Accuracy and truth are not the same?

Well, I guess it’s better than just showing up to court and shrugging your shoulders, but this argument doesn’t persuade me.

The prosecutors from U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald's office on Sept. 18 filed a motion for reconsideration in the case, telling U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow that the government witness who she determined gave false testimony at the trial actually "was truthful, but inaccurate." When taking into account additional evidence not cited in Lefkow's decision and viewing the case as a whole, no finding of misconduct is justified, the prosecutors argued.

Source: Law.com - Prosecutors Defend False Testimony as 'Truthful, but Inaccurate'

Will Congress Undo The Supreme Court’s Iqbal Decision?

We often hear a lot of complaints about “judicial activism.”  Definitions vary, but most would agree that it occurs when a judge or judges substitute their own judgment instead of the law.  The Supreme Court’s Iqbal decision is a double dose of judicial activism.  First, the Supreme Court ignored decades of existing case law to make new rules.  Second, the rules they made invite future judges to subjectively decide whether to dismiss a case without any reference to guiding principles.  Perhaps Congress will undo it:

On May 18, the U.S. Supreme Court gave corporate defendants a gift that keeps on giving: the Iqbal decision, which has made it easier than ever for defendants to shut down lawsuits before they get to the costly discovery stage.

Now, four months later, civil rights and consumer groups and trial lawyers are beginning to push back. They met on Sept. 14 in Washington, D.C., to lay plans for a two-pronged battle to undo what they see as a devastating blow to their lifeblood litigation. The campaign will be aimed at Congress as well as the rulemaking process for federal courts. Hearings are being planned for October in the House and the Senate.

"This ruling has threatened to upend the way we have been doing things for a very long time," said John Payton of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which is part of the growing coalition. "The alarm is quite real."

Source: Law.com - Plaintiffs Groups Mount Effort to Undo Supreme Court's 'Iqbal' Ruling

Tardive Dyskinesia and Primary Pulmonary Hypertension

What do those two illnesses have in common?  They can both be caused pharmaceutical products.

Tardive Dyskinesia is a movement disorder that particularly affects the face.  People who suffer from it can’t control their lips and eyes.  It can cause people to make some really awful looking faces.  Tardive Dyskinesia is a known side effect of Reglan, or its generic form, Metoclopramide.  Reglan is generally prescribed for people who have Gastroesophageal reflux disease.  However, usage of Reglan for more than 12 weeks greatly increases your risk of movement disorders such as Tardive Dyskinesia.

Primary Pulmonary Hypertension, or PPH, is abnormally high blood pressure in the arteries of the lungs.  One of the causes of PPH is even short-term usage of Fen Phen.  Even short term use of Pondimin or Redux can cause a person to develop PPH.  The scary thing is that you might not develop PPH until many years after you stopped taking one of the drugs.  That’s why lawyers are just now starting to file PPH lawsuits.

If you think you’ve developed a movement disorder from taking Reglan, or PPH from taking Fen Phen or another weight loss drug, email me at justinian at justinian dot US.  I’d love to help you find an attorney to help you hold the manufacturer responsible.

Tort Reform, Health Care Reform, and Socialism

Brian Wilson has a great post about the contradictory stance some people have on all of the above.

And while we're on the topic of "socialism," those opposing health care reform have recently begun to argue that the federal govenmnent has no constitutional right to even pass federal health care reforms; rather this whole issue should be left to the states, they chirp. Yet, out of the other corner of their mouths, these same interest groups are DEMANDING intervention of the federal government in passing federal "tort reform" with the principal argument that your individual rights to hold wrongdoers accountable should be limited "for the good of the whole" so that insurance companies can save money and (certainly) pass all those savings on to all of us. Gee, this sounds like...socialism? Government stay out of health care reform, yet pass federal legislation that limits the rights of all Americans? Perhaps the medical interest groups lobbying for these mixed messages should look up the definition of schizophrenia: "a state characterized by the coexistence of contradictory or incompatible elements."

Source: The Nicodemo & Wilson Bull's-Eye Blog: Tort Reform Won't Lower Health Care Costs...And... It's Socialism!