Federal authorities have detained 300 alleged illegal immigrants after raiding the House of Raeford Farms’ Greenville, S.C. chicken processing plant. The bust took place during a 9 a.m. shift change Tuesday, according to Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin McDonald.

Federal prosecutors and immigration agents have been investigating the plant’s hiring practices. McDonald says 12 people have been arrested in past months, and seven have pleaded guilty.

McDonald says a recent review of 825 workers’ immigration paperwork showed false information for more than 775.

As a former U.S. Attorney, I can verify that the problem of illegal immigration places employers in a difficult position. Efforts to crack down on workers with forged documents can have the effect of requiring employers in the private sector to assume law enforcement responsibilities they are ill equipped to handle.

Some states, like South Carolina, have enacted high tech verification systems to confirm the identity and employment eligibility of all workers. Such systems are needed to prevent the forgery of official documents, which is apparently common in South Carolina and elsewhere.

However, the devil is in the details. Enforcing employee identification systems is difficult and expensive both for the states and for employers. If the problem of illegal immigration is to be addressed nationally, Congress will need to set uniform standards, close loopholes and provide the states with adequate funding for enforcement.

Earlier this week, The New York Times prominently featured a front-page article on Diana Levine and her upcoming Supreme Court case surrounding the $6 million the pharmaceutical company Wyeth was ordered to pay her for failing to warn her adequately about the risks of one of its drugs. That award came from a Vermont jury after Levine lost much of her right arm.

In the spring of 2000, suffering from a migraine, Ms. Levine visited a clinic near here for a treatment she had received many times: Demerol for the pain and Wyeth’s drug Phenergan for nausea.

“Nothing wrong with either drug,” Ms. Levine said. “They’re both safe when given the right way.”

But if Phenergan is exposed to arterial blood, it causes swift and irreversible gangrene. For that reason, it is typically administered by intramuscular injection. According to Ms. Levine’s lawyers, using an intravenous drip is almost entirely safe as well.

This time, though, a physician’s assistant used a third method. She injected the drug into what she thought was a vein, a method known as “IV push.” But the assistant apparently missed.

In the following weeks, Ms. Levine’s hand and forearm turned purple and then black, and they were amputated in two stages.

The drug’s label, approved by the Food and Drug Administration, had warned that “inadvertent intra-arterial injection” can result in “gangrene requiring amputation.” But it did not rule out administration of the drug by IV push.

Adam Liptak, who penned the piece, summarized the argument by saying, “Business groups, often supported by the Bush administration, have vigorously pursued pre-emption arguments, hoping to build a barrier against many kinds of injury suits. Plaintiffs’ lawyers oppose broad pre-emption doctrines, saying they short-circuit valid claims arising from terrible injuries.”

This case, which is set to begin in November, is an example of the tremendous work that has been done to increase awareness around the once little-known topic of Complete Immunity Preemption. That basically boils down to, as Liptak described it, “a doctrine that can bar injured consumers like Ms. Levine from suing in state court when the products that hurt them had met federal standards.”

In the weeks leading up to the Supreme Court case, we will continue to keep you posted on the continued media coverage as AAJ’s communications and public affairs teams move our message forward and continue our Fight for Justice.

The player will show in this paragraph

MSNBC covers the NTSB press conference

A plane crash late Friday night in Columbia, S.C. killed four people and critically injured two more. The two injured were identified as Travis Barker, the former drummer of Blink-182, and Adam “DJ AM” Goldstein. Both are in critical condition at the Joseph Still Burn Center in Augusta, Ga., about 70 miles from Columbia.

Barker and Goldstein were in Columbia headlining a block party concert sponsored by the Five Points Community Association and cellular phone company T-Mobile.

The four victims who died have been identified by the Lexington County Coroner as the pilot Sarah Lemmon, 31, of Anaheim Hills, Calif. and co-pilot James Bland, 52, of Carlsbad, Calif. A third victim has been identified as Chris Baker, 29, of Studio City, Calif., Barker’s assistant. The fourth victim has been identified as Charles Still, 25, who was from California.

The Learjet was operated by Global Executive Aviation. The first FAA investigator arrived on-scene from the Atlanta office and was later joined by investigators from D.C. The Metropolitan airport in Columbia remains closed until they can document on-scene evidence from the runway and airport property that will determine what happened to the flight.

Investigators are currently investigating but know that the plane was manufactured in 2006, certified to operate in 2007, and they are looking at all information associated with the aircraft, maintenance it may have received, where it was operated, problems reported, etc. Investigators are in the preliminary stages of investigation. They do know it was an on-demand flight and was scheduled at the demand of the customer.

There was damage at or near the airport included debris at the departure end of runway 11, an atteanae array hit, broken lights, and a perimeter fence down. Investigators are looking at any evidence that will help them determine what was going on at the time of the accident.

Federal Aviation Administration spokeswoman Kathleen Bergen said the plane carrying six people was departing shortly before midnight Friday when air traffic controllers reported seeing sparks. The plane went off a runway and crashed on a nearby road, she said.

From the Associated Press:

Hospital spokeswoman Beth Frits said Barker and DJ AM, whose real name is Adam Goldstein, were in critical condition at a burn center in Augusta, Ga., about 75 miles southwest of Columbia.

Two other passengers and two crew members died, said the National Transportation Safety Board. Their identities were not immediately available.

Barker and Goldstein, who perform together under the name TRVSDJ-AM, played a free concert in Columbia’s college neighborhood Friday night.

“It’s absolutely terrible and tragic,” Columbia Mayor Bob Coble said.

A representative for Barker and DJ AM said she had no information the crash.
After Blink 182, Barker went on to form the rock band (+44) — pronounced “plus forty-four.” He starred in the MTV reality series “Meet the Barkers” with former Miss USA Shanna Moakler, to whom he was married at the time. The show documented the former couple’s lavish wedding and life.
Goldstein at one time was engaged to celebrity Nicole Richie.”

From WIS-TV:

Eyewitness William Owens told local TV channel WIS-TV he was driving down Highway 302 when he said he saw a fireball go across the road.

‘I didn’t know what I had seen - it was maybe 800 feet in front of me, but as I approached it closer though, I made out a fire. By then I was able to see the tail of the jet and I recognised it as a jet.

‘It’s in flames and the fuel is running across the road and I had to cross the fuel to get to the two guys that seemed to have been dumped on the highway.

‘We turned to the jet to try and see if there was anything we could do, but immediately, there was nothing anyone could do.’

When we go to a doctor for anything from a routine check-up to life-saving surgery, we expect the highest quality of care. And that is certainly the case when dealing with serious diseases like colon cancer.

Yet researchers have found that “most U.S. hospitals are failing to meet a key quality benchmark for care of colon cancer patients — checking enough lymph nodes after surgery to see if the cancer has spread.”

Reuters reports:

Leading medical organizations say doctors should examine at least 12 lymph nodes to figure out whether colon cancer has metastasized — spread to other parts of the body — and to accurately diagnose the stage, or severity, of the cancer.

This information helps guide future treatment, including whether a patient with metastatic cancer gets the chemotherapy that can help improve survival.

But a review of data from 1,296 U.S. hospitals showed that only 38 percent of them checked at least 12 lymph nodes in at least three quarters of patients who had undergone surgery to remove colon cancer in 2004 and 2005.

Treatment for colon cancer involves surgery to remove the part of the colon that contains the cancer along with some healthy tissue on either side of the cancer to help ensure none remains behind. Nearby lymph nodes then are removed and tested for the presence of cancer.

Checking too few lymph nodes may give a false impression that cancer has not spread.

It is not uncommon to fail to find cancer if only six lymph nodes are checked — only to detect it when more lymph nodes are examined, (Dr. Karl Bilimoria of Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago) said.

Physician carelessness, as is the case with this report, is perhaps the single most common factor in medical malpractice lawsuits. Unfortunately, that carelessness can cause serious injuries or death.

And anyone who feels they or a loved one were the victim of such neglect — especially the thousands discussed in the article who were told they were in remission only to find that their doctor hadn’t properly checked their progress — should immediately contact a medical malpractice attorney.

An experienced lawyer can examine the case with highly qualified medical experts to determine whether there was a medical error that caused the injury or death. This evaluation is critical because medical malpractice cases cannot be proven without the testimony of a highly qualified expert.

GUEST COLUMN BY AMANDA SCHLAGER

PUBLISHED: SUN, SEPT. 7, 2008, THE STATE NEWSPAPER

As a moderate voter trying to weigh both sides before voting in November’s elections, I was shocked at the unexpected pull of Sarah Palin’s speech Wednesday night at the Republican National Convention. I felt myself torn as her speech drew to a close.

The leftist in me reveled in her talk of energy independence while the rightist in me enjoyed her emphases on limiting government spending and the importance of family. And regardless of her political leanings, from a young feminist’s perspective, she was ideal.

Whereas many women could not identify with Hillary Clinton because of a certain coldness or inability to relate, Palin reached out and touched viewers with her impassioned speech yet tough demeanor. When she joked that the only difference between hockey moms and bulldogs is lipstick, I laughed and connected with her in a way I never could with Hillary.

To me, the reason for her allure is simple: Sarah Palin is the kind of woman we hoped would be the first female president. As a twenty-something professional, I am a member of a generation that staunchly believes in the idea that we can have it all — family and career — and that we can do it with both toughness and warmth. What better example of that than a vice presidential candidate who stood on stage with her husband and five young children?

When people ask, “How can she be vice president and have time to raise those kids?” my generation is outraged. No one would dare ask a man that question. (The question was inapplicable to Hillary.) With the rising number of women in professional schools and the rising trend of traditional gender role reversal (i.e., “house husbands”), I can only speculate that my generation’s response to that must be: “Does she not have a husband to help at home? And isn’t that what an au pair is for?”

Putting viewpoints aside, isn’t Sarah Palin what feminism has been fighting for in the past 100 years — the right to have it all, on equal footing?

As feminists, should we give the Republicans another chance because they’re now the party that might put a woman into office as the first female president — one we all could actually like? Or do we sigh in regret as leftists and feminists, enjoying Palin’s speech and all that she represents for womanhood, yet not being able to forget the track record of her party nor its horrific lack of non-gender diversity? (There were so few people of color at the Republican convention, spotting one was like playing “Where’s Waldo?”) Do we forego the real possibility of a female president because it’s not worth four more years of Republican lip service and empty talk of change?

I’m not sure what the answer will be in November, but in the meantime, to Mrs. Palin: Thank you. You’re proof to the world that women truly can have it all, family and career, without sacrificing the warmth that makes us women.

To the Republican Party, good show. But putting a woman on stage did not camouflage the fact that your convention was appallingly non-diverse or that Palin was likely chosen more for her conservative views and gender than her accomplishments.

And to Sen. Barack Obama, while Gov. Palin’s jabs were anticipated, her presence, conviction and delivery made even this swing voter stop and think. So batter up, because the bases are now loaded, and you had better be swinging with more than inspiring speeches to hit it out of the park come November.

Ms. Schlager is an attorney in Columbia. She previously worked as a litigator in Washington.

In the Southeast, particularly in South Carolina and Georgia, we have seen a spike in the number of trucking accidents. This is primarily due to negligent driving as a result of poor training or overworked drivers.

Unfortunately, this means our roads have become unnecessarily dangerous. And when you’ve got a 40 ton 18-wheeler involved, that danger can quickly cause serious damage or death.

Just this week in, an 18 wheeler hit a pickup truck at the intersection of Rivers Ave. and Alton in Charleston, S.C., causing both drivers to be hospitalized. The wreck caused a major diesel spill and hazmat and emergency crews spent the entire morning cleaning the mess.

From Live 5 News:

The accident caused the tractor trailer’s gas tank to burst open, spilling 25-30 gallons of diesel on the road. The pickup truck struck a water main right after the accident, pushing the fuel into a storm drain.

A fire official says besides the fire department, personel from the Department of Health and Environmental Control, the South Carolina Department of Transportation, a private hazardous material contractor, and Charleston Public Water Works assisted with the clean up.

That accident occurred less than a week after a semi-truck flipped on its side just down the road. In that case, the driver was cited for driving too fast for conditions.

Besides being less than a week and a few miles apart, these truck accident cases have one thing in common: they could have been avoided.

Because of that, I expect the driver of the pickup truck in the first case, and any victims in the second, will consider filing a lawsuit for things like financial losses, medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of quality of life.

And the sooner they make that decision, the better.

At Strom Law Firm, we advise everyone to consult an experienced attorney immediately after a loved one is injured or killed as a result of a truck accident. Time is of the essence.

The trucking company will have their lawyers on the scene faster than you can say “wrongdoing.”

A good truck accident attorney will counteract that by reporting to the scene of the accident with an expert in accident reconstruction to make sure the victim is better represented than the trucking company. And this information could be absolutely vital to winning a truck accident case.

The player will show in this paragraph

FOX News Channel tackles the “Mini-Me” lawsuit

When people decide to videotape or photograph their intimate, “private” moments, what happens if those tapes or images are published, distributed or made public without permission? What if they are stolen by a third party and make their way onto the Internet?

Has that person’s legal right to privacy been violated? What course of action can they take? And how does this apply to celebrities versus everyday folks like you and me?

Those are just a few of the numerous, interesting questions highlighted by recent high-profile lawsuits dealing with invasion of privacy.

“MINI-ME”

Earlier this month, actor Verne Troyer (better known as “Mini-Me” from the “Austin Powers” movies) sued his ex-girlfriend for several million dollars after he claimed she released parts of an intimate tape between the two of them without his consent.

Does he have a case? FOX News Channel’s Megyn Kelly tackled this question during a segment of “Kelly’s Court” last week.

Kelly: He’s alleging to release it amounts to an intentional infliction of emotional distress. Is that not a slam-dunk for him? Two lovers engaging in sex acts on a camera in their bedroom and one goes and releases it to the media? How is that not intentional infliction of emotional distress?

Inevitably – celebrity or no celebrity – Troyer has a reasonable expectation of privacy. And more importantly in this case, he has a common law right to profit from his name and likeness.

Therefore, Troyer’s lawsuit deals largely with an area of privacy law known as “appropriation.” Under this course of action, he must only prove that his name, likeness or identity was intentionally used by his ex-girlfriend without his consent for her own benefit.

If he does that, he will win his suit or, more likely, force a large settlement.

MILEY CYRUS

As Kelly noted, Troyer’s video is one of many celebrity sex tapes or risqué photos that have been released of late. Recently, an Internet scandal involving Miley Cyrus and a few “raunchy” photos allegedly lifted from her page on the social networking site MySpace has left the Disney star in a precarious situation. The anonymous individual who reportedly hacked images of the scantily clad 15-year-old has already leaked a few shots — causing Cyrus considerable headaches — and has threatened to release more.

Cyrus shrugged it off and tried to continue on with her life. But that may not be the best approach. Cases like hers don’t just go away. And if she expects this situation to “sort itself out,” she could be setting herself up for continued damage.

Whereas Troyer had a claim that his likeness was misappropriated, Cyrus has a good argument for a wrongful intrusion of her privacy. If she can prove that the defendant intentionally pried into her private communications and caused her serious emotional distress and/or seriously harmed her reputation, then not only will she stop this person from releasing any more damaging images, but she might also win a hefty settlement. Not that she needs it.

THE REST OF US

For those of us who aren’t celebrities (not yet, anyway), it is still possible to suffer an invasion of privacy. In addition to the two examples in the Troyer and Cyrus cases, we are much more likely to be harmed by a third area of privacy law, the publicizing of private affairs.

In that scenario, a plaintiff must prove the defendant made public (to a large number of people) a private matter that is “offensive to a reasonable person” and is of no legitimate public concern.

The best way to deal with an invasion of privacy is to consult with legal council the moment you feel you have been wronged. With the rise of the Internet, it is apparent that cases like these are no longer exclusive to celebrities. Every citizen, not just the rich and famous, has rights, and we all have an interest in seeing to it that those rights are protected.

Sadly, the Greenville News reports that, while work-related deaths decreased nationwide, South Carolina saw a 20% increase in on the job fatalities.

From the Greenville News:

The state recorded 114 fatalities last year, up from 95 the year before. Of the total, 45 were transportation-related, 25 were assaults or other violent acts, 12 were accidents with equipment and other objects, 15 were falls, 7 were from exposure to harmful substances or environments and 10 were fires and explosions.

Jim Knight, spokesman for the state Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulations, said the numbers include the nine firefighters who died in a Charleston fire last year. It also includes traffic-related fatalities and assaults and homicides that are not investigated by the department.

He said when looking at traditional workplace fatalities — other than the Charleston fire — the number of deaths last year was 34, down from 39 the year before. That would include falls, manufacturing accidents and exposure to harmful substances.

Also, the number of Hispanic deaths, primarily in construction, dropped from 18 five years ago to 6 this year. The department provided training in Spanish to try to improve safety with Hispanic workers, Knight said.

The number of worker deaths nationally dropped to 5,488 last year — the fewest since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began keeping track in 1992.

As part of my personal injury and wrongful death practice at Strom Law Firm, I have represented numerous clients who were injured at work or whose loved ones were killed as a result of an unsafe workplace. And sadly, it is often the case that work-related deaths and injuries are preventable if only the employer had done its job.

The case of Wyeth v. Levine, now on its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, has recently become the front line in the ongoing battle between drug companies and consumers who were wronged by unsafe products that were rapidly released without proper testing in order to turn a quick buck.

The Associated Press reports:

Diana Levine, a Vermont guitarist, lost her right arm below the elbow after she was injected with Phenergan, a medicine for nausea, and developed gangrene. She sued the manufacturer, Wyeth, arguing that the company had a duty to warn consumers that such injections could have devastating consequences. The courts in her state agreed, awarding her nearly $7 million.

But Wyeth appealed, countering that it was protected from such lawsuits. It argued that the FDA’s judgment could not, in effect, be overruled by a state court. FDA scientists had weighed the risks and benefits of Phenergan in approving the drug’s prescribing literature, or label, as a guide for doctors. The FDA was aware of risks associated with injecting some forms of Phenergan, but the label did not specifically warn about the technique used with Levine.

To say this decision will have broad-reaching consequences for consumers is an understatement.

If the Supreme Court extends the federal preemption clause of the U.S. Constitution to the FDA, then it would in essence take away a person’s right to a trial by jury if the product around which the lawsuit is based had been previously approved by the FDA.

That means the FDA would basically have the administrative authority to grant immunity to drug companies and medical device manufacturers; and I don’t think anyone in their right mind believes the FDA is remotely competent enough to handle that kind of responsibility.

Thankfully, doctors are beginning to speak out about the possible negative implications of the Supreme Court siding with the drug companies in this case.

In an Amicus brief submitted to the High Court, the New England Journal of Medicine noted that lawsuits serve as “a vital deterrent” against this and protect consumers if the drug companies don’t disclose drug-related risks. And they are absolutely right.

Federal preemption is one of the most important issues facing us right now – not only in prescription drug cases, but in other areas as well. If the FDA and other government agencies are granted the power of life and death – literally – then we could all be in a world of hurt. Literally.

I encourage everyone to contact their legislators in Washington about this important issue. To contact your Senator, click here. To contact your Congressman, click here.

The Orangeburg (S.C.) Times and Democrat has published a story about the South Carolina Association for Justice’s new name. The T&D editorial focuses on the importance of what used to be known as the SC Trial Lawyers Association and its continued role in preserving justice and individual rights.

From the Orangeburg Times and Democrat:

THE ISSUE: New name for trial lawyers

OUR OPINION: Despite their critics, trial lawyers are key players in justice systems

Attorneys know the routine on lawyer jokes. They engage in ribbing and laughs with each other. It’s a tradition.

Press them, however, and attorneys contend their profession is unfairly targeted, even unappreciated. Without people to represent citizens — even the most publicly unpopular of defendants — the very fabric of our system breaks down. Plus, attorneys cite their public service, hours of free legal counsel donated annually and projects such as the attorney general’s program in which lawyers donate time in magistrate’s courts as prosecutors of domestic cases.

This week, the South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association — that group so often maligned by political critics as having too much influence in the legislative and judicial systems — went on the offensive.

The group has made a bold change in name. It is now the South Carolina Association for Justice — a change it says reflects the attorneys’ new, broader mission and better represents the purpose of the organization.

The name change was approved and finalized at the 2008 SCTLA/SCAJ annual convention on Hilton Head Island.

“The mission of the South Carolina Association for Justice involves more than courtroom battles,” said Pete Strom, former U.S. attorney for the District of South Carolina who assumed office as president at the convention. “We will also work with elected officials and policy-makers to create a legal system that protects everyone, not just the rich and the influential.”

SCAJ’s central mission to protect the rights of people will remain, but the group has expanded its purpose to become “the state’s leading advocate for justice and fairness under the law.”

Mike Hemlepp, recently named executive director of SCAJ, makes the point that attorneys are often the only resource ordinary citizens have to combat unfair treatment by government, corporations and powerful special interest groups.

“Our renewed focus and message discipline will enable us to better represent our members: attorneys who protect the citizens’ rights to access to justice.” he said. “When our opponents deride us for changing our name, it is clearly because they know that our new model will be effective and agile.”

As right as he is, Hemlepp knows that attorneys also face criticisms as the driving force behind a society that is lawsuit-happy. Critics constantly talk about reforms that limit damage awards — at times with good reason.

Attorneys also face attacks from groups that are every bit as much special interests as critics say the attorneys are.

One criticism has come in the form of a group known as HALT, which boasts 50,000 members devoted to consumer legal reform. Its Lawyer Discipline Report Card indicates attorneys are committed to a system of protecting each other.

In 2006, for example, HALT called the national report a “scathing indictment of attorney discipline agencies.” Grades assigned to disciplinary systems in all 50 states and the District of Columbia showed more than half the states at below C. Utah flunked outright. No state earned an A. South Carolina was ranked 44th in the nation and received a D-plus.

The results — no joking matter for anyone — must be looked at in the context of the mission of attorneys. By the nature of what they do, their role will not be universally popular. But in our system of justice, an Association for Justice is a vital ingredient.