Attorneys with the personal injury law firm of Sheldon J. Schlesinger P.A., won a $14 million jury verdict on behalf of a local father and optometrist left bed-ridden and paralyzed resulting from a botched, unnecessary procedure seven years ago.

According to the suit, heard by Judge Charles Green in Broward County Circuit Court, Francis Ziadie was suffering dizziness and slurred speech when he arrived at the emergency room at Memorial Regional Hospital in Hollywood in May 2002. Doctors there gave him aspirin and the anti-platelet medication, Plavix. His symptoms subsided on medical therapy. Ziadie was admitted overnight for observation.

The next morning, Ziadie complained of short-term slurred speech and numbness in his hand. A CAT scan and magnetic resonance angiography showed no evidence of a stroke. Doctors diagnosed transient ischemic attacks caused by left internal carotid artery dissection, or a separation of the inner layer of the carotid artery. The aspirin / Plavix regimen is considered standard of care, as in most cases, the dissection will heal itself within three to six months, said Crane Johnstone, Ziadie's lead trial attorney from Schlesinger Law Firm in Fort Lauderdale. Valerie Conzo was co-counsel on the case.

Hoang Dinh Doung, M.D., an interventional neuroradiologist from Radiology Associates of Hollywood, P.A. was consulted. Doung recommended an immediate procedure to insert a stent into the artery. During the procedure, Doung punctured the arterial wall. Because Ziadie was on large doses of blood thinners, blood flowed from the puncture, pooling around his brain. In the recovery room, Ziadie had slurred speech and right-sided weakness. Instead of addressing his problems, nurses sedated him. By the time doctors realized the problem hours later, the bleeding had caused massive pressure damage to the brain stem and caustic damage to brain tissue. Ziadie, at one time an active 46-year-old optician and father of four, was discharged almost three months later after extensive rehab. Today, he spends his days in a hospital bed and wheelchair in the home of his 76-year-old mother, Olivia, who cares for him round-the-clock.

"The jury realized that this was a preventable injury, and that Mr. Ziadie should never have undergone that procedure," Johnstone said. "His legs are paralyzed, he has no bowel or bladder control. He struggles to string sentences together. He can't even get out of bed or feed himself."

Defense counsel from Bunnell, Woulfe claimed Mr. Ziadie suffered from a rare "reperfusion injury." Another defendant, David M. Feldbaum, MD, a surgeon who was part of the team treating Mr. Ziadie, was found not liable.

The five-man, one-woman jury didn't buy Dr. Duong's argument, and returned a verdict in under six hours. In determining damages, the jury found that Ziadie, now 53, will require skilled nursing care for the rest of his life. Johnstone also argued successfully that the best care will be provided to Mr. Ziadie in his home, as opposed to a nursing facility. The jury awarded $5 million to Mr. Ziadie for his future care needs, and $8 million for pain, suffering and mental anguish. Francis Ziadie's minor sons were each awarded $250,000.

SOURCE Boardroom Communications

The Justice Department today announced that a federal grand jury in Miami returned a three-count indictment on Sept. 11, 2009, charging former Dade Correctional Institution (DCI) officers Cordell J. White and Christopher W. Bonnet, current DCI Sergeant Obe D. L'Bert, and former DCI inmate Larry T. Williams with violating, and conspiring to violate, the civil rights of other inmates at DCI.

The indictment alleges that on Oct. 26, 2008, defendants L'Bert and White arranged for defendant-inmate Williams, a/k/a Monster, to assault another inmate, identified in the indictment as D.T. L'Bert and White allegedly moved D.T. to Williams' cell and waited outside of the cell while Williams assaulted and injured D.T. The indictment further alleges that on Nov. 1, 2007, defendants White and Bonnet arranged for Williams to assault another inmate, identified in the indictment as F.H., then escorted Williams to F.H.'s cell and waited outside of the cell while Williams assaulted and injured F.H.

An indictment is merely an accusation, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless proven guilty. If convicted, each defendant faces a maximum penalty of ten years in prison on each of the three felony civil rights charges.

This case was investigated by the FBI and the Florida State Department of Corrections, Inspector General's Office; and is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Susan Osborne of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida and Trial Attorney Edward Chung of the Civil Rights Division.

Souce: U.S. Dept. of Justice

In response to President Obama's remarks on medical liability reform in his address to Congress, DMLR Chairman Stuart L. Weinstein, M.D. issued the following statement:

"In his address to Congress, I was pleased to hear President Obama acknowledge that medical liability reform is needed to lower costs and reduce the practice of defensive medicine. While I appreciate his commitment to state demonstration projects, it is my hope that Congress will heed the President's words and take action to include comprehensive federal medical liability reform in pending health care legislation.

"Medical liability reform is not a Republican or Democratic issue. It is a patient issue. Members of Congress on both sides of the political aisle, health care policy experts, opinion leaders, and patients across the country agree that our nation's medical liability system is broken and needs to be fixed. Most recently, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer have both talked about the problems with the current system -- problems like excessive jury awards, and too frivolous lawsuits. This hurts patients by threatening their access to quality medical care when they need it and by increasing health care costs for all Americans. These are issues that must be addressed if true health care reform is to be achieved.

"We must work together to find a solution to our health care and medical liability systems that first and foremost protect patients -- one that is more effective, more efficient, and one that puts more money in the hands of patients, not personal injury lawyers. States across the country have enacted medical liability reforms with a proven track record of success that should be a model for federal reform efforts.

"On behalf of Doctors for Medical Liability Reform and Protect Patients Now, I look forward to working with the President and the Congress as the health care reform debate evolves in the coming months, and hope that leaders from both parties in Congress step forward to stop medical lawsuit abuse once and for all."

SOURCE Doctors for Medical Liability Reform

The Tolkien Trust (a UK registered charity), New Line Cinema, and HarperCollins Publishers Ltd. have resolved the lawsuit relating to the "Lord of the Rings" films.

The claim was filed in February of last year. HarperCollins Publishers Ltd. and the trustees of the JRR Tolkien Estate were co-plaintiffs in the claim, which concerned plaintiffs' participation interest in the "Lord of the Rings" films released between 2001 and 2003. The precise terms of the settlement are confidential.

Commenting on the settlement, Christopher Tolkien said: "The Trustees regret that legal action was necessary, but are glad that this dispute has been settled on satisfactory terms that will allow the Tolkien Trust properly to pursue its charitable objectives. The Trustees acknowledge that New Line may now proceed with its proposed films of 'The Hobbit.'"

Warner Bros.' President & Chief Operating Officer Alan Horn said: "We deeply value the contributions of the Tolkien novels to the success of our films and are pleased to have put this litigation behind us. We all look forward to a mutually productive and beneficial relationship in the future."

The "Lord of the Rings" films produced by New Line are among the most successful films ever created and were released in 2001, 2002 and 2003 respectively.

JRR Tolkien is the world-renowned author of works including "The Lord of the Rings" and "The Hobbit." The Tolkien Trust is a UK registered charity that has made grants to charitable causes all over the world totaling over $8 million in the last five years alone.

Throughout its history, New Line has created a number of enduring film franchises, including the Lord of the Rings trilogy, "The Mask," the Austin Powers titles, "Blade," "Rush Hour," "Elf," "Sex and the City" and "Wedding Crashers." New Line became a unit of Warner Bros. Entertainment in March 2008.

SOURCE The Tolkien Trust

The following statement was issued today by the law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP:

Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of securities of Huron Consulting Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: HURN) ("Huron" or the "Company") between April 27, 2006 and July 31, 2009 inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq. or David M. Promisloff, Esq.) toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@btkmc.com.

The Complaint charges Huron and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Huron is a consulting company formed by former partners of Arthur Andersen, LLP which claims to help clients comply with complex regulations, resolve disputes, recover from distress, leverage technology, and stimulate growth. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that since 2006, the Company had improperly accounted for earn-out payments made in connection with four acquisitions; (2) that as a result, the Company had overstated its net income and earnings per share for the affected periods, and had understated its non-cash compensation expenses; (3) that the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were false and misleading at all relevant times.

On July 31, 2009, the Company shocked investors when it announced that it would restate its financial results for fiscal years 2006 through 2008 and the first three months of 2009 due to the Company's failure to properly account for certain payments made in connection with four acquisitions. These payments were received by the sellers in connection with the sale of certain acquired businesses that were subsequently redistributed among themselves and to other select Huron employees. Under the accounting rules, these payments should have been classified as non-cash compensation expenses.

Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares declined $30.66 per share, or 69.13 percent, to close on August 3, 2009 (the next trading day) at $13.69 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by the law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check which prosecutes class actions in both state and federal courts throughout the country. Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world.

For more information about Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, or for additional information about participating in this action, please visit www.btkmc.com.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not later than October 5, 2009, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class, if you so choose. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

    CONTACT:  Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP
              Darren J. Check, Esq.
              David M. Promisloff, Esq.
              280 King of Prussia Road
              Radnor, PA 19087
              1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706
              Or by e-mail at info@btkmc.com

SOURCE Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP

The largest cybersquatting judgment ever has been upheld by a federal court in the Northern District of California. The court denied the motion of the defendant -- OnlineNIC, an Internet domain registration company in San Francisco -- to set aside a December 2008 judgment in which Verizon was awarded $33.15 million.

The case is based on OnlineNIC's attempts to take advantage of Verizon and Verizon customers by using Internet names that are easily confused with legitimate Verizon names.

This is the most recent decision in the case against OnlineNIC, which had unlawfully registered at least 663 domain names that were either identical to or confusingly similar to Verizon trademarks. The court had previously found that OnlineNIC's bad faith registrations of Verizon-related domain names were designed to attract Web users who were seeking to access Verizon's legitimate Web sites, and calculated an award based on $50,000 per domain name.

In its most recent decision, on Tuesday (Aug. 25), the court concluded that OnlineNIC is "a serial cybersquatter," that, in "blatant and willful violation" of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, registered Verizon domain names to "prey on consumer confusion." As the court found, "OnlineNIC's intent was to divert consumers searching for Verizon's Web sites." In addition to upholding the original decision, the court also ordered OnlineNIC to pay Verizon its attorneys' fees and costs.

"We hope the court's decision goes a long way toward protecting consumers from becoming targets of Internet abuses and frauds," said Sarah Deutsch, Verizon vice president and associate general counsel. "Verizon is determined to protect our brand and consumers from cybersquatters whose businesses are based on misleading consumers."

Verizon Has Won a String of Similar Cases

In earlier cybersquatting cases, courts granted contested preliminary injunctions against four different violators. Verizon continues to increase its enforcement activities in trademark cases as part of its broader effort to protect its brand and put its intellectual property innovations to work.

In 2008, Verizon's intellectual property legal group was named one of the five best in the world by the International Law Office, with the support of the Association of Corporate Counsel.

SOURCE Verizon

The May 2009 collapse of a Dallas Cowboys practice facility was caused by the structure's faulty design, poor workmanship and a failure to disclose that the building was out of compliance with building codes, according to two lawsuits filed by The Law Offices of Frank L. Branson on behalf of injured Cowboys' scouting assistant Richard Behm and special teams coach Joe DeCamillis.

Mr. Behm and Mr. DeCamillis and several others were injured at the Valley Ranch practice facility during a thunderstorm on May 2 when the roof of the structure split open, causing heavy steel supports to crumple and fall. Mr. Behm was paralyzed from the waist down when his spine was severed by falling debris, and Mr. DeCamillis suffered a serious compression fracture with dislocation of a cervical vertebrae.

The lawsuits charge that the building's faulty tent-like design presented a safety hazard, and that poor workmanship and improper use of building materials caused the structure to be inadequately secured to its concrete foundation. According to the lawsuits, the building designer was aware of the safety problems but performed only a partial temporary repair and represented to the Cowboys that the design defaults had been permanently and adequately repaired.

The defendants include building manufacturer Summit Structures LLC of Allentown, Pa.; marketer and distributor Cover-All Building Systems Inc. of Saskatoon, Canada; engineer Scott Jacobs and engineering services company JCI Holding LLC of Las Vegas; construction contractor Midwest Building and Fencing Inc. of South Haven, Minn.; construction materials supplier Hilti Inc. of Tulsa, Okla.; and concrete contractor Wrangler Concrete Construction LP of Burleson, Texas.

"What we've learned in our investigation is that this tragedy simply did not have to happen," says attorney Frank Branson, lead counsel for Mr. Behm and Mr. DeCamillis. "Our clients would never have been injured if the building had been constructed properly, if repairs were performed as promised, or if those responsible had made any of these shortcomings known. Putting people in this building as it was designed and built was a recipe for disaster."

The lawsuits charge the defendants with negligence and gross negligence and seek unspecified damages, including past and future medical treatment and loss of earning capacity for Mr. Behm and Mr.DeCamillis.

The Law Offices of Frank L. Branson represents clients in cases involving complex product liability, catastrophic injury, commercial air crashes, professional negligence, and business torts. To learn more about Mr. Branson and his firm, visit http://www.flbranson.com.

This week hundreds of delivery drivers at the nation's largest uniform provider, Cintas, were notified a $22.75 million settlement agreement had been reached in the class action overtime lawsuit, Veliz v. Cintas Corporation. It was a long road for the uniform delivery drivers, whose suit, filed in 2003, alleged Cintas misclassified thousands of their route drivers as exempt employees in order to avoid paying overtime required by state and federal laws.

"After six long years of delay tactics and needless posturing by Cintas, drivers will finally receive just compensation for overtime work performed that was wrongly withheld," said Bruce Raynor, President of Workers United, the laundry workers union that has been working with Cintas production workers seeking to form a union. "In the end justice was delayed but not denied, as Cintas ultimately agreed to the recommended settlement agreement negotiated through the arbitration process."

The Cintas drivers who pick up soiled uniforms, oily rags and other items and drop off a fresh supply were classified by the company as salaried workers instead of hourly workers, who would be entitled to overtime pay. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires workers to be compensated for all hours worked, unless they are specifically exempted. Executives and professionals are exempted and can be required to work more than 40 hours a week without being paid overtime. The drivers argued that their jobs driving trucks, delivering uniforms and servicing existing contracts do not make them exempt from being paid for hours worked over 40 hours.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs, Altshuler Berzon LLP, are notifying plaintiffs that the general terms of settlement had been reached. However, a frame work for allocation of funds is still being worked on and it will still be months before the final settlement agreement is approved by the court. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Cintas is the largest uniform rental provider and industrial launderer in North America. Cintas provides laundry, uniforms and other business services to customers across North America. The company has a troubling history with worker protection laws, including being assessed the largest proposed OSHA fine in the service sector for safety violations surrounding the death of Eleazar Torres Gomez in Oklahoma.

Workers United, SEIU is a union of 150,000 workers in the US and Canada who work in the laundry, food service, hospitality, gaming, apparel, textile, manufacturing and distribution industries.

Source: Workers United

There has been significant public interest and media coverage around this case over the last few days. For legal reasons, Nude has been unable to comment or make any statement until today.

Nude was founded by Bryan Meehan and Ali Hewson. Bryan originally co-founded Fresh & Wild, the UK's largest chain of Natural and Organic stores. Nude was created as a pioneering natural skincare range and is known for its innovative use of pre and probiotics.

Nude applied for and successfully registered the pan-European Community Trademark (CTM) for the word 'Nude' to be used as a trade mark specifically for perfumery and skincare, as well as for other products.

In May 2008, when asked for permission to use the trade mark 'Nude' for a Stella McCartney perfume, Nude - though great admirers of Stella McCartney - respectfully refused as a Nude scent is forthcoming..

Nude considers the launch of 'Stella Nude' by L'Oreal to be a clear infringement of Nude's trade mark. To protect their brand, Nude was forced to take the matter to the English High Court.

On August 20(th), the High Court confirmed that Nude has a clearly arguable claim of trade mark infringement against the Stella Nude perfume. The Judge also rejected L'Oreal's arguments that Nude's trade mark in relation to perfume was obviously invalid saying he was not convinced 'Nude' was descriptive of perfume. Nude was not granted an interim injunction to prevent the launch of Stella Nude because of the harm that would cause to L'Oreal due to the imminent launch, but the Judge concluded that whilst Nude "may ultimately prevail at the trial, it seems to me that an injunction and damages at that stage, though far from perfect as remedies, are more likely to be able to restore [Nude] to their rightful position".

A trial of Nude's claim will take place next year.

Source: Nude Skincare

Legal Services NYC today filed a lawsuit in State Supreme Court on behalf of low-income New Yorkers who have been denied access to vital benefits, such as Food Stamps and Medicaid, solely because they cannot communicate in English, despite a city law requiring the Human Resources Administration (HRA) to provide translation and interpretation services to these individuals. The lawsuit alleges widespread civil rights violations at HRA centers across the five boroughs.

Five years ago, the New York City Council passed The Equal Access to Human Services Act of 2003 (Local Law 73), which mandates the provision of translation and interpretation services at HRA centers. Legal Services NYC has actively monitored HRA's compliance with this law over the past five years, documenting the way in which limited English proficient (LEP) clients are routinely denied services at their HRA centers while applying for benefits or while simply attempting to maintain them.

In 2007, Legal Services NYC, after continuing to see non-English speaking clients routinely denied access to HRA services, surveyed all 69 centers to monitor compliance with the law. Survey results demonstrated that legally mandated translated applications were not available at 66% of HRA centers and that fewer than two-thirds of the centers had interpreter services available in the most commonly spoken languages of the community, as legally required, for LEP individuals. Since the survey results were released in 2007, Legal Services NYC has continued to monitor and report access problems to HRA. HRA has failed to adequately resolve these reported problems. The lawsuit filed today seeks to compel HRA to immediately comply with the law and to end its discriminatory treatment of non-English speaking New Yorkers.

Mercedes Cruz is an LEP mother of three who is one of six plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Ms. Cruz's native language is Spanish, the second most commonly spoken language in the city and a language spoken by over 2 million New York City residents, and she and her family subsist entirely on Public Assistance Benefits. However, since 2007, when she opened her Public Assistance case, HRA's Income Maintenance Center #63 - Coney Island has failed to provide her with a Spanish interpreter at any of her appointments despite her repeated requests. The majority of the documents Ms. Cruz receives from Center #63, including notices that her benefits are being discontinued and notifications of upcoming appointments, are entirely in English. In March 2009, Ms. Cruz went to Center #63 with a letter from her attorney explaining that she was limited English proficient and that the Center was legally required to provide a Spanish interpreter. The Center refused to provide her with an interpreter. Despite Ms. Cruz's attorney's request that the Center's Language Liaison pair Ms. Cruz with a Spanish-speaking caseworker, she is currently assigned to a caseworker who speaks only English. Because she does not understand all of the documents she receives from the Center and all communications she has with Center staff, Ms. Cruz's Public Assistance case has repeatedly been sanctioned and erroneously discontinued.

"Five years ago Mayor Bloomberg proudly signed a landmark civil rights law ensuring equal access to all HRA services. Today, despite a significant investment of taxpayer dollars, HRA is still routinely denying vital services to the most vulnerable New Yorkers in flagrant violation of law. Enough is enough. We call on HRA to immediately remedy its widespread discriminatory treatment of limited English proficient New Yorkers," said Amy Taylor, Language Access Project Coordinator at Legal Services NYC.

"Local Law 73 is the result of modern-day civil rights legislation, and New York's language access laws are a model to localities across the nation. The City's failure to provide the most basic services to all New Yorkers is not only discriminatory and illegal but a stain on our reputation as an international destination and capital of the world. We must treat all New Yorkers with the dignity and respect they deserve," said New York City Council Member John C. Liu, primary sponsor of The Equal Access to Human Services Act of 2003.

"New York City is the most multicultural and multilingual city in the country and must serve as an example of equal access. With HRA programs like food stamps and Medicaid, New Yorkers depend on language assistance in government for the basic necessities of life. HRA must act now to provide essential translations and interpreters in compliance with the law to meet the needs of all New Yorkers," said Manhattan Borough President Scott M. Stringer.

"In order to best serve the richly diverse population of New York City, it is vital that appropriate translation services are offered to all people when accessing public benefits. This lawsuit serves as an important reminder to the challenges many New Yorkers face when trying to access assistance," said New York City Council Member Annabel Palma.

"Every week we see families and individuals facing emergencies such as evictions due to unpaid rent, utility shut- offs or hunger because they either did not understand a request that was written only in English or because they cannot communicate with City workers due to their limited English proficiency. These families cannot get help because the City's failure to provide them with translation and interpretation services prevents them from applying for or fully understanding the benefits available to them. Increasing barriers to service because of a lack of translation leaves an already vulnerable population even more burdened," said Jennifer Vallone, the Director of Project Home at University Settlement, which referred LEP clients to Legal Services NYC as plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

Source: Legal Services NYC