The rights guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment and in particular the meaning of the term “unreasonable searches” have recently come under assault since the Supreme Court issued its ruling in the Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington case. In a narrow 5-4 decision, the Court voted to affirm the power of correctional facilities to conduct visual strip searches of prisoners regardless of the nature of their suspected crimes.

Opponents of the law argue that the federal government is overstepping it’s bounds by forcing Americans to purchase a private product like health insurance, with Justice Antonin Scalia comparing the individual mandate to a law requiring everybody to buy broccoli because it is good for them. Opponents also question whether the law could stand if this individual mandate were removed, since the expected increase in health insurance policies and government fines was intended as a major source of funding for the rest of the law’s provisions.

Possibly the most convincing argument in favor of the law is its promise to reduce the over 40 billion dollars in uncompensated health care costs that uninsured patients generate each year by forcing everyone who is capable of paying for their own insurance to do so. The Affordable Care Act makes it possible for adult children up to age 26–one of the largest populations of uninsured Americans–to retain coverage under their parent’s insurance plans. The law also promises to crack down on unethical health care providers by forcing pharmaceutical companies to report their annual payments to doctors and hospitals and to make essential preventative care measures such as mammograms and colonoscopies free for all insurance holders.

 
Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., today announced the guilty plea of JENNIFER LAM, 39, for falsely representing herself as an attorney capable of filing green card applications. The defendant stole more than $14,000 from the victim, a Chinese national seeking permanent residency in the United States. LAM pleaded guilty to Grand Larceny in the Third Degree and Unadmitted and Unregistered Practice as an Attorney, and is expected to be sentenced on June 13, 2012.
“This defendant took advantage of a Chinese national who sought help navigating our complex legal system,” said District Attorney Vance. “This case illustrates one of the most common immigration scams my Office encounters: unscrupulous individuals posing as attorneys or immigrant service providers. My Office’s Immigrant Affairs Program is committed to protecting our city’s diverse communities from these types of scams. I urge immigrants to be vigilant against such fraud, and to call our Immigrant Affairs Program Complaint Hotline at 212-335-3600 to report crime, regardless of immigration status.”
As admitted by the defendant and according to documents filed in court, in approximately August 2010, LAM falsely told a Chinese individual that she was an admitted and licensed attorney, and that she could file on his behalf a green card application to gain permanent residency. LAM told the victim to give her more than $14,000 in money orders for legal services and application filing fees, and to leave the money orders blank so that she can write out the checks to various agencies. LAM made the money orders out to herself and never filed any paperwork for the victim.

Please remember that before you retain an attorney, and certainly before you give money to an attorney, that you check their background to confirm they are what they say they are and can do what they say they can do. As my mother used to say to me, “if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is”.

On Friday, Rick Santorum, who’s lagging in the polls, blasted frontrunner Mitt Romney, labeling him a hypocrite for using his inside connections in Washington, D.C. when he was governor of Massachusetts to secure funds for the Salt Lake City Olympics. Throughout the campaign, Romney has taken pains to paint himself as a Washington outsider.

Santorum, who has taken pains to paint himself as the defender of family values, cried, “Hypocrisy. Plain and simple hypocrisy,”.

Maybe. But apparently, this is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

According to ABC News, Santorum, a vocal proponent of tort reform and medical malpractice caps, threw his own ideology out the window when his wife slapped her doctor with a $500,000 medical negligence lawsuit.

That’s right.

In 1999, Karen Santorum, accused chiropractor, David Dolberg, of botching a spinal adjustment. According to a Dec. 13, 1999 article in Roll Call, then Senator Santorum testified on her behalf, saying that the resulting herniated disc got in the way of all things, including his own re-election campaign!

Roll Call later reported that Santorum testified that his wife had “trouble walking, bending and lifting and suffered humiliation from weight gain associated with her injury.”

“We have to go out and do a lot of public things. She wants to look nice, so it’s really difficult,” he said, according to the 1999 Roll Call article. He added that “her physical limitations” and “poor self image” made it tough for her to knock on potential voters’ doors.

The upshot of the $500,000 suit — most of which was for pain and suffering, since Karen only had racked up about $19,000 in doctors’ bills?

A jury awarded Karen $350,000, which was later slashed by a judge to $175,000, according to an article in the Huffington Post.

At the time, Santorum had already backed two bills that would have prevented plaintiffs from seeking more than $250,000 in pain and suffering.

So what did Santorum have to say for himself when it came to this shocking hypocrisy?

Not a whole lot.

According to the Huffington Post, Santorum told the Pittsburgh Post Gazette after the verdict that the court case was a “personal matter.”

Asked about the suit a few years later by ABC News, Santorum said, “Of course I’m going to support my wife in her endeavors. That doesn’t necessarily mean that I agree with everything that she does.”

And then he seemed to back pedal, saying he had always been in favor of limits on pain and suffering, but was not “wedded at all to a $250,000 cap.”

“I think probably that is somewhat low, and that we need to look at what I think is a cap that is a little bit higher than that,” he said.

Hypocrisy, plain and simple?

I think so. What about you?

Federico has since told the Daily News that the headline was an “honest mistake.”
“This had nothing to do with being cute or punny,” he said. “I’m so sorry that I offended people. I’m so sorry if I offended Jeremy.”

It’s hard to believe that Federico didn’t realize the implications of the headline. Even if we were to take him at his word, racist stereotypes were certainly at play. After all, Federico himself said he didn’t think much of the headline, since he had used the turn-of- phrase “at least 100 times” during his short-lived career.
To add injury to insult, it was the second time this week that someone associated with ESPN used the term “chink” in connection with Lin.
Also on Friday, after the Knicks’ winning streak took a hit, sports reporter Max Bretos asked, “If there is a chink in the armor, where can Lin improve his game?” (Bretos, who has been suspended for 30 days took to Twitter to apologize, saying he didn’t mean to refer to race. “My wife is Asian, would never intentionally say anything to disrespect her and that community,” he tweeted).
In addition to axing Federico, ESPN issued an apology in an attempt to appease fans, who are rightly outraged at the network’s racist coverage of Lin.
“We are conducting a complete review of our cross-platform editorial procedures and are determining appropriate disciplinary action to ensure this does not happen again. We regret and apologize for this mistake,” the statement said.

HISTORY OF SLURS

I’d like to think that ESPN has learned its lesson. But the truth is the network has a history of stereotyping players of ethnic descent.
Last year, the network had to eat crow after one of its anchors dubbed a loss by the Oklahoma Sooners a “trail of tears.” The term historically refers to the forced (and deadly) relocation of a group of Native American tribes.
And in 2009, an anchor asked if a Hispanic racecar driver was “out having a taco” when he didn’t make the list of top five NASCAR drivers
Meanwhile, Lin, in an interview before the uproar, told Reuters
that he wanted to shatter stereotypes about Asians-Americans’
ability to play pro basketball.

After the ESPN headline, Lin told reporters that he didn’t think Federico meant his headline to be offensive.

“There are definitely stereotypes, obviously,” Lin said. “The more we can do to break those down by the day, the better we’ll become. Hopefully in the near future we’ll see a lot more Asians and Asian-Americans playing basketball in the NBA.”

“Have to learn to forgive, and I don’t even think that was intentional,” he said, according to a piece in the Los Angeles Times. “Or hopefully not,” he added.

Lin handled this slur like he has handled his basketball opposition recently: with finesses and grace. The slur was clearly intentional and ESPN did the right thing by firing Federico.

Hart, a 41-year-old advertising executive at Young and Rubican, was headed to work on Dec. 14 when she stepped into an elevator at the firm’s headquarters at 285 Madison Avenue. Before she could get inside, the elevator suddenly shot upward, trapping Hart between the car and lobby wall.

Two passengers could only look on in horror as Hart was crushed to death.

It’s not clear what caused the accident.

But it wasn’t the first time there had been problems with the elevators at 285 Madison.

In fact, just hours before the accident, workers from maintenance company Transel Elevator had performed electrical work on the elevator which crushed Hart. And while the elevator in question was only cited for a technical violation, the New York Times reported that 14 outstanding violations had been written in connection with the building’s 13 elevators.

The New York Post went so far as to say that problems with the elevators at the building were “an epidemic.” Following the tragedy, inspectors wrote 11 new violations for elevators at the building, the Post reported.

And on Jan. 24, an city official said maintenance work in progress right before Hart’s death was “likely a contributing cause, or the cause, of the accident.”

According to the New York Post, Transel faces at least eight lawsuits, including a man who fell down an elevator shaft in 2007. Hart’s family hasn’t sued yet, but the accident highlights the uphill battle families face when trying to sue a wrongdoer for the death of a loved one.

In New York, individuals can sue to recover damages for the ‘wrongful death” of a family member.  When the state’s “wrongful death statute” was passed in 1847, it was the first of its kind in the U.S. But more than 150 years later, the once revolutionary law hasn’t caught up with the times.

Here’s why.

When a loved one brings a wrongful death case, recovery is limited to monetary loss  — for example, funeral expenses and the financial support the family member would have provided if he or she had lived.  This calculation might be relatively straightforward when a working parent dies. But when a young child dies, it’s tough, if not impossible, to figure out how much money he or she would have provided to a parent over a lifetime. New York law requires a family who just lost a child to do this though.

Cases involving the elderly, single adults without children, and the disabled are equally challenging. New York law says their value is only measured by what they contribute financially.

How do you put a price on the financial contribution a single woman like Hart would have made to her family?

Conversely,  wrongful death actions don’t allow family members to recover for their grief. Grief is a family’s most significant loss but is specifically excluded as an element of recovery.  This results in families, after suffering the loss of a beloved family member, being subject to the second indignity of learning that their loved ones may be worthless in the eyes of the law.

The wrongful death statute might have been ahead of its time more than a hundred years ago. But New York is long overdue for a law that recognizes the value of all members of our society.

If you agree, speak up. Get in touch with your local lawmakers. Contact the Governor. http://www.governor.ny.gov/contact/GovernorContactForm.php.

And tell him enough is enough. It’s time we had a law that not only compensates families for the pain and suffering they endure after the tragic loss of a loved one, but treats members of our society equally, regardless of their earning power.

Last year, I told the tale of an immigration attorney who was suspended after shutting down his New York office and moving to Beijing without telling clients.

Well, every profession has its bad apples.

But when it comes to immigration lawyers, we’re talking about more than the occasional rotten apple.

According to a recent report published in the Cardozo Law Review, New York immigration judges said that one-third of the attorneys who represented immigrants facing removal from this country were inadequate. Fourteen percent were ranked as “grossly inadequate” by the judges.

It wasn’t just that attorneys were poorly prepared. Nearly half had inadequate or grossly inadequate knowledge of the law or facts of the case.

You can find the report Here

And hiring a private lawyer was far from a guarantee of adequate representation. In fact, the private bar got way lower marks than providers who offered free (pro bono) representation, law schools clinics and nonprofits.

“These findings are particularly alarming because minimally adequate representation is essential to the fundamental fairness of removal proceedings, particularly since it affects a class of people that is likely to be unfamiliar with the law, the procedures, and the evidentiary rules,” says the December 2010 report.

And the report notes that the consequences of poor lawyering in removal cases can be “devastating.” Even “irreversible.

Why?

Because inadequate representation in the initial stages of a removal case can lead to a range of bad outcomes, including triggering time bars creating incomplete records for appeal and in some cases even losing the right to appeal.

Robert Katzmann, a federal judge in Manhattan and a leading advocate of immigration reform, told the New York Times, which first reported the study, that part of the problem is that immigrants — who often face language barriers and don’t understand the court system — are “easy prey for ambulance-chasing-style lawyers who do not adhere to the highest standards of responsibility.” Check out the full NYT article Here

Unfortunately, the study also found that a large number of immigrants in civil proceedings simply lack representation. The Times reported that between October 2005 and July 2010, 27 percent of immigrants who appeared in immigration court didn’t have a lawyer. That number rose to 67 percent for detained immigrants.

So what can you do to protect yourself?

If you’re looking for a lawyer and don’t know where to turn, there are groups out there that can help.

Here’s a list of some places to call:

The New York City Bar Justice Center’s Legal Hotline at 212-626-7383;

The Legal Aid Society’s Immigration Law Hotline at 212-577-3456;

The Catholic Charities Community Immigration Services Department at 212-419-3700; and

Human Rights First, 212-845-5200

And remember, when you find an attorney, you are the client and have certain basic rights.

As I mentioned in my November 2010 blog post “Buyer Beware,” you are entitled to a lawyer who keeps your confidences, updates you on the status of your case, treats you with respect, includes you in the decision-making process, and charges you a reasonable fee.

If you are not comfortable with your lawyer, you have the right to walk away (you might have to pay for the work the attorney has done up to that point, but don’t let that stop you from speaking up).

And remember, if you think a lawyer has acted unethically, you can report them to an attorney disciplinary committee (for more information, see my April, 12, 2011 post, “Into Thin Air-When an attorney disappears”). If you think you’ve been the victim of a scam or fraud, you can contact the Manhattan District Attorney’s Immigrant Affairs Program Complaint Hotline at 212- 335-3600.

The bottom line is that just because you are new to this country or don’t understand the language or the court system doesn’t mean that you should have to settle for less than adequate representation.

There’s just one problem. The same devices that can help doctors also distract them from where their focus should be — on the patient.  To make matters worse, doctors and nurses are making personal calls or surfing their web during critical procedures.

Data suggests the problem is widespread. A recent survey of 439 medical technicians showed that more than half had used their cellphones while monitoring bypass machines during heart surgery. And if that’s not terrifying enough, half admitted to texting while in surgery.

“My gut feeling is lives are in danger,” Peter J. Papadakos, director of critical care at the University of Rochester Medical Center  and author of an article called “electronic distraction,” told the Times.  “We’re not educating people about the problem, and it’s getting worse.”

The full impact of this disturbing trend is tough to gauge, but at least one patient suffered the consequences of the phenomena the Times dubs “distracted doctoring.”

Medical malpractice attorney Scott Eldredge told the Times that he represented a patient who became partially paralyzed after undergoing surgery by a neurosurgeon who was making personal calls on his cellphone during the procedure.  The identity of the patient and other details remain under wraps because of a confidential settlement the lawyer struck with the hospital.

Stephen Luczycki, an anesthesiologist at Yale-New Haven Hospital, told the Times that it’s par for the course to see hospital personnel texting in the O.R. or using the computer in the operating room to surf the web and check personal e-mail,

“Amazon, Gmail, I’ve seen all sorts of shopping, I’ve seen eBay,” he said. “You name it, I’ve seen it.”  Luczycki said

‘QUIET ZONES’

So what can hospitals do to put the brakes on this risky practice?

One doctor took action after witnessing doctors and nurses on a team intubating patients, putting in place a “quiet zone” policy in operating rooms.
This isn’t to say that technology is inherently evil. When used correctly, it can help prevent mistakes by affording medical professionals up-to-the minute access to patient data and prescriptions.

“In the interest of preventing medical error, it’s a good friend,” Abraham Verghese, a professor at the Stanford University Medical Center who wrote the best-selling novel “Cutting for Stone,” told the Times.

But Verghese said the danger is that that doctors can pay too much attention to the trove of data on the screen — what he calls the “iPatient” – and not enough to the person in front of them.

“The iPatient is getting wonderful care across America,” Dr. Verghese said. “The real patient wonders, ‘Where is everybody?’.”

On Nov. 14, Sandusky told sportscaster Bob Costas during a phone interview that he had horsed around, hugged and showered with young boys. He denied however, any sexual contact. This excuse recently morphed into Sandusky claiming he was teaching personal hygiene to the boys. All in all, this is a tragic situation playing out in the public domain.

Recently, a 29-year-old man, identified as “John Doe A,” sued Sandusky in Pennsylvania, saying the disgraced football coach had abused him more than 100 times over a 4-year-period.

According to Reuters, John Doe A, who says he met Sandusky through The Second Mile, a charity the coach created to assist at-risk kids, claims he was abused “in the facilities of Penn State, particularly, in the football coach’s locker room, at times within Philadelphia County, at facilities out of state connected with a Penn State bowl game and at the Sandusky home.”

“I never told anybody what he did to me over 100 times at all kinds of places until the newspapers reported that he had abused other kids and the people at Penn State and Second Mile didn’t do the things they should have to protect me and the other kids,” John Doe A says in the suit.

Second Mile told Reuters that it was reviewing the suit, and Penn State declined comment. A lawyer for Sandusky wasn’t available for comment.

Personal injury lawsuits by sexual abuse victims are nothing new.  According to the New York Times, the Catholic Church, which has been plagued by accusations of sexual abuse, has paid approximately $2 billion to settle civil actions. As recently as Dec. 1, Reuters reported that three Catholic Church institutions ponied up $7 million to settle a sex abuse suit brought by 14 Delaware men.

So suing the predator and the institution he hides behind can result in a substantial financial recovery.

 But does a personal injury suit help victims recover more than money? Yes.

According to a rape crisis program in Butler County, Ohio, civil lawsuits allow abuse victims to recover the costs of medical care, psychological counseling, lost wages, and pain and suffering.

Think about that. No one would deny that victims of child abuse may require extensive counseling, medication and still may suffer their entire lives because of the damage inflicted upon them.  All this care and treatment cost money. With a civil suit, the wrongdoer is required to pay for these damages – not the victim and not society.

The suits also give victims the chance to put the accused on the stand — something that is unlikely to happen in a criminal case, where the defendant can invoke his right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

How important do you think this is to the victim? Very.

And unlike a criminal case, where the state brings proceedings and must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, a plaintiff in a civil action need only show that it’s more likely than not that the abuse took place.

MAKING SURE ABUSE DOESN’T HAPPEN IN THE FIRST PLACE

But while civil suits can help sex abuse victims gain a sense of much-needed closure, I think we all would agree that our focus should be on making sure abuse doesn’t happen in the first place.

Horrifying as the Sandusky scandal is, it serves as a reminder that we should be wary of placing too much trust in authority figures, like coaches and teachers.  As parents, we have a responsibility to teach our children about sexual abuse and to talk openly with our kids about the subject.

Here are some tips to help put an end to child sexual abuse:

Don’t be intimidated by coaches and other authority figures. You are the parent and have a right to monitor any situation involving your child;

Make sure a coach is certified, and know his/her qualifications. Insist that the coach undergo a background check;

Teach your children about abusive behaviors. Make sure they know they have a right to say no to unwanted or inappropriate touching, even if the person doing the touching is a trusted adult;

Teach children they never should have to keep secrets about sexual abuse.  Keep the lines of communication open and let them know that they can always come to you with concerns;

Make sure children know sexual abuse is never their fault;

Keep an eye out for adults who ignore a child’s personal space;

Watch out for adults who engage in secret interactions with kids (sharing drugs or sexual material) or spend an inappropriate amount of time emailing, texting or talking on the phone with children;

Be on the lookout for adults who tell dirty jokes or engage in talk about sex with children present;

Stay involved. Get to know your child’s coach. This doesn’t mean you have to hover; it simply means monitoring the situation;

Do not place your child in a situation where a coach is spending too much time alone with them. Expect that two adults be present;

And lastly, if your child comes to you about sexual abuse, and that could be simply asking about sex abuse, speak with your child and if confirmed, contact the authorities.

But the media frenzy overlooked one crucial fact — FedEx is a board member of the Institute for Legal Reform, an arm of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce comprised of big businesses that do everything they can to stop hardworking individuals from exercising their right to sue. In a new report entitled “Do As I Say, Not As I Sue,” the American Association for Justice shines a light on the hypocrisy of corporations like FedEx that lobby to curb access to the justice system, while simultaneously using the courtroom to build their brands and push their own corporate agendas. Among the top ten hypocrites are General Motors, Dow Chemical, Johnson & Johnson, Prudential and Honeywell International. Like FedEx, all of these companies are board members of the Institute for Legal Reform. On its Website, the institute describes itself as a “national campaign, representing the nation’s business community, with the critical mission of making America’s legal system simpler, fairer and faster for everyone.” Among its goals are to “neutralize plaintiff trial lawyers’ excessive influence over the legal and political systems” and “eliminate frivolous lawsuits.”

According to AAJ’s report, the institute’s members fight hard to keep consumers from having their day in court. For example, Honeywell has aggressively lobbied for legislation that would shield it from lawsuits related to its manufacturing of a defective bulletproof vest made of Zylon, a material known to degrade over time. And Abbott Laboratories, facing suits over harmful side effects related to Humira , a prescription medicine used to treat Crohn’s disease, has pushed hard for laws that would give prescription drug manufacturers total immunity from all drug side effects. Thus far, they have not been successful.  But these very same companies don’t think twice about bringing their own lawsuits, so long as the litigation advances their own goals.

Take the legal showdown between Disney and Caterpillar over Disney’s animated film, George of the Jungle 2. Before the film’s release in 2003, Caterpillar sued Disney for trademark infringement. The suit centered on a scene in which George and his friends take on Caterpillar bulldozers driven by a bunch of animated evil industrialists. Another example cited by the report is Johnson & Johnson’s failed bid to block American Red Cross from licensing the iconic red cross symbol for use on first aid kits and other products (even though the two organizations had been sharing the symbol for more than 100 years). “However silly these lawsuits may sound, they share one common theme: the company filing the lawsuit had the Constitutional right to do so,” the AAJ report says. “What makes their actions shameful and hypocritical is that these companies are members of ILR’s board for the sole purpose of denying Americans this same right, especially when severely harmed or killed by the companies’ products and services.” It’s up to us to fight against this double standard. As the AAJ report points out, “these corporations must recognize that this right to justice belongs not just to big business, but to all Americans.”