DRUMBEAT GETTING LOUDER FOR GEORGE??

As reported by Michael Sneed and Eric Herman in the February 24, 2006 Chicago Sun-Times, it appears Cardinal Francis George ignored early warning signs about Rev. Daniel McCormack. As reported in the article, a review board at the Archdiocese of Chicago advised George to remove McCormack in October of 2005. George however, failed to act on the advice and McCormack remained at St. Agatha's Parish until January of 2006 when he was charged with molesting two boys. Recently McCormack was charged with abusing another boy - in January of 2006, some three months after George received the Review Board's recommendation to remove McCormack. The spokesperson for the Cardinal, Colleen Dolan admitted that George had received "interim advice" to remove McCormack, but noted that "There was no formal recommendation." The Department of Children and Family Services has also indicated it is looking into additional allegations against the priest.

PARKINSON'S DRUG ALLEGED TO CAUSE COMPULSIVE BEHAVIOR

Max Wells, retired doctor, filed a lawsuit on friday, February 17th, against drug manufacturer Glaxo Smith Kline and seven casinos after gambling away $14 million. Wells' complaint alleges that Glaxo Smith Kline failed to warn him that the Parkinson's drug he was taking could lead to compulsive behavior and that the Casinos knew of Mayo Clinic studies that documented the danger in a study of 11 patients taking the drug.


Class Action Lawsuits filed as a result of drug's effects.

National Geographic publishes its thoughts on the subject.

TROOPER'S WIDOW SUES MAKERS OF COLD DRUG

Saw an interesting note in the January-February 2006 Vested Interest, the Illinois Trial Lawyers Newsletter. The note described a lawsuit recently filed by the widow of an Oklahoma state trooper who was gunned down by someone high on methamphetamine. The widow filed suit against several makers and sellers of the drug pseudoephedrine. The lawsuit appears to allege that the makers and sellers of the drug were aware the meth addicts were buying pseudoephedrine, not for medicinal purposes, but to extract certain ingredients that would allow them to make, and presumably get high on meth. The widow is also alleging that the defendant companies[including Pfizer, Wal-Mart and Walgreens] knew how to make pseudoephedrine in such a manner that drug addicts couldn't extract the meth ingredients. Presumably the widow has evidence[probably from the criminal trial] that the shooter purchased the medication, extracted the necessary ingredients, got high and then killed her husband. Even if that is the case, the drug manufacturers will certainly argue that the risk of methheads buying a cold medication, altering it, and then cooking up meth wasn't foreseeable - and as a result, they wouldn't have any duty to prevent it. It will be interesting to see if the defendants did in fact have an alternative way to make the drug where vital ingredients couldn't be extracted. If so, that would suggest they were on notice that addicts were using the drug for alternative purposes. That fact may be critical in rebutting the inevitable defense that the makers couldn't forsee this odd string of events taking place. In light of the way meth has taken hold in the Midwest, for some time now, perhaps the defendants did know something like this was possible.

JURY AWARDS MILLIONS AGAINST CHICAGO P.D.

As reported in the Chicago Tribune on Saturday, February 18, 2006, a Cook County jury returned a $6.74 million dollar verdict against the Chicago Police Department for using excessive force and coercion to wrongfully obtain murder convictions against three men that were later vacated. The men, Omar de Jesus Aquirre, 37, Savier Duarte Santos, 33 and Robert Gayol, 42, spent years in custody or prison before being freed in 2002. They alleged that Chicago Police picked them up for questioning in November of 1997 after the murder of Southwest Side furniture store owner. The plaintiffs alleged they were physically abused by the police, who also concocted fake stories to secure their convictions.

The jury awared $3 million to both Aquirre and Santos. Before his sentence was vacated, Aquirre was serving a 55 year sentence. Gayol had been sentenced to life. Santos had cooled his heels in custody for 4 years and then served only six months of a 12 year sentence, pursuant to a deal he had cut with prosecutors. The lawyers representing the three men had requested an award of $21.5 million.

ILLINOIS CITIZENS PREVAIL IN RIGHT TO KNOW CASE

Congratulation to The Southern Illinoisan newspaper for sticking to their guns in a lengthy public health fight they have been waging with the Illinos Department of Public Health[IDPH]. After 8 years of litigation and appeals, the Illinois Supreme Court recently ruled that the IDPH had to fork over certain public health records they had been withholding. The newspaper had been fighting to obtain IDPH data regarding neuroblastoma, a rare childhood cancer. The Supreme Court ruled that the IDPH must comply with the newspaper's Freedom of Information Request that would help identify "clusters" of cancer cases. The original request was filed shortly after a civil lawsuit was filed by several families in Taylorville, Illinois. The families suspected that the cancer developed by their children resulted from coal tar at a nearby utility plant. The families had shown a link between the cancers and the contaminants, and a monetary settlement was reached. The paper wanted to find out if children in others areas of the state were at also at risk from similar contaminants or carcinogens.

So the Southern Illinoisan filed a Freedom of Information Request for the data in 1997. There was no request for specific names. Instead, the paper was looking for the type of cancer, date of diagnosis and zip code of all cancer patient diagnosed since1985. Seems reasonable enought. But the IDPH didn't think so. The Department denied the request, alleging the data could be manipulated to identify the patients. To prove their point, the Department offered evidence that a professor of Computer Science could use the information requested to determine the names of most of the patients. [It should be noted that the Professor had a Ph.D in computer science, used sophisticated search techniques and expensive software to get the names]. The newspaper filed suit in 1998, seeking court intervention to get the records. The trial court ruled for the paper, but the IDPH fought the ruling, and the Appellate Court overturned the lower court's decision. The case was sent back to the lower court. And again, in 2002, the trial court ordered the Department to turn over the data. In fact, the trial judge, William Schwartz, ordered the agency to pay the paper's legal fees, because he found the Department's conduct was "obstreperous". But the IDPH wasn't done. They took the fight to the Illinois Supreme Court. Thankfully the Supreme Court ordered that the records were to be turned over. But the IDPH seemingly hasn't given up. A spokesman for the IDPH was quoted as saying "We are very disappointed and wer are exploring all options" to avoid release of the data, including legislation.

Makes you wonder why the IDPH would fight so hard to keep these records confidential. Wonder what they are so afraid of...

CHICAGO TRIBUNE BLASTS IMESCH

The February 9 Chicago Tribune had a great editorial today regarding the utter failings of Joliet Bishop Joseph Imesch after being confronted with pretty concrete evidence that priests in his archdiocese were sexually abusing young people. The editorial actually quotes deposition testimony from Imesch that was unsealed last week. At one point, Imesch was asked about a report to diocesan officials in 1985 that a Woodridge priest might be having a sexual relationship with a 14 year old girl. Imesch was asked if he contacted police. His response? "I would not do that...There is no verification. There is no hard evidence this was happening. And I'm not going to go say, Hey police, go check on my priest." Later, Imesch testified: "I'm not going to go to the police and say that I've got a suspicion that one of my priests is dating a young girl. I'm not going to do that." Why not? A sexual relationship between an adult man and a child is illegal - Imesch surely knew that, but did nothing.

Another bit of testimony that turns the stomach - came about when the lawyer discussed the victim's age...
Q: She was a 14 year old girl.
A: We didn't know that at the time.
Q: You didn't ask.
A: We didn't know who to ask.
I have an idea - how about the priest who is carrying on with the child? A couple of phone calls could have confirmed the victim's age. But Imesch didn't do a thing. Thankfully someone else[with some character]did go to the police and the priest involved was ultimately convicted of criminal sexual abuse.

There was additional questioning about another priest who was accused of abusing young boys in Lombard. Imesch testified the priest acknowledged skinny-dipping with the boys and playing games with them while nude. Imesch simply moved the priest to another parish where he was also accused of abuse. When questioned about the credibility of the Lombard allegations, Imesch responded: "Well, I think what happened happened. It was not considered a crime or a criminal activity so there was not reason for me not to transfer him." The Bishop of Joliet it seems, thinks it is perfectly acceptable for a grown man to play in the nude with young boys.

To add insult to injury, Imesch released a letter last weekend noting that the incidents occurred "...before psychologists recognized that behavior of that kind was indicative of a severe problem..." What a crock. He didn't know that these incidents indicated problems? He is either remarkably stupid, or simply lying in a misguided effort to protect the archidocese from the inevitable legal fallout. Imesch also bemoaned the fact that the media is portraying him as someone who doesn't care about the safety of children. Having read the excerpts above, what else could you conclude about this creep?

MICHAEL B. HYMAN ARTICLE IN CRAIN'S

For those of you who haven't heard, the American Tort Reform Association[ATRA] recently announced that Cook County, Illinois[the county where Chicago is located] is a "judicial hellhole". Michael Hyman, a Chicago attorney, wrote a nice piece recently in Crain's Chicago Business, explaining why ATRA is all wet. First, in calendar year 2004, jury verdicts in Cook County were 51% for plaintiffs and 49% for defendants - hardly the breakdown you you expect in a "judicial hellhole". [Frankly those numbers suprised me - Cook County has always been regarded as a friendlier forum than some of the surrounding counties. But these numbers suggest, to me anyway, that even Cook County juries are getting more conservative]. The 2005 numbers are apparently also split down the middle.

Hyman also pointed out that in the ATRA article, the authors focused on four cases that Cook County judges kept in Cook, that in ATRA's opinion, should have been transferred to other counties. What ATRA failed to mention[shockingly] was that the cases were decided prior to 2003, when the Illinois Supreme Court enacted a major change in the relevant caselaw. Hyman closed his article by noting that ATRA is nothing more than a well-financed special interest group trying to manipulate the jury system to serve the interests of the corporate world. Well done Michael.