Parties to the settlement reached among the WTC Captive Insurance Company (the "WTC Captive"), the City of New York, the contractors the City hired, their subcontractors, and attorneys for over 10,000 plaintiffs alleging injuries from the WTC site operations addressed Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York today regarding the amended settlement that was announced June 10, 2010. 

Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein opened the proceedings, and interjected during the parties' presentations to clarify how the settlement values claims: "People were compensated [based] on two key criteria.  How serious, objectively speaking, objectively quantifiable, is the disease, and what is the general relationship between the disease and their work at the site."

The Judge emphasized that the settlement process values each individual claim, unlike class actions, where plaintiffs divide the settlement proceeds equally: "This is not a class settlement but a series of individual settlements, each plaintiff having an individual stake."

The settlement will cost the taxpayer-funded WTC Captive $625 million in cash at the required 95% plaintiff participation, with an additional $87.5 million paid if certain conditions are met, totaling up to $712.5 million.  Plaintiffs' attorneys are voluntarily reducing their fees to 25% and waiving entirely their fees on certain other aspects of the settlement, resulting in savings to plaintiffs of over $50 million.  Plaintiffs will have 90 days to opt into the settlement, unless that period is extended.

Plaintiffs were expected to address the Court in the afternoon session.  Suzanne Conroy, whose husband Daniel worked at the WTC site and died, according to her claim, from an illness caused by his exposure there, wrote a letter to the Court praising the settlement.

"...I strongly feel that this settlement is fair and reasonable," Ms. Conroy wrote.  "Lastly, I would like to state that this settlement is great because people do not have to prove that their injuries were a direct cause of their toxic exposure."  

Kenneth R. Feinberg, who was appointed Claims Appeal Neutral over the Settlement Process Agreement, addressed the Court by video hook-up, saying he will be fully engaged in his role overseeing appeals by plaintiffs of their compensation awards.  Mr. Feinberg listed several reasons why the court should approve the settlement, noting it was an improvement on the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund by guaranteeing each person a minimum payment, making payments more quickly, and establishing a process for valuing each claim objectively.

"The final reason I would approve the settlement is because, what is the alternative?  These eligible plaintiffs have waited and waited and waited and if they litigate they will continue to wait," Mr. Feinberg said.  "When you consider the alternative, more litigation, uncertainty of result, I have no problem urging that the Court approve this settlement and it be implemented as soon as possible."

Paul J. Napoli, a senior partner at the law firm Worby, Groner, Edelman & Napoli, Bern, LLP, which is representing over 9,000 litigants, addressed the Court regarding the difficult negotiations that lasted over two years but, he said, resulted in the "best possible" outcome.

"After seven long years of hard-fought litigation and negotiations, we have finally achieved a settlement of historic proportions and significance," Mr. Napoli said.  "These brave men and women, heroes of 9/11, will receive the compensation to which they are entitled.  They will no longer be subjected to months and years of further discovery and will finally have closure."

Mr. Napoli described a range of payments from $3,250 for plaintiffs filing a legal claim for fear of cancer to over $1 million for asthma severe enough to permanently disable the claimant.

Nicholas Papain, managing partner of Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, P.C., attorneys for nearly 700 New York City firefighters and 9/11 rescue and recovery workers, said his firm has fully explained the terms of the settlement and the procedures that will be utilized to calculate the settlement sums to be awarded to his clients through several communications and town hall meetings attended by the majority of his clients: "Based on the questions and comments from our clients, we believe they have a sound understanding of the settlement terms and believe it to be the best and most effective way to resolve their claims and receive reasonable compensation for their losses."

"A trial, if they get past the motions to dismiss, will cost more than the money being put into the settlement," Mr. Papain told the Court.  He noted that if 95 percent of the plaintiffs do not opt in, the taxpayer funded WTC Captive would be required to use that money "not to pay claims but to defeat those claims."

James E. Tyrrell, a partner at Patton Boggs, LLP and attorney for the settling defendants, listed the defenses that would be available to the defendants if plaintiffs decide not to "opt in" to the settlement process, making the litigation process costly, lengthy, and uncertain.  He explained how the settlement valued the strength of each plaintiff's legal case based on their likelihood of success at trial, which, for some, was unlikely.

"If these cases go to trial, the defendants can and will assert the defenses available to them.  They too came to the aid of the people of New York and all they have to show is that they acted with reasonable care under the circumstances," said Mr. Tyrrell. "Exposure to dust at the WTC site is not enough to prove that an alleged injury or illness was caused by that exposure.  The plaintiffs will bear the burden of proving that a specific exposure occurred and caused the alleged injury to a 'reasonable degree of medical certainty.'  Frankly, that means the road to resolution in this case for those who do not accept this settlement will be long, difficult, costly, and uncertain.  That said, the WTC Captive does not want to spend its money on continued defense costs, but rather on compensating these claims."

Mr. Tyrrell said it could take one to two years, if not longer, for the first of the trials to begin.  Moreover, if the City and contractors prevail in their argument that state and federal laws make them immune from lawsuits stemming from the performance of such recovery operations, the claims may be dismissed and never reach a jury.

Margaret H. Warner, a partner at McDermott Will & Emery, LLP, who represents the WTC Captive and was the lead negotiator of the settlement, explained why claims of certain illnesses, like hard-cell or skin cancers, were paid less than other illnesses like asthma.  Ms. Warner said that many of the alleged illnesses were medically unlikely to have been caused by any exposures at the WTC operations sites.

"We believed that based on the principles of fairness and justice, the most money should go to those most injured, whose injury is most causally related to 9/11," said Ms. Warner.  "Every effort was made here to find a mechanism to provide compensation.  This settlement avoids the necessity of each plaintiff proving causation, but we valued claims higher that were more plausibly related."

Michael Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, told the Court the City strongly supports the settlement because it provides certain and swift payments as opposed to the uncertainty of litigation.  Mr. Cardozo listed the additional benefits the City already provides and will continue to provide to most of the plaintiffs, including medical monitoring and health care services through the three Centers of Excellence, currently serving over 13,000 people, with no out-of-pocket costs.

"It is our hope and desire that this settlement will help to heal the rift between the heroes who performed so nobly for their country at Ground Zero and the City and the companies that provided essential services to the public when New Yorkers and all Americans most needed them," Mr. Cardozo told the Court.  "All the pensions, benefits and medical care that are being provided from the City to many of these plaintiffs will continue with or without the settlement."

In addition, while the law allows payments from workers' compensation awards to be repaid from the tort settlement proceeds by enforcing what is called a "lien" on the settlement money, in this case, the City of New York and its WTC workers' compensation insurer, which holds some of those liens, have agreed to waive them.  For many of the plaintiffs, this waiver means their settlement payments will be free and clear of liens and their workers' compensation benefits will continue in the future with no deductions.  Mr. Cardozo said this would mean an additional $20 million in value to those opting in to the settlement. 

Civil rights attorney Waukeen McCoy received a favorable ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals this week, reversing Judge Susan Illston's sanctions because the District Court violated his constitutional right to due process of law.

In 2007, after a 5-year fight with FedEx, McCoy's clients - Edward Alvarado, Pernell Evans and Charlotte Boswell - received jury awards in the amount of $500,000, $975,000, and $3,000,000 respectively.  Also in 2007, McCoy achieved a $55 million settlement in a class action law suit against FedEx.

In December 2009, Judge Susan Illston, sanctioned McCoy $25,000 because she alleged "Mr. McCoy attempted to avoid rigorous scrutiny of his reported hours," claiming that McCoy submitted false time records for statutory attorney's fees.  Alvarado et al v. FedEx (3:04-cv-00098-SI)

However, on June 17, 2010, the Ninth Circuit reversed Illston's sanctions with prejudice and remanded the case back to the District Court, handing down an additional blow to FedEx.  The Court found that the sanctions imposed by Judge Ilston were "criminal in nature" because they were "intended to punish McCoy for his conduct and to vindicate the court's authority and integrity of the judicial process, not to compensate FedEx for losses sustained or to coerce McCoy into compliance with a court order."

A point of contention in the matter was whether McCoy filed false declarations of his time records, which are used in the Court's assessment of attorney's fees.  According to McCoy, it would have been impossible to submit contemporaneous time records for the three prevailing parties - Alvarado, Evans and Boswell - because the matter originated as a multi-plaintiff case in which McCoy represented 24 FedEx employees.  The majority of McCoy's legal preparation was for the group benefit as a whole rather than one plaintiff in particular.  At no time did McCoy attempt to mislead the Court by claiming that he kept contemporaneous time records.  

When one party files false declarations, the opposing party may file a Rule 11 motion to request that the Judge impose sanctions.  To challenge McCoy's time records filing, FedEx ignored this established remedy, which would have allowed McCoy to respond or correct the problem. Instead FedEx filed an Inherent Powers motion which allowed Judge Ilston to bypass the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to impose sanctions and deny McCoy his due process.  

McCoy avers that Judge Ilston maintains a personal vendetta against him.  Despite lacking customary justifications for choosing to seal documents, Ilston selectively sealed only documents related to the payments of attorneys' fees and the amount of money the class representatives received in Satchell, a related case. McCoy calls for more transparency in the Court's records so that the public can witness the District Court's abuse of power.  

SOURCE Law Offices of Waukeen Q. McCoy

The United States Supreme Court today upheld the broad application of a federal law that hinders the ability of human rights and humanitarian aid organizations to do their work by making it a crime to provide "material support" to designated "foreign terrorist organizations" (FTOs). The ruling thwarts the efforts of human rights organizations to persuade violent actors to renounce violence or cease their human rights abuses and jeopardizes the provision of aid and disaster relief in conflict zones controlled by designated groups, said the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, on behalf of the Carter Center and several other organizations known for their work to promote peace, further human rights and alleviate human suffering around the world.

Under the law, individuals face up to 15 years in prison for providing "material support" to FTOs, even if their work is intended to promote peaceful, lawful objectives. "Material support" is defined to include any "service," "training," "expert advice or assistance" or "personnel."

The following can be attributed to former President Jimmy Carter, founder of the Carter Center:

"We are disappointed that the Supreme Court has upheld a law that inhibits the work of human rights and conflict resolution groups. The 'material support law' - which is aimed at putting an end to terrorism - actually threatens our work and the work of many other peacemaking organizations that must interact directly with groups that have engaged in violence. The vague language of the law leaves us wondering if we will be prosecuted for our work to promote peace and freedom."

The following can be attributed to Melissa Goodman, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project:

"Today's decision is disappointing and inconsistent with our First Amendment position. The government should not be in the business of criminalizing speech meant to promote peace and human rights."

Organizations that signed onto the ACLU's brief are the Carter Center, Christian Peacemaker Teams, Grassroots International, Human Rights Watch, International Crisis Group, the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University, the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at Notre Dame University, Operation USA and the Peace Appeal Foundation.

The ACLU's brief is available online at: www.aclu.org/national-security/amicus-brief-carter-center-and-other-humanitarian-groups-support-humanitarian-law-.

On June 18, 2010, the Registrant of the website www.TMLTExposed.org  filed suit against Texas Medical Liability Trust in the 68th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas requesting a declaratory judgment that the contents of the website are protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Texas Constitution. Texas Medical Liability Trust is a provider of medical liability insurance with offices in Austin, Texas. This action comes after lawyers for Texas Medical Liability Trust interfered with the provider services agreement between the Registrant, The Girards Law Firm of Dallas, Texas, and the domain services provider, Domains by Proxy, Inc. of Scottsdale, Arizona, demanding information regarding the Registration of the website and certain electronic data. Lawyers for Texas Medical Liability Trust threatened litigation against various parties including Domains by Proxy and the Registrant related to www.TMLTExposed.org  if Domains by Proxy failed to comply, and were successful in securing Domains by Proxy's cooperation.

James E. Girards is the Principal of The Girards Law Firm, which registered the website. Girards stated, "TMLTExposed.org is a website containing a collection of publicly available information regarding the conduct of Texas Medical Liability Trust in medical malpractice lawsuits, as well as the laws allowing that entity to exist and conduct itself in the insurance marketplace in Texas. The information raises important and disturbing questions about how insurance providers are allowed to conduct themselves in Texas and advocates changes in the law to protect healthcare consumers who are injured by healthcare corporations or Big Insurance." Girards said, "This website was posted within the boundaries of the United States Supreme Court interpretations of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Texas Medical Liability Trust's actions against the website and the Registrant are an example of how emboldened and unrestrained the insurance industry is in Texas. By this legal action we intend to show that the First Amendment and Texas law still apply in Texas - even against Big Insurance."  - The Girards Law Firm

Tuesday's record-setting 82.5 million dollar verdict in Harris country for the death of a single man killed by a Cleburne natural gas explosion could be the beginning of a trend.

Houston explosion attorney Rob Ammons believes some juries are doing what federal regulators can't do, hitting big business where it hurts when they don't prioritize worker and environmental safety over profits.

"In the wake of two recent Texas natural gas line explosions and the spill in the Gulf, I believe people are sick and tired of the mess," says Houston explosion attorney Rob Ammons. "When companies prioritize profits over responsibility, safety and respect for the environment, I think juries are going to push back in the only way they can -- by awarding precedent-setting verdicts for hard working claimants."

Joshua Wade Petrie, 27, was attempting to start a hot oil heater May 25, 2007, when the heater exploded. A day later the man died, leaving behind a widow, Candee Petrie, and three minor children. Mr. Petrie's father, Mark Petrie, was also a claimant.

Petrie's attorneys, Rob Ammons and Bennett Midlo of the Houston-based Ammons Law Firm argued in court the natural gas processing plant and its equipment were negligently refurbished, as Hanover had agreed to do.

"Hanover Compression sold the gas processing plant in Hood County to Quicksilver Resources in March of 2005," says Ammons. " Hanover was supposed to fully refurbish the plant and the hot oil heater. Hanover failed to refurbish and upgrade the heater to the applicable current industry standards and that is what caused the explosion."

The trial in Judge Robert Schaffer's Harris County Judicial District Court #152 encompassed the three-year anniversary of Petrie's death.

Rob Ammons is Board Certified in Personal Injury Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, in addition to being Board Certified in Civil Law by the National Board of Trial Advocacy.  Rob Ammons' law practice, The Ammons Law Firm, is located in Houston, Texas.  The Ammons Law Firm practice is exclusively personal injury law, handling such cases as: tire defects, oil rig explosions, truck accidents, plant explosions, refinery accidents, wrongful death, post-collision fires, seat belt defects, airbag defects, SUV rollovers and workplace negligence.

A class action lawsuit alleging that the Detroit Police Department (DPD) systematically abused and mistreated arrestees was filed on Tuesday, June 1, 2010 in the United States Federal Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. A copy of the complaint is available at www.fhwnlaw.com.

The suit, Jonathan Brown, et al v. City of Detroit, was filed by the Chicago law firm of Loevy & Loevy and the Troy, Michigan law firm of Frank, Haron, Weiner & Navarro.  The suit alleges that thousands of individuals were arrested and denied basic constitutional rights by the DPD from May 27, 2007 through the present date.  A similar class action lawsuit against the Chicago Police Department recently settled for $16.5 million.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the DPD engaged in a repeated pattern of detaining individuals for long periods of time - often in excess of 48 hours - without allowing them access to a judge.  These individuals were denied food, water, and sleep during their detentions.  The complaint charges that these inhumane conditions were often used to obtain false confessions from suspects, while genuine perpetrators were left free to continue committing crimes.

The suit has three classes of plaintiffs.  Class one is comprised of thousands of people who were detained by the DPD overnight or for more than 16 hours in a 24-hour period and who were deprived of basic human needs for rest and hygiene.   Plaintiffs in the second class were arrested by the DPD and detained in excess of 48 hours without a judicial determination of probable cause.  The third group of plaintiffs consists of individuals detained by the DPD in excess of 24 hours without being provided at least two meals.

Legislation that would help prevent avoidable foreclosures and deter irresponsible lender and servicer behavior passed out of the California Senate today, 21-12.

"Simple fairness dictates that no one should lose their home while they are in the middle of trying to save it," said Paul Leonard, director of the California office of the Center for Responsible Lending.

SB 1275, authored by Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) would prevent servicers from foreclosing on homeowners who have requested modifications until a decision has been made, and the homeowner notified.  It would also allow for a limited remedy for certain eligible homeowners whose homes were erroneously sold at foreclosure.

Currently, servicers are initiating the foreclosure process even when borrowers are working to reach a resolution, including when homeowners are following all the rules to seek a loan modification, or are already making payments on a trial modification.  Additionally, if a homeowner's home is sold due to servicer error, there is currently no means by which to seek recourse.

SB 1275 seeks to change this by providing recourse through what is known as a private right of action. This would allow eligible homeowners to seek limited damages which are directly related to the severity of the servicer's errors, or, in some cases, would allow the homeowner to reverse the foreclosure sale and require the servicer to start over and follow the law.  This provides a modest deterrent to the egregious servicer behavior that can cost Californians their homes, and faces significant opposition from banks and servicers reluctant to improve their servicer practices or pay the price for their mistakes.

During earlier committee hearings for SB 1275, servicer representatives acknowledged that confusion and errors are commonplace. Bank of America executive Jack Schackett even admitted during a conference call yesterday that they "have not handled [their] customers to the standards Bank of America is accustomed to."

Confusion and errors that cost Californians their homes, however, are not only avoidable, but they are devastating.  Homeowners who have been wronged deserve the opportunity to make it right.

"One of the oldest principles of law is that a right without a remedy is no right at all," said Lisa Sitkin, staff attorney at Housing and Economic Rights Advocates in Oakland. "In order for laws to be meaningful, violations must have real consequences, and victims must have real avenues to seek redress."

CRL expects that homeowners' ability to right the wrongs of irresponsible servicers will continue to be the biggest challenge to moving SB 1275 through the Assembly.  It will first be heard in the Assembly Banking Committee.

SOURCE Center for Responsible Lending

Prime Healthcare Services (PHS) recently settled its long standing dispute with the Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) related to a single instance of alleged "balance billing" as to Kaiser commercial enrollees.  At the time, "balance billing" was not illegal.  PHS' hospitals do not "balance bill," did not and do not report HMO enrollees to credit reporting agencies, and never collected a penny from the alleged "balance billing."  However frivolous the lawsuit, PHS felt it was in the best interest of all involved, including the taxpayers of the State of California, to resolve this matter.  The donations to community clinics provided for in the settlement are part of PHS' long standing commitment to community clinics.  PHS has already donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to community clinics and operates three free clinics in the Inland Empire.  The donation of $600,000 to the community clinics and $600,000 to the Prime Healthcare Services Foundation for the development of community clinics is but a small portion of PHS' planned charitable giving in 2010.  PHS' hospitals provided more than $120 Million in charity care to the uninsured and indigent in 2009 and PHS' founder, Dr. Prem Reddy, has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to charity.

Now that no "balance billing" is the law (which PHS supported so as to keep patients out of the middle of disputes between HMOs and providers), the root cause of balance billing (i.e., unfair payment practices by HMOs) must be addressed.  Unfortunately, the DMHC and its Director, Lucinda Ehnes, have done nothing to address the unfair payment practices of HMOs.  To the contrary, Director Ehnes has used her tenure as Director of the DMHC to create a "safe haven" for HMOs and their unfair business practices.  A culture has developed at the DMHC where HMOs feel protected and free to commit unfair payment practices knowing that the DMHC will take no action.  This leaves the providers on the frontline of healthcare delivery (hospitals and emergency physicians) to fall victim to the HMOs' unfair practices.  In these economic times where the ranks of the uninsured seeking care in emergency departments is ever increasing, the escalating abusive practices of HMOs are putting the already fragile healthcare safety net at risk of failure.  Many hospitals are financially faltering and closing their doors as a result.  The department that is supposed to curb these abusive practices has gone "native" and become the protector of HMOs.  If the DMHC does not take action to address such unfair practices, the healthcare safety net will be threatened.

PHS is the largest for profit hospital system in California and was recently ranked among the Top 10 Health Systems in the Nation by Thomson Reuters for quality patient care.  PHS is the only for profit system to receive this recognition and the only health system west of the Mississippi to be among the Top 10.

A Miami-area resident who owned and operated an HIV infusion clinic was arrested today and charged for her alleged participation in a $23 million HIV infusion Medicare fraud scheme, the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services (HHS) announced.

An indictment unsealed today in U.S. District Court in Miami charges Flor Crisologo, 58, with one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States, to cause the submission of false claims to the Medicare program, and to pay health care kickbacks; one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud; and three counts of submitting false claims to the Medicare program.  Crisologo also is charged with one count of conspiracy to launder the proceeds of her crimes and four counts of money laundering.  Crisologo made her initial appearance today in U.S. District Court in Miami before Magistrate Judge William C. Turnoff. 

According to the indictment, Crisologo was the owner and operator of J & F Community Medical Center Inc.  The indictment alleges that Crisologo submitted approximately $23 million in false and fraudulent claims to the Medicare program for HIV injection and infusion services purportedly provided through J & F.  According to the indictment, Crisologo hired a physician at J & F and caused the physician to order unnecessary tests, sign false medical analyses and diagnosis forms, and authorize treatments to make it appear that medical services were being provided to patients who were Medicare beneficiaries.  The services included medically unnecessary injection and infusion therapies.  The indictment alleges that Crisologo and her co-conspirators paid Medicare beneficiaries kickbacks to induce the beneficiaries to claim they received legitimate services at the clinic when in fact the HIV infusion services were either not provided or were not medically necessary. 

According to the indictment, Crisologo engaged in a scheme to launder the proceeds of the fraudulent Medicare claims by, among other things, transferring thousands of dollars in proceeds to two shell corporations that she owned and controlled, ABC Med Way Inc., and MSG Investment and Services Corp.

The maximum sentence for each count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and filing false claims is five years in prison.  The maximum sentence for each count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering and money laundering is 10 years in prison.  The indictment seeks forfeiture of assets held by the defendant. 

An indictment is merely a charge and defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Today's charges were announced by Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Criminal Division; U.S. Attorney Wifredo A. Ferrer of the Southern District of Florida; John V. Gillies, Special Agent-in-Charge of the FBI's Miami field office; and Special Agent-in-Charge Christopher Dennis of the HHS Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG), Office of Investigations Miami office.

This case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Joseph S. Beemsterboer of the Criminal Division's Fraud Section.  The case was investigated by the FBI and HHS-OIG, and was brought as part of the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, supervised by the Criminal Division's Fraud Section and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Miami.  

Since their inception in March 2007, Strike Force operations in seven districts have obtained indictments of more than 560 individuals who collectively have falsely billed the Medicare program for more than $1.2 billion.  In addition, the HHS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, working in conjunction with the HHS-OIG, are taking steps to increase accountability and decrease the presence of fraudulent providers.

To learn more about the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT), go to:www.stopmedicarefraud.gov.

SOURCE U.S. Department of Justice

More than 42,000 gallons of oil have been leaking daily following a massive explosion on an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, with the potential to cause major economic and environmental damage

Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. has filed a class action lawsuit (AL-2010-CR256941) against British Petroleum ("BP") and several other companies with ties to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The firm seeks to represent individuals and businesses that have incurred damages related to the disaster, including;  real property damages; personal property damages; loss of profits and earning capacity; loss of commercial and subsistence use of natural resources; increased costs of public services; and, loss of revenues.

The oil spill resulted from the explosion and sinking of the oil platform Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20th. Coast Guard officials estimate 5,000 barrels a day are leaking into the Gulf. The oil slick made landfall in southern Louisiana early Friday and is expected to reach Mississippi and Alabama within the coming days.

Experts are calling this the worst environmental crisis since the Exxon Valdez and are predicting the economic impact to be greater than that associated with hurricane Katrina. They estimate the massive oil spill has the potential to negatively affect the entire Gulf coastline. This includes a negative economic impact on thousands who earn their livelihood in the fishing industry, as well as tourism, itself a major industry along the scenic oceanfront. Additionally, the environmental impact is expected to be severe, with oil and byproducts damaging fragile marshlands, marine and bird life.

"We are calling on the Alabama congressional delegation to do everything in their power to speed federal resources to the Gulf coast in order to minimize damage to the environment and the thousands of families that depend on these waters for their livelihood. Our thoughts and prayers are with responders," said Jere Beasley, founding shareholder of Beasley Allen.

Beasley Allen has an experienced Toxic Tort section that includes lawyers and staff who have handled numerous environmental disaster cases. Protection of people, their property, and their livelihood from large corporate polluters is one of Beasley Allen's top priorities. Our attorneys are fighting to make a difference in the lives of those threatened by environmental pollution. We currently are handling class action litigation against the Tennessee Valley Authority in the largest coal ash spill in U.S. history. These are difficult cases, but Beasley Allen is fighting to make a difference. From the largest toxic tort settlement in U.S. history for PCB contamination - $700 million - to a $20.7 million verdict against Continental Carbon for air pollution, Beasley Allen is playing a significant role in toxic tort cases.