Frivolous lawsuits

[StSanta]

"Julia Bishop, who has filed a $70 million lawsuit against the maker of the acne medication Accutane that her son was taking before the crash, has made few public statements since her son's death January 5, 2002.

"This is a news story for the rest of the world," she told the St. Petersburg Times in a story for Sunday's edition. "But for me, he was my life and my son and it's extremely difficult to have this thrown into my face all the time."

Bishop is limited in what she can talk about because of the lawsuit, which contends Accutane caused the boy to develop severe psychosis and led him to commit suicide. A trial is set for March 2004 in U.S. District Court in Tampa. "

Stuff like this is ridiculous. Assuming that the mother is right, $70 million is ridiculous. And I've never heard of anyone suffering from a psychosis due to taking anti-acne drugs. More likely they'd got i because of the acne.

I hope that someday the US judicial system will have an overhaul that'll ensure that BS cases like this one are just thrown out, or at least maximum $$$ somehow limited. People sue because they want money, nothing else.

[SLO]

wrong.....try the lawyers....there the one's who pick an chose the cases to be brought before a juge....

blame the lawyers...not the system.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

It's possible for chemicals introduced to the skin to alter your brain waves... only while under the influence of the chemical (LSD)...

So it's quite possible that so long as this kid was using the creme he wasn't in the right state of mind...

Of course, I'd like to see a scientifically proven basis for this reasoning... not just an assumption.
-SW

[gofaster]

Originally posted by SLO
wrong.....try the lawyers....there the one's who pick an chose the cases to be brought before a juge.

Actually, its the judge that decides.  Typically, once a lawsuit is filed with the clerk, the defendant files a Motion to Dismiss and lists the grounds for the dismissal.  The judge looks at the defendant's motion and decides if the case should continue to a formal hearing or not.  If the case is dismissed, the defendant can file a claim for reimbursement of fees - to be paid by the plaintiff for filing a frivolous case.

I would suspect that this lady is making things worse for herself.  Either she has a bad attorney, or she's ignoring the advice being given to her.

[gofaster]

Originally posted by StSanta

I hope that someday the US judicial system will have an overhaul that'll ensure that BS cases like this one are just thrown out, or at least maximum $$$ somehow limited. People sue because they want money, nothing else.

Juries can award whatever money they want, but the judge can modify the amount awarded as he sees fit.  In criminal courts, the jury finds the guilt, but the judge does the sentencing.  Its kind of the same thing in civil court, too.  The jury finds the guilt and the money, but the judge has the final say in the damages.

[Eagler]

old news ...

warning labels on the medication

what else does the drug manufacturer have to do?

then again maybe its the zits and not the meds which place the kid in the "state of mind" to fly a plane into a downtown building

mother in denial, while trying to make $$ from it, lawyers pushing her cause .. aint America great

[gofaster]

I'm thinking it all started in the home with an absentee father and single working mom who took a hands-off attitude with a son who had learning disabilities.  But hey, that's just my thoughts.

[ra]

Assuming that the mother is right, $70 million is ridiculous.

True, she shouldn't settle for less than $28 BILLION.  Who is her lame lawyer, anyway?

[boxboy28]

Accutane is a pill! its injested! and it does cause some mental aswell as physical problems/side effects.

None the less 70 milloin come on very frivolous case!

box

[whgates3]

i suppose you dont believe that there is the possibility that the drug had an awful side effect that either wasn't tested for (incompetence on the part for the manufacturer) or was both very bad & very rare, so the manufacturer, in the interests of profit, did not mention it on the warning lable...the real problem is that judges are appointed not for competence, but for political affiliation and so there is noone in the court who is both impartial & educated.  one of the reasons the juries award such imense sums is that it wouldn't dammage the perpetrator to award a reasonable amount, and so wouldn't curb the bad behavior....and they werent even awarded the 70million$, they just filed for it, so maybe its just a negociating ploy.  laying the blame at the feet of the actual participants in the case rather than the architects of the political/judicial system is erroneous.  it is the lawyer's job to act in the client's be$t intere$t.  if your counsel said "i think we can sue for $70 million", would you say "i only want $4 million"?

[rc51]

Question) what do you call 10 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
Answer) a good start!!!!!!!!!

[-dead-]

Originally posted by StSanta
And I've never heard of anyone suffering from a psychosis due to taking anti-acne drugs. More likely they'd got i because of the acne.

From the ACCUTANE MedGuide:
Possible serious side effects:
1. Birth defects.
2. Mental Problems and suicide.

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
It's possible for chemicals introduced to the skin to alter your brain waves... only while under the influence of the chemical (LSD)...
So it's quite possible that so long as this kid was using the creme he wasn't in the right state of mind...
Of course, I'd like to see a scientifically proven basis for this reasoning... not just an assumption.
-SW

They're capsules, orally ingested. And heavy stuff judging by the foot-long list of side effects.

And as Eagler says - the fact the capsules may cause serious brain problems, permenant vision and hearing loss, depression, serious mental health problems, birth defects, etc etc is all in the side effects bit of the drugs package, and the medication, so it seems fairly dumb to try and sue a drug company for a product having the advertised side effects. Better off having a go at the doctor for poor supervision of a patient with some very heavy meds, but I suppose the doctor's not as rich as the drug company. But if they got them off an irresponsible "no prescription needed" "online consultation" internet pharmacy, by all means sue them.

[vorticon]

more retarded crap has actually passed

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Thanks for the info Dead.
-SW

[StSanta]

Alright, was wrong on the acne thing. Thought it was standard creme stuff.

Still, if the side effects are listed it's up to the patients to judge whether to take them or not. Of course the mother can argue that the doc dinnae inform her kid well enough. Then again, in DK the patient has a responsibility of reading the little paper that comes with the drugs.

$70 million? Here, you'd be fortunate if you got $50 000.

Still, there are lots of suits all over the place in the US - so many that doctors walk out because they cannot get adequate insurances. Been talking to a friend of mine that's a lawyer and he claims that often big businesses don't want to go through a court because then their name is dragged out in the public and they might lose face/goodwill, so they settle outside of court, despite knowing the claimant has very little of a case.

We see lots of weird lawsuits in the US that we don't see elsewhere. Do you not think that perhaps there are things that could do with a bit of a modification in it? Such as paying for the cost of the trial in case one loses, or possibility for automatic counter-suit if a case is judged to be frivolous?