PHAI Online - The Public Health Advocacy Institute
Archive for the ‘Press release’ Category
Florida court of appeal affirms $28.3 million verdict against R.J. Reynolds; explicitly rejects RJR’s attempt to “essentially nullify” Florida Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in Engle
Tuesday, December 14th, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Edward L. Sweda, Jr. or Mark Gottlieb (617) 373-8462 or (617) 373-2026
In a resounding defeat for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the First District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed a jury’s award of $5 million in compensatory damages (later reduced by the trial judge to $3.3. million because the jury found Benny Martin 34% responsible for his death from lung cancer in 1995) and $25 million in punitive damages.
As the court noted, the “crux of this appeal is the extent to which an Engle class member can rely upon the findings from the class action when she individually pursues one or more Engle defendants for damages.” RJR attempted to “diminish the preclusive effect of the findings by claiming, based on the Phase I verdict form, that the findings ‘facially’ prove nothing specifically relevant to Mr. Martin’s claims. In so doing, RJR urges an application of the supreme court’s decision that would essentially nullify it. We decline to do so.”
Edward L. Sweda, Jr., Senior Attorney for the Tobacco Product’s Liability Project (TPLP), a project of the Public Health Advocacy Institute (PHAI), based at Northeastern University School of Law, called today’s decision the “worst nightmare for the tobacco defendants because the powerful Phase I findings will be applicable to Engle progeny trials in state court.” Furthermore, the award of $25 million in punitive damages is entirely justified by what the court accurately described as the ‘evidence of decades-long wanton conduct by RJR…’”
PHAI’s Gottlieb co-authors new study showing increased tobacco smoke expsoure of kids in multi-unit housing
Monday, December 13th, 2010
Today, Wilson et al., published a new study in the journal Pediatrics demonstrating that children who live in homes in which no one smokes inside have a 45% increase in cotinine levels if they live in apartments compared with detached homes. The findings came through analysis of data from the 2001–2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
What this means is that it is likely that tobacco smoke from other units in attached housing results in tobacco smoke exposure for residents of “non-smoking” units. Because there is no risk-free level of tobacco smoke exposure, there are several policy implications here:
- Potential residents of multi-unit housing should carefully check a building’s smoking policy before moving in because there is no such thing as a smoke-free home if there is smoking in the building;
- Landlords need to understand that a permissive smoking policy means more than increased fire risk and maintenance costs and should act accordingly; and
- While we may all respect the privacy rights associated with the home, tobacco smoke does not.
This study provides important evidence that the growing trend in smoke-free housing, besides enhancing property values, reducing fire risks and lowering maintenance costs, makes the home a safer place or everyone, particularly children and others who spend the most time indoors such as the elderly and disabled.
PHAI’s announces new project on workers’ right to health and safety on the job
Thursday, December 2nd, 2010
As of November 1, 2010, the Public Health Advocacy Institute is coordinating the Beyond OSHA project in conjuntion with Board member and project Principal Investigator Anthony Robbins, MD, and Celeste Monforton, DrPH, who is the project’s director.
The work focuses on enlisting experts and advocates to help workers make better use of their legal rights in the workplace.
The Pump Handle, a public health blog moderated by Liz Borkowski, a graduate student at George Washington University’s School of Public Health and Health Service, is a key compenent of this project, which is funded by the Public Welfare Foundation.
Beyond OSHA is PHAI’s second injury reduction project, the first one being the Motor Vehicle Hazard Archive Project. Like using law and policy approaches to reduce chronic disease caused by tobacco products or sales and marketing of obesogenic foods and beverages, injury reduction is a cornerstone of public health policy that seeks to reduce preventable morbidity and mortality.
Florida Jury Snaps Tobacco’s Recent Winning Streak with an $80 Million Award Against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
Monday, November 15th, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - Contact: Edward L. Sweda, Jr. or Mark Gottlieb (617) 373-2026 or (617) 373-8462.
A Bronson, Florida (Levy County) jury today awarded $8 million in compensatory damages and another $72 million in punitive damages against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company for its role in the lung cancer death of James Kayce Horner. Mr. Horner, who started smoking at the age of 17 in 1934 (decades before warning labels appeared on cigarette packages), smoked for over 60 years before dying of lung cancer on March 11, 1996, at the age of 78.
The jury determined that R.J. Reynolds had 90% responsibility for Mr. Horner’s death, and Mr. Horner 10%. Plaintiffs have now won 21 out of 32 Engle Progeny cases that have reached a verdict since February 2009. After eight consecutive defense verdicts in trials since August 2010, this jury clearly rejected the arguments made by defense law firm Jones Day.
Diane Webb, Mr. Horner’s daughter, is the plaintiff in a wrongful death action against the makers of Lucky Strike, Pall Mall, Kool, Camel and Winston – the brands Mr. Horner smoked. Ms. Webb is represented by the West Palm Beach firm of Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley. Attorney James Gustafson can be reached at 800-780-8607.
Attorney Gustafson told the jury that Mr. Horner was addicted to the drug nicotine, and that his addiction was why he sucked in cigarette smoke from 40 cigarette per day for 60 years. He smoked to avoid the withdrawal from nicotine.
Senior Attorney for the Tobacco Products Liability Project at Northeastern University School of Law (TPLP), Edward L. Sweda, Jr. was delighted with the verdict: “This jury was justifiably appalled by what it learned about R.J. Reynolds’ outrageous misconduct during the decades that James Kayce Horner was an addicted customer. Today’s verdict is proportionate to that reprehensible wrongdoing by the company.”
TPLP Director, Mark Gottlieb, noted that, “while the tobacco companies have won a string of verdicts in recent weeks after a much longer string of defeats, this verdict shows that they clearly have their work cut out for them as they battle thousands of individual trials in Florida. ”
The Tobacco Products Liability Project is a project of the Public Health Advocacy Institute at Northeastern University School of Law in Boston, MA. It is an independent federally recognized non-profit charity.
Yet another plaintiff’s verdict in Florida: Piendle v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. et al.
Thursday, August 5th, 2010
August 5, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Edward L. Sweda or Mark Gottlieb (617) 373-8462 or (617) 373-2026
A Palm Beach, Florida jury today returned a verdict of $2.2. million against Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds, on behalf of Liz Piendle, the widow of Charles Piendle, who died from lung cancer in 1996 at the age of 55. The jury assessed $4 million, but found Mr. Piendle to be 45% responsible while the two defendants were found to be 55% responsible (27.5% each) for his death; therefore, the $4 million figure was reduced to $2.2 million. The jury also found that Mr. Piendle was addicted to cigarettes containing nicotine, that his addiction was a legal cause of his lung cancer and death, that Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds placed “defective and unreasonably dangerous cigarettes” on the market and that “by clear and convincing evidence” punitive damages are warranted against both of the defendants.
The Piendle family is represented by Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley; Attorney Greg Barnhart can be reached at 561-686-6300.
Edward L. Sweda, Jr., Senior Attorney for the Tobacco Products Liability Project (TPLP), a project of the Public Health Advocacy Institute, was delighted with today’s verdict. “There have now been 19 plaintiff verdicts out of the 22 Engle Progeny cases that have gone to a full jury verdict. Today’s verdict is welcome news for the Piendle family as well as for all those who believe that corporate wrongdoers deserve to be held accountable for their reprehensible misconduct. We look forward to the jury’s assessment of punitive damages in this case, something designed both to punish those wrongdoers and to deter such misconduct in the future,” Sweda concluded.
11th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated decision that would have eliminated preclusive effect of Engle Jury Phase I findings for progeny cases in federal court
Thursday, July 22nd, 2010
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals today, in Brown et al. v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al., vacated an August 28, 2008 order by U.S. District Court Judge Howard Schlesinger which had totally eliminated the preclusive effect of the Engle jury’s Phase I findings.
Now, with that roadblock having been cleared, federal court plaintiffs in Engle progeny cases have received a green light to have their cases proceed to trial. While the tobacco companies are today proclaiming “victory,” the order that would have given them an actual victory has, instead, been entirely vacated.
Essentially, the plaintiffs will need to demonstrate to the trial court, through the record of the Engle Phase I, that the jurors were truly making generalized findings because the defendants’ misconduct was rampant and continuous. For example, see the part of the 1999 jury’s verdict sheet dealing with strict liability:
——-
Did one or more of the Defendant Tobacco Companies place cigarettes on the market that were defective and unreasonably dangerous?
Please answer “Yes” of “No” as to each Defendant, below. If you answer “yes” to any Defendants, please answer whether the conduct occurred during one of the following time periods:
Philip Morris, Incorporated Yes _X___ No __
Before July 1, 1974 Yes __X__ No __
After July 1, 1974 Yes __X__ No __
Both before and after July 1, 1974 Yes _X__ No __
——–
When the Florida Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that this finding should be given res judicata effect (for members of the class action who were to proceed in individual actions moving forward), the idea was that it would not be necessary for evidence to be presented to prove the same points about the product being defective and addictive and the cause of disease over and over again for each member of the class. This is the basis for issue preclusion.
The defendants argued in this case that the general findings of the Engle phase I jury were not specific enough to be given res judicata effect. For example, their argument might be:
Who is to say that the Engle Phase I Jury didn’t simply mean that Philip Morris placed a couple of cartons of defective and unreasonably dangerous Marlboros on the market before and after July 1, 1974? They did not say that the plaintiff in this case ever smoked any of those unreasonably dangerous and defective cigarettes. Therefore, this plaintiff needs to prove that the cigarettes he smoked were defective and unreasonably dangerous to this jury.
They are free to make this argument or something like it to keep the jury from hearing what the findings were in phase I — and probably will — but the plaintiffs, under today’s ruling, only need to show that the jury was presented with persuasive and compelling evidence that all of the defendants’ cigarettes were dangerous and unreasonably dangerous during Phase I.
A total victory for the plaintiffs here would have prevented the defendants from making arguments such as the one above. However, by allowing the issue preclusion with support from the record into the trials, it is likely that most courts will permit the juries to hear what the Phase I findings were, as the Florida Supreme Court had intended.
PHAI’s Gottieb co-authors piece in NEJM: Puffing in public housing poses serious health risks to tenants
Wednesday, June 16th, 2010
Media contacts: Valerie Wencis, Massachusetts General Hospital, 617.726.0274,
vwencis@partners.org
Todd Datz, Harvard School of Public Health, 617.998.8819,
tdatz@hsph.harvard.edu
Barry Wanger, Northeastern University School of Law, 617.965.6469,
barry@wangerassociates.com
Researchers examine risks and consequences of cigarette smoking to all inhabitants of multiple-unit housing; challenge status quo
BOSTON– In an effort to protect children from harmful tobacco smoke exposure, health and medical professionals are pushing for a ban on smoking in public housing in a report appearing in this week’s New England Journal of Medicine.
“Research shows that those living in multiple-unit housing are being exposed to toxins from tobacco smoke,” says Jonathan Winickoff, MD, MPH, lead author and pediatrician at MassGeneral Hospital for Children (MGHfC). “Even if you are not a smoker and don’t smoke inside of your own apartment, if you have a neighbor who is smoking inside of his, the entire building is contaminated.”
Over 7 million people are served by public housing in the U.S., with 4 in 10 units occupied by families with children. On July 17, 2009, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued a memorandum that strongly encouraged local Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) to implement no-smoking policies in some or all of their public housing units. While surveys indicate that 4 in 5 nonsmokers prefer smoke-free building policies, and many private landlords throughout the country have made their housing units smoke-free, only about 4% of PHAs have banned smoking in the units they manage. The article gives specific guidance on policy options for PHAs and HUD to protect all residents from tobacco smoke exposure and clarifies that there are no legal barriers to banning smoking in public housing. “HUD has taken an important step,” says coauthor Michelle Mello, J.D., Ph.D. of the Harvard School of Public Health, “but it could do more to prod lagging PHAs to take action.”
The National Toxicology Program has identified more than 250 poisonous gases, chemicals, and metals in tobacco smoke, 11 of which are class A carcinogens. Numerous epidemiologic studies show that exposure to tobacco smoke can cause lung cancer and cardiac disease in nonsmokers, and the Surgeon General’s report on involuntary smoking concluded that there is no safe level of exposure. Even brief exposures to tobacco smoke can adversely affect nonsmokers, especially children, who experience increased rates and severity of asthma and other respiratory illnesses, as well as higher risk of sudden infant death syndrome.
Smoking in a single unit within a multiunit residential building puts other residents of the building at risk. Tobacco smoke can move along air ducts, through cracks in the walls and floors, through elevator shafts, and along plumbing and electrical lines to affect units on other floors. Mitigation measures like fans and air filters are not effective in preventing exposure. High levels of tobacco toxins can persist in the indoor environment long after the period of active smoking — a phenomenon known as third-hand smoke. Tobacco toxins from smoke are deposited on indoor surfaces and reemitted in the air over a period of days to years, and are found on rugs, furniture, clothing, and floors – all surfaces that children crawl and play on.
While it is clear that second and third hand smoke are inimical to the health of nonsmokers in multiple housing units, there are challenges facing public housing authorities, landlords and nonsmokers. Any addiction is difficult to overcome and a ban would put pressure on tenants addicted to nicotine, and could raise concern over how to deal with tenants who continued to smoke inside their building.
“Any no-smoking policies within PHAs would need to be accompanied by clear instructions on how residents can access evidence-based smoking-cessation resources,” says coauthor Mark Gottlieb, J.D., Executive Director of the Public Health Advocacy Institute at Northeastern University School of Law. Currently most state Medicaid programs do not cover comprehensive tobacco-dependence treatments, a situation that may change with an increased emphasis on tobacco control in healthcare reform. However, right now, free smoking cessation services are available in all 50 states though the quitline.
“Rather than prohibiting smokers from inhabiting public housing units, prohibiting the act of smoking on the premises would minimize the ethical concerns relating to a smoking ban,” says Mello. “This type of policy would encourage smokers to quit, since only those who continued to smoke on the premises would be required to move out.”
Creating and maintaining smoke-free living space that encourages smoking cessation not only provides a healthy environment for children as they grow, it discourages them from picking up the habit. “When children see smoking in and around their homes, it normalizes the behavior for them,” says Mello. “Research shows that no-smoking policies in the home lead to lower smoking initiation rates by teens.” Americans living below the poverty level are 1.6 times more likely to smoke; adopting a smoke-free policy in public housing units encourages inhabitants to “fight back” against the intense tobacco marketing that exists in low-income neighborhoods.
“As we move forward and further explore public housing policy, it is important to remember that the status quo is not acceptable for America’s children,” says Winickoff. “Each child deserves a healthy start, and we can help provide this by encouraging smoke-free home environments.”
About the Massachusetts General Hospital
Founded in 1811, the MGH is the third oldest general hospital in the United States and the oldest and largest in New England. The 900-bed medical center offers sophisticated diagnostic and therapeutic care in virtually every specialty and subspecialty of medicine and surgery. Each year the MGH admits more than 46,000 inpatients and handles nearly 1.5 million outpatient visits at its main campus and health centers. Its Emergency Department records nearly 80,000 visits annually. The surgical staff performs more than 35,000 operations and the MGH Vincent Obstetrics Service delivers more than 3,500 babies each year. The MGH conducts the largest hospital-based research program in the country, with an annual research budget of more than $500 million. It is the oldest and largest teaching hospital of Harvard Medical School, where nearly all MGH staff physicians serve on the faculty. The MGH is consistently ranked among the nation’s top hospitals by US News and World Report.
About Harvard School of Public Health
Harvard School of Public Health (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu ) is dedicated to advancing the public’s health through learning, discovery, and communication. More than 400 faculty members are engaged in teaching and training the 1,000-plus student body in a broad spectrum of disciplines crucial to the health and well being of individuals and populations around the world. Programs and projects range from the molecular biology of AIDS vaccines to the epidemiology of cancer; from risk analysis to violence prevention; from maternal and children’s health to quality of care measurement; from health care management to international health and human rights. For more information on the school visit: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu
About The Public Health Advocacy Institute
The Public Health Advocacy Institute (PHAI) is a legal research center at Northeastern University School of Law that focuses on public health law. PHAI’s goal is to support and enhance a commitment to public health in individuals and institutes who shape public policy through law. PHAI is committed to research in public health law, public health policy development; to legal technical assistance; and to collaborative work at the intersection of law and public health.
###
Louisiana Court of Appeals Orders Tobacco Companies to Pay Over $230 Million for Court-Approved Smoking Cessation Program
Wednesday, April 28th, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Edward L. Sweda or Mark Gottlieb
(617) 373-8462 or (617) 373-2026
Nearly fourteen years after the lawsuit was originally filed, the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit on Friday affirmed a trial court judgment in Scott v. American Tobacco Co., et al., that the major American tobacco companies must fund a smoking cessation program to benefit more than 200,000 Louisiana smokers.
Attorney Steve J. Herman, who represents the plaintiffs, said: “after a three-year trial and a six-year appeals process going all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, we are happy with the court’s unanimous decision, and optimistic that the court-supervised programs awarded by the jury in 2004 can now be funded, so that smokers can get assistance in quitting from qualified Louisiana health care providers.” Attorney Herman can be reached at 504-680-0554.
Edward L. Sweda, Jr., Senior Attorney for the Tobacco Products Liability Project (TPLP), a project of the Public Health Advocacy Institute (PHAI) based at Northeastern University School of Law in Boston, welcomed the unanimous decision, which he described as “a clear victory for the health of thousands of Louisiana smokers who will benefit from the four components of the smoking cessation program approved by the Louisiana Court of Appeal in 2007.” Those four components are: 1) reimbursement of smoking-cessation related medication; 2) telephone quit lines; 3) health intervention systems; and 4) intensive cessation programs.
“This case is a trailblazer,” added Richard A. Daynard, founder of TPLP and a Northeastern University Law Professor. “Attorneys in the other 49 states should file similar claims so that their citizens can also get the benefits of this program,” he concluded
Florida Jury Returns Multi-Million Dollar Verdict for Family of Smoker against Liggett Group, Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds
Monday, April 26th, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Edward L. Sweda or Mark Gottlieb
(617) 373-8462 or (617) 373-2026
APRIL 26, 2010
A Fort Lauderdale, Florida state court jury on Monday awarded $15 million in compensatory damages to the family of Margot Putney, a longtime smoker who died of lung cancer in 1995. The jury found the defendants’ negligence and product defect were the legal cause of Margot Putney’s death.
The jury apportioned responsibility for Margot Putney’s death at 15% for Philip Morris, 30% for R.J. Reynolds, 20% for Liggett Group, and 35% for Ms. Putney. Additionally, the jury assessed $5 million in punitive damages, $2.5 million against R.J. Reynolds and $2.5 million against Philip Morris. If today’s verdict is upheld on appeal, the plaintiffs will receive $14.75 million.
Edward L. Sweda, Jr., Senior Attorney for the Tobacco Products Liability Project (TPLP), based at Northeastern University School of Law in Boston, welcomed the victory for the Putney family, noting that the “verdict brings the total number of plaintiff victories in ‘Engle progeny’ cases in Florida to 14 out of 16 trials that have gone to a jury verdict over the past 14 months. This includes a streak of 12 consecutive plaintiff victories. Given this unmistakable trend in favor of holding corporate wrongdoers accountable for their actions, I anticipate even more victories for plaintiffs in these Florida lawsuits in the coming weeks and months.”
The Putney family was represented by Rossman, Baumberger, Reboso, Speir & Connolly in Miami. Charles Baumberger can be reached at 305-373-0708.
–30 –
Tobacco Companies Are Dealt a Series of Major Litigation Losses in Florida During March And April – and There’s no End in Sight
Thursday, April 22nd, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 22, 2010
Contact: Edward L. Sweda or Mark Gottlieb
(617) 373-2026 or (617) 373-8462
Florida juries and a Court of Appeal have help make March and April of 2010 two months during which tobacco companies are being held accountable for their massive, reprehensible misconduct that has wreaked havoc on the lives of Florida residents.
In the most recent case, a jury in Gainesville on April 21 rendered a $10 million compensatory damages award and an $80 million punitive damages award against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. in the Townsend case. The jury assessed 51% responsibility to RJR and 49% responsibility to Mr. Townsend. The apportionment of liability is possible through the legal doctrine of comparative fault which permits a defendant to be held liable for the portion of the harm it is responsible for in situations where the plaintiff bears some of the responsibility as well. Thus, if the verdict withstands appeal, the plaintiff will receive $80.5 million.
Other blows to Big Tobacco include the following:
- March 10. A jury awarded $5 million compensatory damages award to the plaintiff in the Douglas case. The jury assessed 50% responsibility to the deceased smoker, 27% responsibility to Liggett Group, 18% responsibility to Philip Morris, and 5% responsibility to R.J. Reynolds. Thus, if the verdict withstands appeals, the plaintiff will receive $2.5 million.
- March 12. A jury in Gainesville awarded $5 million in compensatory damages and $12.5 million in punitive damages against R.J. Reynolds in the Hall case. The trial judge later reduced the total award to $15.75 million.
- March 17. The Third District Court of Appeal upheld the $24.8 million award to John Lukacs, a longtime smoker who died of cancer shortly after his 2002 trial. The defendants in that case are Philip Morris USA, Brown & Williamson and Liggett Group.
- March 24. A jury in Fort Lauderdale awarded $10 million in compensatory damages and $20 million in punitive damages against Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds in the Cohen case. The jury assessed one-third responsibility to Mr. Cohen, Philip Morris and RJR; thus, the total award to the plaintiff, if the verdict withstands appeals, will be $26.6 million.
- April 13 and 14. A jury awarded $3.5 million in compensatory damages and $18 million ($17 million against R.J. Reynolds and $1 million against Liggett Group) in punitive damages to the family of a longtime smoker in the Clay case. The jury assessed the smoker as 30% responsible, R.J. Reynolds 60% responsible and Liggett Group 10% responsible. Thus, if the verdict withstands appeal, the plaintiff will receive $20.45 million.
“This ever-growing list of plaintiff victories in Florida constitutes a trend with a capital ‘T,’” said Edward L. Sweda, Jr., Senior Attorney for the Tobacco Products Liability Project (TPLP), a project of the Public Health Advocacy Institute, which is based at Northeastern University School of Law in Boston. “The tobacco companies must soon re-examine their policy of not settling these ‘Engle progeny’ cases, since many more trials are scheduled in the upcoming weeks and months,” Sweda concluded.
Mark Gottlieb, Director of TPLP noted that, “while there are some unique features of these Florida cases, there is no reason why this sort of success against the cigarette companies cannot be reproduced in many states. Rational minds hear the evidence and hold wrongdoers accountable regardless of state boundaries.”
