A federal judge has certified a class action lawsuit involving nurse practitioners and physician assistants accusing the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs of failing to pay overtime since 2006, according to a post on the site of Androvett Legal Media and Marketing.

Judge Elaine D. Kaplan of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims granted certification in an action brought by class representatives Stephanie Mercier, Audricia Brooks, Deborah Plageman, Jennifer Allred and Michele Gavin on behalf of nurse practitioners and physicians assistants at 85 different facilities across the country.

Provost Umphrey attorneys Michael Hamilton of the firm’s Nashville office and Guy Fisher in the Beaumont, Texas, office are among the attorneys working on the lawsuit along with counsel David Cook and Clement Tsao of Cincinnati’s Cook & Logothetis, LLC, Douglas Richards of Lexington, Kentucky and Robert Stropp of Washington DC’s Mooney Green, P.C.

“These health care professionals dedicate their time for the well-being of our veterans, and by law, are entitled to overtime when they are required to work beyond their work schedules,” said Hamilton. “We believe this lawsuit to be critical for veteran patient safety and health. To expect these employees to work extended hours without overtime pay is wrong. With the class certification, we can now proceed onto the next step in this lawsuit.”

The lawsuit seeks compensation for employees who worked overtime processing electronic and computer patient records using VA facility computers, VA laptops and sometimes personal computers, work that is critical to the medical treatment of patients. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants say the work is considered mandatory. Those who failed to complete the assignments were subject to disciplinary measures for poor time management.

“I’m grateful that the judge agreed with us and certified the lawsuit as a class action,” said Cook. “It is wrong for any employer to expect people to work for free.”

Hamilton and Cook estimate that as many 10,000 VA employees could be represented in the class action lawsuit, according to the Androvett post.

The case is Stephanie Mercier, Audricia Brooks, Deborah Plageman, Jennifer Allred, Michele Gavin v. The United States of America, No. 1:12-cv-00920 in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

The Fifth Circuit has affirmed an order compelling arbitration, despite the fact that the parties seeking to compel arbitration were not signatories to the relevant arbitration agreement, according to a post on Carlton Fields’ Reinsurance Post.

Jason Brost explained that the case involved a real estate sale contract that contained an arbitration agreement under which the parties agreed to arbitrate any disputes “in accordance with the Comprehensive Arbitration Rules and Procedures administered by J●A●M●S/Endispute.”

The plaintiff claimed that the defendants in the case induced the buyer to enter into the 1998 agreement based on the false premise that he would get a properly constructed home. The defendants, who were non-signatories to the agreement, moved that the arbitration clause be enforced.

The appellate court found for the defendants.

Read the article.

The Washington Times is reporting that the Supreme Court over the next month is poised to upend the way the country picks representatives to Congress, decide whether the First Amendment protects people who refuse to do business with same-sex couples and rule on whether President Trump’s tweets can be used in court to derail his agenda.

Reporter Alex Swoyer sees the case for some blockbuster rulings that will signal to lower courts how they should treat the unorthodox Trump.

“The biggest test comes on the president’s travel ban. His opponents have begged the justices to hold Mr. Trump’s campaign-era tweets against him, saying his comments about Muslims taint the travel policy he announced once he took office,” writes Swoyer.

Read the Washington Times article.

A group of 28 subcontractors at a Valero refinery in Texas City are suing the company and their employer, alleging that they suffered injuries and post-traumatic stress from an explosion at the plant less than two months ago, reports the San Antonio Business Journal.

The employees of  Beaumont-based Richard Industrial Group Inc. filed the lawsuit against their employer and Valero Refining Texas LP, a subsidiary of San Antonio-based refining company Valero Energy Corp.. Richard Industrial Group provides subcontracting work at Valero’s Texas City refinery, according to reporter Sergio Chapa.

“The workers are seeking damages based on claims that they suffered orthopedic injuries and hearing loss from the accident and are dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder,” writes Chapa.

Read the Business Journal article.

Lawyers with Texas-based firm Deans & Lyons have filed a wrongful death lawsuit in Denton County against The Float Spot, alleging the company’s negligence led to the drowning death of a 71-year-old woman in one of its aquatic sensory deprivation tanks.

In a release, the firm said Gloria Fanning died April 7, having spent eight days on life support following her first visit to the spa, located in Flower Mound, Texas. Advertised as the “world’s first tranquility studio,” The Float Spot encloses customers in sensory deprivation tanks filled with highly salinated water that increases a person’s buoyancy. The company touts myriad health benefits, while downplaying any potential risks from the enclosed floatation tanks, the firm said.

The release continues:

As a first-time customer, Ms. Fanning was given a brief orientation then left alone in the tank. According to the lawsuit, she later was discovered in a state of “distress” by an employee who initially called the business owner for guidance rather than calling 911 for assistance. Once paramedics finally arrived, they found Ms. Fanning unresponsive. She never regained consciousness.

“Gloria was promised an experience that was beneficial and completely safe. The company’s own website claims that accidental drowning is not possible, which is patently untrue and contradicts reports of others across the country who have died in a similar fashion,” said the Fanning family’s attorney, Michael Lyons, co-founder of Deans & Lyons.

“This is a rapidly expanding industry that lacks any of the regulation necessary to ensure that customers are kept safe inside these aquatic sensory deprivation tanks. It is too late for Gloria, but this has to change.”

The lawsuit, filed May 31, is Greta S. Anthony and David Porter v. Fc Acqua, LLC, dba The Float Spot and Raymond J. Thoma, Cause No. 18-4802-367 in Denton County District Court.

Reuters is reporting that federal prosecutors charged a vice president at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. on Thursday with insider trading by illegally using non-public information about several companies that were clients of the investment bank.

Woojae “Steve” Jung, a 37-year-old Korean citizen, is charged with trading illegally on confidential information relating to upcoming transactions and merger negotiations that he was privy to through his job. Reporter Brendan Pierson writes that Jung made more than $130,000 through the scheme.

Prosecutors said Jung conducted his trades through a brokerage account in the name of a friend living in South Korea. The brokerage account was accessed from internet addresses that were traced to Jung, according to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Read the Reuters report.

A Texas appellate court has affirmed an $11 million verdict against the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, upholding a May 2016 jury verdict that the Choctaw Casino bore responsibility for a deadly 2013 crash of a charter bus carrying elderly North Texas residents to the Choctaw Casino in Durant, Okla.

A release from the lead trial counsel describes the ruling:

On Tuesday (May 29), a three-judge panel from the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas rejected 14 separate arguments by Choctaw’s legal team seeking to reverse the jury’s findings. The appellate ruling found that Choctaw was vicariously liable for the negligence of the charter bus company, the bus driver and for a tour guide who had arranged the April 2013 casino trip. According to testimony, the crash occurred when the bus driver lost control of the bus on the northbound lanes of State Highway 161 in Irving as he was arguing with the tour organizer.

Trial lawyers from The Law Offices of Frank L. Branson were lead trial counsel in this case and represented the estate and family members of 82-year-old Alice Stanley, the lead plaintiff. Attorneys Frank L. Branson and Chip Brooker of The Law Offices of Frank L. Branson successfully argued that the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma had a contractual relationship with the tour organizer and the charter bus operator and the tour, Cardinal Coach Lines. The jury awarded $4.9 million to Ms. Stanley’s estate and $6 million to the estate of 69-year-old Paula Hahn, who was represented by separate legal counsel.

Image by Open Grid Scheduler / Grid Engine

A jury in California delivered a $25.75 million verdict against the maker of Johnson’s Baby Powder for the deadly asbestos-caused cancer a woman developed after years of using the product, according to a post on the website of Androvett Legal Media & Marketing.

The post continues:

The verdict by jurors in Los Angeles Superior Court before Judge Gloria White-Brown includes $21.75 million in compensatory damages and $4 million in punitive damages. Jurors found that Johnson & Johnson was negligent and failed to warn consumers, and that its iconic Johnson’s Baby Powder contained manufacturing and design defects because of the presence of asbestos.

Joanne Anderson, 66, of Williams, Oregon, filed suit following her diagnosis with pleural mesothelioma. A cancer in the lining of the lungs, pleural mesothelioma is caused by asbestos exposure. She used Johnson’s Baby Powder on her children when they were younger and, as an avid bowler, regularly used the product on her hands and shoes for years. All told, experts estimate she used the product more than 10,000 times.

“It was our great honor to represent Joanne and Gary Anderson in this battle against Johnson & Johnson,” said trial attorney David Greenstone of Simon Greenstone Panatier, who was one of the attorneys who tried the case. “We are extremely pleased that our clients have found a measure of justice, although nothing can truly compensate them for what they have lost. Our clients are hopeful that this verdict can further bring light to this unbelievable example of corporate misconduct. Johnson’s Baby Powder has contained asbestos for decades. People need to know about this.”

The jury found Johnson & Johnson liable for two-thirds of the verdict amount. The remaining percentage of fault was spread among other exposures that Joanne had as a bystander to automotive work her husband occasionally performed. Medical testimony in the case indicated that all of her exposures to asbestos contributed to cause her mesothelioma.

“In 1969, a Johnson & Johnson’s company doctor told them that if they didn’t get control of the mineral contaminants in their baby powder that they would end up in litigation years later,” said trial attorney Chris Panatier, who also represented the family at trial. “Instead of pulling the powder from the market or going with a safer alternative such as corn starch, they engaged in a multi-decade campaign wherein they hid testing data from the FDA, altered reports to make them more favorable and lied to consumers. This jury saw Johnson & Johnson documents that were never given to the public or the FDA.”

Also assisting in the case was Simon Greenstone Panatier attorney Conor Nideffer.

The verdict is the third cosmetic talc case tied to asbestos that Simon Greenstone Panatier has won on behalf of its clients. In 2015, a California jury awarded mesothelioma sufferer Judith Winkel $13 million in her case against Colgate-Palmolive, based on her exposure to asbestos in its Cashmere Bouquet powder. The following year, a jury awarded $18 million to Philip Depoian in a mesothelioma case against talc supplier Whittaker Clark & Daniels.

Anderson’s case is Joanne Anderson and Gary Anderson v. Borg-Warner Corporation et al., No. BC 666513 in Los Angeles Superior Court.

Image by IowaPolitics.com

The Washington Post is reporting that federal prosecutors investigating President Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen are poised to receive on Wednesday 1 million files from three of his cellphones seized last month, according to a filing submitted to the court Tuesday night by special master Barbara Jones.

Jones said investigators have already been given access to nearly 300,000 pieces of potential evidence seized from Cohen’s office and residences in an April raid, according to reporters Philip Bump and Mark Berman.

Cohen’s attorneys initially said thousands of the seized documents might be covered by attorney-client privilege, but Jones noted that so far only 252 items have been flagged by Cohen’s or President Trump’s attorneys as privileged.

Read the Post article.

Image by Sean P. Anderson

In three separate lawsuits, the families of eight Sandy Hook shooting victims as well as an FBI agent who responded to the shooting seek damages from conspiracy theorist Alex Jones for defamation, reports The New York Times.

Jones has claimed that the 2012 shooting that killed 20 first graders and six adults at the elementary school in Newtown, Conn., was an elaborate hoax invented by government-backed “gun grabbers.”

Reporter Elizabeth Williamson writes that, “The families allege in one suit, filed by Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder in Bridgeport, that Mr. Jones and his colleagues ‘persistently perpetuated a monstrous, unspeakable lie: that the Sandy Hook shooting was staged, and that the families who lost loved ones that day are actors who faked their relatives’ deaths.’”

Plaintiffs in a suit filed Wednesday challenged any First Amendment defense: “The First Amendment has never protected demonstrably false, malicious statements like the defendants’.”

Read the NY Times article.

Gauri Prakash-Canjels, Ph.D. has joined Litigation Economics, LLC as a principal in its Washington, DC office.

In a release, the firm said Prakash-Canjels has worked on more than 150 cases, including intellectual property, antitrust, breach of contract, natural resource damages, personal injury and other matters. She is a seasoned expert and has served as an expert in federal and state courts as well as mediation and the Federal Trade Commission hearings, according to the firm.

Prior to being a principal at Litigation Economics, Prakash-Canjels was a consulting director at Brewer Attorneys and Counselors (formerly, Bickel and Brewer). She was a managing director and founding member of GreatBridge Consulting, Inc. Prior to founding GreatBridge Consulting in 2012, Prakash-Canjels was a principal at The Kenrich Group, a national business and litigation consulting firm.

Her background includes academic, corporate, economic consulting, and non-governmental organization positions.

Above the Law reports on the possibility — really speculation — that  special counsel Robert Mueller could be looking into connections between Squire Patton Boggs and Donald Trump’s lawyer/fixer Michael Cohen.

Editor Kathryn Rubino points out that the firm has distanced itself from Cohen, saying that he “maintained his independence, was not an employee of the firm, and did not maintain files or bill clients through the firm.”

“But the revelations that have come to light about Cohen’s shell company, Essential Consultants, and the money collected from big-name companies for access and insights into the Trump administration have cast a pall on the Biglaw firm,” she writes.

Leading the speculation is Stormy Daniels lawyer Michael Avenatti, who has said that the apparent reason the firm cultivated a relationship with Cohen was to supplement its lobbying business.

Read the Above the Law article.

Lex Machina, a LexisNexis company and creator of the award-winning Legal Analytics platform, announced the addition of new remedies analytics content for the platform.

The company said the new feature reveals grant and deny rates for permanent injunctions, preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders issued by specific judges or in specific districts for antitrust, commercial, copyright, employment, patent, securities and trademark litigation. The feature also adds new case timing data to the Legal Analytics platform, providing insights into the length of time it takes for judges to reach grant or deny decisions for these remedies. Armed with this information, attorneys can employ more effective legal strategies, reduce unnecessary legal spend and gain competitive advantage.

The addition of remedies analytics is the latest in a series of innovations and product enhancements that Lex Machina has introduced in recent months. Legal Analytics has been expanded to cover District Court bankruptcy appeals and product liability cases, as well as Delaware Court of Chancery litigation. The recently introduced Expert Witness Explorer app sorts and compares expert witness data and testimonial outcomes in product liability cases. The Legal Analytics platform now supports ten federal and state practice areas and eight Legal Analytics apps.

“The addition of remedies data is another enhancement to our Legal Analytics platform’s rapidly expanding scope and functionality, and makes the platform even more of a ‘must-have’ tool for both in-house law departments and law firms,” said Owen Byrd, General Counsel and Chief Evangelist at Lex Machina. “Deeper remedies analytics and insights has been one of the most requested features by our users. We’re pleased to be able to address this feedback with remedies analytics and help our customers make more informed, data-driven business and legal decisions.”

In Lex Machina’s database of more than 1 million federal district court cases, there are 27,500 cases containing orders on motions for permanent injunctions, preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders. For these cases, Lex Machina data shows that permanent injunctions are granted in 88% and denied in 12% of cases when ruled on the merits. The trend varies, however, by practice area, with trademark cases seeing 91% of permanent injunctions granted when there is a judgment on the merits versus 86% of patent and 79% of employment cases.

In a release, the company said Legal Analytics users can gain even deeper insights by applying filters for specific judges or jurisdictions, and then use the results to better predict outcomes and develop winning legal strategies. Case filters for case type, case tags and time ranges may also be used to analyze remedies analytics for a specified group of cases.

Legal Analytics also contains data about other specific remedies pertaining to employment, antitrust, commercial and trademark litigation. The employment-specific remedies data includes reinstatement and promotion; antitrust remedies data includes divestiture; commercial remedies data includes replevin and specific performance; and trademark remedies data includes relinquish domain name and termination of mark. By using Legal Analytics’ built-in filters, lawyers can now uncover data-driven insights to answer questions such as: Has any employee successfully obtained restatement in the Northern District of Florida? How can I find recent commercial cases in which my judge granted specific performance?

Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. on Monday reached a confidential settlement with a former employee, rather than face punitive damages for wrongfully firing her in January 2015 from the the restaurant she once managed, reports The Fresno Bee.

A Fresno jury last Thursday awarded Jeanette Ortiz $7.9 million in her wrongful termination civil case for loss of past and future wages and emotional distress against the fast-foot giant, a company that is worth about $1.3 billion, according to reporter Pablo Lopez.

Instead of letting the jury decide punitive damages, which could have been as much as nine times the original award, Chipotle’s lawyers settled with Ortiz and her lawyers for an undisclosed sum.

“In its verdict, the jury of four men and eight women ruled that Oritz was not a thief, but was a victim of a scheme to fire and defame her for filing a worker’s compensation claim for a job-related injury to her wrist caused by carpal tunnel syndrome,” writes Lopez.

Read the Fresno Bee article.

Attorneys for Dallas-based Fears Nachawati Law Firm have secured a $166 million verdict against the daughter and son-in-law of a North Texas woman who was killed in 2014 for the proceeds of life insurance policies totaling $5 million.

In a release, the firm said jurors in Tarrant County’s 141st Judicial District Court determined Mark and Virginia Buckland were central figures in the conspiracy that led to the stabbing death of Anita Fox that was carried out by two members of a nomadic ethnic clan known as Irish Travellers. The multimillion-dollar verdict is believed to be among the largest in Tarrant County this year.

The release continues:

“The main concern from the start was to make sure the Bucklands would not profit from their actions,” said Fears Nachawati partner Matthew McCarley, who represented Al Fox III, Ms. Fox’s son and executor of her estate. “Thanks to the jury’s understanding that they acted willfully in putting into motion the events that led to her death, we exceeded those objectives. There is no possible way they will ever be able to get a dime from the estate. We are exceptionally proud to be able to bring that closure to Al.”

Though the couple has never been charged criminally in the murder, the jury found that they had crafted an insurance scheme in which they would be the sole beneficiaries of a series of policies, in part without the knowledge of the 69-year-old Ms. Fox.

Following the recommendation from an insurance agent, the two allowed Pat Gorman to become a third-party investor in the policies. Looking for immediate returns on his investment, Mr. Gorman and his son allegedly stalked and eventually murdered Ms. Fox inside a Colleyville, Texas, house where she worked as a housekeeper.

The case is Al Fox III, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Anita Fox v. Mark and Virginia Buckland, Cause No. 348-277914-15. Also representing Fox at trial was Fears Nachawati lawyer Brice Burris.

Michael Lyons and Courtney Bowline of the Texas trial law firm Deans & Lyons, LLP have secured a confidential settlement on behalf of vocalist and musician Amy Boone, who sustained life-altering injuries when she was hit by a car in a parking lot near a popular Holly Street convenience store in Austin.

In a release, the firm said the lawsuit alleged that Boone, formerly of The Damnations and now The Delines, was injured in April 2016 as she walked through a parking lot where wheel stops had been removed and replaced with picnic tables. A motorist in the parking lot mistakenly depressed the accelerator rather than the brake, causing the vehicle to crash through a picnic table and pin Boone against the side of the building.

“What Amy has endured following this incident has been remarkably difficult,” said Boone’s attorney Michael Lyons, co-founder of Deans & Lyons. “It is nothing short of a miracle that Amy survived, but her life has been profoundly altered. Our hope is that this settlement will allow her to move forward to find a new normal for her life. She remains an incredibly thoughtful and talented woman and it was a pleasure to represent her.”

Boone endured eight surgeries during an initial month-long stay in the hospital. Despite extensive additional treatment, including surgery for placement of a large skin graft, the severity of her injuries resulted in an open wound on her leg more than 15 months after the incident. Following intensive therapy, she remains unable to walk without the assistance of a cane, according to the firm.

Best known in Austin for her work with The Damnations, an alt-country band she formed with her sister Deborah Kelly in the 1990s, Boone had been touring and recording with The Delines at the time of the accident.

The case is Amy Boone v. Century Club, LLC, et al., Cause No. D-1-GN-16-005557 in Travis County District Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court has emphatically reaffirmed the requirement that collective bargaining agreements must be interpreted according to “ordinary principles of contract law” when deciding whether retired employees are entitled to health care benefits, according to a post by Foster Swift Collins & Smith PC.

Richard C. Kraus and Mindi M. Johnson discuss CNH Industrial N.V. v. Reese. 

“The case involved a dispute over union retiree health benefits. In 1998, CNH entered into a CBA which provided group health care benefits to certain employees set to retire under the company’s pension plan. After the CBA expired, a class of CNH retirees and surviving spouses initiated a lawsuit in federal court asking for declaratory judgment that they were entitled to health care benefits for life and seeking to enjoin CNH from modifying those benefits.”

Read the article.

Image by Gage Skidmore

The Washington Post is reporting that legal analysts are saying Rudolph W. Giuliani’s media blitz to convince the public that neither Donald Trump nor his lawyer had violated the law by paying a porn star to keep quiet about an alleged affair might have backfired, giving investigators new leads to chase and new evidence of potential crimes.

“His comments to media outlets underscore a growing tension for the White House: The FBI investigation of [lawyer Michael] Cohen presents a legal problem for the president that his own lawyer might have exacerbated,” the report says.

As an example, Giuliani contradicted Trump’s earlier assertion that he was unaware of a payment to an adult-film actress. “He might have been trying to get ahead of investigators in making public facts they already know, though legal analysts said his statements could reinforce any case they might bring.”

Read the Post article.

The Supreme Court started the current term in October with a docket that could have a lasting impact on politics and culture, including major cases on partisan gerrymandering and LGBT rights, but six months later, the justices haven’t crossed off much on their to-do list, points out Todd Ruger for Roll Call.

That situation will result in some big decisions being handed down in the short time remaining before the end of the term in June.

“Speculation is rampant about what’s going on behind closed doors on some of the big cases — such as one about arbitration that was argued on the first day of the term in October,” writes Ruger. “Some legal experts say the court seems to be feeling out a new dynamic with Justice Neil Gorsuch in his first full term.”

He quotes Adam Feldman, a postdoctoral fellow at Columbia Law School and creator of a high court statistics blog, Empirical SCOTUS, as saying some recent decisions had fractured the justices, with each seemingly wanting to have their own say, which “shows they’re having trouble finding that point of consensus not along ideological grounds.”

Read the Roll Call article.

A New York federal jury awarded 10 former and current employees of a Long Island company $5.1 million because the company was found to have forced them to practice certain religious activities, reports The Washington Post.

Post contributor Gene Marks writes that the EEOC suit alleged that United Health Programs of America employees were being forced to follow an internal “Harnessing Happiness” system started by an aunt of the owners in 2007 that required them to engage in activities such as prayers, religious workshops and “spiritual cleansing rituals.”

“Nine employees said the ‘religiously infused atmosphere’ created a hostile work environment for them, and the jury agreed,” according to Marks. “The same jury also found that another employee was fired for opposing the practices. A judge had previously ruled that the Harnessing Happiness system — which was also known as ‘Onionhead’ — constituted a religion.”

Read the Post article.