Month: January 2018

ConsultantsExpert WitnessLitigation

The Super Bowl Arrives as We Await the SCOTUS Decision on Sports Gambling in Christie v. NCAA

Super Bowl Sunday is upon us! In just five days, we’ll be sitting down with friends and family to watch the Eagles and Patriots duke it out to determine NFL supremacy in 2018. I’ll be filling up on smoked brisket, barbecue beans, and a variety of other chips and dips (likely including mass quantities of guacamole). Sunday is also a time of unrepentant gambling. A day of vice if you will. It’s great fun!

This year is no different from years past, except we in the legal community are expecting a ruling from the Supreme Court on the Christie v. NCAA, a case that could open the flood gates for legalized sports betting throughout the United States.

Let’s be honest, many citizens are already participating in sports gambling. Whether it be the office pool, fantasy football, prop bets during the game, or bets with your local bookmaker (not recommended), gambling is a massive part of this annual event.

The Las Vegas hotels and casinos are busy with enormous bets. A story from Boston.com last week highlighted some six and seven-figure bets being placed at the South Point sports book and The Mirage Hotel & Casino. One person placed a bet for $2 million, which is just a tad more than I’m willing to bet this year. Bookies expect total legal betting on the Super Bowl to break last years’ record $138.5 million.

So let’s take a look at how all of this began approximately 7 years ago.

PASPA and Christie v. NCAA:

Gambling is big business and other states want in – New Jersey included! In 1992, Congress passed the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), which prohibited state-sanctioned sports gambling with a few exceptions. According to this post from The Legal Intelligencer, “The act includes exceptions for state-sponsored gambling in Nevada and sports lotteries in Delaware and Oregon.” The act was enacted with the support of all four professional sports associations and the NCAA. The intent of the law was to preserve the integrity of athletic events.

Starting in 2011, then New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s administration took measures to challenge PASPA, leading to a multi-year court battle to have PASPA declared unconstitutional for violating the anti-commandeering doctrine of the 10th Amendment.  It should be noted that New Jersey has lost the case(s) every step of the way (trial and appeals), yet the Supreme Court granted certiorari and heard oral arguments in December of last year.

As laid out by The Legal Intelligencer, “New Jersey argues that, by requiring it to enact state laws to prohibit sports betting, PASPA is commandeering the state’s law enforcement system. The state claims that PASPA violates its sovereignty.”

SCOTUS Ruling Expected by June 2018:

As oral arguments have already been heard, we can expect the decision to be released no later than June of this year. What will happen? I’m no professional SCOTUS commentator, so I dare not hazard a guess at the potential outcome. However, Professor I. Nelson Rose of the Gambling and the Law Blog, predicts “a fairly large majority of the Supreme Court will rule that states cannot be told that they have to continue to make a product or service illegal.” Professor Rose is a law professor at Whittier and has served as an expert witness in civil and criminal trials on the topic of legalized gambling.

If Professor Nelson is correct, next years’ Super Bowl could be a whirlwind of new state-sanctioned sports gambling. Will this also open the doors for eSports and fantasy gambling sites like FanDuel and DraftKings? I guess we’ll have to wait to see how the Supreme Court rules.

How will you be spending Super Bowl Sunday?

Expert WitnessLitigationPharmaceuticalUncategorized

Kentucky AG files lawsuit against opioid distributor McKesson

As I mentioned in our blog post on November 6, 2017, we would be covering the US “opioid crisis” as the lawsuits against manufacturers and distributors heated up. Today, we found out Kentucky Attorney General, Andy Beshear, filed a complaint against McKesson Corp. According to this story by Reuters, Mr. Beshear “accused drug distributor McKesson Corp of helping fuel the opioid epidemic by failing to halt shipments of suspiciously large or frequent orders by pharmacies of prescription painkillers.”

Mr. Beshear’s office filed suit in Kentucky state court. The complaint further alleges McKesson filled suspicious orders and shipped tremendous quantities of prescription opioid pharmaceuticals to Kentucky pharmacies, without reporting them to authorities or preventing the shipments. According to the AG’s own press release, “Federal and state law requires pharmaceutical distributors to monitor and report to law enforcement when it ships large or suspicious supplies of opioids to a state or region.

There’s a wide array of state and local governments pursuing lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies, including McKesson, for deceptive marketing and failures to report suspicious activity which are resulting in opioid addiction and deaths within their cities and towns.

Let’s take a look at causes of action and potential experts:

Based on the complaint, we see that the Kentucky AG is attacking McKesson on some interesting causes of action, including: Consumer Protection Act Violation; Public Nuisance; Negligence per se; Negligence; Unjust Enrichment; Fraud by Omission; and Medicaid Fraud. Mr. Beshear is seeking punitive damages for the State of Kentucky. The complaint further provides the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act protects citizens from “predatory or inappropriate acts by sellers of goods.” The Act states “unfair, false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.”

With this information it appears deceptive marketing practices will be an issue in this lawsuit. Both Kentucky and McKesson are likely to employ marketing expert witnesses to address which practices may or may not be false and misleading.

Within this cause of action, Mr. Beshear further alleges violations of the Kentucky Controlled Substances Act. This Act creates a “broad duty on the part of wholesalers to monitor, detect, investigate, refuse to fill, and report suspicious orders of prescription opioids.”

One can only imagine there will be an argument over what constitutes a “suspicious order of prescription opioids.” As such, we expect both parties will be retaining pharmaceutical and pharmacy industry experts. The parties are likely to argue about the existence of indicators used to alert a distributor when a suspect order is placed. I anticipate the parties will be looking to pharmaceutical supply chain or logistics expert witnesses to provide background about notification and indicator systems for identifying suspicious orders.

What relief is the Kentucky AG seeking?

By reviewing the complaint and articles mentioned above, Kentucky is arguing McKesson’s activity has resulted in overdoses which put a drain on emergency services and hospitals. I’m certain Mr. Beshear will argue the costs of medical services have increased significantly as the state has had to deal with opioid overdose.

I further envision an argument will be made about the increase in law enforcement and first responder costs associated with fighting the illegal sales of heroin and other opiates stemming from addiction.

The complaint makes it pretty clear Mr. Beshear is seeking punitive damages on behalf of Kentucky. That being said, both parties are going to employ damages experts. This may involve the use of economists and forensic accountants to determine the amount of financial damage inflicted on Kentucky by McKesson’s actions.

Final Thoughts:

As I’m sitting here in California, I do not understand the true ramifications of the opioid crisis on the State of Kentucky. I am interested to see what individual civil litigation options may be available to the citizens of Kentucky. As such, I invite my friend Daryl Dixon of Daryl T. Dixon Law, in Paducah, Kentucky, to provide us with his thoughts on this subject on his own blog! Ball is in your court, Daryl. Let’s see what the Wildcats have for me…

UPDATED 02/07/2018:

Here is the response from Daryl T. Dixon – Examining the Opioid Crisis: What are my options?

 

Uncategorized

Casino shuttle boat fire resulting in evacuation and one death

A casino shuttle boat caught fire Sunday in Florida, forcing the evacuation of dozens of passengers into the cold Gulf Coast waters. Officials initially stated that none of the evacuation injuries were life threatening. One passenger went home after the evacuation into frigid waters, where she later became ill. She arrived at the emergency room Sunday night about 10pm and died shortly thereafter. Cause of death has not been determined at the time of this writing.

The ferry was only about 100 yards from shore when the captain noticed smoke coming from the engine room. He turned the boat around and told the passengers and crew to abandon ship. About 15 passengers suffered injuries from smoke inhalation and the cold water.

According to this article, The Tropical Breeze Casino said they had never had an issue with the shuttle and have not yet determined the cause of the blaze. The boat is used to ferry passengers to and from the Tropical Breeze offshore casino. The casino is approximately 45 minutes offshore, in international waters.

This maritime accident could require investigation and inspection from a variety of experts in the lead up to probable litigation. Here are the types of experts I expect to be involved in the weeks and months ahead.

Fire Investigation:

The captain noticed smoke very early after leaving port and was able to turn the boat around and have the passengers evacuate while they were still in shallow waters. In this article from Yahoo News, “Coast Guard Petty Officer 1st Class Michael De Nyse said investigators will determine the cause of the fire and examine the history of the boat and Tropical Breeze Casino.” This is what will probably be the initial fire investigation.

From the article it also sounds as though the Pasco County Sheriff will be conducting their own accident/fire investigation. Further cause and origin investigations can be expected from the insurance company for the Tropical Breeze Casino.

With 15 passengers injured and one deceased, I am assuming at least some of the injured parties will be filing a lawsuit. The lawyers for the injured parties will probably request their own inspection of the ferry, which was evidently burned down to the hull. In fact, plaintiff’s counsel will likely want additional experts, beyond fire investigators, to inspect the remainder of the vessel.

Forensic Engineers:

This post on Polymersolutions.com defines forensic engineering as follows, “…using reverse engineering to figure out why a structure, material or component failed to perform as intended. Then, those findings can be used as evidence in court if that failure caused injury, property damage, or was related to some other criminal case.”

From the information currently available, the fire originated in the engine room. If the engine itself caught fire, an engineer specializing in engine mechanics or naval engineering could be used to determine what caused the engine to fail and erupt in flames.

Such an engineer would inspect the components of the engine to determine which item may have failed. It is important to note, once the failed item is discovered, it may expand liability to the manufacturer of the failed component.

Maritime & Admiralty Safety Experts:

The news tells us the captain of the ferry noticed smoke coming from the engine room, so he turned the boat around and ordered the passengers to evacuate.

I expect a great deal of the investigation and approach to establishing liability will hinge on whether the captain followed the appropriate safety protocols for marine passenger safety.

Industries are governed by safety regulations and maritime is no different. A maritime expert will be asked to evaluate the actions of the captain, and other crew, to determine if they acted appropriately under the circumstances.

Did the captain or crew properly inspect the boat before leaving port? Did he order an evacuation too late? Could the captain have done something, before leaving port, that would have prevented the catastrophe? Was the evacuation properly executed? Did the captain follow maritime safety standards in abandoning ship and making sure passengers made it to shore?

Maritime Medicine / Emergency Medicine Experts:

A passenger presented to the emergency room and died a short while later. With this information, I expect both plaintiff and defense counsel to retain medical experts. Since the passenger was only treated at the ER before expiring, both sides will retain emergency medicine experts to review her ER records and possibly opine about whether or not she could have been saved had she presented to the ER sooner.

There is one type of expert both sides may not immediately consider: a maritime medicine expert witness. Although the boat was only 100 yards offshore and the passengers were in waist deep water, this was a maritime accident resulting in death.

It is quite possible that boating accidents taking take place in cold ocean waters require a specific medical response. Was the appropriate medical response utilized? Was there something that could have been done to prevent the death after rescue? Should the passenger have been released home or monitored for 24 hours? What appropriate actions should have been taken after an ocean-based rescue? These are questions for an expert with a long history of maritime lifesaving experience.

Other experts may be involved in litigation stemming from this accident, but these are the most likely types of experts I see being retained in this matter.

Expert WitnessPsychologyUncategorized

NFL investigating Panthers for possible breach of concussion protocol

According to this article on Yahoo, the NFL and the NFL Players Association have opened an investigation into whether the Carolina Panthers violated the concussion protocol for quarterback Cam Newton on Sunday.

This armchair pundit can tell you in watching the replay, Mr. Newton took a pretty solid hit to the head. Thereafter, in walking towards the sideline he fell to his knees. According to Yahoo, Cam Newton only missed one play. You may have wondered, as I did, what is the NFL’s concussion protocol. For that I turned to SBNation.com where they lay out the protocol as follows:

  1. When a potential concussion is identified the player shall be removed immediately from the field.
  2. The NFL team physician and the unaffiliated neurotrauma consultant (UNC) will:
    • Review the video of the play
    • Perform a focused neurological examination
  3. Madden Rule: If there is suspicion of a concussion, the player will be escorted to the locker room for a full assessment
  4. If the player is diagnosed with a concussion, there is NO same-day return to play
  5. If the player passes the exam, he will be monitored for systems throughout the game.

As we witnessed on Sunday, Cam Newton was only ushered to the blue medical tent and then back to the bench. We have to assume the team physician and the unaffiliated neurotrauma consultant did their due diligence to protect him from further harm. Mr. Newton claimed after the game there was a problem with his eye rather than a head injury. I’m of the mind that the human eye is a part of the head and further examination may be necessary. Then again, I am only playing a doctor in this piece.

Why am I concerned about this protocol and the possible failure to adhere to it? In the last 8 years I have seen the reports and talked to the expert witnesses who testify about traumatic brain injury and chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). The real doctors take it very seriously. The damage from CTE is immense and life altering.

I can tell you from my personal experience, the number of doctors specializing in TBI and CTE has at least doubled (probably tripled) in my time at Experts.com. They come in a wide range of medical specialties:

My concern is the medical professionals do what is right for Cam Newton, even if he is only interested in getting back to the game.

With all this said, I want to invite a couple of my friends, both lawyers and former college football players, to respond on this topic in their own time and on their own blogs.

So, to Bernard Nomberg of Nomberg Law Firm and Morris Lilienthal of Martinson & Beason, what say you? Did the Panthers fail to follow protocol? Does the protocol need to change?

UPDATE: January 12, 2018

We asked for input from the lawyers mentioned above. We have received both of their responses in blog posts!

From Morris Lilienthal – Protecting Players: Following Concussion Protocol is a Must.

From Bernard Nomberg – Big Hit on Cam Newton Calls into Question NFL Concussion Protocol.