April, 2020, the FDA announced that all Zantac brand heartburn drugs, prescription and over the counter, should be immediately pulled from the market because of potential NDMA contamination. And subsequently, retailers across the country, Walmart, Walgreens, CVS, suspended the sale of the over-the-counter Zantac and ranitidine products.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Second question for you, what type of cancer is related to Zantac use? What types of cancers are you seeing today in claims and lawsuits that you are filing against the different manufacturers of these drugs?
Marty Gould:
We represent hundreds and hundreds of individuals that have cancer because of Zantac use, or in tragic situations, the families of people deceased because of that cancer. From our experiences and from the research, the cancers most commonly linked to Zantac use or ranitidine use are bladder cancer, colon cancer, prostate cancer, kidney cancer, liver cancer, stomach cancer, and breast cancer. There's also some potential cancers that have a weaker link to the use of Zantac that we're still looking at, and those include pancreatic, ovarian, and melanoma.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
One of the questions that we're seeing over and over again by people, is there a settlement related to Zantac lawsuits at this time, as of today's date, we are today April, 2021? Is there a Zantac lawsuit settlement?
Marty Gould:
There is not a Zantac lawsuit settlement yet, at least not on a wide scale. The cases are all being consolidated, or most of them are, in a multi-district litigation in federal court. There hasn't been any bellwether cases yet, but we're very optimistic that there is going to be a settlement and a resolution for our clients and for many of the other victims and survivors out there.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Along these lines, a lot of people are also looking into what the value of these cases are. They're asking, "What is a Zantac lawsuit worth?" While we don't know what the cases are worth in terms of dollars and cents today, can you just give us a rundown of the damages potentially available in these cases?
Marty Gould:
Sure. In a personal injury case, you can get what's called economic and non-economic damages. In terms of economic damages, you can get compensation for lost income, so if you got cancer and you couldn't work. Or God forbid it was your loved one who got cancer and is deceased, you can get compensation for the lost income that your family would have had in lost earning capacity or lost future income, medical bills. You can get compensation for all your medical bills. And then you can get the non-economic damages, which can be very significant in a case. And that includes the emotional distress, the physical and emotional pain and suffering. And then there's something called loss of consortium. If you've lost a loved one because of cancer caused by Zantac, you can recover for loss of familial support from having that person around and supporting your loss of love. So it's important to speak with a lawyer to just understand your rights and what types of compensation is available under law.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Marty, this was great information, and I really look forward to talking with you in the future as this litigation continues to move forward. Thank you.
Marty Gould:
Thanks for having me on, Jon.
-
In this episode Jonathan Rosenfeld chats with Martin D. Gould an Attorney at Romanucci & Blandin, LLC. Here, they discuss:
Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation Abuse: Legal Claims for Sexual AbuseRead the Transcript
Download the PDF
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Hello. Thank you for joining me today. I am Jonathan Rosenfeld and today on the Personal Injury Podcast, I am joined by my colleague, Marty Gould, and we are going to talk a little bit about an emerging area of litigation, which is abuse in a drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility. Marty, first off, thank you for joining me today.
Marty Gould:
Thanks for having me on, Jon.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Now, one of the areas that's really come out in the past few years in terms of medical treatment, is this whole concept of drug and alcohol rehabilitation facilities for people who may have had substance problems as children, as adults. And a lot of these facilities have opened up across the country. They promise everyone an opportunity, in a lot of situations, to get clean, get sober during a short term rehabilitation stay, where they live in a facility for maybe a 30 day, 60 day, 90 day period. And unfortunately, one of the things that we're seeing here, which is really no different than abuse in other closed environments, such as a boarding school, is we're seeing the instructors and some of the other supervisors involved, mistreat these people who may be in a particularly vulnerable situation and very difficult time in their life.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
What have you seen in terms of your experience? What are you seeing in terms of abuse and mistreatment in these institutions?
Marty Gould:
Well, Jon, substance abuse has become a national epidemic. The national survey on drug use and health, estimates that 20.7 million people needed substance abuse treatment in 2017. So a lot of these people are going to facilities, whether it's a live-in facility or a day facility, to get treatment so they can get on the right path. And what I've seen in some of our cases is whether it's an unknown rehab center or a small one up in to the most prestigious ones throughout the country, is that you'll have a staff member or a counselor take advantage of these vulnerable people and engage in sexual relationships, which are prohibited or should be prohibited by every institution, because they know these people are vulnerable. And it derails them. They start using drugs again because of it, or they're out doing things that they're not supposed to be doing, with the counselor.
Marty Gould:
And some of the cases that we have, the counselor or the staff member was engaging in a relationship with the patient, financially exploits them. Ask them for loans, "Can I borrow a thousand dollars?" That turns into 15,000. That turns into $50,000 and they find ways to take advantage of these people. And if any anything like that happens, you have a potential legal claim against the individual and the entity. They have to make sure that there's policies and procedures in place to protect their patients and to make sure this type of thing doesn't happen. They're aware that it can happen and that the patients are uniquely vulnerable.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
You know, I think one of the really sad things in these situations is the fact is, as you just stated, the emergence of these facilities out there, the growth of this industry, has really expanded way beyond the capacity of any state's legislatures to implement any laws or safeguards to protect patients at these facilities. And so what we're seeing right now is a lot of times, states are playing catch up in terms of trying to apply laws and regulations to these facilities that may have essentially gone unregulated for some time. But at the end of the day, as a victim of abuse, you still have the ability to pursue a civil claim against the institution, just as if you're the victim of abuse in a church set.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Can you talk a little bit about what's involved in terms of civil claims for victims of abuse in a drug or rehab facility?
Marty Gould:
Sure. Jon, as you mentioned, the federal government doesn't really have an official definition of what constitutes a drug treatment or rehabilitation center. So, the licensing can vary from state to state, and unlike in a doctor's office or a medical facility, drug rehab facilities are treated like businesses under the eye. They're not as closely regulated. But they still have duties that they owe their patients. There's still obligations, rules that they have to follow based off just the standards in the industry, and the violation of those standards, like permitting a staff member or counselor to engage in sexual relationships or financially exploit patients, serves the basis for liability, and we file claims of negligence. Failure to adequately screen or negligent hiring of a staff member, negligent supervision, failure to investigate. We even had a counselor at one of these facilities, disclose confidential information to a patient's spouse when the relationship went sour. That's a violation of countless roles. One is, you can't have a relationship with your patient and two is, you certainly can't disclose confidential information to any third party.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
I think it's important to realize that in these situations, it's not just episodes of sexual abuse that give rise to civil claims. It can be other privacy violations. It can be other situations involving defamation of character. These cases typically go way beyond some of the more traditional sex abuse claims that you and I handle, correct?
Marty Gould:
That's correct. There's nine different types of negligence and abuse that can occur in a drug treatment center. And the key to the equation there is that these people are uniquely vulnerable. They're there to get help, and it's very important to make sure that the policies and procedures are in place to ensure that they do get that help, and that they're not exploited and abused.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Well, Marty, this is really an area of litigation that unfortunately, I don't think we're going to really be hearing the end of any time soon. But I really appreciate your time, and I'm going to look forward to talking with you about these situations, if it comes up in the future. Thank you.
Marty Gould:
Thanks for having me on, Jon.
-
In this episode Jonathan Rosenfeld chats with Martin D. Gould an Attorney at Romanucci & Blandin, LLC. Here, they discuss:
Orphanage Abuse: Legal Rights of Abuse VictimsRead the Transcript
Download the PDF
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Good afternoon. I am Jonathan Rosenfeld. And today on the Personal Injury Podcast, I am joined by my colleague, Attorney Martin Gould. And Marty, I am going to talk with you a little bit about an emerging area of litigation involving abuse in an orphanage setting. Now, orphanages in today's world are... they're not really a commonplace occurrence. This was not the case decades ago. And unfortunately, one of the things that we're seeing today is that there was a lot of abuse carried on at these institutions behind closed doors over the past 20, 30, 40 years. Can you share a little bit of background about these cases and about some of the cases that you're seeing today?
Martin Gould:
No, John, the orphanage cases, I think, are some of the worst cases out there because you're dealing with children that are the most vulnerable. They're at an orphanage for a reason. You got no parents that are looking out for them. And I would argue that there's even a higher level, higher duty that's owed to these children to make sure that they're safe. And unfortunately, it has been a breeding ground for a lot of abuse for decades. Now, orphanages aren't as common now. The Department of Children and Family Services has now made a preference for foster care facilities so all orphans aren't in one location, but there's many cases such as Maryville Academy in the Chicago land area, Angel and Guardian Orphanage, where they had clergy that were abusing children, volunteers or other staff that were abusing young children. And it has been the basis for many of the cases that you and I have, in terms of filing lawsuits and seeking other types of recovery.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
So, in some of these cases, we're talking about the orphanage itself, but we're also talking, in a lot of situations, about a religious organization that may be sponsoring the orphanage, or may be sponsoring the foster care. In those situations where you have a religious organization who may be providing the funding and may be providing some of the staffing, they may be overseeing the placement of some of these children, do those religious organizations hold some responsibility when there is abuse that's carried out at these institutions?
Martin Gould:
Yes. So, ultimately, a lot of these religious organizations were being paid by the state to run the orphanages and they were the ones responsible for the orphanages. So, if you're looking at, for example, like Angel and Guardian Orphanage, it might have been run by the archdiocese. They're owned and operated by the archdiocese or different diocese. But then they were staffed by nuns from a certain religious order. There could have been an association with a religious order that provided priests for a period of time. And then there could have been a different entity that hired the janitorial staff or the teachers. So, in those cases, it's important to speak with a lawyer who can tell you who the potential defendants are, because there may be many different entities that were responsible for the safety of the children within one institution.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
When we're talking about abuses perpetrated in an orphanage or in a foster care setting, ultimately, these victims are really entitled to damages and compensation from the perpetrators involved and from the organizations that supervised these organizations. When it comes to damages in these cases, what exactly are these victims entitled to under the law? We're here in Illinois, but in general, can you talk about the damages in these cases?
Martin Gould:
So, in a sexual abuse case, it's not always so easy to quantify our damages, but it can be the most significant type of damage you can recover in a case. And that's the psychological trauma, emotional distress, psychological and physical pain and suffering. These are all things that you legally can seek compensation for, and they can be very significant when it comes to childhood abuse. The public knows that. People understand that abuse when you're a child can cause lifelong traumas. You can also recover money for counseling, treatment, struggles you've had with addictions. These are all things that you can seek compensation for legally in most states.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
In a situation where someone is an adult and the abuse may have been perpetrated at an orphanage, in a foster care home, in another institutional setting, is there a way that they can move forward in terms of pursuing a civil claim today when that abuse may have occurred decades ago?
Martin Gould:
So, Jon, we always encourage survivors to come forward and find out what the rights are. Even in states where the statute of limitations may have expired and there's no revival statute, we still try and find a way to get resolution for the client, but every state is different and the statute limitations laws in every state are different. And it's also important to understand whether or not your state has a potential bill by the state legislature that might change the laws that allow you to bring your claims that may have already been expired years ago. You can also bring a claim even if the perpetrators are deceased. That doesn't necessarily prevent you from bringing your case and proving your case. And you should still speak with a lawyer.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Now, for a lot of these people, reliving these episodes of abuse is traumatic, as an understatement, but can you give us a little flavor for how these cases can play out? Having spoken to a lot of victims out there, I know there's a lot of hesitation and a lot of anxiety around the fact that they may have to confront the perpetrator. In your experience, how are these cases typically play out? Are they going to be forced to be in a room alone with a perpetrator? That's a concern that comes up frequently. Can you just sort of give us a little bit of how this process works?
Martin Gould:
So, at the outset, we speak with our client, we go through a questionnaire, get as much information as we can. Then we reach out to the potential defendants, whether it's the religious institution, a public school, a private school, a former employer. And we tell them about what happened. And then we start discussing what the next steps are. Whether we can engage in a pre-suit discovery, mediation process where we can exchange information. Our client can give a statement, if they're okay with that, to let the other side know kind of what happened and how it's impacted them. Or we file a lawsuit. But it's the client and what their preferences are always control how we go about trying to seek some type of resolution settlement for them. So, it's a lot of communication back and forth regarding how they want to litigate this case and what they feel comfortable with in terms of next steps.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
And so, there's an element of control, just so people out there know, there's an element of control out there for the victims, but also in no situation would a victim ever be forced to be in a room with the perpetrator without the presence of their attorney. Correct?
Martin Gould:
That's right. We would always be present and shoulder to shoulder with our client the entire process.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Marty, I'm going to follow up with you as some of these cases move forward. We can talk a little bit more about these cases in detail, but I really want to thank you for joining me today and sharing your insight on these really disturbing cases. Thank you.
Martin Gould:
Thanks for having me, Jon.
-
In this episode Jonathan Rosenfeld chats with Martin D. Gould an Attorney at Romanucci & Blandin, LLC. Here, they discuss:
Can You Sue a Boarding School for Sexual Abuse by a Teacher?Read the Transcript
Download the PDF
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Hello. Good afternoon. Thank you for joining me today. I'm Jonathan Rosenfeld and today on The Personal Injury Law Podcast, I am joined by attorney Marty Gould, and we are going to talk about a merging area of litigation involving sexual abuse that occurred in schools and specifically in boarding schools. This is an area that Marty has considerable experience with, and I really appreciate his insight. Marty, to begin with, boarding schools in general, a lot of people, a lot of parents send their children to boarding schools because they are looking for a school that can provide them with individualized instruction, where they may get some more personalized attention ... which is great, but unfortunately, I think what we're seeing in some situations is ... some teachers and some other school officials maybe taking this a little bit too far, a little bit too extreme. Can you talk a little bit about some of your experience with abuse in a boarding school setting?
Marty Gould:
Sure. Well John, there's 67 New England private boarding schools and over the past 25 years, according to a Boston Globe story, more than 200 students have accused private school authorities of sexual abuse or sexual harassment, and that includes teachers, administrators, staff members, and even in one case, an admissions officer. One of the issues with the boarding schools is that you're in a more intimate setting with the teachers. They're not only teaching you, but sometimes they're living in the dorms, they're inviting you to their homes, and because of the access that you have to a teacher, which can be good in certain circumstances, it also makes children more vulnerable. That's often where children are abused. They're groomed by somebody who's supposed to be their mentor and there's more opportunities to abuse the child because they're also interacting with the student outside of the classroom. It's like I said, sometimes even in the teacher's homes, and that's why it's important for a school to have the right policies and procedures in place to make sure students who are uniquely vulnerable at a boarding school are safe.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
I think one of the positive things of these boarding schools is that they really are all-encompassing when it comes to school, when it comes to sports, when it comes to socialization, when it comes to living arrangements. Unfortunately I think, we've seen in some situations is that these schools have really insulated the students from the outside world and sometimes these episodes of abuse may go on for some time without getting reported until after the fact. Can you share maybe, without getting into too much detail or anything, can you share some situations that you may have run into where someone is a victim in this setting?
Marty Gould:
We've had several cases involving sexual abuse of students by teachers at boarding schools. Then in one of the instances, sometimes there's a feeling to protect the school's reputation at the expense of the allegation and they either ask the teacher to quietly resign, where then they go on and they can apply to another school and they can abuse a child again. That's called passing the trash and those circumstances, you can potentially hold both institutions responsible. In a case that, John, you and I recently resolved, the school didn't have a two-adult policy in regards to having the students at teachers' houses or places that were in private, and unfortunately one teacher was able to groom a student, invite the student back to their home and then began abusing them there. That's why it's important for schools to have the right policies like a two-adult policy when it comes to being with students in private settings and other policies to make sure that the children are safe because their parents aren't around like they would be in a regular public high school or a high school you attend in your own community.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
One of the things that comes up in boarding school cases, and really all types of sexual abuse is this whole concept of grooming. When we talk about grooming, it seems sort of an innocuous type thing to begin with, but it, over time, these relationships morph from a peer relationship or a teacher-student relationship into something that transitions into something much more deviant. Can you talk a little bit about this grooming concept and what's involved in some of these situations?
Marty Gould:
John, one of the supposed benefits of attending a boarding school is the opportunity to develop close bonds with your teachers. They're in a better position, maybe, to write a recommendation because they see you so often. Predators are able to use that expectation that they'll be able to be close with that student unsupervised and they take advantage of it. So innocent invitations to go to sporting events, lunches, dinners by yourself with the teacher, can turn into building trust with that student and the student becomes confident with that relationship, and then that's when the relationship can take a turn where they can be abused.
Marty Gould:
John, in the case that we had, the teacher was using her position of power to coerce the student into continuing the relationship that they wanted to get out of. The student's grades were docked while he was attending this school and he felt like he was trapped. He was trying to get into college and then when he tried to step away from the relationship, he suffered academically. That's essentially how it happens. It's that confidence that you build and they're grooming you early on and that's how they can take advantage of you.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Now, in boarding school cases and really all civil litigation, there's an issue of statute of limitations. A lot of times, this episode may occur when someone's young and maybe in their early teen years or something. It may not be for 10 or 20 years after the episode, that they actually develop the confidence to come forward and say, "Hey, look, this happened to me. I was a victim here." There's a lot of feelings of guilt. There's a lot of feelings of sadness, anger, frustration, it goes on and on and on, but ultimately there's the statute of limitations, these time constraints to file a case. Obviously, these cases are fact-dependent, but can you talk a little bit about how the statute of limitations applies to a boarding school sexual abuse case?
Marty Gould:
So the statute of limitations that applies generally would be the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse within the state in which the boarding school in which the abuse occurred. That can vary from state to state. What's important to know is that because of the public pressure, because of the media attention regarding childhood sexual abuse, politicians have changed a lot of laws that have now allowed survivors to finally bring claims that may have been expired. That's why it's very important to speak to a lawyer to find out if there's [inaudible 00:08:18] but if the laws have changed, whether it's through, what's called the revival statute, that creates a window in which you can file claims that may have been barred by a time limit, or to check to see if there's any legislation pending in that state.
Marty Gould:
So people will call me and say, "I heard that the statute of limitations expired in XYZ state," and I'll say, "That's true, except that there's a bill pending in your state legislature that may be passed, that will say, 'You may have an opportunity to bring this case in six months.'" So we follow all those in all the different states that we're in, to make sure that we know if there's going to be an opportunity to bring these clamps.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
I think what you just spoke about in terms of the evolving law that applies to these situations is really the reason why people need to reach out to an attorney who has experience with these cases specifically, because a lot of times, I've heard people, I've spoken to people who've said, "Hey, I spoke to my accident attorney down the street, I spoke to him or her about the situation and they've told me I don't have a case." At the end of the day, they really need to talk to someone who has experience with these particular cases. Now, if someone is watching this and they say, "Hey, I want to reach out to an attorney, but I don't have the assets. I don't have the funds to hire an attorney." What would you say to them? How do you handle these types of cases and how would you help someone if they don't have the funds necessary to fund this type of litigation?
Marty Gould:
Well, first John, I would say that it's always important to know your rights. Even if we take on cases, even if the statute of limitations has expired, we try and do an outreach to the church or the boarding school or whomever it may be, to see what kind of a possible resolution we can reach even without filing a lawsuit. The last thing that a survivor needs to deal with in these situations is worrying about paying legal fees, and that's why we don't charge any money for any consultation. We don't charge any fees unless we can actually get a compensation and a recovery for the survivor. If we're unable to, if we take on the case and we for whatever reason cannot obtain any type of settlement, the survivor doesn't owe us any money.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Well, I appreciate your time and hopefully, if people are watching this and they have some questions, they'll certainly be able to reach out to you because you're certainly an advocate for these people. So thank you for joining me today. I appreciate it.
Marty Gould:
Thanks for having me on your podcast, John.
-
In this episode Jonathan Rosenfeld chats with Martin D. Gould an Attorney at Romanucci & Blandin, LLC. Here, they discuss:
Royal Rangers Sex Abuse: Sexual Abuse Claims and LawsuitsRead the Transcript
Download the PDF
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Hello, thank you for joining me today. I am Jonathan Rosenfeld and today on the Personal Injury Podcast, I am joined by Attorney Marty Gould. And we are going to talk about an emerging area of litigation, the Royal Ranger sexual abuse cases and lawsuits. Marty, thank you for joining me today. I appreciate it.
Marty Gould:
Happy to be on John. Thanks for having me.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Now, Marty, to begin with, the Royal Rangers, to be honest with you, is an organization that a lot of people may not have heard of in the past. It is not a big name organization. Can you give us a little background about the Royal Rangers and what it is and where exactly it's headquartered?
Marty Gould:
Sure. The Royal Rangers is a, it's essentially an organization similar to the boy Scouts of America, except that it has religious purpose. So their motto on their website is that the program helps leaders play a vital role in helping boys develop a Christian like manhood. And they had many different Royal Rangers organizations throughout California, Idaho, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, in several other states throughout the country. It was structured in a similar format to the boy Scouts. They had the Ranger Kids, Discovery Rangers, Adventure Rangers, and the Expedition Rangers.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Now, the organization's got these altruistic goals, but unfortunately like many other organizations, some of those goals and some of those areas that they want to really focus on fell to the wayside and there's been some reported issues of abuse in the Royal Rangers. And some of these individuals have come forward recently and they've made allegations that they were abused in the organization by their leaders. Can you share some insight as to some of these allegations and what is actually being alleged?
Marty Gould:
In 2018, there were six men from Oregon that filed a lawsuit against the Royal Rangers and the Assemblies of God church, alleging that they were sexually abused in the 1980s by Royal ranger leaders. These leaders, in the boy Scouts, called the boy scout troop leader in the Royal Rangers they're typically called commanders. And essentially the allegations were that they weren't properly screening and vetting these people that were leading these young boys to different adventures and camping trips and so forth and that's where the abuse going on.
Marty Gould:
And a lot of the same allegations that happened in the boy Scouts, where kids were being abused on camping trips or during meetings. We have many cases involving the Royal Rangers, you and I John. And our case, in several of our cases, we've heard that many of these commanders that were leading these troops were allowed to bring whomever else they wanted onto these trips. So you had a commander in charge of a bunch of boys, bring his friends, other males that nobody really knew who these people were, what type of backgrounds they had. There wasn't much screening and policies and procedures in place to protect the children. And unfortunately many kids were sexually abused and it's caused a lot of trauma.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
And so now I guess we're seeing a lot of people come forward. I think there's some truth, that there's strength in numbers in some of these cases. A lot of times it's not the, it takes a lot of courage for anyone to come forward. But a lot of times when people see others who may have experienced a similar situation step out, they're more willing to come forward. And in those situations, what would you tell those people who may be watching this and saying, Hey, I was part of the Royal Rangers, I experienced some of those issues? What would you say to them?
Marty Gould:
You're not alone. Together, we're stronger. And it's important to take your life back, take control of what happened and help make sure this doesn't happen to anybody else. We have a number of clients that we represent and other lawyers taking on these cases, but shedding light to reveal what happened and make sure this doesn't happen again.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Marty, I appreciate the work that you're doing in this area. You're really an asset to a lot of people who really need an advocate out there. Want to thank you for joining me today and I appreciate it.
Marty Gould:
Happy to be on your podcast, John. Thanks for having me.
-
In this episode Jonathan Rosenfeld chats with Martin D. Gould an Attorney at Romanucci & Blandin, LLC. Here, they discuss:
Church Sexual Abuse Lawsuits: What is Sexual Abuse?Read the Transcript
Download the PDF
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Hello, everybody. Welcome back to the Personal Injury Podcast. Today. I am joined by Marty Gould, a good friend and colleague, and we are here today to talk about sexual abuse lawsuits in the church and, what is sexual abuse? Marty, first off, thank you for joining me today. I appreciate it.
Marty Gould:
Happy to be on.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Marty, for those of us who don't really have a full understanding of the breadth of this issue, can you give us some background and give us a short explanation about what sexual abuse is at least in the eyes of the law?
Marty Gould:
Oftentimes when people talk about sexual abuse in a lawsuit context, it often refers to childhood sexual abuse. It includes many different types of abuse. It could be fondling, oral sex, penetration of any kind, but it can also be showing somebody pornography. John, you and I have a case out in California where a teacher was sending explicit text messages and photographs to a student. That is considered sexual abuse under the law, and it's a basis for a lawsuit. It can also include emotional abuse, so it includes the grooming aspect that happens before the actual physical contact. In lawsuits, it's a broad definition. Anything that can be considered sexual, or that happens to a child under the age of 18 years old.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Now, one of the emerging issues in the area of sexual abuse litigation is really cases involving the church. Can we talk a little bit about the cases that are involved, the church and sexual abuse involving clergy and the priest, what those cases typically involve?
Marty Gould:
Most of those lawsuits involve institutional negligence claims against the church. In every lawsuit, you can sue the perpetrator. But in a civil case, all you can get is financial compensation. So a large part of the case is against the institution for covering up abuse, for protecting pedophiles or suspected pedophiles, for failing to investigate allegations of abuse. The claims are often brought in terms of negligent hiring, for not doing a proper investigation to a potential priest who's moving to your parish. So many times, a lot of these priests may have allegations against them in a different diocese or even in a different state.
Marty Gould:
Like in many of our cases, they came from California or Pennsylvania. Usually, they're being shipped out of there for a reason. The new diocese that's taking him in has an obligation to call the former employer and say, "Hey, why is this guy leaving? What happened? Then if they know of any allegations of abuse, they have an obligation to investigate and to warn the public if there's credible allegations. That's unfortunately, something that didn't happen for many, many decades. Priests were moved from one parish to another without warning the parishioners about this person's history, and they continued to abuse children time and time again.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Now, do church officials have an obligation to report episodes of abuse if they're a witness to something in their organization, in their church, in their school? Do they have some type of legal obligation to report the abuse to authorities?
Marty Gould:
In many states, they do. The laws have progressed over time, and every state's law can be a little bit different, but for the most part, clergy are now considered mandatory reporters. So whether they hear about abuse in a confessional, or whether a reported abuse from the survivor themselves, or from a parent, they have an obligation to report it. Typically, the law would require them to report it to the Department of Children and Family Services within that state, or even law enforcement. If the Department of Children and Family Services becomes aware of it, they do their own investigation. It's a separate investigation that's typically, also done by law enforcement. If the allegations are proven to be true, criminal charges are brought and ideally, there's criminal consequences.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Now, in the issue of a clergy sexual abuse lawsuit, we're generally talking about monetary damages. When we're talking about monetary damages, we're trying to put a value on the restitution to the individual and the harm to the individual. Can you talk a little bit about what the damages are in these cases, and how the church in general, in the past has valued these types of cases?
Marty Gould:
Childhood sexual abuse is probably the most heinous crime that can be committed. We're talking about children that are uniquely vulnerable. When it's a religious leader, like a priest, the child is taught to respect and to listen to that authority. That breach of that trust, coupled with physical and emotional abuse, can cause devastating consequences. Legally, you're allowed to recover for emotional distress, psychological trauma, and physical pain and suffering, or emotional pain and suffering. We articulate those injuries, the other side through the testimony of our clients, but also through counselors. Many times, a lot of survivors end up using drugs to cope with what happened. We get those records and explain to the church, because of what happened, they went down a certain path. They became addicted to certain drugs to cope with what happened, and that's all part of the damages aspect that we seek compensation from the church.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
The church in the past, can you give us an idea as to the payments that the church has made on some of these cases? Not necessarily on an individual basis, but in general. This has been a pretty substantial problem for the church. We're focusing right now on the Catholic Church, but the truth is, is that, this can be any religious institution. But the amount of payments that have gone on over the past several decades have been substantial. Do you have any idea about these payments and about the type of damages we're talking about here?
Marty Gould:
Legally, when somebody commits a harm against you, whether it's caused by the negligence of the religious institution, whether it's a Catholic church, a synagogue, a temple, or whomever, you can recover, what's called economic, non-economic damages. So we can get compensation for the psychological trauma and harm, the lost earning capacity, lost income that that person might have had had they finished school or done things in a different way when they weren't dealing with that abuse.
Marty Gould:
Recoveries have been significant, hundreds of millions of dollars have been paid in these cases across the country. That's why it's important to go find a lawyer who can assess your case, work up your case, and articulate to the other side how this has dramatically impacted your life. If you haven't done counseling yet, many people, because they don't come forward earlier because they're afraid they may not be believed, or it's a repressed memory and they haven't done counseling yet, that doesn't mean you didn't have an injury. And that doesn't mean that we can't articulate to the church, or whomever, how it's impacted you.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Now, one of the things that victims frequently come forward and ask is, "What type of help is out there for me to help me recover from this episode?" It's easy for us to sit here and say, "Hey, you know what? Do some treatment and move on." But the truth is, is that, these people really have lifelong issues. Can you just give out a few resources available for someone who's a victim of abuse?
Marty Gould:
There's many great networks out there in survivor groups that can help victims and survivors. One of the ones that I've worked with in the past, and I've had many clients be a part of, is called the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, also known as SNAP. It's a support group of survivors of clergy sexual abuse and their supporters throughout the country. If you reach out, you can engage in support groups. You can also try and find counseling through them. There's also an organization called Bishop Accountability, which documents a lot of allegations of abuse.
Marty Gould:
It's a good resource in terms of finding out more information about what went on in your specific parish or diocese, religious order. There's an organization called Drug Rehab, another one called the Addiction Center, Road to Recovery, Campus Safety, all great organizations that help people deal with some of the traumas, and deal with addictions that are often associated with traumas. Then of course, counseling with an attorney who can help direct you to possible counseling through the institution. We can sometimes get the institution to pay for your counseling if you don't have health insurance. So there's many different great networks out there and resources where you can get support to help move path this.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Well, certainly, there seems to be some light at the end of the tunnel for some of these people. Marty, I really appreciate you sharing with us today your insight on this important topic. I want to thank you for your time.
Marty Gould:
Happy to be on. Thanks for having me, John.
-
In this episode Jonathan Rosenfeld chats with Martin D. Gould an Attorney at Romanucci & Blandin, LLC. Here, they discuss:
Zantac Lawsuits UpdateRead the Transcript
Download the PDF
Jonathan Rosenfeld :
Hi, I am Jonathan Rosenfeld and I am an attorney, and I am with my good friend and colleague Marty Gould today. We are here to talk about probably one of the largest and most prolific drug recalls in the United States ever, certainly in recent history, and that involves the popular heartburn medication Zantac.
Jonathan Rosenfeld :
Marty is very active with the Zantac litigation, and he is here today to discuss the status of the litigation who qualifies for this and to sort of give us some insight as to how these cases may play out.
Jonathan Rosenfeld :
Marty, first off, thank you for joining me today. I appreciate it, and could you just briefly introduce yourself, and let us know a little bit about the background and just what Zantac is and bring us up to date with the current status of the recall on Zantac?
Marty Gould:
John, thanks for the introduction. I'm of counsel with Rosenfeld Injury Lawyers. Our team represents hundreds and hundreds of individuals that have cancer that we believe was caused by a Zantac consumption or generic. Zantac was a very popular heartburn and acid reflux medication.
Marty Gould:
Millions and millions of people have used Zantac for those purposes, and recent studies have shown that there's a connection between an ingredient in Zantac, ranitidine, and cancer. It's the chemical structure of the Zantac tablet that once it's consumed, and once it's mixed with water in your body, it causes what's called NDMA, a very toxic substance that is linked to cancer.
Marty Gould:
For that reason, people that have been taking Zantac, many of these people for years and years on a frequent basis, are now getting cancer. Typically, it's a stomach cancer, bladder cancer, stomach cancer, but also the blood-based cancers such as liver cancer. Right now, there's a litigation that's being handled, a multi-district litigation, where all the Zantac cases are being filed in the Southern District of Florida.
Marty Gould:
Anyone who has a case, they're filing their claims there, and the lawyers are litigating those cases now. We're still in the earlier stages, and there's trials that are expected to start going in probably 2022.
Jonathan Rosenfeld :
Now, you mentioned that these cases are filed in what's called a multi-district litigation or MDL. I want to talk with you about the differences between an MDL that some people may not be familiar with and a traditional lawsuit. First off, I guess, as a starting point, I guess, what is an MDL case?
Marty Gould:
Sure. Multi-district litigation is essentially a type of case where all the cases may be a little bit different, so if you've been taking Zantac for one year, several times a week, and somebody else has been taking Zantac for 10 years on a daily basis, you may have a different type of case because your exposure was different. If you have a family history of cancer, that may be a relevant facts.
Marty Gould:
Everyone's case is a little bit different. Everyone's injuries are a little different. Some people tragically are filing a case on behalf of a loved one who's deceased, who has died because of cancer linked to Zantac. Others may just have an early diagnosis, so the injuries are different every case.
Marty Gould:
A multi-district litigation, essentially, consolidates all the different cases into one courtroom for efficiency purposes. It's typically done in a federal courthouse. In this case, it's a federal courthouse in the Southern District of Florida.
Marty Gould:
To avoid having rulings in many different states, in many different jurisdictions that could be conflicting, you'll have one judge who will oversee the litigation. Will set various deadlines, and essentially, the cases are litigated in a fashion where there's bellwether cases. The steering committee that's litigating most of these cases will choose a certain number of cases, that will be the first cases to be litigated, the first cases to go to trial.
Marty Gould:
Once these bellwether cases are concluded, that usually allows the rest of the plaintiffs to know what the potential value of these zantac cases are, and it usually drives settlements. If there's successful results at trial, it usually results in a settlement agreements or settlement discussions on other people that have cancer that was linked to Zantac.
Jonathan Rosenfeld :
Right now, we have this MDL that's been filed in Florida, but we also have a recall that was issued by the food and Drug Administration, the FDA, related to Zantac, and that would happen in 2000... I'm sorry, in September 13, 2019, the FDA issued that recall. Why, I guess, did the FDA issued this recall, and what is the impact that you see in terms of the recall on the pending litigation?
Marty Gould:
There are studies going back to the '80s that linked NDMA and Zantac to cancer, and as of late, because lawsuits were filed, the US Food and Drug Administration started its own investigation, and September 13, 2019, they essentially published a public warning about the link. There was additional research and lab testing.
Marty Gould:
The levels of NDMA found were significantly higher than which was deemed to be safe for a body to consume, certainly very alarming. The FDA certainly announced that this was a potential health hazard.
Marty Gould:
In the wake of the FDA safety warnings, the drug manufacturers for Zantac and its generic brands pulled off the drug from shelves across the country. Walmart, Walgreens, CVS, many of the big retailers pulled the drug because the consensus was it wasn't safe to be consumed.
Marty Gould:
The unfortunate reality is that, while people now aren't being exposed to Zantac and the cancer-causing substances within the tablets, we still have thousands and thousands of people that have been using Zantac for years and have existing injuries. That's what these cases are about. It's about compensating people for their past harms and for their current harms.
Jonathan Rosenfeld :
Let me ask you this, so you mentioned that, first off, Zantac has been on the market since the 1980s, so this has been on the market for a long time. I guess as a consequence of the patents are on the original drug expiring, now we have different manufacturers and generic versions of this that were on the market. Is that correct?
Marty Gould:
That's correct. You had various drug manufacturers that were producing Zantac or a generic version of it, ranitidine, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, [Oringer 00:09:03], and the claims are essentially falling into two categories, defective design or manufacturer of that drug, that it was defective. It was harmful. It shouldn't have been sold to the public in the first place.
Marty Gould:
The second part of that is the failure to warn consumers, because people are taking these drugs because the advertisements are saying, look, this is a safe drug, and I can remember some of the Zantac commercials. They had somebody with a fire extinguisher, and he's using it and it's, "Hey, this is going to extinguish your heartburn and your acid reflux. It's a safe drug to use." That was the message, and that wasn't the case.
Marty Gould:
I think through the discovery process, we'll get more specifics. When did these drug manufacturers first know that it wasn't harmful? If there's studies out there from the '80s saying that there was that potential harmful cancer-causing link, there's good reason to believe that the manufacturers had that information, and because they were selling it to millions and millions of consumers, they didn't act on that information.
Jonathan Rosenfeld :
I guess at this point, if you took Zantac or the generic equivalent, first off, does it make any difference in terms of pursuing a legal claim? In other words, if I took Zantac manufactured by Sanofi or by Glaxo, does it make any difference in terms of my legal rights, in terms of filing a lawsuit at this point?
Marty Gould:
Well, John, as you know, we represent hundreds and hundreds of plaintiffs who have used either the name brand or the generic. There are legal differences, and that's why I think it's important for people to speak with a lawyer to understand what the potential legal ramifications are if you were only consuming a generic, but there's a few things to keep in mind.
Marty Gould:
When we sign a case, the first thing we tell people is, for one, do you have any Zantac in the house? Do you have any ranitidine in the house? Were you prescribed it? We've had many clients that still have the bottle, preserved the bottle. That's going to be evidence in the case. It's something we certainly want to hold on to.
Marty Gould:
Then, I guess, the next part of that is proving the use of the drug, medical records. Some people were prescribed it. Other people maybe, because it was sold over the counter, weren't prescribed it, but had reported to other primary care physician or other doctors when they were asked, are you on any drugs prescribed or over counter? They mentioned Zantac.
Marty Gould:
Those are some things to keep in mind, but there is a difference in terms of the cases, if it's generic versus name brand. That's why it's important to speak to a lawyer about that.
Jonathan Rosenfeld :
Now, these cases are filed, and they're pending in this MDL in Southern District of Florida. Can you give us a little insight as to how these cases are handled in terms of an MDL, what the court really does to sort of get a grasp of these cases?
Jonathan Rosenfeld :
We have people from really all over the country who have been impacted and what the court is doing in terms of unifying these cases and getting a grasp as to how people have been impacted. Logistically, it seems like a little bit of a nightmare to have all these different people and all these different cases and everything else.
Jonathan Rosenfeld :
As a person who has been impacted, either individually or if I have a family member who may have been impacted, and I'm looking at this and saying like, oh boy, do I even want to get involved? Can you just give some insight as to what a plaintiff could expect if they were to get involved with the case?
Marty Gould:
Sure. Step one is, we have an internal questionnaire that we have potential clients fill out, which asks a lot of the questions that the court is going to want to know, the type of cancer the individual has, when they used the drug, how often they use it, are they still using it, and that's essentially the information that we're going to have to submit to the court.
Marty Gould:
Judge Rosenberg from the Southern District of Florida, the federal judge who's overseeing the case, has essentially issued a questionnaire. It's called a census plus form that all claimants have to complete and file in the Zantac case. Those questions are the questions that we have our clients answer, when they used it, how often, for how long, what's their diagnosis.
Marty Gould:
From there, that allows the court, the defense and the lawyers, to have a better idea of each individual's claim. It provides a basis to verify the claims and make sure that the ones we have are legitimate claims that we can ideally get compensation for.
Marty Gould:
With that, there may be a second phase to the case, where after the census plus form is submitted, we may have a more detailed questionnaire that we have to submit to the court, sometimes with you attached medical records, verifying your cancer diagnosis and any medical records that list Zantac as a drug that you use, whether it was prescribed, or perhaps you referenced it to a doctor.
Marty Gould:
That's not the only way you can prove use. Your testimony is evidence, so many people don't keep receipts. Maybe they didn't tell their doctors they're taking it because it's over the counter. You can still have a case, even if you don't have that. Your testimony is evidence. If you have family members that knew you were taking it, their witnesses, they can provide evidence.
Marty Gould:
There's many ways in which we go about proving your use and litigating your case. It starts with that initial intake to find out whether you meet the certain criteria that we believe would put you in a position to file a claim.
Jonathan Rosenfeld :
Now, before you even get to the point where you're filing a claim, I guess the first step is, hey, are you eligible? When I'm talking about eligible, I'm talking about the timeframe for bringing a case. Every single case is governed by a statute of limitations, and the statute of limitations in these cases, it varies by where the person lives. Is that correct?
Marty Gould:
That's correct. Even though there is a multi-district litigation in Florida, that doesn't mean that Florida law is controlling here. Every case, every claim in every client's case can be a little bit different, because you're applying laws often from that state in which the individual had experienced the harm, where they were consuming the Zantac.
Marty Gould:
If you were consuming the Zantac while you were living in Illinois and then you were diagnosed with cancer, and then you move to Michigan or Florida, the law that would apply in terms of the statute of limitations would likely be Illinois law, but every case is a little bit different. It's important to speak with a lawyer to help you find out whether there's an issue with the statute limitations.
Marty Gould:
With cases against drug companies, such as this or Roundup or Losartan, many people have consumed the drug decades earlier, and they consumed it for a long period of time. It's not like being in a car accident where if you were hit by a car, you knew that you were injured the day of the accident. There is a period of time, a latency period, where you may not be diagnosed with cancer.
Marty Gould:
It's the worst news to get. It's a very traumatic situation, but you may not get that diagnosis until 10 years after you had been taking Zantac. There's something called the discovery rule in many states, a point in time where you discovered that you were injured and discovered why you were injured. That could trigger the running of the statute of limitations.
Marty Gould:
Every case is a little bit different, but if you had consumed it a long time ago, that may not close the door to pursue a case, and you should certainly call lawyer and find out if you still can.
Jonathan Rosenfeld :
Interesting. One of the ancillary issues here is we have a whole nother group of potential plaintiffs who may have taken Zantac or the generic equivalent, and they may have developed a cancer and they may have have died from that cancer.
Jonathan Rosenfeld :
In those situations, can the family of the deceased pursue a claim at this point? Can they pursue a wrongful death claim if their loved one took Zantac in the past? They may not have been aware of the connection between their cancer and the NDMA in Zantac.
Marty Gould:
In many cases, you can. A family can file a wrongful death case on behalf of a loved one who was taking Zantac and, unfortunately, died of cancer. There's still the same process is involved, where we file a census plus form. We try and retrieve as many of the medical records as we can, although you can still pursue it.
Marty Gould:
Then there's also something to note is, sometimes, because we're dealing with cancer cases, we have clients that file lawsuits while they're still alive, and then tragically, they died during litigation. The family can then step in and pursue that litigation for the loss of that loved one, for the wrongful death and survival damages.
Marty Gould:
Courts recognize the sad reality that many claimants may not survive to see the under this case or really any of these cases, and because of that, in some of those circumstances, we can fight to have a deposition of the individual before they pass away. It varies from case to case, and it varies in terms of the health of the plaintiff.
Marty Gould:
But it's certainly something we've done in many cases where we've taken a deposition of our client before he passed away, and judges understand that, and the defense attorneys understand that. Then they're sensitive to the situation and the emotional difficulties surrounding giving testimony in that circumstance.
Jonathan Rosenfeld :
Now these, the pending Zantac cases, they're civil lawsuits, and I want to talk with you about damages in a case like this. Now you and I, we don't have a crystal ball. We have no way of anticipating how these cases may play out. There's still a lot of evidence that needs to be disclosed by all parties involved, but obviously, when you file a civil lawsuit, your sole recourse really is to get economic compensation.
Jonathan Rosenfeld :
Obviously, we have no way of predicting the value of these cases, but can you just talk through the available damages in a civil case, such as Zantac, where someone at home may be thinking, well, I don't know if it's worth bringing a case. It may not be that much, which I hear pretty consistently. Can you just sort of explain the potential damages available in these cases?
Marty Gould:
Yes. We're talking about cancer lawsuits here. The damages are catastrophic. It's the worst news for anybody to hear that they were diagnosed with cancer, and we're also talking about a case where the allegation is that these drug manufacturers were creating a drug that was dangerous, was cancer-causing.
Marty Gould:
People were consuming this, and it was essentially like putting gunpowder and a fuse in somebody's body. It was being lit once it's mixed with water and other substances within your body and causing a very toxic cancer-causing substance, NDMA. The types of recoveries in a situation like that, where somebody's wrongful conduct caused somebody else to get cancer, in some cases to die.
Marty Gould:
You can get what's called loss of consortium. The family can get a recovery and survival claim, family can get a recovery for the loss of love, the loss of having that person around, pain and suffering for when the person was alive, emotional trauma, emotional distress, economic damages, lost income that the person could have earned, past and future lost income. If they weren't able to work for a period of time, because of the cancer treatment.
Marty Gould:
You can also get punitive damages in these cases. At this stage, we don't know yet whether we will, but there's certainly going, in many of these cases, we do get punitive damages. Those are additional damages, which can be significant, as a way to punish the drug manufacturers if they in fact knew about the harms and didn't warn people, or didn't take the necessary actions to protect the consumers.
Jonathan Rosenfeld :
Well, it certainly seems like these are cases which really are going to be an emerging area of litigation. I really appreciate you sharing your insight with us.
Jonathan Rosenfeld :
If someone is sitting on the sideline, sitting at home, is there anything you would tell them to do at this point in terms of moving forward? If they're sitting on the sideline and they're a little hesitant at this point, do you have any suggestions for them?
Marty Gould:
They should immediately contact a lawyer to understand their rights, because they don't have to make a decision whether they want to file a claim or not just yet. But they should understand are there any deadlines that could apply to them, is there any statute limitations that may be expiring soon, and speak with a lawyer and find out what their rights are and also whether they have a potential claim.
Marty Gould:
Maybe they don't, but it would probably give them some peace of mind to know that they had asked the lawyer. They had spoken to a lawyer, and they did not meet the criteria, but you don't want to sit around and do nothing if there's a chance that your Zantac consumption did cause serious injuries up to and including cancer.
Marty Gould:
If you were taking Zantac for a long period of time and you don't have cancer, you should still be monitoring their health. I would speak to a doctor about it, just to get their opinions on whether you are at risk, and more importantly, to make sure that you don't take any other substances like Zantac that have this toxic substance, and that you switched to alternative drugs that are safer for heartburn or acid reflux.
Jonathan Rosenfeld :
This is great information, Marty. I really appreciate you sharing your expertise with us today. I look forward to talking with you about this again as these cases proceed towards trial. Thanks again, and I'm going to put your contact information in our show notes, but we appreciate your time. Thank you.
-
In this episode Jonathan Rosenfeld chats with Martin D. Gould an Attorney at Romanucci & Blandin, LLC. Here, they discuss:
Robert Anderson AbuseRead the Transcript
Download the PDF
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Hi. My name's Jonathan Rosenfeld. I am an attorney, and I am here today with my good friend, colleague, and what else? Respected co-counsel on a lot of these cases, Marty Gould. And today we are going to talk a little bit about a really disturbing news story that's come up involving sexual abuse claims involving the University of Michigan and a doctor who is employed at the University of Michigan for decades, Robert Anderson MD. And these are news stories which really have been making the tabloids in the Michigan area, but they really can translate to other jurisdictions as well. And Marty handles a lot of different sexual abuse cases across the country in different contexts, but today I want to sort of get an update from Marty as to the status of these cases. And before we even get to that, I'm going to let Marty introduce himself and give a little bit of background about these particular cases, because whether you've heard about this or not, I think Marty does a great job giving the relevant background, because these are really, really disturbing situations.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
And when we look at them in the context that they are in, this went on for decades just right under the university's nose. So Marty, could you just share with us a little bit about the Robert Anderson situation and really help the audience get some grasp as to what happened in the situation?
Marty Gould:
Well, I'm of counsel at Rosenfeld Injury Lawyers. We handle sexual abuse cases all across the country. We represent many, many survivors of physician abuse. And this one is particularly disturbing. The case involves Dr. Robert Anderson. For nearly 50 years, Dr. Anderson was in charge of the medical care for the University of Michigan college athletes. He also was in charge of medical care for many of the University of Michigan other students at the Student Health Center. He retired in 2003, and he passed away in 2008. Recently, there's been a number of lawsuits filed in state and federal court in Michigan alleging abuse by this physician for decades. He was performing unnecessary medical exams, hernia exams, prostate exams, and groping, fondling, and grabbing student's genitals, penetrating students, forcing students to touch his genitals. And there's a whole litany of other allegations made against him.
Marty Gould:
Hundreds of people have come forward. The University of Michigan set up a hotline for survivors to file complaints, and they had over 250 complaints against Dr. Anderson. This was so well-known for so long that Michigan athletes actually had a nickname for him called Dr. Drop Your Drawers and Dr. Glove. There's reports that other administrators or supervisors knew about it. So it's just a very, very traumatic, unfortunate situation. And because he wasn't stopped earlier, hundreds of other student athletes and students were abused by this person and have all sorts of psychological injuries as a result.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Now, one of the situations that comes up in a lot of childhood sexual abuse cases is what happens in a situation such as this where, Dr. Anderson died I believe in 2008 or so, but how do I bring a case against an individual who may be deceased? A lot of times, childhood sexual abuse survivors may be hesitant to bring a case, because the perpetrator may be serving time in jail or they may be deceased. Can you explain a little bit about how that works in a situation such as this where Dr. Anderson is no longer with us, what that involves in terms of a victim pursuing a claim?
Marty Gould:
In many of our cases, the offender is deceased, and we're still able to pursue cases and receive substantial compensation for clients. And there's various ways you can go about proving your case. For one, the testimony of your client is evidence. But in those cases that we do pursue, it's difficult to pursue a case against the offender. You have to sue the estate for the offender. In many cases, they don't have substantial assets. But you can still sue the institution for their own failures and for their own culpability in failing to prevent the abuse, failing to investigate it, failing to take necessary precautions to make sure students and children are protected. In those cases, any evidence regarding reports made to the institution is evidence in the case. So if we're able to find out if there was other reports from other students. In this circumstance, Dr. Anderson, Roger Stone actually stated that he had made reports and he was aware of supervisors that were aware of Dr. Anderson decades ago. Okay, that's evidence in a case like this, that's evidence against the university where we would argue that.
Marty Gould:
Well, at that point in time where reports were made, more should have been done to supervise Dr. Anderson and to make sure students were being treated in a safe environment. So the ways in which you go about the evidence is through testimony of other witnesses and any documentation that you can find, emails, letters, and that's typically primarily how you go about establishing these cases.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
In a situation like this, where this took place at the University of Michigan, a very, very well-respected institution, the cases are now actually, as you mentioned, they're now actually proceeding against the University of Michigan. As a victim, what type of damages can a victim pursue in a sexual abuse claim against the university? In other types of personal injury cases that we handle, we talk about specials. We look at their medical bills, we look at the amount of time that they may have lost from work. We look at a lot of hard economic damages in a childhood sexual abuse situation. We may not have those tangible economic damages and the case may be primarily composed of non-economic damages, pain, and suffering, loss of normal life, disability even. I want to talk with you a little bit about how the damages in these cases may play out for a potential victim. Can you talk a little bit about that?
Marty Gould:
In the Dr. Anderson cases, the University of Michigan has filed motions to dismiss the claims, but with those, they've also acknowledged the abuse that has occurred. They're not disputing really that Dr. Anderson was abusing students and children, and they're working to set up a claims process. So in the claims process, how would we go about establishing somebody's injuries from these such situations. There's acknowledgement through research, through state governments, even the federal government, of the fact that sexual abuse causes serious psychological traumas, it causes all sorts of injuries, such as a post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, anxiety, inability to sleep, inability to eat, trust problems, inability to be in it in some circumstances. We go about establishing how it's impacted somebody through the testimony of the survivor, through testimony from their loved ones, family members, significant others, spouses, even friends, some cases, employers, it's totally up to the survivor regarding who they think will assist in providing that testimony, medical records.
Marty Gould:
Many of our clients have counseling that they've had to go through throughout their lives. Some of them had to be institutionalized, because of psychological breakdowns or suicide attempts. Some of them have never had counseling up until just now. They didn't want to tell anybody and they'd just started getting counseling. Those records can be introduced into the case and through all of that, we help build a picture for the claims handlers, the insurance companies, the defendants, to explain to them how this abuse has impacted our client. And it can impact them through financially, whether it's through psychological treatment that they have to pay for, medical bills, if they were admitted for suicide or other serious psychological injuries, financially, has it impacted their ability to work in any way? To respond to supervisors, to work on a team. And then non-economic ways, just the emotional trauma, the pain and suffering.
Marty Gould:
And in these cases, you can also get punitive damages. The courts can award you punitive damages, if there's evidence that meets that requirement, and that's additional compensation you can receive. And it's meant to deter future conduct. It's to send a message to the institution that they should have done things differently. Had they done things differently, students and children wouldn't have been abused. And this punitive damages is a message to them saying they got to change the way in which they do business.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Now, there's no way that you and I can sit here and predict how these cases will shake out. But I just want to point out that unfortunately, there have been some other situations similar to this involving colleges and universities. Obviously in the past couple of years, there's been a settlement involving Larry Nassar at Michigan State University. And that involved a $500 million settlement for 332 people. There was a settlement involving the University of Southern California for 215 million people involving George Tyndall. That happened in 2020. Everyone knows about Jerry Sandusky at Penn State. And in that situation, the university paid out $109 million. Ohio State has paid out $45 million to 185 victims, involving Richard Strauss, another sports doctor. So, I think the bottom line is, these cases do have substantial value. Obviously, a lot of it's going to be dependent on the situation involving the individual and how their attorney relays that information and helps convey those damages to the decision-makers in the case, whether it's a judge or jury or a mediator.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
But before you even get to the damages, can we talk a little bit about how the statute of limitations applies to a situation like this? And the statute of limitations is basically a time for bringing a legal claim that is set forth by the state legislature, which says, "Hey, you have X amount of time to file a lawsuit or resolve a case." Typically, if you fail to do so within that statute of limitations, you will be barred from collecting a penny. In this particular situation involving Robert Anderson, can you share with us a little bit about how a statute of limitations would apply? And I don't expect you to necessarily say with absolute specifics, but if you could generally lay forth how the statute of limitations would apply to this particular context, that'd be great.
Marty Gould:
Sure. Well earlier you mentioned all these other cases where they had physicians that abused many students, and you were talking about numbers like 332 survivors in the case against Larry Nassar at Michigan State. Hundreds, 185 at Ohio State University, hundreds of others and University of Southern California. When you have those type of numbers of students that were abused, there was red flag after red flag that was ignored or concealed. And that's why in these cases there ends up being settlements, because once you get down to the evidence, you don't have physicians or anybody, teachers or religious leaders that can abuse that many people without others seeing something. And that's why these cases are so significant. Now, in terms of the statute of limitations, there's a lot of variables involved, the age of the person when the abuse occurred.
Marty Gould:
So that's why it's very important for a survivor to immediately speak with a lawyer who can explain to them what the potential statute of limitations is. Many of these cases involving University of Michigan student athletes, there an argument by the university saying that the statute of limitations has expired. Depending on the time period in which the abuse occurred, it may actually be the case depending on the facts and time and the circumstances, but because of the outrage regarding what happened, there's bills that are being proposed in the state of Michigan seeking to change some of the laws seeking to create a window to which survivors can file claims against the University of Michigan and anybody else such as public officials that are responsible for what happened. So it's important to understand what those potential laws are. In the Larry Nassar situation. In many of those cases, the statute limitations had expired. And the state of Michigan did the same thing, they created a window for survivors to file claims.
Marty Gould:
So that's why it's important to speak with a lawyer to find out, even if perhaps somebody had told you the statute of limitations expired in your case, is there a chance that there may be a viable case in the near future and to keep tabs on any legislation in Michigan or really any state in which you were abused. And there may be an issue with the statute of limitations.
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
So really these cases are very case-specific and situation-specific. I think the ultimate the message to people I guess, would be if you are sitting at home and sitting on the sidelines and watching this whole situation unravel, and you are a victim, I guess, the bottom line is now is the time to move forward and really, and contact an attorney and sort of get your claim on file while that window of opportunity may be open.
Marty Gould:
Correct. Now is the time, now is always the time to, at the very least, even if you don't want to pursue a case, speak with a lawyer to find out what your rights are, what deadlines are coming up, what your options are. You don't have to file a claim and while I would encourage everyone to do so, and you can do so confidentially, if you have concerns. Know your rights,
Jonathan Rosenfeld:
Marty, I really appreciate you explaining the situation with me today. As someone who has worked with you, I really admire your dedication to the clients. You certainly are someone who is really willing to roll up their sleeves and really be an advocate for clients. And I really appreciate your time today. And I look forward to speaking with you again about these cases as we watch them move forward in the claims process. Thank you.
Marty Gould:
Thanks, Jon.
- もっと表示する
