New York Injury Attorney Blog

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001

Fifteen of the nineteen terrorists involved in the 911 attacks were Saudis. Why not sue the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and various other seemingly responsible parties (including four Saudi Princes, a Saudi Banker and the Saudi High Commission) for their support role in the attacks? After all, investigations by our government and by non-governmental entities revealed that most of the terrorists were from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and that the defendants provided financial support to al Queda through various channels. The plaintiffs are those who incurred losses in the September 11th attacks. They alleged that Islamic charities under the control of, and funded by, the defendants played an instrumental role in the development of al Queda and the fulfillment of its objectives.

One of the great things about the American justice system is access to the courts. Private citizens and their attorneys have been able to bring actions in court seeking remedies for similar wrongs (Libya was sued for the hijacking and murders aboard Pan Am Flight 73 in 1986, and for the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland which killed all 270 people on board; Swiss banks were sued for corroborating with Nazis and laundering Nazi wealth taken from Jews who died in the Holocaust). Well, what about suing those behind the World Trade Center attacks?

Great idea. Only one problem: The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) “grants foreign sovereigns immunity from suit in the United States” subject to some limited exceptions, which include torts (car accidents, negligence or injury caused by their representatives) and commercial activity (when the government acts like an individual involved in trade or commerce).

The other exception is created when the US Government designates a foreign government a “state sponsor of terrorism.” When that occurs, there is a private right of action to sue the foreign government. That’s what happened here. Except the State Department did NOT designate Saudi Arabia a state sponsor of terrorism.

No designation, no day in court.

Whether all the defendants in this action are agents or servants of the Saudi Kingdom and actually did what the plaintiffs claimed, the victims of 911 have no right to sue the Saudis under the state sponsor of terrorism exception. And their fall-back positions—that the acts of flying planes into the World Trade Center fit under the tort or commercial activity exceptions—were unconvincing. This was terrorism, and that was the only exception available to the plaintiffs.

The Court summed up the limits of our individual right to sue foreign powers this way:
"Although the FSIA did open an avenue of redress for certain individual victims of state-sponsored terrorism, it did not delegate to the victims, their counsel and the courts the responsibility of the executive branch to make America’s foreign policy response to acts of terrorism committed by a foreign state, including whether federal courts may entertain a victim’s claim for damages." The case was dismissed.

Maybe this is the rare instance where we wish lawyers had more power than they already have.

September 11th may not have been brought to us by any recognized state-sponsored terrorists, but it sure looks like it was. The "state-sponsored" loophole is as big as Ground Zero and leaves one wondering why the attorneys' hands are tied while the terrorists funded by "non-state" sponsors reach all the way into NYC, DC and the skies above Pennsylvania without ever having to answer in court for their actions.

Posted by Mark A. Eskenazi | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Crime and Punishment , Damages , Injuries , Politics , U.S. Court of Appeals , War on Terror

Bookmark:

New Jersey Supreme Court: Culter v. Dorn

As they say in Jersey, “You talkin' to me?”

That question had to be in Jason Culter’s mind every time he heard comments in the office about “those dirty Jews.” Every time he was referred to as “the Jew.” Every time he was asked by his boss “where [his] big Jew… nose was?” And the time his coworker suggested that we should “get rid of all those dirty Jews.”

And what if all those folks making the comments were armed. Do you call the police?

You don’t if you’re a cop.

And you don’t if the people making the comments were also cops and coworkers.

This was the work environment at the Haddonfield New Jersey Police Department. Not exactly Jersey’s Finest.

Culter was reluctant to make waves and thought he was thick-skinned enough to ignore it all, but a few threatening incidents and comments too many put him over the top. He brought an action under New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (LAD) claiming he was subjected to a hostile work environment because he was Jewish. In its defense, the police department claimed Culter was a willing participant in all the fun and that it was all just harmless police department chop busting. The judges were not amused and seemed not to get the joke.

According to the court, “The LAD’s promise of a discrimination-free workplace” extends to matters of faith. “Antagonistic, degrading, or demeaning conduct in the workplace that is directed at or about one’s religious faith, or ancestry, can be discriminatory and can amount to an unlawful hostile environment.” The Haddenfiled precinct was such a place.

The court found that Culter met the threshold for demonstrating a religion-based discriminatory work environment. It also found that the standard of proof to demonstrate a religion-based hostile environment was no different than what was required to show a sexually or racially-based hostile workplace. Hatred and job-related abuse of authority come in all shapes and sizes, but it’s all equally unacceptable.

Given the times we live in, one has to wonder what the members of the Haddonfield Police Department were thinking. Or does anti-Semitism make you both reckless and clueless. These cops would have been better off if they followed there own advice and remained silent. After all, the original “Miranda” warning comes from an old Jewish book (Proverbs 17:28) which says this: “Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue.” Alas, such was not the case here, and before the New Jersey Supreme Court, the Haddonfield Police Department didn’t have a prayer.

Posted by Mark A. Eskenazi | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Employment Discrimination , Injuries , Other State Courts , Religion , Speech

Bookmark:

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York: Casillas v. Daines

It’s only money, except when you’re looking for Medicaid to pay for gender reassignment, or what was previously known as a sex-change operation. Without the state’s cash, Terri Casillas could not obtain the operation "she" claimed she needed. The state refused to pay. The court refused to make the state pay.

Ms. Casillas was born male but identified as a woman from age 16 and lived as one from the time she was 20. When she was about 28, she was diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder (GID or transsexualism), a form of depression “defined by strong, persistent feelings of identification with the opposite gender and discomfort with one's own assigned sex” (hence the need for gender reassignment). For twenty-four years Ms. Casillas underwent hormone therapy courtesy of Medicaid, which caused her to develop breasts and a “more traditionally female body.” When Medicaid funding ended, the plaintiff paid her own way. When she could no longer afford it, therapy stopped and Ms. Casillas “began to exhibit male characteristics.” This was the point of no return for Ms. Casillas, so she sued the New York State Department of Health to make them pick up the tab for the ultimate remedy: gender reassignment, i.e.,“vaginoplasty (removal of the penis and creation of a vagina) with orchiectomy (removal of the testes).”

It turns out there is a 1997 Department of Health regulation which restricts Medicaid payments for gender reassignment. Ms. Casillas claimed this limitation violated her federal right to obtain such a procedure, which was guaranteed under federal statutes and the US Constitution. The court disagreed. It found that the state can limit medical services based on criteria such as “medical necessity” or “utilization control” (control over the distribution of limited resources through Medicaid). Moreover, if the state had a valid medical reason not to cover such procedures, it didn’t have to. The state identified numerous concerns about gender reassignment, including that “serious complications” could result from such surgery and that the long-term effects of the lifetime hormone therapy that would be required were unknown. Accordingly, the state’s refusal to pay was neither irrational, discriminatory nor a violation of Ms. Casilla’s statutory or Constitutional rights.

In this age of breakthrough medical technology where there are procedures from butt, breast and calf implants, to male sexual enhancement or labiaplasty (look it up!), to cryogenics, the court seemed to recognize that valid lines need to be drawn with respect to state-funded health care and that Medicaid cannot pick up the tab for every medical procedure available. You can’t always get what you want under Medicaid, but you can get what you need.

Finally, Ms. Casillas argued that what she wanted removed surgically was akin to a mastectomy, where a breast is removed because of a medical condition affecting the body part. As she saw it, GID similarly affected a body part (by causing her depression and discomfort) and the surgery should be approved. Since the state pays for one procedure, it should pay for the other and the offending part should be taken off courtesy of Medicaid.

That argument did not cut it, according to the court. And neither would Medicaid.

The case was dismissed.

Posted by Mark A. Eskenazi | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Culture War , Damages , It's My Right! , U.S. District Court

Bookmark:

U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit: Frazier v.Winn

In the 70's TV show Welcome Back Kotter, Juan Epstein always had a note for his teacher. And every note was “signed Epstein’s Mother.” That won’t cut it in Florida public Schools where the state Pledge Law requires public school students from K to 12 to recite the pledge at the beginning of each day. The only way to be excused from this obligation is by an authentic written request from the student’s parent. Once you submit a note, you can exercise your right to remain silent during the pledge, but the law still requires you to respectfully stand at attention.

Cameron Frazier thought he was old enough to take a stand on sitting out the pledge. The high-school junior challenged the statute claiming the Pledge Law violated his First Amendment rights. The court’s answer to his objection was basically “Sit Down!”

Mr. Fraizier claimed the statute “robbed him of his right to make an independent decision.” The court disagreed. While it overturned that part of the statute that requires students to stand if they opted out of the pledge (the constitutional right to sit during the pledge was long ago established), it determined that the Pledge Law is “largely a parental-rights statute.” Accordingly, it concluded that “the State’s interest in recognizing and protecting the rights of parents on some educational issues is sufficient to justify the restriction of some students’ freedom of speech.” The only way out of the pledge for Cameron Frazier was a real note, signed Frazier’s mother.

Depending how you score this, it’s either one against the rights of free speech, or one for the rights of parents. Funny how age and circumstance can affect your view of what is and isn’t constitutional. Now if only the courts would rule on our children's right to opt out of cleaning their rooms or taking out the garbage...

Posted by Mark A. Eskenazi | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Culture War , It's My Right! , Speech

Bookmark:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: Lawrence R. Poliner, MD V. Texas Health Systems

For years there’s been a national debate about the impact of medical malpractice actions: Should damage awards be capped? Are lawsuits putting doctors out of business? Should juries even have the right to decide if a doctor committed malpractice? Or should doctors receive preferential treatment in our legal system so they can practice medicine without thinking about malpractice actions?

Freeing doctors from potential lawsuits might sound good in theory, but it raises some serious questions about how safe we would be as potential patients.

The Fifth Circuit had to deal with a variation on this question: Can Peer Review Committees (hospital committees made up of doctors who evaluate less-than-optimal care by other doctors at the hospital) be sued for money damages based on their findings? Dr. Poliner was reviewed by such a committee. His medical judgment treating a number of patients had been previously questioned and criticized. His treatment of “patient 36” caused a peer review committee to temporarily restrict his hospital privileges. That decision went down like Castor oil. Doctor Poliner sued the hospital for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and various contract claims.

A trial jury sided with the aggrieved doctor. It awarded him over $200 million in damages. The verdict was subsequently reduced to $33 million by the judge. The Fifth Circuit Court Appeals reversed and ruled in favor of the defendants. It held that under federal law, peer reviewers had immunity and could not be sued by the doctor. More importantly, it found “That the ad hoc committee concluded that Poliner gave substandard care in half of the cases reviewed, and considering the seriousness of the diagnostic error with Patient 36... Defendants were fully warranted in concluding that failing to impose further temporary restrictions ‘may result’ in an imminent danger.”

Back to the first point: There’s been a lot of debate about malpractice cases. Now we know that hospitals have an absolute right to review their doctors and take action. Good. They should. Like the court said, robust peer review helps root out incompetent physicians, protects patients and prevents malpractice. But what about the cases they review when there's “substandard care” and they don’t take action against a doctor? The next patient may well be at serious risk, and someone other than the patient is willing to take it.

That unknowing patient at potential risk could be any of us. If we get injured (and medical mistakes can cause very big injuries), we don’t have the right to fire the doctor or restrict his practice. What we have is the right to bring a medical malpractice action. Take that away and we’re left to what peer reviewers do or don’t do when they’re confronted with substandard care by one of their own.

Sounds like a prescription for trouble.

Posted by Mark A. Eskenazi | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Damages , Medical Malpractice , U.S. Court of Appeals

Bookmark: