Both my parents worked full time jobs. So, before school age had arrived, they would drop me off at my Grandparents' house. I'd arrive early; do the requisite crying as my parents would drive off; and then I'd settle in for a day with my grandmother that might also include some farm chores.

My grandmother had probably already been up about 3 hours by the time that I arrived. The wood stuff was pumping heat and she was busy peeling potatoes or getting ready for washday. No electric heat or electric washer and dryer to just turn on and leave. That's why it took a whole day, basically, to wash and roll through the ringer and then hang it up.

 I would always look forward to seeing my "Pop Pop" come back from the farm, if I hadn't gotten there early enough to go with him to feed the pigs and collect the eggs. Milking had been done long before that arrival time. He would come back for lunch. Usually, it was a pretty good spread of home grown farm food. Some good "fixins", as they say.

Anyway, I wrote those previous three paragraphs to get to what would happen after lunch. My grandmother and I would sit down to watch her "soaps". One was the long running program, "Days of Our Lives". It always started with the "Like sands through the hourglass, so are the Days of our Lives". I analogize that opening to the constant sand that is running against Wyeth and Pfizer Drug Companies.

On November 2, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued its opinion in the case of Scroggin v. Wyeth.(Download Scroggin Opinion) On the lower level, a jury had awarded Ms Scroggin a verdict of $2.75 million in compensatory damages and $20 million in punitive damages against Wyeth and $8M in punitive against UpJohn. The lower level Court set aside the punitive verdicts and entered judgment on the compensatory. The Drug companies appealed the compensatory verdict and Ms Scroggin appealed the setting aside of the punitive damage verdict.

The Eighth Circuit upheld the $2.75 Million in compensatory and sent the case back to the lower level jury, to determine what amount of punitives should be entered against Wyeth. It upheld setting aside the UpJohn punitive verdict but didn't want the UpJohn evidence to have any influence on the punitive verdict against Wyeth.

 Ms Scroggin was happy that the Court was now ordering the consideration of the punishment damages against Wyeth. Amazingly, Wyeth(now owned by Pfizer) issued a press release that somehow suggested a victory in the Eighth Circuit opinion. The fact that the punitives had originally been set aside and was now going to be considered, was escaping them, apparently.

As my previous blogs have suggested, on these verdicts involving Wyeth and its hormone therapy drug Prempro, it has been amazing to watch the defense spin of the verdicts. Somehow, it seems like a bunker mentality to me. The attached link titles the Court opinion, "Hormone Therapy Victims Win Important Appeal". That's how I see that the hormone therapy litigation is proceeding.

Notwithstanding, Wyeth and Pfizer seem to be seeing it differently. That's why it makes me travel back in time, as I sat in my grandmother's living room and saw the sand running through the hourglass. Can those drug companies feel the sand escaping too?  

In case you didn't see the Veteran's Day story on the "cancelled" mugging, I thought I'd attach for this blog entry. (Boston.com) A Milwaukee Army reservist says he was walking home at about 1:15, when he was pulled into an alley, told to lay face down and a gun was stuck to his neck.

Four men took his wallet that included $16, his license and id's and his cell phone. When one of the men saw his reservist Army ID, he told the others to return the items. He also apologized for trying to rob him and thanked him for serving. The reservist then said that he gave him a quick fist bump before walking away.

One of those stories that just makes you shake your head. Maybe there should be Veterans behind bank counters. That way there would be no bank robbing. My big blog idea for the day! I am thankful, though, for those who have and do serve but the reward should not be a cancelled robbery. 

I used this nondescript blog title to almost serve as a  'tongue in cheek" starter. It comes from a story in the Houston Chronicle, that describes a lawsuit that is being brought against the Texas Windstorm Association (TWA), for accusations that the state windstorm insurer unfairly rigged prices relating to claims. The claims related to reimbursements  for damage from Hurricane Ike.

My initial reaction is to wonder if this is really a story. The lawsuit and alleged facts don't surprise me. Today, for instance, I received a letter from an adjuster who said that she thought my client's bills submitted in the settlement package were unreasonable and too high. She went on to say that she was going to have the bills audited by "an outside medical outfit". Yes, she really said that. Not an  "independent medical review company"; but she actually wrote the word "outfit". She went on to say that, unless I resubmitted my demand with a reasonable amount for settlement, that she wasn't even going to respond.

For this third paragraph, I sorta want to say, "now back to our regularly scheduled program" of Hurricane Ike claims discussion. The parallels that I see everyday, just don't surprise me about this lawsuit. In the suit, the allegations include that the insurance carrier uses a software package that used prices that were lower than market rates, to estimate materials and repair costs.

Senator Rodney Harris, D-Houston, has seen some of the documents and stated that they, "demonstrate a pattern of deception resulting in wrongful underpayment and denial of Hurricane Ike claims by TWA". One example of underpayment in the pleadings relates to roof repairs. One firm reported a cost of $230-$250 per 100 square feet. TWA was reimbursing in an amount of $182.

This newspaper story is, once again, a story of an insurance company that is putting profits over people. Of course, they are a business, not a charity. Their reason for existence is profit. However, unlike a business that is selling peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, they have a duty to act in good faith or suffer the consequences. They do have legal duties.

 The alleged evidence even includes that some of the adjusters were paid bonuses for failure to reconsider claims. I guess the hope was, that the individuals, dealing with  having their homes destroyed or damaged, would just take what was being paid, without question.

In my world, I'm not dealing with roof claims, but I do deal with medical payments and medical payment coverage. On a regular basis, I receive "reimbursements" that are less than the bills. There usually is an explanation of benefits that explains why the full amount is not sent. The reasons attached have no medical basis except that a software package just denied them.

Most unrepresented probably just take the amount sent. I "zip" off a letter giving the insurance company a certain number of days to send the remaining submitted amount and usually the check arrives, shortly. On occasion, I have filed suit and then received the check and attorney fee under the applicable Virginia Code section. Without evidence, these companies are unwilling to take their chance in Court.

     Unfortunately, there is not enough "bad faith teeth" in the laws right now, to really scare some of these insurance companies, to pay what is owed.  Hopefully, someday, that will change. Who would have thought that there would be "no smoking" laws for restaurants. In the meantime, I guess I can dream about being in a closet with a gecko and caveman for 5 minutes. In my dream, out I walk, carrying a little green flat thing with a beard strung around its head. OK, maybe that's a little drastic!!!!  

Recently, a fan was headed into the Redskins' stadium, with a T-shirt that had the picture of the Owner and General Manager. The caption said "Dumb and Dumber". The fan was denied access to the stadium and game unless he removed the shirt. He left and called a radio station to complain that his first amendment rights had been violated.

 While this fan was being denied access to FedEX field for the Redskins and Eagles game, others were having their signs taken from them. Many of the signs complained about the ownership and the losing ways of the Redskins. Meanwhile, security guards were stating that they were merely making sure that the viewing of other fans, was not going to be effected. Prior to this game, there had never been a restriction on the signs. Of course, this same game involved a large outcry of boos, when a video shot of the Redskins' owner, Daniel Snyder, was flashed on the big screen. Another reminder of how seriously fans view their football team. That's why it's called "fan-dom".

In Law.com, the Legal General Counsel came out with his first remarks on why the signs had been removed. He reiterated that the sign consideration was related to concern of viewing of the other fans, as stated by the security guards. When asked about the T-shirt incident, he merely said that it was unfortunate and, of course, a T-shirt was not blocking other fans.

If you read the story, though, it does do a good job of explaining when a team should have signs removed. They should not be allowed if they incite or contain offensive language and are "generally in bad taste". In addition, the NFL announced that it had no problem with Redskins management making such sign determinations. 

In the Law.com article, the General Counsel went on to rightfully say the sign removal is not a First Amendment issue either. Since the Redskins are privately owned, they can make up rules regarding sign display.USA Today listed some other team policies that aren't as harsh as the Washington sign removal. Of course, you'll notice that these other teams are probably having better seasons and, as such, the fans don't feel the need to express the anger . Maybe their owners don't feel quite as defensive, but that is the benefit of being called owner, or is that the liability?

 The World Series is on TV now. If you look at the lineups of each team, you will see a few players who can play multiple positions. However, most have their position of first base or shortstop and, of course, you have your specialized pitchers. Some are starters; some are brought in as middle relievers and then, there are those special attitude closers.

Years ago, I worked at a timeshare resort. The word "resort" was used loosely because it really was a campground. People would come for their free gift, as advertised by call or mailing, and take a tour of the facility. At the end of the tour, they were brought to a big room with many tables. There, they sat with their tour guide who now magically transformed into a salesperson.

In a perfect world, the facility would sell itself and people could see that it was something that they would use with their family. Most of the time, they really didn't have an interest and had just sat through the required drive around the facility, so that they could get their free gift. Surprisingly, cheap radios or tiny luggage had value, when it was free.

Sometimes I was one of the "tour guides". At one point, I was moved to a position of "closer". My job was to come to the table, when the salesperson had hit a snag, and try to overcome obstacles. It was kind of nice not to go through the tour but, that moment of walking up to that table was always an adventure. Normally, by now, the couple was sitting there with a scowl and arms crossed over their body. It didn't take a body language book to know that I wasn't welcome at the table. But, that was my job as closer.

To some extent, Federal Court has almost become designated like that. Each state has it's own rules of evidence as Federal Court does. However, Federal Court rules have been changing to include the way things are filed. I refuse to admit it, but Big Defense firms obviously feel that they have an advantage by assigning lawyers who only practice in Federal Court. Then, they threaten during negotiations by saying, "You know that this will be in Federal Court, don't you?" Plus, many believe that Federal Judges are more willing to dismiss cases, and not let them proceed to the jury.

Now those Federal Court lawyer "closers" may be losing their advantage. There is a move afoot (LawyerUSA.com) by Congress, to change some strict pleading rules that have been enacted and interpreted by the US Supreme Court. In our check and balance system, when Congress doesn't like what the Courts interpret it, then they can just change it.

I'm sure that defense lawyers will fight the changes. As the article states, the current rulings hurt plaintiffs in such cases as discrimination and civil right actions. The article is a good reminder of why our founding fathers paved a way to keep the system fluidly moving. It's also going to be interesting to watch lobbyist for big business, as they begin to work for votes against this legislation.  

I remember in college reading a book that was titled something like "The Lazy Man's Way to Riches". Even after I read it, it gave me a chuckle because I realized that the writer was actually living the title by writing such a book. With all the books that I have read since then, at least I still remember it..

I sometimes get emails that are from trial lawyer organizations that give blogging ideas. If you've read a few of my blogs, it's evident that I'm probably not getting my ideas from any recommended source. Notwithstanding, I did get an idea that I think is worth passing on.

The American Association for Justice has published a report on corporate conduct as it relates to products and such titled "They knew and failed to". It is a long report on such products as drugs, automobiles and medical devices. It is long, so you have to be in the mood to read it, but you might find some interesting analysis. Here's the attachment: http://www.justice.org/clips/TheyKnewAndFailedTo.pdf

I started out by discussing "The Lazy Man's Way to Riches". I thought it was reflective of how lazy this blog might seem. Then, I decided to google the title and see what pops up on this book, that I remembered. Sure enough, there's a discussion of this book that was written by Joe Karbo. (story here) In fact, apparently it was a 1973 classic and he even wrote an ad for it, before he wrote the book. That's a good story too!