Articles Posted in Uncategorized

The courts in Dukich vs.Illinois Worker’s Compensation Commission recently misapplied, in my opinion, the law, as it applies to falls on premises. The losses previously been that wherever there is a fall on premises, so long as it arises from a defect, like snow, or ice, that the fall is compensable. This often occurs as people are coming to and going from work. Dukich acknowledges these cases but makes a strange distinction. The worker was going to lunch when she fell in a parking lot that was wet from rain. The arbitrator awarded benefits. The Worker’s Compensation commission reversed the finding of the arbitrator and denied benefits. The appellate court affirmed the Worker’s Compensation Commission. The appellate court questioned whether the rain was the sole reason for the fall, suggesting that the claimant’s shoes might have had something to do with it.

The court found that work did not increase the risk the plaintiff would fall. This is questionable finding. The plaintiff would not have been at the worksite which was wet had it not been for work. While it is possible the plaintiff would have gotten wet somewhere else, he would not have been forced to do so by his employer.

The court distinguishes falls on ice and snow from water caused by rain. This is not a reasonable distinction. Both ice and water are the same compound. One is a little more slippery than the other, but that is all. Both fall from the sky and land on an employer’s property, increasing the risk that people get hurt.

The Supreme Court eliminated the public duty rule in the case of Coleman vs East Joliet Fire Protection District. The common-law public duty rule provided that governmental entities, such as fire and police entities, were immune from liability for things like responding to calls. In Coleman the court got rid of the immunity and substituted willful and wanton misconduct as the test for governmental liability.

In Coleman plaintiff resided with her husband in an unincorporated area of Will County. She called 911 indicating that her husband could not breathe and needed an ambulance. She asked the person on the 911 line to hurry because she was worried about her husband’s health. The 911 responders went to the wrong address. 41 minutes later the ambulance arrived. Plaintiff’s decedent died of pulmonary edema at 58 years old.

The trial court granted summary judgment for the public entity, basically dismissing the plaintiff’s case. The appellate court affirmed.

An old case, Abood, holds that unions can require nonunion members to pay their fair share of union dues because they benefit from the union negotiating for them. Abood said this applies to public sector jobs like state jobs.  Abood v. Detroit Bd. Of Ed., 431 U.S. 209, 232 (1977). Specifically, Abood says a state may allow public sector unions to charge nonunion members fees “insofar as the service charges are applied to collective-bargaining, contract administration, and grievance-adjustment purposes.” 431 U.S. at 232.

However, the Supreme Court recently suggested the opposite. In Harris v Quinn 573 U.S. ___ (2014) the court held that the First Amendment prohibits a State from forcing non-union members to pay for union speech on matters of public concern. Specifically, the Supreme Court wrote as follows:

“This case presents the question whether the First Amendment permits a State to compel personal care providers to subsidize speech on matters of public concern by a union that they do not wish to join or support. We hold that it does not, and we therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.”

Zofran (ondansetron) is an antinausea drug. It is intended for significant nausea issues caused by things like chemotherapy. However, Glaxo SmithKline also marketed it for use with pregnant women. The problem was that Glaxo SmithKline had failed to do any testing of the drug with pregnant women.  In 2006, prior to its becoming available in a generic form, Zofran was among the top selling drugs in the United States. The FDA estimated that number nearly a quarter of Zofran prescriptions were given to pregnant women.

As early as 2006, in a study published in Hong Kong, concerns were raised about the use with pregnant women. The Hong Kong study concluded that Zofran cross the placenta to the fetus. More studies were done. In 2011 a British study concluded that women who took Zofran were over twice as likely to have babies with congenital defects, including cleft palates. In August 2013 a Danish study found that children were to four times more likely to have babies born with congenital heart defects. It is clear that additional studies are needed.

Glaxo Smith Kline engaged in illegal conduct in its off label marketing of Zofran. Giving Zofran to pregnant women is considered off label use.  In July 2012 Glaxo Smith Kline entered into a settlement agreement with the United States Department of Justice to resolve claims that it illegally marketed Zofran, among other drugs. It agreed to pay a fine of $1 billion, which included a criminal fine and a forfeiture. It also agreed to pay another 2 billion to resolve claims by the government under the False Claims Act. The settlement resolves criminal issues, alleged by the federal government, that Glaxo Smith Kline had paid kickbacks to healthcare providers to get them to prescribe drugs.