PA Law Blogs » Supreme Court

Jury to Determine Causation for Illnesses Attributed to Both Asbestos Exposure and Smoking

Michael Monheit — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:00:08 +0000

A recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court Decision ruled that two Philadelphia plaintiffs’ cases will not be dismissed based on summary judgment. It will be up to the jury to determine causation based on evidence provided that reflects the severity of asbestos exposure in comparison to other medical ailments. The court decision emphasizes that issues of causation that are supported by “reasonable certain expert opinions” will be permitted to go beyond summary judgment to juries in order for causation to be determined.

The National Law Journal reports that a physician for the plaintiffs involved in Summers v. Certainteed Corp. and Nybeck v. Union Carbide Corp. expressed that their illnesses were caused both by asbestos exposure as well as smoking. Exposure to asbestos has been linked to causing Mesothelioma lung cancer. One of the plaintiffs was found to have obstructive lung disease due to years of tobacco use; however, it was also determined that asbestos dust exposure also contributed to his breathlessness.

In a 2003 case, Quate v. American Standard Inc., the Superior Court determined that a plaintiff would be denied the opportunity to ascertain the essential contributory connection between his or her symptoms and asbestos contact if he or she had experienced symptoms that could be linked to asbestos exposure in addition to another problem. This decision has been overruled, as the most recent case involving the Philadelphia plaintiffs demonstrates.

PA Supreme Court Denies Reassessment of First Hormone Replacement Therapy Tort Case in Philadelphia State Court

Michael Monheit — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:14:58 +0000

In what is being regarded by many as a controversial case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided to leave its decision intact to not reconsider a woman’s hormone replacement therapy (HRT) tort case, which is the first of its kind to go to trial in Philadelphia state court. In Nelson v. Wyeth, the court decided that the plaintiff did not demonstrate proximate causation under the learned intermediary doctrine between her breast cancer and her physician prescribing a hormonal medication, Prempro, manufactured by Wyeth.

The Legal Intelligencer reports that a $3 million compensatory damages jury award that was established in February 2007 for the plaintiff was overturned by a trial judge. In response to the plaintiff’s petition for reconsideration in Nelson v. Wyeth, a per curiam order was entered by the Supreme Court in June 2010, and a denial of petition for allowance of appeal was first established in March. The decision was made despite the plaintiff’s argument that upholding the dismissal conflicts with succeeding case law in PA’s HRT litigation.

With approximately 1,500 HRT cases pending in Philadelphia, 26 cases have been ended in Wyeth’s favor and four plaintiffs’ verdicts are on appeal. Female plaintiff in HRT litigation claim that their breast cancer manifested after taking hormonal drugs intended to alleviate symptoms of menopause.

Supreme Court Addresses Privacy of Employee Workplace Emails and Phone Content

Deborah Forrister — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:37:07 +0000

What rights of privacy do employees have when using computers at work, sending text messages on a cell phone supplied by an employer, or even simply using a work phone? Several people would argue that an employee’s right to privacy is practically nonexistent when an employer provides computers and cell phones. If a company is paying for these electronics and their services, ownership does not belong to the employee. There is an expectation that an employee will respect and maintain certain boundaries based on grounds established by employment laws. However, a worker’s rights and these matters are further complicated when/if an employee contributes to a work-cell phone service bill.

As the Supreme Court examines whether workplace emails and cell phone calls/texts fall under the Constitution’s protection for privacy, most employers throughout the nation implement guidelines stating no right to privacy for employees using work computers and cell phones.

The LA Times reports on the recent case involving a Southern California police officer accused of sending sexually overt messages to a girlfriend using a work cell phone. In this particular case, the officer’s supervisor informed him that he was allowed to use his cell phone outside of office time if he agreed to pay for the additional service. Based on the article, Chief Justice John G. Roberts J. believes that it is understandable for the officer to have assumed that his private messages were private since he was paying for it. Other justices seemed to be in agreement with the idea the employees cannot claim a “reasonable expectation of privacy” if emails or texts are read later by an employer since companies greatly depend on these policies for financial balance and overall workplace structure and performance.

In a similar case two years ago, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decided that a police chief in Ontario did not have any legitimate reason, nor the right, to go through private messages sent to a Sergeant’s girlfriend. The decision was based on the ban of “unreasonable searches” detailed in the 4th Amendment.

Employers and workers await the much anticipated result of the Supreme Court’s decision. If a no-privacy policy for employers is decided upon by the justices, several businesses may need to re-write their employee guidelines. The court’s ruling may, however, narrow-in on privacy issues relating solely to law enforcement officers rather than workers as a whole.

What Makes a Supreme Court Justice?

Michael Monheit — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 10:00:14 +0000

With Justice John Paul Stevens announcing his retirement on April 9, 2010, President Obama has yet another significant decision to make that will influence the American people. A New York Times article reminds us that aside from five exceptions, all Supreme Court members in U.S. history have been white males.

Interestingly, with Stevens leaving, the court will no longer have a Protestant member. But as the article mentions, the decision for Steven’s replacement traditionally would be based on religion, which has now seemed to shift to ensuring demographic diversity.

While citizens throughout the U.S. and government officials alike await President Obama’s choice for Steven’s supplement, the decision will likely center-around who possesses the experience and insight to bring balance and completion to existing members. Today, basing the decision for the next Justice solely on the notion of religious affiliation would not necessarily provide the vital element that Supreme Court discussions require. It seems as though the nation needs response from a team of voices that can vouch for groups with diversity in race, gender, and ethnicity.

Although not written in stone, having attended law school at Harvard or Yale may be an unspoken Supreme Court Justice requirement. Every justice currently on court, aside from Justice Stevens, fits this quota. Based on the article, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg affirmed his belief that society is beyond wanting a nominee with strong religious affiliations. Justice Ginsburg also said that President Obama could use Steven’s retirement as an opportunity to honor tradition while simultaneously creating a fresh path.

Much of what makes up our Nation relies on the Supreme Court make-up and their collective decisions. While it’s easy for any citizen to provide their input in who would be the best candidate, there are several qualities of what makes a Supreme Court Justice to consider.

RICO “Mob” Law Used Against Big Tobacco Companies

Michael Monheit — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 10:00:35 +0000

Both sides of a high profile big tobacco case are contesting a recent verdict by the Washington, D.C. Federal Court of Appeals, according to several reports. The defendants, three tobacco companies including Phillip Morris, now known as Altria, want the verdict overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. The plaintiff, the federal government, wants additional rulings on releasing money from the companies that they see as “ill-gotten gains.”

As it stands, the D.C. court charged the defendants with violating RICO laws by “conspiring” to lie about the health risks of smoking cigarettes. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act or “RICO” was originally part of a set of laws intended to help the federal government crack down on organized crime. Federal prosecutors have used RICO laws against major crime syndicates. The use of RICO against big tobacco has far-reaching implications for business law. If the U.S. Supreme Court takes the case, those on both sides of the aisle will be watching intently for a ruling on whether the companies must pay up to $289 billion. This sum was originally sought by the federal government under the Clinton administration as a “remedy” for the negative health affects the companies caused to the American population.

How does RICO apply? The appeals court found that the companies had coordinated marketing activities and sought to deceive the public about health risks. Arguments for the defense include the claim of improper application of the RICO law.

The case against big tobacco remains one of the most deeply controversial business law cases of our times, and a U.S. Supreme Court decision would go a long way toward resolving it. The application of RICO is only one part of how the judicial system’s treatment of tobacco companies will help provide historical context for the “smoking era” as today’s America continues to push back against the harmful health effects of tobacco products.

Lower Courts Still Hear “Ten Commandments” Cases, Apply Supreme Court Ruling

Michael Monheit — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 10:00:17 +0000

A Feb. 4 ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals extends part of a landmark ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that is still subject to extensive legal maneuvering in many parts of the country.

The court found that a display of historical documents by a Kentucky municipality was not unconstitutional, even though it contained the Ten Commandments of the Judeo-Christian Old Testament. The finding was made because the display also contained a range of secular documents.

Previously, in 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that displays that were intended to be religious in nature or unconstitutional were not to be displayed in local government buildings. The Supreme Court decision led to national controversy and debate as various municipalities “tried” their Ten Commandments displays in local courts.

Now, the broad and controversial contention over the Ten Commandments is being subjected to a higher level of detail. The recent Kentucky case shows that a municipality may be able to display religious documents if legal attempts against them are unable to prove a specific “religious intent.”

The Grayson County government in Kentucky created a practical application of this idea with a “Foundations of American Law and Government.” In this display, the Ten Commandments were displayed along with the full text of the Mayflower Compact and the full Declaration of Independence. Using an array of historical documents was enough to get the backing of the appeals court.

Some legal analysts believe it is unlikely that the U.S. Supreme Court will be asked to return to their ruling on the Ten Commandments. Much of the process for determining the legality of these religious displays was played out during the last decade as radical judges and others argued vehemently for their right to display religious documents. The case in Grayson County, KY, shows a compromised approach by the judicial community, where specific documents and displays may be subjected to an overall judicial scrutiny that will show whether the intent violates the standing Supreme Court rulings.

Supreme Court Blocks Re-Trial for Texas Inmate

Michael Monheit — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:00:40 +0000

A ruling by a New Orleans based federal court appeals has prompted a U.S. Supreme Court decision to block a new trial for a Texas death row inmate.

AP reports show that a Feb. 22 Supreme Court ruling denies a new trial for Anthony Cardell Haynes, who was convicted in the shooting of a police officer in 1998. The report shows the New Orleans court was using a statue regarding the proper criteria for dismissing or excluding jurors. During the trial, the prosecution had excluded two jurors. Arguments for a retrial contend that the exclusions were based on race. The U.S. Supreme Court had previously found it unconstitutional to exclude jurors based on race.

The prosecution maintains that exclusions were based on the demeanor and activity of jurors during their service. Reports show that the issue came down to how the Supreme Court would interpret the juror exclusion and the burden of proof. The U.S. Supreme Court clarified in its Feb. 22 ruling that though it is unconstitutional to exclude jurors because of race, it is not the prosecution’s burden to prove that the exclusions were not based on the demeanor of the jurors.

Media coverage of this case shows the very detailed nature of the appeals and subsequent legal activity. The issue is a good example of how legal appeals can have a significant impact on municipal courts and legal parties. Opinions differ over whether the Supreme Court decision was meant to limit a defendant’s powers of appeal in a similar case. The practical result discourages this type of appeal process by narrowing the avenues for declaring a mistrial. Legal professionals involved in appeals will take notice of this and similar rulings by the highest court in the land.

Where in the World is Manuel Noriega? U.S. Supreme Court Hears Extradition Stay Request

Michael Monheit — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:00:32 +0000

An old name is turning up in the U.S. mainstream media as the U.S. Supreme Court wrangles over granting a stay of extradition for a relatively well-known inmate scheduled for release from a Florida jail. Manuel Noriega, the infamous Panamanian leader nabbed by the U.S. during America’s 1989 invasion of Panama, has been held in the U.S. on drug charges ever since. His upcoming release has prompted a huge controversy over exactly how that release is going to be accomplished.

A CNN report shows Noriega is now wanted in French court for laundering money through French banks. He also faces arrest in Panama, but according to reports about his defense, he would like to be sent there.

Reports show Noriega has asked the U.S. to help battle his extradition to France over allegations that the French will not treat him as a prisoner of war according to the Geneva Convention.

Confusing reports from the French Foreign ministry have added to the fervor. French officials have said that while Noriega will be treated as a prisoner of war, he will not have that official status.

Now Noriega wants the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold his right to be repatriated to Panama.

Reports indicate Noriega is asking for a “re-hearing” by the U.S. Supreme Court. A “dissent” ruling from U.S. Justice Clarence Thomas, as commonly reported, means the U.S. Supreme Court has not previously agreed to take up Noriega’s case against the French. This case is likely to generate a substantial amount of attention from the international media. It is also a good example of how domestic Supreme Court rulings can influence international diplomacy. For those who understand the history behind the current controversy, it is well worth keeping an eye on what happens to Manuel Noriega when he steps out of U.S. custody.

Christian Leaders Push for Immigration Reform

Michael Monheit — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 22:25:22 +0000

Chief Executives of Church World Service and the National Council of Churches are pushing for comprehensive immigration reform, in response to what they referred to as a divine mandate. The leaders sent letters to the 36 communions of their groups stating that immigration reform should be a primary concern of the Christian community.

The letter from Rev. John L. McCullough, Executive Director and CEO of CWS, and the Rev. Michael Kinnamon, General Secretary of the NCC, demonstrated concern for the millions of immigrants living in the United States who have no clear path to citizenship and cannot be with their families, according to a press release at Worldwide Faith News. They wrote that this is a key period of time that demands action from Christians to help disenfranchised peoples.

Leaders of the two organizations joined with many other religious groups in demanding reform, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Association of Evangelicals and the National Hispanic Leadership Conference, along with millions of other religious people. They also called on the leaders of their communions to consider hosting prayer vigils to pray for immigrants, dedicate church lessons or sermons to the subject of immigration reform, and to contact legislators urging immigration reform to be a priority. The letter often quotes Bible scripture as support for policy changes, urging members to show Christian love toward those marginalized in society.

The leaders also encouraged members to attend Ecumenical Advocacy Days from March 19 to March 22 and a rally for immigration reform March 21. Both events take place in Washington, D.C. President Barack Obama and members of Congress have stressed the urgency for immigration reform. Legislation, such as the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for Americas Security and Prosperity, was recently introduced – a move the religious leaders said was encouraging. McCullough and Kinnamon wrote that they favor reform that respects the civil rights of immigrants.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Treats Criticism of Courts

Michael Monheit — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 20:10:56 +0000

After President Obama took on recent Supreme Court rulings in a January speech, U.S. Justice Clarence Thomas is taking aims at criticism of the highest court in the land.

According to AP reports, a recent address at the University of Florida law school included assertions by Thomas that individuals who criticize the Supreme Court are sometimes helping to undermine the authority of the U.S. government. Some of what Thomas said appears to be related to the idea that those facing Supreme Court decisions that they do not like should just ‘agree to disagree’ as part of a professional legal tradition.

Thomas’ reported comments about diversity of opinion in the judicial community remain inscrutable to many commentators, but his words are showing a divide between Supreme Court justices, many of whom entered the court on the watch of George W. Bush, and the new Commander in Chief.

The entire furor between branches of the U.S. federal government seems to stem from the recent majority ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court granting vast freedom to corporations, which were previously barred from contributing to some types of political campaigns. Under new laws, corporations and unions can spend freely on public ads for or against various political candidates.

The President’s rebuttal in his State of the Union speech inflamed some in the judicial and legislative branches of government, though U.S. Supreme Court Justices have largely brushed off calls for public comment.

To many, the interaction seems emblematic of a larger conflict between large corporate interests and the community of American families now known colloquially as “Main Street.” The landmark ruling on campaign finance shows that the U.S. Supreme Court can have a much wider area of influence than it commonly commands, and the issue has attracted new attention from professional legal experts looking at the future of how the high court’s actions will affect all Americans.