West Virginia Business Litigation Lawyer & Attorney : Law Office of Jeffrey V. Mehalic : Charleston, Huntington, Parkersburg

   A few days ago, I wrote that the Circuit Court of Putnam County had approved three settlements in cases alleging medical malpractice by discredited surgeon John King, and had rejected the parties' requests to keep those settlements confidential.

    Last Thursday, the court approved and made public the terms of nine more settlements, but it appears unlikely that the terms of the settlements of the remaining 58 clients represented by Curry & Tolliver will be revealed.

    Because the parties are not asking the court to make a specific finding in those cases that the settlements are good faith settlements, its approval is not necessary, and those plaintiffs will voluntarily dismiss their claims against the settling defendants.  Here is the notice of presentation of stipulation for and order of dismissal presented by the Curry & Tolliver plaintiffs.

    These are the details of the nine settlements approved last week, as described by Paul J. Nyden in his article in Friday’s Charleston Gazette:

• Lisa and Stephen Coiner, $1.45 million for injuries to Lisa Coiner;

• Linda and Marvin Goodpaster, $1.32 million for injuries to Marvin Goodpaster, including $46,773 set aside for each of two children;

• John and Lisa Hansroth, $1.15 million in a settlement involving injuries from King's surgery on John "Andy" Hansroth, a Charleston Gazette reporter who died in March 2005.  The settlement included money for their three children;

• David and Zamba Holestin: $1.32 million for a failed spinal fusion operation to David Holestin, including $187,915 for one of the couple's two children who was alive at the time of the failed surgery;

• Matthew and April Murphy: $150,000 for injuries to one of their daughters during an operation King performed on her broken arm.  Their daughter suffered no permanent injuries;

• Katherine and Barry Rutledge, $2 million for King's failed treatment of Katherine Rutledge's minor foot problem, which later caused her legs to be amputated; and
  

• Carrie Ann and Mark Triplett, $730,000 for a flawed 2003 operation, which included $70,463 for each of their two children.

    In addition, the court approved two other settlements by King patients whose competency to enter into their settlements had been at issue.  In those settlements, Regina Bird received $2 million and Steven Dingess received $750,000. 

    I realize that the parties may have legitimate reasons for not wanting to disclose the terms of the remaining settlements, but I think that Putnam County Circuit Court Judge Spaulding is correct that the public has a right to know whether these were legitimate cases.  Under these circumstances (did King operate on any patient without committing malpractice?), the court should determine whether every settlement was made in good faith and if so, order the disclosure of its terms.  

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

    In March, I wrote that most of the plaintiffs in the medical malpractice actions against discredited surgeon John King had reached settlements with several of the defendants.  Last week, three plaintiffs had their settlements approved by the Circuit Court of Putnam County, West Virginia.  What I find interesting is that Judge O. C. Spaulding refused the parties’ request to keep the amounts of the settlements confidential.   

    Paul J. Nyden wrote about the hearing in last Wednesday’s Charleston Gazette.  In denying the parties' request for confidentiality, Judge Spaulding  noted the publicity and attention that the cases had generated state-wide and nationally, and said that, “the public has a right to know, were these legitimate cases?” 

    You can answer that question for yourself.  These are the settlements that were approved, according to the article:

• $1,083,384 for the estate of Cora Linville, who died three years after her back surgery resulted in multiple infections;
  

• $923,585 for the estate of John Higgenbotham, who was 91 when he died.  Higgenbotham never woke up after King performed a massive spinal operation on his back; and 
  

• $423,585 for the estate of Leatha Johnson, who died less than three months after King performed the first of four surgeries to repair fractures and counter infections.  
  

    Court approval for these settlements was necessary because the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held in Estate of Postlewait ex rel. Postlewait v. Ohio Valley Medical Center, Inc., 591 S.E.2d 226 (W.Va. 2003), that West Virginia Code § 55-7-7 “clearly contemplates and requires that all compromises of wrongful death actions be submitted to the circuit court for approval.”  

    Another hearing is scheduled for May 22 for court approval of nine settlements of plaintiffs who were minors when King performed surgery on them.  

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

    In an order entered on Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States rejected Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital’s petition for a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia’s decision not to review the jury’s verdict of $6.5 million in a medical malpractice action filed against the hospital.  Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital v. Boggs, Bernard, No. 07-812.  Here are my posts from last September about the hospital’s petition for appeal and the Supreme Court of Appeals’ refusal thereof. 

    Reporter Andrew Clevenger has an article about the case in today’s Charleston (West Virginia) Gazette, in which he mentions that a “countersuit” filed by the hospital against Bernard Boggs, alleging that Boggs’ original lawsuit was frivolous, is still pending.  It seems like a verdict for $6.5 million in the underlying action, plus sanctions in the amount of $1.3 million, would prove that Boggs' lawsuit had merit.  

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

    There have been some significant developments this week in the medical malpractice lawsuits against discredited surgeon John A. King, which were removed to federal court as a result of the bankruptcy petition filed by King last year in Alabama.

    On Wednesday, the plaintiffs represented by the firm of Curry & Tolliver informed the United States District Court that they had negotiated the settlement of their claims with several parties, including David McNair (King’s physician’s assistant) and the corporate entities consisting of Teays Valley Health Services, Inc. d/b/a Putnam General Hospital, HCA, Inc., Healthtrust, Inc.-The Hospital Company, and Hospital Corp., LLC.  The plaintiffs’ motion to lift the stay also identified several cases in which further proceedings, such as the appointment of a guardian ad litem or court approval of a wrongful death settlement, are necessary. Here are the plaintiffs’ motion and Paul J. Nyden’s article in yesterday's Charleston Gazette.   

    The motion did not disclose the amount of the settlements, and informed the Court that Curry & Tolliver’s clients’ claims against King, Robert Edwards a/k/a Bob Edwards, Wright Medical Technology, Inc., and EBI L.P. would continue.  The latter two defendants manufactured spinal implant devices used by King in some of the surgeries.  Additionally, the claims of the remaining 54 plaintiffs, who are represented by other counsel, will continue against all defendants, although Nyden reported that those cases could soon settle against HCA and Putnam General.

    On Thursday, the district court granted the plaintiffs’ consolidated motion to remand the actions to the Circuit Court of Putnam County, West Virginia, finding that equitable remand was appropriate, even though the civil actions are related to King’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy and therefore conferred subject matter jurisdiction on the Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(b) and 1452(a).  Here are Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr.'s Memorandum Opinion and Order and Nyden’s article in today's Gazette.

    The district court acknowledged that the defendants’ concerns about “an irremediable taint present in the jury pool” were “no small matter,” but found that other factors argued in favor of remand.  Specifically, the court found that remand “presents no significant [bankruptcy] estate administration concerns.”  Second, although “some discrete issues respecting federal law have arisen in this action and mass removal,” those issues are “quite limited[,]” (compared to the number of issues that are “routine factual questions presented under state law negligence and damage theories that state circuit courts encounter with some frequency.”  Third, the court recognized the extensive efforts already undertaken by the state court judges to prepare the cases for trial: “A forum switch at this juncture would require perhaps multiple judicial officers in this district to familiarize themselves with the voluminous record and rulings made in the circuit court.  Comity is necessarily threatened in such a setting.”  Thus, the court concluded “that a majority of the applicable factors weigh[ed] in favor of equitable remand[,]” and remanded the 124 actions to circuit court.

    Finally, one other story in the Gazette this week about King discussed a development, which, because of its relative insignificance, I have saved for the end of this post.  According to Nyden’s article in Wednesday’s edition, King has applied to become a real estate appraiser in Tennessee, Before you start laughing, his application “for trainee registration and exam approval” was approved unanimously by the Tennessee Real Estate Appraiser Commission at its December meeting.  King’s plan is to work as a physician for 10 to 12 days per year and spend the balance of the year working as an appraiser.

    Apparently, King did not tell the commission about the medical malpractice lawsuits pending against him in West Virginia or Alabama, but, according to the minutes of the December meeting, did explain that he had to leave West Virginia because “’he was a whistleblower against a group of physicians who were participating in health-care fraud[,]’” who “’made false accusations against him to the West Virginia Medical Board that led to other medical boards suspending his license.’”

    Not surprisingly, the commission’s administrative director has sought guidance from the national Appraisal Foundation about how to process King’s application.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

    A Kanawha County (Charleston), West Virginia jury has awarded $5 million in compensatory damages and $20 million in punitive damages to a surgeon who claimed that Charleston Area Medical Center damaged his reputation and improperly revoked his privileges over a dispute about his professional liability coverage.  CAMC has promised to appeal the verdict.  Here are Eric Eyre’s article about the verdict in yesterday’s Charleston Gazette and his article from last week when the trial began.

    The trouble started in 2004 when Dr. R. E. Hamrick, Jr. decided to self-insure his professional liability coverage by placing $1 million in a trust account.  CAMC challenged his right to do so, and revoked his privileges on September 10, 2004.  Hamrick appealed the revocation, and the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia issued a preliminary injunction on September 16, 2004, ordering CAMC to reinstate his privileges, and subsequently entered a standing order that enabled him to continue to care for his patients.

    Hamrick filed suit against CAMC, alleging, inter alia, that it engaged in misconduct regarding his professional liability insurance and damaged his reputation by revoking his privileges.  In 2005, the circuit court ruled that CAMC failed to show that Hamrick’s self-insurance was actuarially unsound or violated the Medical Professional Liability Act, and granted summary judgment in his favor.  The Supreme Court voted 5-0 not to hear CAMC’s appeal.

    In 2006, CAMC changed its policy to allow physicians to insure themselves, and the West Virginia Legislature enacted § 55-7B-12 of the Medical Professional Liability Act, which authorizes a physician to self-insure by establishing an irrevocable trust of not less than $1 million.

    Assuming that the judgment order is entered without too much delay, CAMC's petition for appeal will be considered during the Supreme Court's Fall Term, which starts in September. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

    The focus of the medical malpractice litigation against discredited surgeon John A. King has moved to federal court as the parties deal with the effect of King’s bankruptcy.  Here is my post from last week about the removal to federal court of some (as of that point) of the cases against King.

    Last week, United States Bankruptcy Judge Thomas B. Bennett (who formerly practiced in Charleston, West Virginia) of the Northern District of Alabama granted the motions filed by eight plaintiffs and lifted the automatic stay against litigation in their cases against King that had been pending in the Circuit Court of Putnam County, West Virginia.  King consented to the stay being lifted in the cases.  Here are one of the motions to lift the stay and the order granting the motion.

    Yesterday, Teays Valley Health Services, LLC f/k/a Teays Valley Health Services, Inc. d/b/a Putnam General Hospital, HCA Inc., Healthtrust, Inc.-The Hospital Company, and Hospital Corp., LLC, who are also defendants in the lawsuits against King, filed motions in the first ten cases set for trial (which include the eight cases in which the plaintiffs filed their motions) to lift the automatic stay in order to pursue their cross-claims against King.  Here is one of the motions filed by the defendants.  The defendants’ motions have been set for a final hearing on January 17, 2008.

    Meanwhile, in federal court in West Virginia, the defendants have removed the 124 cases (121 cases according to the plaintiffs) against King to the Southern District at Charleston, where they have been assigned to Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr.  Judge Copenhaver conducted a case management conference on December 20 and entered this order on December 21, which designated one of the cases as the lead case and established a briefing schedule for the plaintiffs’ consolidated motion to remand and the defendants’ response.  Here are the plaintiffs’ motion to remand and memorandum in support, which were filed today.  The defendants’ response is due by January 28, 2008, and the plaintiffs’ reply is due within ten days thereafter.  Judge Copenhaver’s order also stays all of the cases involved in the removal, which means all of the cases against King.

    In support of their motion, the plaintiffs argue that the court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a) (regarding the removal of claims related to bankruptcy cases) and alternatively because of principles of abstention and equity.  I expect that the court will rule promptly on the plaintiffs' motion, probably in late February or early March.  If the court grants the motion to remand, then the first group of cases can be rescheduled for trial, as the Bankruptcy Court has lifted the stay in those cases and there is no other impediment (at this point) to trial. 
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

    A few days ago, I wrote that John King, the discredited surgeon who practiced at Putnam General Hospital, had filed his bankruptcy schedules, which showed that his only asset is a 1993 Volvo with a value of $500.

    I understand that counsel for some of the plaintiffs in the medical malpractice actions against King had already moved the Circuit Court of Putnam County to lift the stay imposed by King's bankruptcy and had scheduled a hearing for December 20.  Last week, though, the defendants removed several of the actions to federal court on the grounds that claims or causes of action related to a pending bankruptcy case may be removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a).   Here are the removal petition and an exhibit that have been filed in one of the cases against King. 

    At this point, the plaintiffs' remedy is to move to remand the actions to state court.  That motion must be filed within 30 days of the filing of the removal petition, unless the basis for the motion is that the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, which may be raised at any point prior to final judgment.

    I noticed that in King's bankruptcy petition and his schedules, he identified himself as John King, and not as Christopher Wallace Martin, which has been his name since he legally changed it in 2006.  But according to Paul J. Nyden's story in the Sunday Gazette-Mail, King has changed his name back to John Anderson King, based on a November 14 filing in the Jefferson County (Alabama) Probate Court.  Apparently, King did not give any reason for this change, unlike the one last year, which he claimed was necessary because he was the victim of identity theft perpetrated by a former co-worker.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

    After filing his emergency Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition on November 21 in United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Dr. John King filed his schedules on Tuesday, and listed his only asset as a 1993 Volvo, estimated value $500.  Here are King's bankruptcy petition and the schedules of assets and liabilities.

    Last month, I wrote about the possibility of King filing for bankruptcy and the effect that the filing would have on the medical malpractice trial that was set to begin, at that point, on November 27, which was changed to December 3.    

    Paul J. Nyden wrote about King's bankruptcy filing in yesterday's Charleston Gazette, and pointed out that while King identified his sole asset as the Volvo on the schedules (which must be verified as true and correct under penalty of perjury), he described his assets very differently in a hearing last year before the Circuit Court of Putnam County, West Virginia (where 122 medical malpractice cases are pending against King and other defendants).  

    At that time, King testified under oath that "he had assets in 11 different offshore and domestic accounts.  His offshore assets were contained in a limited liability company and in a trust fund established in San Jose, Costa Rica.  King testified he also held assets in nine other trusts and accounts, four of which were based in Nevada, including an 'irrevocable life insurance trust.'  King's accounts included: the Bone Maker Trust, the Bone Crusher Trust, and the Bone Lover Trust." 

    So what happened to those assets and trusts?  King didn't list them on his schedules.  And although King has changed his name to Christopher Wallace Martin, he did not mention that name anywhere in his filing.  In any event, the immediate effect of King's filing is to stay the pending malpractice cases against him for 90 days, and perhaps longer. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

    On Wednesday, Charleston Gazette reporter Paul J. Nyden wrote that the first medical malpractice trial against Dr. John King would start on November 27 in Putnam County, despite a request by Putnam General Hospital to change the venue.

    At a hearing on Tuesday, Circuit Judge O. C. Spaulding declined to move the trial, but acknowledged that continued publicity could require a change of venue.  PGH also urged the court to reverse the determination that punitive damages could be awarded against the hospital, as a result of the verdict earlier this year when PGH and its parent, HCA, were found to have negligently hired and credentialed King as an orthopedic surgeon.  Spaulding upheld the verdict, which means that punitive damages are available to the plaintiffs in the 122 pending cases. 

    Then, another article by Nyden in yesterday’s Saturday Gazette-Mail described a development that could affect the cases, at least temporarily.  At a previously scheduled pre-trial hearing on Friday, Judge Spaulding reported that King’s lawyer had contacted him and indicated that King intends to file for personal bankruptcy, perhaps as early as this coming week.  As a result, Spaulding postponed the trial scheduled for November 27 until December 3.

    Federal bankruptcy law would give King an automatic stay of at least 90 days, and perhaps considerably longer.  The plaintiffs’ lawyers could move to lift the stay in order for the cases to proceed, but I think the bankruptcy court would likely keep the stay in effect.

    I will post King’s bankruptcy petition as soon as it is available.  At this point, it’s impossible to know his financial condition and whether his decision to file for bankruptcy is simply intended to delay the trial or is motivated by some other consideration.  I doubt that the plaintiffs have ever expected to collect anything from King personally.  With 122 cases, many of which present absolutely egregious instances of malpractice, any meaningful recovery for the plaintiffs would have to come from the other defendants, including PGH and HCA. 

    Spaulding has scheduled another pre-trial hearing for November 28 and will begin jury selection on November 29, unless the proceedings are stayed by King’s bankruptcy.  More trials are scheduled to start in January 2008, which would also be affected by any filing.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

    In a ruling issued last month, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia ruled that a circuit court should have given the plaintiffs the opportunity to amend their complaint against two local hospitals in accordance with the West Virginia Medical Professional Liability Act (MPLA), rather than suffer the dismissal of their lawsuit for failure to comply with its provisions.  Blankenship v. Ethicon, Inc., 2007 WL 30344262 (W.Va.).

    In 2003, the plaintiffs filed suit against several defendants, including Charleston Area Medical Center and Herbert J. Thomas Memorial Hospital, resulting from the implantation of contaminated sutures.  The plaintiffs asserted several causes of action against the defendants, including product liability claims for negligence, strict liability, and breach of express and implied warranties, violations of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress.  The plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages and equitable relief in the form of an investigation by the hospitals to investigate and determine “what patients were implanted with the Vicryl sutures and to then inform the patients so identified of the defective condition of those sutures.”

    The hospitals alleged that any claims against them must be pled according to the MPLA, which required the plaintiffs to obtain a certificate of merit for their claims and to provide the hospitals with pre-suit notice of the action. The hospitals moved for summary judgment on the grounds the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by their failure to comply with the MPLA.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

    In the Saturday Gazette-Mail (Charleston, West Virginia), Tom Searls has a nice recap on Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital's appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeals from a $6.5 million verdict in a medical malpractice trial.  I wrote yesterday that the Court rejected the petition by a vote of 3-2.

    Also in the paper is an article on Marshall University's decision to start disciplining students who are accused of downloading songs illegally.  Marshall's decision was apparently prompted by the lawsuits filed by some record companies against two students, which I wrote about earlier today.  Although 20 Marshall students received pre-litigation settlement letters from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in February, and nine more received them last month, Marshall had not previously taken any disciplinary action.  According to Stephen Hensley, the dean of student affairs, who is quoted in the article, the students' use of Marshall's network to download and/or distribute the songs violates the university's code of conduct and carries the risk of disciplinary action.

    Marshall needs to be careful in how it proceeds.  It has an interest in upholding its code of conduct and giving students a disincentive from engaging in similar conduct, but it cannot and should not rely solely on the RIAA's allegations against a student as the basis for any disciplinary action.  As noted in a 2005 post in the blog, Ars Technica,

But the RIAA has been wrong before, as it was in its 2003 suit against Sarah Seabury Ward, a sixty-something sculptor who was accused of downloading gangsta rap. The suit was eventually withdrawn, but the case (and others like it, including one against a dead grandmother) does shed some doubt on the RIAA's ability to correctly identify the infringing party.   With Santangelo's case now headed for trial, a judge's ruling may provide more clarity about what the RIAA can and cannot do in its war on musical piracy.

    There is also an equal protection issue.  It isn't clear from the Gazette-Mail article whether Marshall is going to discipline only the two students who have been sued or the nine who received the RIAA's pre-litigation settlement letters.  But if it's going to act against the nine who received the letters last month, what's it going to do about the 20 students who received the letters in February?   Dean Hensley's explanation that, "We were new at it then, and we're not so new at it now," isn't very reassuring. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

    As a follow up to yesterday's post, the Supreme Court of Appeals refused, by a vote of 3-2, Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital's petition for appeal from an adverse jury verdict of $4,834,380.00, which was rendered last year in a medical malpractice case. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (2)

    Yesterday on the Supreme Court of Appeals' motion docket, Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital presented its petition for appeal from a verdict in an action alleging wrongful death due to medical malpractice.  In March 2006, the Wood County jury returned a verdict of $6.5 million, which was subsequently reduced to $4,834,380.00 to reflect an offset from a settlement with another party.   Bernard Boggs, Administrator v. Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital Corp., Nos. 063408 and 070578. 

    In addition to the jury verdict's in the underlying action that was before the Court yesterday, this is the case that also resulted in an award of sanctions against the hospital and its counsel for more than $1.3 million a few months ago.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

    I have written on several occasions about the medical malpractice cases that are pending against Dr. John King and Putnam General Hospital, where he was employed from November 2002 until June 2003.  In July, a jury found that Putnam General Hospital and its parent, HCA, are liable for negligently hiring and credentialing King to perform orthopedic surgery.  I also wrote about a video that was mysteriously posted on YouTube, which purported to contain clips from certain plaintiffs' depositions followed by clips from surveillance videos.

    Two days ago, In the Sunday Gazette-Mail (Charleston, WV), Paul J. Nyden wrote that King has sued John Fitzpatrick and John Jessee, two of the lawyers who have represented Putnam General and HCA in the litigation, and their firm, LeClair Ryan.  Jessee still practices at the firm, but Fitzpatrick left earlier this year and joined Wheeler Trigg Kennedy LLP in Denver.  The suit was filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.  King v. LeClair Ryan, et al., Civil Action No. 5:07-CV-00112-RS-AK.

    In King's complaint, which is accompanied by 17 exhibits, he basically alleges that the  defendants' defense of the hospital has adversely affected his ability to practice medicine and has been responsible for the adverse publicity he has received.  The exhibits include copies of newspaper articles, correspondence, and pleadings from the underlying malpractice litigation.    (Although King has legally changed his name from "John Anderson King" to "Christopher Wallace Martin," he identifies himself in the complaint as "John Christopher King.")

    Counsel for John Jessee today filed a motion to dismiss and supporting memorandum on the grounds that Jessee has not committed any acts that would subject him to the court's jurisdiction, nor does Jessee have sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to support an action against him there.   There have been no responsive pleadings filed by or on behalf of LeClair Ryan or Fitzpatrick. 

    This is not the first lawsuit that King has brought against lawyers who have represented Putnam General Hospital.  King has been a plaintiff in several lawsuits in federal court for the Southern District of West Virginia.  He has sued, in various actions, a wide range of defendants, including multiple lawyers and law firms, Putnam General Hospital, its officers and directors,  the American Osteopathic  Association, the American  Medical Association, and the Daily Gazette Company (which publishes the Charleston Gazette and the Daily Mail).   All of the cases have been dismissed on the defendants' motions, which is the same fate that will befall King's lawsuit in Florida federal court.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

    In June, I wrote about the gag order imposed by Putnam County Circuit Judge O.C. Spaulding in the medical malpractice cases pending against Dr. John King.  The order was prompted, at least in part, by a video that appeared on YouTube, which purported to show one of the plaintiffs pushing a shopping cart, which she apparently had testified she was no longer able to do.  The trouble was the woman in the video wasn't the plaintiff, she was someone unrelated to the litigation.  At a hearing on June 8, the defense lawyers admitted to giving materials to their media consultant, who provided them to (unnamed) third parties.  The court also entered an order, effective June 8, sealing all pleadings filed in the cases.

    Now, according to Associated Press reporter Larry Messina, whose story appeared in yesterday's Charleston (West Virginia) Gazette, on June 26 (more than two weeks after the gag order was entered), another video was posted on YouTube, which consisted of clips from six of the plaintiffs' depositions, followed by clips from surveillance videos of five of the plaintiffs, showing them purportedly engaged in activities they said they couldn't perform.  Messina's attempts to reach the poster were not successful, and I was unable to find the video today on YouTube when I searched for it.  Judge Spaulding is apparently aware of the video, but has not indicated how he intends to proceed.

    Obviously, the video was intended to portray the plaintiffs negatively, but even if its goal was to make them look sympathetic, it is prohibited by the gag order.  Judge Spaulding should make a serious inquiry into how the video ended up on YouTube, and sanction whomever is responsible.  The other Putnam County judge presiding over the King malpractice cases, Edward Eagloski, has already revoked the pro hac vice admission of a Texas lawyer who had appeared on behalf of the defendants, and the same thing could easily happen here.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks