As reported in HighRollerLife.com
Ever since Las Vegas has been in the business separating people from their money, there have been customers who have tried to get their money back. Of course, it almost never works. However, a recent complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Austin, Texas, claims that a man who suffers from Parkinson's disease took a drug that caused him to lose $10 million at the tables here. And based on early clinical studies of the drug prescribed for his disease, he may have a chance to recoup his losses.
Austin resident Max Wells, who suffers from Parkinson's, lost those millions gambling between September 2005 and January 2006. Most, if not all, of it right here in Las Vegas. At the end of January, his wife found out. In fact, she discovered that prior to the $10 million he lost here, he had already lost a few million dollars more. On Feb. 27, Wells filed a civil action in Austin seeking $21.5 million from six Las Vegas casinos and a drug company he claims were responsible for his losses. "Obviously, you can always go to Nevada and sue a casino, but you get a completely different jury and atmosphere," gaming law expert I. Nelson Rose, professor at Whittier Law School, said. "People in Texas are going to say, 'This guy lost $12 million and was taken advantage of.' People in Nevada might say, 'Oh, come on. Just because you lose money doesn't mean you can sue and get it back.' "It's not a frivolous claim by any means, but he's got a few steps he's going to have to show to get the connection there," he added.
The complaint against the casinos hinges on four crucial points: * Is there sufficient correlation to draw a link between a prescription drug that Wells was taking and compulsive gambling? * Can Wells prove negligence because the drug company was obliged to properly alert him about the possible side effect? * Can he prove that the casinos knew about the compulsion? * Was there sufficient interaction between the casinos, the state of Texas and Wells in his home state so that Austin is the proper venue to hear the case?
THEFT LIABILITY ACT
The plaintiff names the parent companies of the Wynn Las Vegas, Venetian Resort Hotel-Casino, Mandalay Bay Resort-Casino, Treasure Island, Harrah's Las Vegas hotel-casino and the Hard Rock Hotel & Casino. Wells is suing the casinos under provisions of the Texas Theft Liability Act for "unlawfully appropriating his property." Wells' attorney, Tom Thomas of the, declined to comment on the case.
The lawsuit makes two separate claims: First, it targets Pennsylvania-based drug company GlaxoSmithKline over its prescription drug Requip. Wells asserts the company failed "to give adequate, proper and nondeceptive warnings" that the medication could "cause its users to develop an irresistible impulse to gamble." Requip, which is manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, is a dopamine agonist that can help ease symptoms associated with Parkinson's. Similar to another Parkinson's drug, Mirapex, both drugs have been linked to compulsive behavior, including gambling, in two separate studies. According to the complaint, Wells was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease in 2000. Over time, he was first prescribed Mirapex, which is produced by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals. He then was switched to Requip in November 2004 after "Wells became aware that he was developing an irresistible compulsion to gamble" while taking Mirapex, according the complaint. The court papers describe the behavior as "contrary to (Wells') pre-Mirapex habits, practices and routines."
A 2003 report in the academic journal "Neurology" showed that out of 529 patients, eight who took Mirapex developed gambling addictions. The study was done by the Muhammad Ali Parkinson Research Center at the Barrow Neurological Institute in Arizona. The study was followed in July 2005 by researchers at the Mayo Clinic, stating that 11 patients developed gambling problems while taking "Mirapex or similar drugs" from 2002 to 2004 and an additional 14 also were later identified as having the same problem.
Calls seeking comment from GlaxoSmithKline had not been returned by press time. However, neither drug's Web site lists problem gambling as a possible side effect when taking their medications. WARNING SIGNALS? The complaint alleges that the drug company "could reasonably foresee" that Parkinson's patients on Requip "could develop an irresistible gambling compulsion" by mid-2005 and that the company was negligent because it "failed to warn the public or physicians." "The claim ... is that Wells was, by reason of intoxication, unable to make reasonable property dispositions," said University of Texas Law School professor George Dix via e-mail, after reading the complaint. "We do not let an accused rely on 'irresistible impulse' caused by mental illness to escape liability, but I am unaware of an absolute bar to relying on it as the plaintiff does here." After being confronted by his wife, Wells stopped taking Requip and he no longer gambles, according to the complaint.
The second part of the claim argues that the casinos were aware of Wells' condition, and that "in some instances" knew he was on either Mirapex and Requip. It also tries to lay claim to jurisdiction. The question arises to what the casinos knew, when they knew it and were they expected to know it and does it violate Texas penal code? That state defines theft as unlawfully appropriating property with the intent to deprive the owner of the property and that appropriation is unlawful if it is without "effective consent" of the owner. Texas Penal Code, Chapter 31.01(3) (C) says consent is not effective if "given by a person who by reason of youth, mental disease or defect, or intoxication is known by the actor to be unable to make reasonable property dispositions." "The weakest part of the case is not the connection that the drug caused compulsive gambling, which is still going to have to be proved," said Rose, who has also read the original complaint, "but that the casinos knew about it. They have to know that he is drugged and taking a medicine that has been shown to cause this."
CASINOS 'SPECIFICALLY AWARE'
The complaint against the casinos seems to rely on a belief that the casinos were "specifically aware" of the drugs' addictive side effects due to "heavy publicity surrounding the publication" of the 2005 Mayo Clinic study. Rose, who has written on compulsive gambling for 20 years and lost a family member to Parkinson's, says he only became familiar with the possible connections between Requip and Mirapex and problem gambling in the "last few months." Wells claims he was soon recognized by the properties as a heavy gambler and given a casino host whose job it was to induce gambling. The casinos also provided free first-class airfare to Las Vegas, free suites, meals, entertainment, expensive gifts, extension of a credit line and even a free Alaskan cruise. The properties also paid for Wells' wife to go shopping. The hosts also solicited him in Texas, even offering to discount his losses. The complaint attempts to set up jurisdiction by claiming the losses were paid out of accounts located in Texas and that $1.2 million worth of markers were sent to him in Texas, in addition to the gifts and phones calls sent to Texas by the casinos. "He may have trouble proving all this," said University of Texas Law School professor Douglas Laycock via e-mail after reading the complaint. "But if I were representing a casino, I would be inclined to settle before taking this one to a jury." The Mirage and Harrah's declined comment on pending litigation; the Venetian and Hard Rock Hotel did not return inquiries for comment by press time. A spokesperson for the MGM/Mirage, parent company for Treasure Island and Mandalay Bay, described the complaint as being "without merit."
mirapex
Friday, March 24, 2006
Parkinson's Drug Linked to Gambling
Parkinson's drug link to gambling
Sunday Mar 19 22:19 AEDT
Medical researchers are investigating suspicions drugs prescribed to treat Parkinson's disease could turn patients into compulsive gamblers, the Washington Post reports.
Scientists at the US Food and Drug Administration have found a strong association between pathological gambling and the drugs, which boost the level of dopamine in the brain, according to the newspaper.
Dopamine, a chemical naturally produced in the human body, plays a key role in the way the brain controls movements. A shortage of dopamine causes Parkinson's disease. But the chemical is also associated with addictive behaviours such as drug use and pleasurable experiences such as sex and food.
Researchers, according to the Washington Post, are looking into the possibility that drugs for treating Parkinson's are turning "some patients into obsessive pleasure seekers".
But the article also said no firm links have been made between dopamine enhancers and compulsive gambling.
Some patients have filed lawsuits against drug manufacturers, citing lost jobs and gambling problems.
Pharmaceutical firms such as Germany's Boehringer Ingelheim have toughened warning labels on drugs as the company investigates reports, according to the newspaper.
But Eli Lilly and Co, noting the lack of scientific consensus, raised the possibility that gambling problems in Parkinson's patients could be related to more legalised gambling, the newspaper reported.
Sunday Mar 19 22:19 AEDT
Medical researchers are investigating suspicions drugs prescribed to treat Parkinson's disease could turn patients into compulsive gamblers, the Washington Post reports.
Scientists at the US Food and Drug Administration have found a strong association between pathological gambling and the drugs, which boost the level of dopamine in the brain, according to the newspaper.
Dopamine, a chemical naturally produced in the human body, plays a key role in the way the brain controls movements. A shortage of dopamine causes Parkinson's disease. But the chemical is also associated with addictive behaviours such as drug use and pleasurable experiences such as sex and food.
Researchers, according to the Washington Post, are looking into the possibility that drugs for treating Parkinson's are turning "some patients into obsessive pleasure seekers".
But the article also said no firm links have been made between dopamine enhancers and compulsive gambling.
Some patients have filed lawsuits against drug manufacturers, citing lost jobs and gambling problems.
Pharmaceutical firms such as Germany's Boehringer Ingelheim have toughened warning labels on drugs as the company investigates reports, according to the newspaper.
But Eli Lilly and Co, noting the lack of scientific consensus, raised the possibility that gambling problems in Parkinson's patients could be related to more legalised gambling, the newspaper reported.
Friday, March 10, 2006
Ortho Evra Patch Case Lawsuits
Ortho Evra Patch Cases
Ortho Evra Patch CasesThe following Ortho Evra Patch Cases warrant investigation:
Our criteria is basically DVT, PE, CVA or MI suffered while on the patch, or shortly thereafter (I.e. during the week that the patch is not warn). In certain circumstances we are taking cases where there is a longer latency if there had been recorded complaints of related symptoms.
Please feel free to use this intake if you think it will help you.
If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask.
ORTHO EVRA QUESTIONNAIREDate: Name: Address: City: State: Zip: Age: Birth Date: Email: _____Home Phone: Work Phone: Cell Phone: Fax: Best time to contact you: Alternate Contact: Have you suffered: Date/State of Occurrence: Stroke (CVA): Yes No ____ Pulmonary Embolism (PE): Yes No Heart Attack (MI): Yes No Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT): Yes No Primary Pulmonary Hypertension (PPH): Yes No Blood Clots (where?): Yes No Hospitalization (for above/how long?): Yes No Are you a smoker? Yes No Have you quit smoking? Yes No Describe smoking history (how much/how long): ORTHO EVRA HISTORYWhen did you begin to use Ortho Evra? When did you stop using Ortho Evra? What were the adverse symptoms? When did you first notice adverse symptoms? Current medications (Coumadin/Warfarin, Plavix, Aspirin, etc.): Other medications: Notes:
Ortho Evra Patch CasesThe following Ortho Evra Patch Cases warrant investigation:
Our criteria is basically DVT, PE, CVA or MI suffered while on the patch, or shortly thereafter (I.e. during the week that the patch is not warn). In certain circumstances we are taking cases where there is a longer latency if there had been recorded complaints of related symptoms.
Please feel free to use this intake if you think it will help you.
If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask.
ORTHO EVRA QUESTIONNAIREDate: Name: Address: City: State: Zip: Age: Birth Date: Email: _____Home Phone: Work Phone: Cell Phone: Fax: Best time to contact you: Alternate Contact: Have you suffered: Date/State of Occurrence: Stroke (CVA): Yes No ____ Pulmonary Embolism (PE): Yes No Heart Attack (MI): Yes No Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT): Yes No Primary Pulmonary Hypertension (PPH): Yes No Blood Clots (where?): Yes No Hospitalization (for above/how long?): Yes No Are you a smoker? Yes No Have you quit smoking? Yes No Describe smoking history (how much/how long): ORTHO EVRA HISTORYWhen did you begin to use Ortho Evra? When did you stop using Ortho Evra? What were the adverse symptoms? When did you first notice adverse symptoms? Current medications (Coumadin/Warfarin, Plavix, Aspirin, etc.): Other medications: Notes:
Ortho Evra Patch Case Lawsuits
Ortho Evra Patch Cases
Ortho Evra Patch CasesThe following Ortho Evra Patch Cases warrant investigation:
Our criteria is basically DVT, PE, CVA or MI suffered while on the patch, or shortly thereafter (I.e. during the week that the patch is not warn). In certain circumstances we are taking cases where there is a longer latency if there had been recorded complaints of related symptoms.
Please feel free to use this intake if you think it will help you.
If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask.
ORTHO EVRA QUESTIONNAIREDate: Name: Address: City: State: Zip: Age: Birth Date: Email: _____Home Phone: Work Phone: Cell Phone: Fax: Best time to contact you: Alternate Contact: Have you suffered: Date/State of Occurrence: Stroke (CVA): Yes No ____ Pulmonary Embolism (PE): Yes No Heart Attack (MI): Yes No Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT): Yes No Primary Pulmonary Hypertension (PPH): Yes No Blood Clots (where?): Yes No Hospitalization (for above/how long?): Yes No Are you a smoker? Yes No Have you quit smoking? Yes No Describe smoking history (how much/how long): ORTHO EVRA HISTORYWhen did you begin to use Ortho Evra? When did you stop using Ortho Evra? What were the adverse symptoms? When did you first notice adverse symptoms? Current medications (Coumadin/Warfarin, Plavix, Aspirin, etc.): Other medications: Notes:
Ortho Evra Patch CasesThe following Ortho Evra Patch Cases warrant investigation:
Our criteria is basically DVT, PE, CVA or MI suffered while on the patch, or shortly thereafter (I.e. during the week that the patch is not warn). In certain circumstances we are taking cases where there is a longer latency if there had been recorded complaints of related symptoms.
Please feel free to use this intake if you think it will help you.
If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask.
ORTHO EVRA QUESTIONNAIREDate: Name: Address: City: State: Zip: Age: Birth Date: Email: _____Home Phone: Work Phone: Cell Phone: Fax: Best time to contact you: Alternate Contact: Have you suffered: Date/State of Occurrence: Stroke (CVA): Yes No ____ Pulmonary Embolism (PE): Yes No Heart Attack (MI): Yes No Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT): Yes No Primary Pulmonary Hypertension (PPH): Yes No Blood Clots (where?): Yes No Hospitalization (for above/how long?): Yes No Are you a smoker? Yes No Have you quit smoking? Yes No Describe smoking history (how much/how long): ORTHO EVRA HISTORYWhen did you begin to use Ortho Evra? When did you stop using Ortho Evra? What were the adverse symptoms? When did you first notice adverse symptoms? Current medications (Coumadin/Warfarin, Plavix, Aspirin, etc.): Other medications: Notes:
Saturday, March 04, 2006
Lawsuit Against EPA For Deeming WTC Site Safe Allowed To Go Forward
Lawsuit Against EPA For Deeming WTC Site Safe Allowed To Go Forward
A federal judge has cleared the way for a civil suit to proceed against the Environmental Protection Agency and its former head on the grounds that the agency misled the public when it deemed Ground Zero safe for workers and area residents to return.
The class action lawsuit was filed in 2004 by residents, students and workers in Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn who say they were exposed to hazardous dust and debris. They claim the EPA had no way of knowing whether it was safe or not to return, but told them to anyway.
The judge says former EPA head Christie Todd Whitman's assurance that the World Trade Center site was safe shortly after the 9/11 terror attacks was "conscience-shocking."
Just two days after 9/11, Whitman and the EPA declared the air seemed safe to breathe. An internal review later found the agency gave misleading assurances, at the White House's urging.
Critics say that the EPA was in a rush to declare that the air quality was good so that officials could reopen the New York Stock Exchange to help the economy. They also say the Bush administration didn't want to face the possibility of spending billions of dollars to clean people's homes.
Senator Hillary Clinton was highly critical of the EPA's decision.
"This is outrageous,” said Senator Clinton. “You know, New Yorkers should be able to depend on the federal government to provide them with accurate information about the air that we breathe and we should be able to count on the federal government to assess the level of ongoing risks."
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and reimbursement for cleanup costs. It also asks the court to order a medical monitoring fund be set up to track the health of those exposed to trade center dust.
Whitman defended the EPA, saying in a statement: "Every action taken...was designed to provide the most comprehensive protection and the most accurate information to the residents of Manhattan. To imply otherwise is completely inaccurate."
The EPA is expected to appeal, which means it could be months or even years before the case is settled.
A federal judge has cleared the way for a civil suit to proceed against the Environmental Protection Agency and its former head on the grounds that the agency misled the public when it deemed Ground Zero safe for workers and area residents to return.
The class action lawsuit was filed in 2004 by residents, students and workers in Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn who say they were exposed to hazardous dust and debris. They claim the EPA had no way of knowing whether it was safe or not to return, but told them to anyway.
The judge says former EPA head Christie Todd Whitman's assurance that the World Trade Center site was safe shortly after the 9/11 terror attacks was "conscience-shocking."
Just two days after 9/11, Whitman and the EPA declared the air seemed safe to breathe. An internal review later found the agency gave misleading assurances, at the White House's urging.
Critics say that the EPA was in a rush to declare that the air quality was good so that officials could reopen the New York Stock Exchange to help the economy. They also say the Bush administration didn't want to face the possibility of spending billions of dollars to clean people's homes.
Senator Hillary Clinton was highly critical of the EPA's decision.
"This is outrageous,” said Senator Clinton. “You know, New Yorkers should be able to depend on the federal government to provide them with accurate information about the air that we breathe and we should be able to count on the federal government to assess the level of ongoing risks."
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and reimbursement for cleanup costs. It also asks the court to order a medical monitoring fund be set up to track the health of those exposed to trade center dust.
Whitman defended the EPA, saying in a statement: "Every action taken...was designed to provide the most comprehensive protection and the most accurate information to the residents of Manhattan. To imply otherwise is completely inaccurate."
The EPA is expected to appeal, which means it could be months or even years before the case is settled.
Public Misled on Air Quality After 9/11 Attack, Judge Says
Public Misled on Air Quality After 9/11 Attack, Judge Says
By JULIA PRESTONNY Times
Christie Whitman, when she led the Environmental Protection Agency, made "misleading statements of safety" about the air quality near the World Trade Center in the days after the Sept. 11 attack and may have put the public in danger, a federal judge found yesterday.
The pointed criticism of Mrs. Whitman came in a ruling by the judge, Deborah A. Batts of Federal District Court in Manhattan, in a 2004 class action lawsuit on behalf of residents and schoolchildren from downtown Manhattan and Brooklyn who say they were exposed to air contamination inside buildings near the trade center.
The suit, against Mrs. Whitman, other former and current E.P.A. officials and the agency itself, charges that they failed to warn people of dangerous materials in the air and then failed to carry out an adequate cleanup. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and want the judge to order a thorough cleaning.
In her ruling, Judge Batts decided not to dismiss the case against Mrs. Whitman, who is being sued both as former administrator of the E.P.A. and as an individual.
As a legal matter, the ruling established that the suit's charges were well-documented and troubling enough to meet a legal standard to go forward. But Judge Batts also criticized Mrs. Whitman's performance in the days after the collapse of the towers unleashed, by the E.P.A.'s estimates, one million tons of dust on lower Manhattan and beyond.
"The allegations in this case of Whitman's reassuring and misleading statements of safety after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks are without question conscience-shocking," Judge Batts said.
Calls to the Whitman Strategy Group, Mrs. Whitman's current business, and to Glenn S. Greene, the Justice Department lawyer who is representing her and the E.P.A. in the case, were not immediately returned. Mrs. Whitman, a former New Jersey governor, was administrator of the E.P.A. from 2001 to 2003.
Mrs. Whitman knew that the towers' destruction had released huge amounts of hazardous emissions, Judge Batts found. But as early as Sept. 13, Mrs. Whitman and the agency put out press releases saying that the air near ground zero was relatively safe and that there were "no significant levels" of asbestos dust in the air. They gave a green light for residents to return to their homes near the trade center site.
"By these actions," Judge Batts wrote, Mrs. Whitman "increased, and may have in fact created, the danger" to people living and working near the trade center. Judge Batts said that Mrs. Whitman was not entitled to immunity because she was a public official. Judge Batts allowed the suit to proceed on some counts against the E.P.A. She dismissed claims against Marianne L. Horinko, an assistant administrator of the E.P.A. at the time.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs were "very gratified that the court has recognized that the E.P.A. failed in its obligation to protect the residents of downtown Manhattan and Brooklyn," said Justin Blitz, a lead lawyer on the case.
In a statement yesterday, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton called the E.P.A.'s conduct "outrageous."
"New Yorkers were depending on the federal government to provide them with accurate information about the air they were breathing," she said. "I continue to believe that the White House owes New Yorkers an explanation."
About 2,000 tons of asbestos and 424,000 tons of concrete were used to build the towers, and when they came crashing down they released dust laden with toxins. After an expert panel failed last year to settle on a method for organizing an E.P.A. cleanup, the agency said it would proceed anyway with limited testing and cleaning of apartments in downtown Manhattan below Canal Street.
By JULIA PRESTONNY Times
Christie Whitman, when she led the Environmental Protection Agency, made "misleading statements of safety" about the air quality near the World Trade Center in the days after the Sept. 11 attack and may have put the public in danger, a federal judge found yesterday.
The pointed criticism of Mrs. Whitman came in a ruling by the judge, Deborah A. Batts of Federal District Court in Manhattan, in a 2004 class action lawsuit on behalf of residents and schoolchildren from downtown Manhattan and Brooklyn who say they were exposed to air contamination inside buildings near the trade center.
The suit, against Mrs. Whitman, other former and current E.P.A. officials and the agency itself, charges that they failed to warn people of dangerous materials in the air and then failed to carry out an adequate cleanup. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and want the judge to order a thorough cleaning.
In her ruling, Judge Batts decided not to dismiss the case against Mrs. Whitman, who is being sued both as former administrator of the E.P.A. and as an individual.
As a legal matter, the ruling established that the suit's charges were well-documented and troubling enough to meet a legal standard to go forward. But Judge Batts also criticized Mrs. Whitman's performance in the days after the collapse of the towers unleashed, by the E.P.A.'s estimates, one million tons of dust on lower Manhattan and beyond.
"The allegations in this case of Whitman's reassuring and misleading statements of safety after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks are without question conscience-shocking," Judge Batts said.
Calls to the Whitman Strategy Group, Mrs. Whitman's current business, and to Glenn S. Greene, the Justice Department lawyer who is representing her and the E.P.A. in the case, were not immediately returned. Mrs. Whitman, a former New Jersey governor, was administrator of the E.P.A. from 2001 to 2003.
Mrs. Whitman knew that the towers' destruction had released huge amounts of hazardous emissions, Judge Batts found. But as early as Sept. 13, Mrs. Whitman and the agency put out press releases saying that the air near ground zero was relatively safe and that there were "no significant levels" of asbestos dust in the air. They gave a green light for residents to return to their homes near the trade center site.
"By these actions," Judge Batts wrote, Mrs. Whitman "increased, and may have in fact created, the danger" to people living and working near the trade center. Judge Batts said that Mrs. Whitman was not entitled to immunity because she was a public official. Judge Batts allowed the suit to proceed on some counts against the E.P.A. She dismissed claims against Marianne L. Horinko, an assistant administrator of the E.P.A. at the time.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs were "very gratified that the court has recognized that the E.P.A. failed in its obligation to protect the residents of downtown Manhattan and Brooklyn," said Justin Blitz, a lead lawyer on the case.
In a statement yesterday, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton called the E.P.A.'s conduct "outrageous."
"New Yorkers were depending on the federal government to provide them with accurate information about the air they were breathing," she said. "I continue to believe that the White House owes New Yorkers an explanation."
About 2,000 tons of asbestos and 424,000 tons of concrete were used to build the towers, and when they came crashing down they released dust laden with toxins. After an expert panel failed last year to settle on a method for organizing an E.P.A. cleanup, the agency said it would proceed anyway with limited testing and cleaning of apartments in downtown Manhattan below Canal Street.
Ground Zero Team Sues Over Illness
Ground Zero Team Sues Over Illness
8/14/04
Hundreds of people who worked on the World Trade Centre clean-up have filed a class-action lawsuit alleging companies did little to protect workers from dust, asbestos and other toxins in the air.
The legal battle targets the leaseholder of the New York towers and those who supervised the job, including the subsidiary of an Australian company.
The lawsuit was filed in a US federal court on Friday and made public today.
It has been brought against Silverstein Properties and the four construction companies hired to oversee the removal of 1.5 million tonnes of debris after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks.
They include Bovis Lend Lease, a unit of Australian real estate firm Lend Lease.
David Worby, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said he was seeking billions of dollars in compensation for victims.
The lawsuit also asks for the establishment of a system to track all those who were exposed for the next 20 years.
It alleges that many workers did not have access to protective gear, and those who did were not taught how to wear it properly.
Some of the plaintiffs suffer from afflictions ranging from tumours to heartburn.
Others have joined the action because they fear they risk developing cancer in the future.
Mr Worby said: "The tragic reality is that so many of the brave heroes who worked so tirelessly and unselfishly are becoming a second wave of casualties of this horrific attack, and we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg."
The companies involved said they had not seen the complaint and had no immediate comment.
The class-action case, with about 800 plaintiffs, was filed on the last day before a federal three-year statute of limitations expired for lawsuits related to the terrorist attack.
The US Government is already funding six health screening programs to monitor ground zero workers, but none are funded beyond 2009.
Last week, the federal Centres for Disease Control and Prevention released a study showing that many recovery workers suffered from respiratory problems long after the clean-up concluded, and that some were still battling ailments.
Problems identified included asthma, sinusitis, constant coughing and stuffy nose, facial pains, chest tightness, wheezing and shortness of breath.
Proper respiratory gear would have allowed the workers to block out smoke, dust, diesel exhaust, pulverised cement, glass fibres, asbestos and other chemicals and could have prevented throat and lung diseases, according to the CDC study.
It found that only about one in five of the workers wore respirators while they worked at the site.
The three companies in the clean-up with Bovis Lend Lease were Turner Construction, AMEC Construction and Tully Construction.
According to AMEC's website, the company stationed safety experts on site during the clean-up and provided respirators, hard hats and safety goggles to workers.
8/14/04
Hundreds of people who worked on the World Trade Centre clean-up have filed a class-action lawsuit alleging companies did little to protect workers from dust, asbestos and other toxins in the air.
The legal battle targets the leaseholder of the New York towers and those who supervised the job, including the subsidiary of an Australian company.
The lawsuit was filed in a US federal court on Friday and made public today.
It has been brought against Silverstein Properties and the four construction companies hired to oversee the removal of 1.5 million tonnes of debris after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks.
They include Bovis Lend Lease, a unit of Australian real estate firm Lend Lease.
David Worby, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said he was seeking billions of dollars in compensation for victims.
The lawsuit also asks for the establishment of a system to track all those who were exposed for the next 20 years.
It alleges that many workers did not have access to protective gear, and those who did were not taught how to wear it properly.
Some of the plaintiffs suffer from afflictions ranging from tumours to heartburn.
Others have joined the action because they fear they risk developing cancer in the future.
Mr Worby said: "The tragic reality is that so many of the brave heroes who worked so tirelessly and unselfishly are becoming a second wave of casualties of this horrific attack, and we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg."
The companies involved said they had not seen the complaint and had no immediate comment.
The class-action case, with about 800 plaintiffs, was filed on the last day before a federal three-year statute of limitations expired for lawsuits related to the terrorist attack.
The US Government is already funding six health screening programs to monitor ground zero workers, but none are funded beyond 2009.
Last week, the federal Centres for Disease Control and Prevention released a study showing that many recovery workers suffered from respiratory problems long after the clean-up concluded, and that some were still battling ailments.
Problems identified included asthma, sinusitis, constant coughing and stuffy nose, facial pains, chest tightness, wheezing and shortness of breath.
Proper respiratory gear would have allowed the workers to block out smoke, dust, diesel exhaust, pulverised cement, glass fibres, asbestos and other chemicals and could have prevented throat and lung diseases, according to the CDC study.
It found that only about one in five of the workers wore respirators while they worked at the site.
The three companies in the clean-up with Bovis Lend Lease were Turner Construction, AMEC Construction and Tully Construction.
According to AMEC's website, the company stationed safety experts on site during the clean-up and provided respirators, hard hats and safety goggles to workers.
Ground Zero Team Sues Over Illness
Ground Zero Team Sues Over Illness
8/14/04
Hundreds of people who worked on the World Trade Centre clean-up have filed a class-action lawsuit alleging companies did little to protect workers from dust, asbestos and other toxins in the air.
The legal battle targets the leaseholder of the New York towers and those who supervised the job, including the subsidiary of an Australian company.
The lawsuit was filed in a US federal court on Friday and made public today.
It has been brought against Silverstein Properties and the four construction companies hired to oversee the removal of 1.5 million tonnes of debris after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks.
They include Bovis Lend Lease, a unit of Australian real estate firm Lend Lease.
David Worby, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said he was seeking billions of dollars in compensation for victims.
The lawsuit also asks for the establishment of a system to track all those who were exposed for the next 20 years.
It alleges that many workers did not have access to protective gear, and those who did were not taught how to wear it properly.
Some of the plaintiffs suffer from afflictions ranging from tumours to heartburn.
Others have joined the action because they fear they risk developing cancer in the future.
Mr Worby said: "The tragic reality is that so many of the brave heroes who worked so tirelessly and unselfishly are becoming a second wave of casualties of this horrific attack, and we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg."
The companies involved said they had not seen the complaint and had no immediate comment.
The class-action case, with about 800 plaintiffs, was filed on the last day before a federal three-year statute of limitations expired for lawsuits related to the terrorist attack.
The US Government is already funding six health screening programs to monitor ground zero workers, but none are funded beyond 2009.
Last week, the federal Centres for Disease Control and Prevention released a study showing that many recovery workers suffered from respiratory problems long after the clean-up concluded, and that some were still battling ailments.
Problems identified included asthma, sinusitis, constant coughing and stuffy nose, facial pains, chest tightness, wheezing and shortness of breath.
Proper respiratory gear would have allowed the workers to block out smoke, dust, diesel exhaust, pulverised cement, glass fibres, asbestos and other chemicals and could have prevented throat and lung diseases, according to the CDC study.
It found that only about one in five of the workers wore respirators while they worked at the site.
The three companies in the clean-up with Bovis Lend Lease were Turner Construction, AMEC Construction and Tully Construction.
According to AMEC's website, the company stationed safety experts on site during the clean-up and provided respirators, hard hats and safety goggles to workers.
8/14/04
Hundreds of people who worked on the World Trade Centre clean-up have filed a class-action lawsuit alleging companies did little to protect workers from dust, asbestos and other toxins in the air.
The legal battle targets the leaseholder of the New York towers and those who supervised the job, including the subsidiary of an Australian company.
The lawsuit was filed in a US federal court on Friday and made public today.
It has been brought against Silverstein Properties and the four construction companies hired to oversee the removal of 1.5 million tonnes of debris after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks.
They include Bovis Lend Lease, a unit of Australian real estate firm Lend Lease.
David Worby, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said he was seeking billions of dollars in compensation for victims.
The lawsuit also asks for the establishment of a system to track all those who were exposed for the next 20 years.
It alleges that many workers did not have access to protective gear, and those who did were not taught how to wear it properly.
Some of the plaintiffs suffer from afflictions ranging from tumours to heartburn.
Others have joined the action because they fear they risk developing cancer in the future.
Mr Worby said: "The tragic reality is that so many of the brave heroes who worked so tirelessly and unselfishly are becoming a second wave of casualties of this horrific attack, and we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg."
The companies involved said they had not seen the complaint and had no immediate comment.
The class-action case, with about 800 plaintiffs, was filed on the last day before a federal three-year statute of limitations expired for lawsuits related to the terrorist attack.
The US Government is already funding six health screening programs to monitor ground zero workers, but none are funded beyond 2009.
Last week, the federal Centres for Disease Control and Prevention released a study showing that many recovery workers suffered from respiratory problems long after the clean-up concluded, and that some were still battling ailments.
Problems identified included asthma, sinusitis, constant coughing and stuffy nose, facial pains, chest tightness, wheezing and shortness of breath.
Proper respiratory gear would have allowed the workers to block out smoke, dust, diesel exhaust, pulverised cement, glass fibres, asbestos and other chemicals and could have prevented throat and lung diseases, according to the CDC study.
It found that only about one in five of the workers wore respirators while they worked at the site.
The three companies in the clean-up with Bovis Lend Lease were Turner Construction, AMEC Construction and Tully Construction.
According to AMEC's website, the company stationed safety experts on site during the clean-up and provided respirators, hard hats and safety goggles to workers.
NYPD Officer Who Collapsed And Died Worked At WTC Site
January 29, 2006
The police officer who collapsed and died during a pursuit Friday night, reportedly spent a lot of time at the World Trade Center Site.
While the cause of death is still unclear, Kevin Lee's family members told the Daily News they fear he may have gotten sick because of the long hours he worked at the site after September 11th.
The Medical Examiner is working to determine the cause of death. Officer Lee collapsed while he and his partner were chasing three men on the Upper East Side wanted for stealing a laptop from a Lexington Avenue store.
Early reports suggested that Lee suffered a heart attack, but the hospital did not confirm that information.
Lorenzo Walter, 18, and 19-year-old Julio Marquez were arrested Friday night, Rico Banks, 19, surrendered to police Satruday. All three men face robbery charges.
Police say Lee struggled with one of the men right before he collapsed.
Lee, a 10-year veteran of the NYPD and a member of the department's Grand Larceny Unit, was rushed to Lenox Hill Hospital where he was pronounced dead. He lived in the Bronx and is survived by a wife and 6-year-old son.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg spoke with Lee's mother who told him that being an officer was something her son always wanted.
"All his life, all he wanted to do was be a cop. In high school there was some kind of a program where he could study what police offers do. It's all he ever talked about. He attended John Jay College and decided what her really wanted to do is be a cop."
Police officer Lee was the second officer to collapse during a pursuit this year. Earlier this month, police officer Francis Hennessey collapsed and died from a brain aneurysm while on duty.
The police officer who collapsed and died during a pursuit Friday night, reportedly spent a lot of time at the World Trade Center Site.
While the cause of death is still unclear, Kevin Lee's family members told the Daily News they fear he may have gotten sick because of the long hours he worked at the site after September 11th.
The Medical Examiner is working to determine the cause of death. Officer Lee collapsed while he and his partner were chasing three men on the Upper East Side wanted for stealing a laptop from a Lexington Avenue store.
Early reports suggested that Lee suffered a heart attack, but the hospital did not confirm that information.
Lorenzo Walter, 18, and 19-year-old Julio Marquez were arrested Friday night, Rico Banks, 19, surrendered to police Satruday. All three men face robbery charges.
Police say Lee struggled with one of the men right before he collapsed.
Lee, a 10-year veteran of the NYPD and a member of the department's Grand Larceny Unit, was rushed to Lenox Hill Hospital where he was pronounced dead. He lived in the Bronx and is survived by a wife and 6-year-old son.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg spoke with Lee's mother who told him that being an officer was something her son always wanted.
"All his life, all he wanted to do was be a cop. In high school there was some kind of a program where he could study what police offers do. It's all he ever talked about. He attended John Jay College and decided what her really wanted to do is be a cop."
Police officer Lee was the second officer to collapse during a pursuit this year. Earlier this month, police officer Francis Hennessey collapsed and died from a brain aneurysm while on duty.
FDA Finds Benzene in Soft Drinks
FDA finds benzene in soft drinks
Mar 3, 2006 DAVID GOLDSTEIN Knight Ridder Newspapers
When small amounts of benzene, a known cancer-causing chemical, were found in some soft drinks 16 years ago, the Food and Drug Administration never told the public.That's because the beverage industry told the government it would handle the problem and the FDA thought the problem was solved.A decade and a half later, benzene has turned up again. The FDA has found levels in some soft drinks higher than what it found in 1990, and two to four times higher than what's considered safe for drinking water.Both the FDA and the beverage industry said the amounts were small and that the problem didn't appear to be widespread."People shouldn't overreact," said Kevin Keane, a spokesman for the American Beverage Association. "It's a very small number of products and not major brands.""The issue here is not something that should cause anyone alarm or terrific concern," said George Pauli, a top food safety expert at the FDA, "but if there's something that can be reduced, we want to reduce it."Neither Keane nor Pauli would identify the drinks being tested because the investigation is still under way.Pauli said that people ingest more benzene by breathing than they would if they drank a can of soda containing the chemical. Small amounts of the chemical also are naturally present in some foods such as fruits, vegetables and dairy products.Still, Pauli added, "You want to avoid it in any degree you can."Of the 60 or so varieties of sodas, sports drinks, juice drinks and bottled waters that the FDA has tested so far, benzene levels have ranged from two and three parts per billion to more than 10-20 parts per billion.The Environmental Protection Agency's safety standard for benzene in drinking water is five parts per billion. If it exceeds that, authorities are required to notify the public.Keane said it was "tough to compare" the safety standard for water with soft drinks because the water rule is based on the fact that people drink more water each day.Benzene is an industrial chemical that's found in tobacco smoke, car exhaust and vapors from household products such as paint, detergents and furniture wax. Long-term exposure can cause leukemia and other cancers of the blood, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Benzene can show up in soft drinks when two common ingredients react: ascorbic acid, otherwise known as vitamin C, and either sodium benzoate or potassium benzoate. Both are preservatives used to prevent the growth of bacteria.But the presence of these chemicals doesn't necessarily produce benzene."It's not as simple as looking at the label, and if you see those two, there will be problems," Keane said.Pauli said that a catalyst such as temperature or light is needed to trigger the formation of benzene. That's what scientists suspect occurred in 1990 when authorities found benzene in products made by Cadbury Schweppes and Koala Springs, an Australian beverage company.But a health safety watchdog organization said the FDA should inform the public, particularly since so many soft drinks are marketed to children."Most people would prefer there are no known human carcinogens in what they drink," said Jane Houlihan, vice president for research at the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit, nonpartisan scientific research group that studies toxic chemicals. "This is a case where industry agreed to get it out of the products, and all the evidence says they didn't."Soft drink manufacturers PepsiCo and Coca-Cola declined to comment and referred calls to the American Beverage Association.When benzene first turned up 16 years ago, FDA officials met with representatives of the beverage industry who "expressed their concern about the presence of benzene traces in their products and the potential for adverse publicity associated with this problem," according to an internal FDA memo from December 1990.Keane said the industry told the FDA that it was reformulating its products to alleviate the problem. Adding sugar, for instance, or replacing the vitamin C, can inhibit the chemical reaction that produces benzene, Pauli said.An FDA official who asked not to be identified said that the agency didn't inform the public about the benzene problem 16 years ago because it didn't consider it a public health concern since the levels were low and the companies were reformulating.He said the FDA conducted follow-up testing in the early 1990s, but not since because "we thought the problem was gone and over. Then it resurfaced."The current investigation began when an activist concerned about soft drink machines in schools tried to get the FDA interested in the issue. He then sent lab results showing some soft drinks with higher-than-normal benzene levels."Our first reaction was, `Yes, we looked at this in 1990 and essentially there was nothing there,'" Pauli said. "Then he came up with some numbers and we said, `That's not what we came up with back then. We have to go back and look.'"Asked why the problem would resurface 16 years later, Keane said the industry took the necessary steps at the time, but it's possible some manufacturers just didn't know."It's a very fast-growing industry, both in terms of companies and new brands, so a lot has changed in the last 16 years," he said.Food safety authorities in Great Britain and Australia also are testing soft drinks for benzene.
benzene lawyer
Mar 3, 2006 DAVID GOLDSTEIN Knight Ridder Newspapers
When small amounts of benzene, a known cancer-causing chemical, were found in some soft drinks 16 years ago, the Food and Drug Administration never told the public.That's because the beverage industry told the government it would handle the problem and the FDA thought the problem was solved.A decade and a half later, benzene has turned up again. The FDA has found levels in some soft drinks higher than what it found in 1990, and two to four times higher than what's considered safe for drinking water.Both the FDA and the beverage industry said the amounts were small and that the problem didn't appear to be widespread."People shouldn't overreact," said Kevin Keane, a spokesman for the American Beverage Association. "It's a very small number of products and not major brands.""The issue here is not something that should cause anyone alarm or terrific concern," said George Pauli, a top food safety expert at the FDA, "but if there's something that can be reduced, we want to reduce it."Neither Keane nor Pauli would identify the drinks being tested because the investigation is still under way.Pauli said that people ingest more benzene by breathing than they would if they drank a can of soda containing the chemical. Small amounts of the chemical also are naturally present in some foods such as fruits, vegetables and dairy products.Still, Pauli added, "You want to avoid it in any degree you can."Of the 60 or so varieties of sodas, sports drinks, juice drinks and bottled waters that the FDA has tested so far, benzene levels have ranged from two and three parts per billion to more than 10-20 parts per billion.The Environmental Protection Agency's safety standard for benzene in drinking water is five parts per billion. If it exceeds that, authorities are required to notify the public.Keane said it was "tough to compare" the safety standard for water with soft drinks because the water rule is based on the fact that people drink more water each day.Benzene is an industrial chemical that's found in tobacco smoke, car exhaust and vapors from household products such as paint, detergents and furniture wax. Long-term exposure can cause leukemia and other cancers of the blood, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Benzene can show up in soft drinks when two common ingredients react: ascorbic acid, otherwise known as vitamin C, and either sodium benzoate or potassium benzoate. Both are preservatives used to prevent the growth of bacteria.But the presence of these chemicals doesn't necessarily produce benzene."It's not as simple as looking at the label, and if you see those two, there will be problems," Keane said.Pauli said that a catalyst such as temperature or light is needed to trigger the formation of benzene. That's what scientists suspect occurred in 1990 when authorities found benzene in products made by Cadbury Schweppes and Koala Springs, an Australian beverage company.But a health safety watchdog organization said the FDA should inform the public, particularly since so many soft drinks are marketed to children."Most people would prefer there are no known human carcinogens in what they drink," said Jane Houlihan, vice president for research at the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit, nonpartisan scientific research group that studies toxic chemicals. "This is a case where industry agreed to get it out of the products, and all the evidence says they didn't."Soft drink manufacturers PepsiCo and Coca-Cola declined to comment and referred calls to the American Beverage Association.When benzene first turned up 16 years ago, FDA officials met with representatives of the beverage industry who "expressed their concern about the presence of benzene traces in their products and the potential for adverse publicity associated with this problem," according to an internal FDA memo from December 1990.Keane said the industry told the FDA that it was reformulating its products to alleviate the problem. Adding sugar, for instance, or replacing the vitamin C, can inhibit the chemical reaction that produces benzene, Pauli said.An FDA official who asked not to be identified said that the agency didn't inform the public about the benzene problem 16 years ago because it didn't consider it a public health concern since the levels were low and the companies were reformulating.He said the FDA conducted follow-up testing in the early 1990s, but not since because "we thought the problem was gone and over. Then it resurfaced."The current investigation began when an activist concerned about soft drink machines in schools tried to get the FDA interested in the issue. He then sent lab results showing some soft drinks with higher-than-normal benzene levels."Our first reaction was, `Yes, we looked at this in 1990 and essentially there was nothing there,'" Pauli said. "Then he came up with some numbers and we said, `That's not what we came up with back then. We have to go back and look.'"Asked why the problem would resurface 16 years later, Keane said the industry took the necessary steps at the time, but it's possible some manufacturers just didn't know."It's a very fast-growing industry, both in terms of companies and new brands, so a lot has changed in the last 16 years," he said.Food safety authorities in Great Britain and Australia also are testing soft drinks for benzene.
benzene lawyer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
