What is the cost of discrimination in the work place? Initially, there's the "morale cost." If employees, especially good employees, see unfair favoritism or negative treatment, that employee's willingness to be all-in is going to deteriorate. Most employees will see when their peers are upset or aggravated by such treatment and more often than not, employees will stick together against "The Employer." Now all of the work force is less interested in doing job. "Why bother, dedication and effort don't count!" When employees no longer have a stake in their work, the level of service begins to slip. In this day and age, when customers have so many options, bad service is a death knell for an ongoing relationship. Fewer goods and services sold, less profit on the bottom line. If one of those unhappy employees complains, the employer must dedicate scarce resources (and attorney fees) to responding. Again, less profit on the bottom line.

That seems like it should be so easy to understand. Apparently, it isn't.

This week, the EEOC announced new lawsuits against employers as diverse as hair cutters, grocery stores, dental offices, and other manufacturers. The claims included discrimination and retaliation. The EEOC also announced settlements in many pending cases. The economic cost of the various suits and settlements? In the millions.

"If you are an employer, ask yourself this," says Diane Smith of Burg Simpson. "If the bottom line is profits, aren't your interests best served by a work force that is treated fairly and in an even handed manner?" So pay attention and take care of your bad employees - whether at the entry level or the management level. Failure to do so will get you sued.

Posted by Diane V. Smith at 04:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

According reports from Miami, judge Nelson Bailey has filed a lawsuit against physicians at a Florida medical center after a sponge was left in him after surgery. Judge Nelson underwent surgery to treat diverticulitis (an inflammation of the digestive tract), but following his operation the pain persisted. The judge was sent for a CT scan, but incredibly the sponge was not detected. Only months later did doctors in Cleveland recognize the problem and removed a foot long surgical sponge from his intestine. Judge Bailey also claims that while undergoing treatment at the same Florida hospital doctors made a prescription error that potentially could have caused him to have a serious cardiac event.

Scott J. Eldredge a medical malpractice attorney at Burg Simpson believes that this case should act as a warning to patients. “Medical malpractice is all too common. Given advances in modern medicine and hospital working practices, surgical and pharmacy errors such as these really should not happen. Unfortunately preventable mistakes like these do still happen.”

If you or a loved one has been injured as a result of medical malpractice, Burg Simpson can help. Call our experienced medical malpractice attorneys today toll free 1.888.895.2080 for a consultation.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 02:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The parents of a Florida baby have filed a lawsuit against a Miami Hospital, after doctors carried out a circumcision on the child without his parent’s consent. In a statement the hospital blamed an error in the interpretation of a patient consent form, but that explanation has done nothing to quell the family’s outrage at what they believe to be an “irreversible amputation.” A failure to obtain consent by a hospital and/or physician is a common form of medical malpractice lawsuit, according to medical malpratice attorney Scott J. Eldredge.

“Every time a patient undergoes surgery, formal consent must be given to allow the healthcare professional to proceed. Physicians are legally and ethically required to involve their patient fully in decisions regarding their treatment, which includes providing an explanation of the procedure, alternative courses of treatment, and the extent of the risks involved. A physician’s failure to obtain informed consent could lead to a claim for medical malpractice. It is a widely held misconception that a signature on a preprinted consent form constitutes informed consent. While an important part of the process, it does not absolve the physician of taking the time ensure that a patient is an active participant in the decision-making process.”

If you or a loved one has been injured as a result of a physician’s failure to obtain informed consent before, Burg Simpson may be able to help. Call 1.888.895.2080 for a free consultation.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 09:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A generic version of the birth control pill Yasmin has been launched. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. has received approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to sell a product called Zarah, a drospirenone and ethinyl estradiol tablet, which is a generic version of Bayer’s Yasmin.

Watson began shipping the new drug on September 7, despite a pending lawsuit brought by Bayer alleging a patent infringement.

Seth A. Katz, a dangerous drug attorney with Burg Simpson is watching these developments closely. “ The introduction of Zarah is a concern. The combination of drospirenone and ethinyl estradiol has been known to cause an increase in potassium levels in the blood, which can lead to a condition known as hyperkalemia. Hyperkalemia can cause heart rhythm disturbances, such as extrasystolies, pauses or bradycardia. If hyperkalemia disrupts the normal heart rhythms, the flow of the blood through the heart can be slowed to the point that it permits blood clots to form. Blood clots in the heart can then lead to heart attacks, or break off and travel to the lungs where they can cause pulmonary embolus, or travel to the brain, causing a stroke.”

Burg Simpson is currently representing more than 1,400 women nationwide who allege that they were seriously injured as a result of taking birth control pills containing drospirenone and ethinyl estradiol. Further information is available by calling toll free 1.888.895.2080

Posted by Seth A. Katz at 10:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has taken the decision to require manufacturers of gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) to update their drug labels. The FDA wants the manufacturers of GBCAs such as Magnevist, Omniscan, and Optimark to take extra measures to ensure that patients with impaired kidney function are adequately warned about their increased risk of contracting nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF).

NSF is a potentially fatal condition where excessive connective tissue forms in the skin and internal organs. Oftentimes those suffering from NSF will experience a painful hardening of the skin, which in some cases can prevent the full use of the legs, feet, arms and hands.

In 2006, the FDA issued a warning about a growing number of cases of NSF reported in patients with kidney dysfunction who received GBCAs as part of diagnostic procedures involving magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans or magnetic resonance angiographs (MRA). In 2007, the agency ordered drug companies, including the likes of GE Healthcare, to add enhanced warnings to labels of their GBCA drugs.

This recent announcement by the FDA is of particular interest to attorney Peter W. Burg “I welcome this announcement by the FDA, but for some individuaks it has come as too little too late. Myself and the other dangerous drug attorneys at Burg Simpson remain at the forefront of national litigation regarding NSF, representing more than 150 individuals who have allegedly contracted condition as a result of their exposure to gadolinium-based contrast agents.”

For more information on NSF, its symptoms and the current lawsuit, please call toll free 1-888.895.2080 or visit www.nsflawyers.com

Posted by Peter W. Burg at 01:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Hadley Jons, a 20 year old from Michigan, was removed from a jury when she declared the defendant guilty on Facebook, while the case was still going. She posted on Facebook that it was "gonna be fun to tell the defendant they're GUILTY." Now, the judge in the case has ordered her to pay a $250 fine and write an essay about the constitutional right to a fair trial.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time this has happened. It was recently reported in another case that a juror couldn't decide whether to find the defendant guilty or not guilty, so that juror created a poll on Facebook, inviting people to vote on the defendant's fate.

"The use of social media, like Facebook or Twitter, is changing the lives of almost everyone, whether they know it or not" says Diane Smith of Burg Simpson. "Jurors are routinely told not to discuss a trial outside of the jury room. For some reason, people don't understand that Facebook can be as much a public discussion as a conversation over coffee."

If you have a legal issue concerning Facebook or any other form of social media, Burg Simpson may be able to help. Call 1.888.895.2080 for a free consultation.

Posted by Diane V. Smith at 12:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

What does your morning consist of? A cup of coffee and posts to Facebook about your day, your job, your boss? Firings as a result of Facebook activities are on the rise. Be warned!

Some employees have been fired when they claimed to be too sick to come to work, but then spent the day in front of the computer posting on Facebook. In June of this year, Tri City Medical Center in San Diego fired five California nurses after discovering the nurses were discussing patient cases on the site. Not only were they fired, but the California Department of Health investigated the situation to determine whether privacy laws had been violated.

"Yes, you have a First Amendment right to free speech," says Employment Lawyer Diane Smith of Burg Simpson. "but that won't necessarily protect you from being terminated if you violate your employer's trust or policies or if something you say is offensive or damaging to your employer."

For further information on social media and employment law issues, contact Burg Simpson toll free 1.888.895.2080.

Posted by Diane V. Smith at 10:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

For the last decade or so, plaintiffs in Title VII cases have claimed that "sexual favoritism" constitutes discrimination. Sexual favoritism occurs when an employee engages in consensual sexual conduct with a supervisor and, after that, the supervisor makes employment decisions that benefit the employee, based on this conduct. For the most part, courts have held that sexual favoritism isn't illegal. However, the claims are still being made and indications are that some courts may be persuaded to adopt this view. According to Diane Smith of Burg Simpson, "as with all forms of employment law, things change over time. With the current state of unemployment, any conduct that causes an employer to benefit one group of employees over another is going to give rise to discrimination claims under federal or state laws."

If you believe you have been the victim of discrimination, please call Burg Simpson on toll free 1.888.895.2080 for a free consultation.

Posted by Diane V. Smith at 09:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)