Deception is not rewarded- ‘Miami Law Firm Joins Class Action Suit against Yelp.com'

Yelp.com is a helpful way to find and share reviews of local businesses, however, it has been alleged by business owners that the website has been practicing extortion. A Long Beach Veterinary hospital alleges that Yelp, offered to hide a bad review of the hospital for $300 a month. A Miami law firm, paired with a San Diego firm, is filing a class action suit against Yelp, with the help of dozens of business owners who may have also been wronged.

Technology changes the playing field and makes it difficult to create relationships where you trust what you read, particularly because you don’t know who wrote it, and what their sources are. Unless you’re reading an academic journal/scholarly article, a news publication with an accredited history, a government website, and maybe some other substantial sources, you can never really be sure.

There are a number of questions to be looked at; how can we judge what’s real and what’s not on the internet? What is our role in regulating in our minds what the websites to trust and not trust? Should these companies get away with fraudulent claims concerning entities such as businesses?

See http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/category/Class%20Action for more details.

Concerns Over Using Ash As Construction Fill

A December 2008 Tennessee coal-ash spill has sparked concern in North Carolina over the use of coal-ash as structural fill. The NC Sierra Club is the leading the fight for tighter regulations on the use of ash, including limiting disposal sites to lined landfills. Although the proposed restriction would minimize concern for groundwater contamination, it would increase the amount of ash that needs to be disposed of, as the restriction would exclude ash from use in concrete and cement products.

The Sierra Report states that NC used over 800,000 tons of ash last year to fill gullies, roadbeds and building sites. Groundwater contamination is of particular concern because coal-ash can contain traces of toxic metals such as aresenic, lead, chromium, manganese, mercury, barium and cadmium. According to the report, over half of the 48 inspected sites are in violation of current regulations. A lack of funding stands in the way of establishing a routine enforcement process; however, regular inspections are needed to determine the full scope of potential consequences.

Written By Brittney Edwards

Drug Related Wrongful Death in Massachusetts

Linda Shearer of Massachusetts filed a wrongful death lawsuit, after her husband who had been taking Neurontin, an anti-seizure drug, committed suicide in 2002. Harley Shearer was prescribed the drug in order to control the effects of his paralysis. The suit alleged that Pfizer, the pharmaceutical company that produces the drug, promoted this use of the drug even though U.S. regulators hadn’t approved it, and that Pfizer knew the drug was associated with a risk of suicide, but failed to properly warn of the risk. A settlement of approximately $400,000 has been made for Mrs. Shearer.

Only two weeks before, a federal jury found that Pfizer violated an antiracketeering law by promoting Neurontin for off-label uses, and awarded damages of $47 million, which is to be automatically tripled under the law. In 2004, Pfizer pleaded guilty to a criminal charge and agreed to pay $430 million to settle government investigations of its promotion of Neurontin. Pfizer has also said that it faces a number of lawsuits alleging use of Neurontin caused suicide, attempted suicide and other personal injuries. Neurontin was previously one of Pfizer's best-selling drugs, generating $2.7 billion in sales in 2003.

For more information visit on the suit: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304017404575165992338949212.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

For more information on this type of law suit:
www.injuryboard.com
www.shipmanlaw.com

Could getting your summer base tan be illegal?

An FDA advisory panel is researching and considering restriction on tanning beds, in a number of areas. Restrictions are being considered for light skinned people, and for people under the age of 18. Light-skinned is classified as Fitzpatrick skin type 1, those who don’t tan, for example red heads and people with a lot of freckles. And in terms of those under 18, the FDA has brought about the idea of parental consent forms. The panel is also considering changing tanning beds from a Class I medical device to a Class II medical device. This would mean that tanning bed manufacturers would be required to up labeling requirements and performance standards. Some on the panel have suggested tanning beds be made a Class III device, this would require manufacturers submit to pre-market approval.

There has been extensive research on the effects of tanning beds, including melanoma, skin cancer, and other problems associated with over-exposure to ultra violet rays. The Melanoma Research Foundation finds that ultraviolet radiation from tanning lamps before the age of 30 increases the risk of melanoma by 75 percent. And, the American Cancer Society notes that there were nearly 69,000 new cases of melanoma last year resulting in with 8,600 deaths.

However, there have also been many arguments promoting the use of tanning beds as an alternative to the violent UV rays produced by the sun. Beach House tanning (www.beachouse.com) describes tanning, as your body’s natural repellent to sunburn, stating “tanning beds are a responsible way to get a base tan.”

This issue raises a number of questions, with 30 million Americans going to the tanning salon per year. Can the FDA “discriminate” by restricting people with a certain skin-type to attend tanning beds? If smoking cigarettes isn’t illegal, along with many other cancer-causing activities, is it fair to restrict the practice of tanning? On the flip side, do we need government to work in our best interest, letting people know the effects of tanning, and preventing them from making uninformed decisions?

Read more: http://www.injuryboard.com/national-news/fda-panel-considers-paleskin-ban-on-tanning-beds.aspx?googleid=279858#ixzz0kWIFmsxD

House and Senate passed the Permit Extension Act of 2009

The Permit Extension Act of 2009, designed to help developers suffering from the recession, passed unanimously in both the House and Senate. According to the act, any developer that obtained a building permit beginning January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2010 will not have to apply for a permit extension, thus giving the developer a time extension to complete unfinished projects.

The Business Alliance for a Sound Economy, along with various other organizations, supports the act on the basis that it provides developers with a means of keeping construction workers on-site and employed. Because the permit review and re-approval process is time consuming, the act will also save the state a great deal of money and resources that can be better spent given the current economic constraints.

Controversy surrounding the act stems from lot owners who have paid high prices for land that is still undeveloped, in some cases years later, lacking water, sewer, and road infrastructure. Taxpayers are concerned about abandoned projects fearing they will ultimately be monetarily responsible for developers defaulting on their bonds. Gary Ferguson, Carolina Beach Planning and Development Coordinator, points out that the Permit Extension Act could raise noncompliance issues in the future due to construction projects based on outdated building codes. Compliance concerns may also be raised in the environmental arena, as several of the permits currently excluded from re-approval include wastewater, erosion control and air quality permits.

The stagnant economy has definitely taken its toll, and as with any legislation, there will always be advocates for both sides.

Written By Brittany Edwards