The Legal Intelligencer Blog

Greene Left With One Claim Surviving Against Street, Former PHA Board

By Gina Passarella
Of the Legal Staff

Former Philadelphia Housing Authority Executive Director Carl Greene had one of his remaining two claims against former Philadelphia Mayor John F. Street and the rest of the former PHA board tossed Thursday.

Greene asserted a number of claims against the board members for comments made about him, including comments regarding his settlements of sexual harassment lawsuits against him. He also sued for breach of contract for his September 23, 2010, termination by the board, according to the opinion in Greene v. Street.

While a number of claims were thrown out over the course of 2011, two had remained: a claim for deprivation of liberty interest in reputation without due process of law and a claim for breach of contract. The first claim was against board members Street, Debra Brady, Patrick Eiding and Nellie Reynolds in their individual capacities. The breach of contract claim was against the PHA.

In ruling on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, U.S. District Judge Ronald Buckwalter threw out the deprivation of liberty interest in reputation claim. He said the claim requires not only proof that false statements were made about Greene, but that he requested an opportunity for a “name-clearing hearing” and was denied.

In reviewing several interactions between the board and Greene’s lawyer, Clifford Haines of Haines & Associates, Buckwalter found Haines never expressly asked for an opportunity to clear Greene’s name, but rather took issue with what was being said about his client or how the board was handling an investigation into his client.

“Even if the court assumes that counsel for [Greene] was accusing defendant Street of making false statements about his client, defamatory conduct alone does not give rise to a claim for deprivation of liberty interest in reputation,” Buckwalter said. “Rather, [Greene] must have requested and been denied a hearing.”

As to Greene’s breach of contract claim, the defendants argued he didn’t include the necessary element of what his damages were. But Buckwalter found Greene was clear that he was seeking $618,750 in damages, which equaled 24 months of his salary, a cost of living adjustment and other benefits. Buckwalter denied the defendants’ summary judgment motion on that claim. He left it for a fact-finder to conclude whether Greene was terminated for cause or whether the PHA breached its contract with Greene.

Gina Passarella is the senior reporter for The Legal. She can be contacted by e-mail at gpassarella@alm.com or phone at 215-557-2494. Follow her on Twitter at @GPassarellaTLI.

 

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

Welcome to your Friday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer. All of the links below will take you directly to today’s stories, or you can head straight over to The Legal’s homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)

The top story this morning is the Court of Judicial Discipline ordering that suspended state Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin not be paid during her interim suspension. As reporter Zack Needles writes, a six-judge panel issued a 45-page opinion and order Thursday, voting 5-1 to suspend Orie Melvin’s pay.

Also above the fold on Page 1, reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes that a letter to an expert’s employer got a defense attorney disqualified from representing her own client.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Saranac Hale Spencer writes that a family must forfeit 10 exceedingly rare and likely ill-gotten coins, a federal judge has ruled. The coins were never circulated and were stolen from the Philadelphia Mint sometime shortly after they were cast in 1933.

In more Regional News on Page 3, Amaris Elliott-Engel writes that new Philadelphia Association of Defense Counsel President Dennis Veneziale will continue to focus on young attorneys and provide programming and training for them.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sister publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.

In a Personal Injury column on Page 5, Douglas H. Sell Jr. writes about flushing out financial information to assist your expert.

In a Litigation column on Page 7, Judy Weintraub and Harrie Samaras write the eighth part in their series on mediation advocacy, this time about strategy for the initial joint session.

If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to e-mail any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal.

Pa. Gets Cut of $181 Mil. Risperdal Settlement With Janssen

By Gina Passarella
Of the Legal Staff

While Pennsylvania has been unsuccessful so far in bringing state court claims that it was defrauded by off-label marketing by Janssen Pharmaceuticals of its antipsychotic drug Risperdal, the state will now share in a $181 million settlement with the company over similar claims.

The settlement proceeds will be shared by 37 states and was said by some of the states’ attorneys general to be the largest multistate settlement to be reached with a pharmaceutical company.

According to the settlement agreement Pennsylvania filed in Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas today, the state’s claims in Commonwealth v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals for more than $150 million in damages related to payments state Medicaid made to Janssen are expressly excluded from the general release in today’s settlement. That means the state, which just lost its battle in the Commonwealth Court to rejuvenate that case, could continue to appeal if desired.

While that lawsuit raised fraud and misrepresentation claims, the multistate settlement reached today raised claims under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

According to a statement from Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly, the states alleged that Janssen promoted Risperdal for off-label purposes to the geriatric and pediatric populations and specifically targeted nursing-home patients with Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, depression and anxiety. The states argued those uses were not FDA-approved nor shown to be safe or effective.

After a four-year investigation, Janssen has agreed to change how it promotes and markets its antipsychotic drugs, according to Kelly. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next five years Janssen must disclose the FDA-identified risks of its drugs in its promotional materials. It must present information about the drugs’ effectiveness in a balanced manner, Kelly said.

Additionally, personnel trained in science, not marketing, must develop the medical content or communications addressed to health care providers. Also, grants cannot be used to promote its atypical antipsychotic drugs. Janssen must also refrain from having policies that offer financial incentives to sales professionals that would reward off-label marketing, Kelly said.

Aside from Pennsylvania, the states involved in the settlement are Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming. The District of Columbia is also part of the settlement.

Drinker Biddle & Reath, which represents Janssen in the state court lawsuit, was also involved in today’s settlement, according to the settlement agreement.

The settlement is not an admission of guilt, nor is it a fine or penalty, the agreement notes.

"We have chosen this path to achieve a prompt and full resolution of these state claims and to ensure we continue to focus on our mission of providing medicines to meet the significant unmet needs of many people who suffer from mental illness," Janssen President Michael Yang said in a statement today.

Gina Passarella can be contacted at 215-557-2494 or at gpassarella@alm.com. Follow her on Twitter @GPassarellaTLI.

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

Welcome to your Thursday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer. All of the links below will take you directly to today’s stories, or you can head straight over to The Legal’s homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)

The top story this morning is a driller working in the Marcellus Shale accused of overbilling joint accounts it held with two other oil and gas drillers, as well as an investor. As Zack Needles writes, the suit alleges the company overbilled two accounts, one by more than $2 million and the other by more than $630,000, and then failed to fully reimburse the money.

Also above the fold on Page 1, reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes that the First Judicial District has made further changes to its current bail guidelines as the issue of gun violence becomes a bigger problem in Philadelphia.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Gina Passarella writes that a shaky first half of 2012 is causing a collections push for Pennsylvania firms.

In more Regional News on Page 3, Jeff Mordock writes that record-setting damages and fees have been affirmed in a Delaware shareholders suit, totaling $2 billion in damages and $304 million awarded to plaintiffs counsel.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sister publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.

In this week’s Young Lawyer column, David Koller writes about his perspective on how his wife views his shingle hanging experience.

In an Asset Management column on Page 7, David B. Bruckman and Bradley P. Pike write about master limited partnerships and the search for yield.

If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to e-mail any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal.

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

Welcome to your Wednesday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer. All of the links below will take you directly to today’s stories, or you can head straight over to The Legal’s homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)

The top story this morning is Pepper Hamilton acquiring Louis Freeh’s law firm and consulting group. As reporter Gina Passarella writes, Pepper Hamilton had been working for months with the firm, Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan, on the investigation into Penn State’s handling of the Jerry Sandusky scandal.

Also above the fold on Page 1, reporter Saranac Hale Spencer writes that antitrust claims against a merger of two of the country’s largest pharmaceutical benefits management companies, Medco Health Solutions and Express Scripts, were dismissed by a federal judge in Pittsburgh.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Zack Needles writes that the state Supreme Court has ruled that a Montgomery County trial judge’s jury charge did not instruct the jury that it needed to find intent to harm in order to find that medical battery occurred in a case in which a woman claimed she did not consent to the cesarean section a surgeon performed on her.

In more Regional News on Page 3, Merck has appealed a “pay-for-delay” deal ruled on by the Third Circuit to the U.S. Supreme Court. Also on Page 3, Pepper Hamilton is advising IBM on its push into social networking.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sister publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.

In this week’s GC Mid-Atlantic column on Page 5, Tiffani L. McDonough writes that health care reform is leading to more wellness initiatives.

In a Real Estate Law column on Page 7, James M. Lammendola writes that the Commonwealth Court considered eminent domain and Act 70 in a recent decision.

If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to e-mail any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal.

Complex Litigation Center’s Judge Moss on Settlement

By Amaris Elliott-Engel
Of the Legal Staff

I interviewed Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Sandra Mazer Moss, the co-supervising judge of the court’s program for mass torts, for a series on the changing nature of products liability law. The latest installment of the series can be found here.

And here are the highlights of the interview:

Moss said the proof that the court’s settlement/mediation program is working well is that “we have yet to try a pharma case in 2012 and it’s already August.” Everything has settled after the motions practice, the judge said.

Pharmaceutical cases settle on the basis of plaintiffs counsel’s inventory of cases, while asbestos cases settle, if they settle, when they are listed for trial, she said.

In asbestos cases, there is usually a trial every month, Moss said. “Instead of a full complement of cases, you’ll get one left that maybe will go to trial,” Moss said.

I asked Moss what is the court’s role in resolving mass torts case. Moss said it is “to encourage mediation and to offer to be available for settlement.”

Cases are mediated in whole packages of cases, Moss said. She noted that a Paxil case, which was set to be tried next month, was settled as part of a package.

“I think it makes it more palatable to both sides,” Moss said. v In mass torts, the considerations of settlement include if the cases involve signature injuries and how many cases are in a plaintiffs counsel’s inventory of those injuries, as well as if the defendants have conceded certain injuries were caused by their products and if on some injuries the defendants “are absolutely adamant that they are not” caused by their products, Moss said.

Finally, Moss said she has not really seen an ethical impact from plaintiffs counsel representing many, many claimants. Moss said she trusts lawyers will work ethically and she has never had a plaintiff contact the court to complain.

Amaris Elliott-Engel can be contacted at 215-557-2354 or aelliott-engel@alm.com. Follow her on Twitter @AmarisTLI.

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

Welcome to your Tuesday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, which also includes this week’s edition of Pennsylvania Law Weekly. All of the links below will take you directly to today’s stories, or you can head straight over to The Legal’s homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)

The top story in today’s Legal is the third in reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel’s series on products liability, as she writes about how the role of settlement has been growing in products liability cases.

Also above the fold on Page 1, reporter Saranac Hale Spencer writes that the insurance trust fund for the Miami police officers’ union has brought a class action suit against AstraZeneca for its drug Nexium and the manufacturers of its generic versions. The suit, filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleges AstraZeneca paid the generic companies to keep their drugs off the market.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Gina Passarella writes that a Lehigh County judge took issue with the uptick in law agencies’ use of child pornography laws to prosecute teens who “sext.”

In more Regional News on Page 3, Saranac Hale Spencer writes that a Middle District judge awarded more than $1 million in attorney fees to members of the funeral industry who won their suit against the state Board of Funeral Directors and took the defense to task for their approach to the litigation.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sibling publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.

In a Health Care Law column on Page 5, Vasilios J. Kalogredis and Karilynn Bayus write about a New Jersey Supreme Court ruling on providers’ discovery obligations.

In a Trusts and Estates column on Page 7, Robert H. Louis writes about the importance of planning over the next four months.

Today’s lead story in PLW is the state Supreme Court ruling that tax collectors’ pay must be reasonable, a ruling plaintiffs counsel called a “watershed moment” for Pennsylvania’s elected tax collectors, as reporter Zack Needles writes.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Ben Present writes that attorneys have said there was no ethical breach for a Dauphin County judge with political ties to state Senator Jeffrey E. Piccola. The judge presided over one of the estates that Piccola worked on in his work with an “heir-hunting” firm.

On Page 3, Zack Needles writes that the state Supreme Court has agreed to take up the question of whether a government entity is a “person” subject to lawsuits under the Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Law.

There’s much more inside this week’s PLW, including Samuel C. Stretton’s Ethics Forum, in which he writes about lawyers waiving future conflicts; Brandon Swartz’s Personal Injury column on hand injuries; and David Mandelbaum’s Environmental Law column on the Act 13 decision.

If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to e-mail any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal.

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

Welcome to your Monday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer. All of the links below will take you directly to today’s stories, or you can head straight over to The Legal’s homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)

The top story this morning is a Philadelphia judge rejecting a motion for reconsideration by a defense attorney, who the judge found should be sanctioned for contacting the employer of a plaintiff’s expert witness in a medical malpractice case, to have opposing counsel also sanctioned. As reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes, the exact sanctions are still to be determined.

Also above the fold on Page 1, Amaris Elliott-Engel writes that the Superior Court has ruled that the Pennsylvania judiciary does not have specific jurisdiction over out-of-state health care providers whose treatment results in injuries to Pa. residents while in their home state.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Gina Passarella writes that the first cy pres award since a rule change regarding class action settlement funds was given to the state IOLTA board and Community Legal Services. Each will receive nearly $46,000 donations facilitated by lawyers at Feldman Shepherd.

In more Regional News on Page 3, Cozen O’Connor has said that the comments and actions of Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Arthur Schack demonstrate “extreme bias and hostility” toward John McDonough, a lawyer with the firm who was defending Duane Reade in a suit before Schack.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sister publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.

In the Public Interest Page, Niki Ludt writes about a legal center putting a face on the voter ID litigation and Marissa Boyers Bluestine writes about ensuring the integrity and accuracy of convictions.

In a Law Technology News column on Page 7, Scott Vernick and Peter Buckley write about getting court approval for predictive coding. If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to e-mail any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal.

 

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

Welcome to your Friday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer. All of the links below will take you directly to today’s stories, or you can head straight over to The Legal’s homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)

The top story this morning is the U.S. Secretary of Labor filing an ERISA suit against Philadelphia litigation firm Harvey Pennington. As reporter Zack Needles writes, the suit alleges the firm, its managing owner and another shareholder mishandled employees’ 401(k) contributions in violation of the act.

Also above the fold on Page 1, reporter Saranac Hale Spencer writes that a class action being brought against two major manufacturers of blood reagents was certified by a federal judge.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has rejected the appeal of a group of drugmakers over whether federal law pre-empts the claims of at least 2,000 plaintiffs that their use of generic versions of metoclopramide caused them to have an incurable neurological disorder called tardive dyskinesia.

Also below the fold on Page 1, suspended Justice Joan Orie Melvin and her sister Janine Orie have been ordered by an Allegheny County judge to stand trial together.

In more Regional News on Page 3, a federal judge in Camden, N.J., has dismissed a putative class action accusing Fidelity of charging excessive fees to 401(k) plan participants in divorces.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sister publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.

In an Employment Law column on Page 5, Jeffrey Campolongo writes about employees who have medical conditions but do not specifically ask for accommodation.

In a Franchise Law column on Page 7, Craig R. Tractenberg asks if, when a franchisor files, the franchisee can keep the name.

If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to e-mail any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal.

City Controller Questions Plan to Eliminate Public Defenders

By Amaris Elliott-Engel
Of the Legal Staff

As the city of Philadelphia continues to seek approval of its five-year budget plan with the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority, City Controller Alan Butkovitz questioned today how the city could propose to eliminate “public defender positions while the District Attorney’s Office, which prosecutes these cases, continues to receive sufficient funding to maintain its current staffing levels.”

Overall, Butkovitz was opposed to the city’s first five-year plan, but Butvokitz is now in favor of the city’s revised plan because the revised plan “demonstrates sufficient expenditure reductions to cover the cost” of an arbitration award in favor of the International Association of Fire Fighters Award, if the city loses on its appeal of the arbitration award.

The proposal to eliminate public defenders is one of the cuts the city said it would make if it has to pay more to the firefighters.

Butkovitz also questioned how the city can expect to further grow decreases in expenditures in the Philadelphia Prison System from $1.9 million to $3.6 million when the prison population is “a factor which is clearly beyond the city’s ability to control.”

Here’s my story from earlier this month on how the firefighter arbitration award could mean more cuts to the city’s court system.

The next PICA board meeting is set for Sept. 5.

Amaris Elliott-Engel can be contacted at 215-557-2354 or aelliott-engel@alm.com. Follow her on Twitter @AmarisTLI.