Personal Injury Law Podcast by Rosenfeld Injury Lawyers

In this episode Jonathan Rosenfeld chats with Jim Hardy an Attorney at Taxman, Pollock, Murray, & Bekkerman, LLC. Here, they discuss:

Read the Transcript

Download the PDF

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

Hello everybody, thank you for tuning into the personal injury podcast. I am Jonathan Rosenfeld, and today I am joined by Jim Hardy. Jim is an experienced work comp attorney at Taxman, Pollock, Murray, and Bekkerman in Chicago. And we are going to talk today about the preliminary areas of workers' compensation. Jim, thanks for joining me today. I appreciate it.

Jim Hardy:

Thank you, Jonathan.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

I appreciate you joining me. Could you just give us a little bit of background about your position and your experience with work comp?

Jim Hardy:

Sure. I'm a partner at Taxman, Pollock, Murray, Bekkerman and we're a personal injury workers' comp law firm. I am the head of the department that handles the work comp claims in the office. I'd been doing work comp my entire career and exclusively, that's all I do is work comp cases. I've been involved in the Illinois Work Comp Lawyers Association for about 12 years now. That's the state bar association for work comp lawyers, 700 members strong. And I was a recent president two years ago of the organization after being on the board for about 10, 12 years prior to that. So a lot of experience in work comp and I'm happy to share my information and knowledge.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

Awesome. So to begin with, I think one of the preliminary questions that a lot of people have, and this is sort of a massive question, but if you could just sort of give us a little breakdown of what workers' compensation is and sort of how the system came to be, that would be great.

Jim Hardy:

Sure. So the work comp system is something that started up back in the industrial age, back in the 1920s and each state has their own law with regard to work comp. It's not a federal system. So each state has an act and in Illinois, they have the Illinois Work Comp Act that lays out the rights and the benefits that injured workers have in the state of Illinois. And so basically it takes over if you're injured while performing your work duties. It takes over from your regular insurance that you might have, the group health carrier, it takes over from them and pays the medical bills. And that's the primary benefit. They pay all reasonable, necessary and related medical bills. And the second benefit in the Illinois Work Comp Act is payment for lost earnings. So in other words, due to the injury, if you have a doctor's note that takes you off work, then the work comp insurance pays you and they pay you a certain percentage of your old wages. And then you get that tax free. It comes to about what you may take home after taxes prior to the work accident.

Jim Hardy:

And the third benefit and the most important one is that you're entitled to and you have a right to a settlement in work comp, and that's based on the nature and extent of the injury, the permanency of the injury. And those are the three basic benefits, but they're all very important. And it's very common that if you have a work comp case, that you can start with an adjuster and the adjuster will give you benefits, but you don't know if she's giving you or he's giving you the correct amount in the benefits, doing the calculations correctly, paying the bills correctly, paying for all the treatment that's being recommended. So that's why, in addition to securing a settlement, that's why it's important to have an attorney on your side helping you through the process.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

So I guess to begin with, who is covered under workers' compensation? Is everyone covered under workers' compensation under the law?

Jim Hardy:

Almost everybody in the state of Illinois. There are certain exceptions to that and they're rare. In the statute, city of Chicago, policemen and firemen are excluded from the Illinois Work Comp Act because they have their own disability system, duty disability system. Other than that, there are exceptions for independent contractors. If you're, this is quite similar to what happens in the trucking industry where you're an owner-operator, you're an independent contractor and you get paid on a 1099, so you're really your own employee. You have your own company, even though you're working for a trucking company and they're paying you.

Jim Hardy:

So in that situation, the independent contractor wouldn't be covered under the trucking company's work comp insurance coverage, but frequently the independent contractor will have their own policy that they take out for themselves and they'd be covered under that. And then other than that, pretty much everybody is covered except for some exceptions, for family farm workers and so forth. But it's pretty wide ranging, if you're performing work for an employer and you're getting paid for it, even if it's cash, they are supposed to have work comp insurance that covers you under state law. So it's pretty wide ranging, if you're working in Illinois getting paid for your work, then you're likely covered.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

So this covers part-time employees, it would cover someone who's got a summer job or something as well?

Jim Hardy:

Sure. Yeah. Part-time employees you're covered doesn't matter, first day on the job, covered, doesn't matter. That's fine. You don't have to be there a certain length of time. You could even, a situation where you're doing temporary work, you're only going to work for somebody seasonal, for the summer or something like that. You're still covered because you're an employee and you're on the books there as an employee. And they, under state law, that employer has to cover you for the work comp insurance. So that's how it works and it's a fairly good system.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

Under the law in Illinois, employers are required to carry workers' comp insurance. Is that correct?

Jim Hardy:

That's correct. If they don't, then the Illinois Department of Insurance can fine that employer and they do enforce that pretty heavily. And there are fines for the number of days that you're going without insurance. If the lapses, the employer can get hit with penalties and fines for that, or if it's an employer that simply does not, refuses just to carry work comp, the state of Illinois can come in and shut that business down until such time that they do purchase and buy a work comp insurance policy. They're pretty strict so it's rare to find a situation where the person is not covered when they're supposed to be.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

Okay. So in Illinois, everyone's required to have work comp insurance. And I guess obviously, when we talk about workers' comp, we're typically talking about, for the most part, we're talking about an acute injury, an accident for the most part. And this could be a fall, this could be an auto accident. This could be really anything that an employee is doing in furtherance of their employment, correct?

Jim Hardy:

That's correct.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

That's basically the encompassing definition of work comp coverage in Illinois?

Jim Hardy:

That's correct. And that was the idea behind the law is to help injured workers who are performing their duties and they're injured. And so that they're not just, in the old days before they have work comp, of course they were just left hanging and there was no insurance, of course. Back in the old days, somebody would get hurt, they just keep working or they would, if they had any money to go to a doctor, they try and go to a doctor, but there was no safety net. So then the states came in with these laws and it's precisely that, to help people who are injured at work. And there are certain rules about what's covered. Some things, it's important to get an attorney to check, because some things that you think might not be covered under a work comp or some activities at which you were injured might not be covered, but they are.

Jim Hardy:

For instance, the classic parking lot cases. If you punch out and you're walking to your car in the company parking lot where you've been designated to park at and you slip and fall on ice on the way out there, or trip and fall on some landscaping or something like this, that's covered under work comp, because you're still covered. You're still in the furtherance of the employer and performing work duties because you have to park your car in order to help your employer by going into their facility to work. So the work comp law says that you're covered as long as you're parking in an employee owned and maintained and designated parking lot under work comp. Bu...

In this episode Jonathan Rosenfeld chats with Martin D. Gould an Attorney at Romanucci & Blandin, LLC. Here, they discuss:

Read the Transcript

Download the PDF

Johnathan Rosenfeld:

Hello, I am Johnathan Rosenfeld. Today, I am joined today with Marty Gould on the Personal Injury podcast, and I am going to talk with Marty about an emerging area of product liability litigation involving Paraquat herbicide. Marty, I appreciate you joining me today. Thank you.

Marty Gould:

Thanks for having me on, John.

Johnathan Rosenfeld:

Now, Marty, we are sort of really in the early, early, early phases of what may emerge to be a very, very significant piece of product liability litigation involving Paraquat. First off, can you just give us a little bit of overview in terms of what Paraquat is, and how it's used, and why it's used?

Marty Gould:

Paraquat is a chemical herbicide that's used primarily in farming. It can also be used to kill weeds. And if you're a farmer, or a landscaper, or a groundskeeper, a gardener, you probably come into contact with Paraquat. In 2011, a study by the National Institute of Health found that people exposed to Paraquat are approximately 2.5 times or 250% more likely to develop Parkinson's Disease.

Johnathan Rosenfeld:

So today we're seeing there's been a trickle of lawsuits that have been filed down in southern Illinois, but we're seeing a trickle of lawsuits that have been filed primarily by agricultural workers who have been exposed to Paraquat during their work. The allegations are that they were never warned of the potential dangers related to Paraquat. Is that correct?

Marty Gould:

That's correct. Now that we're publicly finding out about the links between Paraquat and Parkinson's, lawsuits have been filed. A lot of them in southern Illinois against various companies that manufactured it or sold it. Most of these plaintiffs are Illinois crop dusters, or farmers, landscapers, and it's essentially that there was knowledge about these harms that weren't disclosed to the consumers.

Johnathan Rosenfeld:

So, whenever you bring in a case in terms of product's liability, you have to make these allegations in your complaint. The primary allegation, I guess at this point, is that these manufacturers knew or should have known of these dangers but failed to put any warnings on the product while they were using this. Correct?

Marty Gould:

And that's essentially the basis of the complaints is that they knew about a harm. Just like in all the other cases with Zantec or Roundup, there was knowledge from studies in their own independent research about these harms, or the risk of harm, and the failure to warn the consumer that use of it could increase the risks of Parkinson's or whatever the disease might be. They have certain obligations to consumers in regards to putting them on notice.

Johnathan Rosenfeld:

Now, these cases are really in the early stages. I anticipate there's going to be many, many, many more of these cases coming forward, many more lawsuits coming forward. It's safe to say that there have not been any settlements related to Paraquat lawsuits at this time?

Marty Gould:

Not any on a wide-scale basis, but there has been a lot going on in terms of Paraquat and various countries is reviewing Paraquat, its safety. So the European Union banned the herbicide back in 2007. China, Brazil, and several other countries have abandoned its use. And I don't think we're too far away from seeing it banned in many other countries.

Johnathan Rosenfeld:

Now, we can talk a little bit about or look to the litigation involving Roundup weed killer herbicide and what we've seen in terms of those lawsuits and the damages and those lawsuits, can you talk a little bit about the damages that may be available in a Paraquat lawsuit?

Marty Gould:

So in a personal injury case, you can seek compensation for your lost income, your lost earning capacity if we established that you did have Parkinson's or increased your risk of Parkinson's and it caused all sorts of damages and you couldn't work, those are all things you can legally get compensated for. But also, more importantly, you get compensated for the physical and emotional pain and suffering, and the tremors that you're getting, the physical pains you get. These are all things that you can legally seek financial compensation for. And that's why it's important to speak with a lawyer to find out what your rights are and what types of compensation you can personally collect in your case.

Johnathan Rosenfeld:

Marty, some of these people who may be watching this video today or listening to this podcast, they may have been affected either individually or they may have a family member who's been impacted by the use of Paraquat or Paraquat exposure. What would you tell them in terms of moving forward? A lot of times, these people may be sitting back and they may be thinking, "Oh, you know what? This happened years ago. I may not have a claim. The time may have evaporated for me to pursue a case." What would you tell these people?

Marty Gould:

It's important to speak with a lawyer who can examine your specific facts and know your rights. Many states have laws that allow you to still bring claims even if your exposure was from decades ago or your Parkinson's that you had was diagnosed decades ago because many states have what's called the Discovery Rule. It's the point in time that you realize that your harm was caused by the defendant's negligence. So, it's important always consult with a lawyer even if you think maybe it's too late or maybe you think that there could be other causes of the Parkinson's to find out what your rights are and see if there's a possible connection.

Johnathan Rosenfeld:

Marty, this was great information. I appreciate you joining me today. Thank you.

Marty Gould:

Thanks for having me on, Jon.

In this episode Jonathan Rosenfeld chats with Martin D. Gould an Attorney at Romanucci & Blandin, LLC. Here, they discuss:

Read the Transcript

Download the PDF

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

Hello, and good afternoon. I am Jonathan Rosenfeld, and today I am joined by Marty Gould. Marty is currently working on many lawsuits involving Zantac and the development of cancer. Marty, first off, thank you for joining me today, I appreciate it.

Marty Gould:

Thanks for having me on, Jon.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

Now, Marty, this is a really quickly emerging area of mass tort litigation that we're seeing. A lot of people have been taking Zantac and the generic version of Zantac over the past 10, 20 years. And today we are learning that some of these people are developing various types of cancers after taking these drugs, both prescription and over the counter. Today I want to run through with you some of the most frequently asked questions by people related to this litigation. I want to run through the four most common questions asked by people who have a potential Zantac case. These are based on the data that we're seeing today from Google search, frankly. I wanted to go through with you quickly, so we can get this information to people in a concise way. First off, has Zantac been withdrawn from the market?

Marty Gould:

Yes, it has. Jon, in September, 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration reported that there was a link between one of the ingredients of Zantac and NDMA in cancer, and they issued a public warning. And then in April, 2020, the FDA announced that all Zantac brand heartburn drugs, prescription and over the counter, should be immediately pulled from the market because of potential NDMA contamination. And subsequently, retailers across the country, Walmart, Walgreens, CVS, suspended the sale of the over-the-counter Zantac and ranitidine products.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

Second question for you, what type of cancer is related to Zantac use? What types of cancers are you seeing today in claims and lawsuits that you are filing against the different manufacturers of these drugs?

Marty Gould:

We represent hundreds and hundreds of individuals that have cancer because of Zantac use, or in tragic situations, the families of people deceased because of that cancer. From our experiences and from the research, the cancers most commonly linked to Zantac use or ranitidine use are bladder cancer, colon cancer, prostate cancer, kidney cancer, liver cancer, stomach cancer, and breast cancer. There's also some potential cancers that have a weaker link to the use of Zantac that we're still looking at, and those include pancreatic, ovarian, and melanoma.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

One of the questions that we're seeing over and over again by people, is there a settlement related to Zantac lawsuits at this time, as of today's date, we are today April, 2021? Is there a Zantac lawsuit settlement?

Marty Gould:

There is not a Zantac lawsuit settlement yet, at least not on a wide scale. The cases are all being consolidated, or most of them are, in a multi-district litigation in federal court. There hasn't been any bellwether cases yet, but we're very optimistic that there is going to be a settlement and a resolution for our clients and for many of the other victims and survivors out there.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

Along these lines, a lot of people are also looking into what the value of these cases are. They're asking, "What is a Zantac lawsuit worth?" While we don't know what the cases are worth in terms of dollars and cents today, can you just give us a rundown of the damages potentially available in these cases?

Marty Gould:

Sure. In a personal injury case, you can get what's called economic and non-economic damages. In terms of economic damages, you can get compensation for lost income, so if you got cancer and you couldn't work. Or God forbid it was your loved one who got cancer and is deceased, you can get compensation for the lost income that your family would have had in lost earning capacity or lost future income, medical bills. You can get compensation for all your medical bills. And then you can get the non-economic damages, which can be very significant in a case. And that includes the emotional distress, the physical and emotional pain and suffering. And then there's something called loss of consortium. If you've lost a loved one because of cancer caused by Zantac, you can recover for loss of familial support from having that person around and supporting your loss of love. So it's important to speak with a lawyer to just understand your rights and what types of compensation is available under law.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

Marty, this was great information, and I really look forward to talking with you in the future as this litigation continues to move forward. Thank you.

Marty Gould:

Thanks for having me on, Jon.

In this episode Jonathan Rosenfeld chats with Martin D. Gould an Attorney at Romanucci & Blandin, LLC. Here, they discuss:

Read the Transcript

Download the PDF

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

Hello. Thank you for joining me today. I am Jonathan Rosenfeld and today on the Personal Injury Podcast, I am joined by my colleague, Marty Gould, and we are going to talk a little bit about an emerging area of litigation, which is abuse in a drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility. Marty, first off, thank you for joining me today.

Marty Gould:

Thanks for having me on, Jon.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

Now, one of the areas that's really come out in the past few years in terms of medical treatment, is this whole concept of drug and alcohol rehabilitation facilities for people who may have had substance problems as children, as adults. And a lot of these facilities have opened up across the country. They promise everyone an opportunity, in a lot of situations, to get clean, get sober during a short term rehabilitation stay, where they live in a facility for maybe a 30 day, 60 day, 90 day period. And unfortunately, one of the things that we're seeing here, which is really no different than abuse in other closed environments, such as a boarding school, is we're seeing the instructors and some of the other supervisors involved, mistreat these people who may be in a particularly vulnerable situation and very difficult time in their life.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

What have you seen in terms of your experience? What are you seeing in terms of abuse and mistreatment in these institutions?

Marty Gould:

Well, Jon, substance abuse has become a national epidemic. The national survey on drug use and health, estimates that 20.7 million people needed substance abuse treatment in 2017. So a lot of these people are going to facilities, whether it's a live-in facility or a day facility, to get treatment so they can get on the right path. And what I've seen in some of our cases is whether it's an unknown rehab center or a small one up in to the most prestigious ones throughout the country, is that you'll have a staff member or a counselor take advantage of these vulnerable people and engage in sexual relationships, which are prohibited or should be prohibited by every institution, because they know these people are vulnerable. And it derails them. They start using drugs again because of it, or they're out doing things that they're not supposed to be doing, with the counselor.

Marty Gould:

And some of the cases that we have, the counselor or the staff member was engaging in a relationship with the patient, financially exploits them. Ask them for loans, "Can I borrow a thousand dollars?" That turns into 15,000. That turns into $50,000 and they find ways to take advantage of these people. And if any anything like that happens, you have a potential legal claim against the individual and the entity. They have to make sure that there's policies and procedures in place to protect their patients and to make sure this type of thing doesn't happen. They're aware that it can happen and that the patients are uniquely vulnerable.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

You know, I think one of the really sad things in these situations is the fact is, as you just stated, the emergence of these facilities out there, the growth of this industry, has really expanded way beyond the capacity of any state's legislatures to implement any laws or safeguards to protect patients at these facilities. And so what we're seeing right now is a lot of times, states are playing catch up in terms of trying to apply laws and regulations to these facilities that may have essentially gone unregulated for some time. But at the end of the day, as a victim of abuse, you still have the ability to pursue a civil claim against the institution, just as if you're the victim of abuse in a church set.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

Can you talk a little bit about what's involved in terms of civil claims for victims of abuse in a drug or rehab facility?

Marty Gould:

Sure. Jon, as you mentioned, the federal government doesn't really have an official definition of what constitutes a drug treatment or rehabilitation center. So, the licensing can vary from state to state, and unlike in a doctor's office or a medical facility, drug rehab facilities are treated like businesses under the eye. They're not as closely regulated. But they still have duties that they owe their patients. There's still obligations, rules that they have to follow based off just the standards in the industry, and the violation of those standards, like permitting a staff member or counselor to engage in sexual relationships or financially exploit patients, serves the basis for liability, and we file claims of negligence. Failure to adequately screen or negligent hiring of a staff member, negligent supervision, failure to investigate. We even had a counselor at one of these facilities, disclose confidential information to a patient's spouse when the relationship went sour. That's a violation of countless roles. One is, you can't have a relationship with your patient and two is, you certainly can't disclose confidential information to any third party.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

I think it's important to realize that in these situations, it's not just episodes of sexual abuse that give rise to civil claims. It can be other privacy violations. It can be other situations involving defamation of character. These cases typically go way beyond some of the more traditional sex abuse claims that you and I handle, correct?

Marty Gould:

That's correct. There's nine different types of negligence and abuse that can occur in a drug treatment center. And the key to the equation there is that these people are uniquely vulnerable. They're there to get help, and it's very important to make sure that the policies and procedures are in place to ensure that they do get that help, and that they're not exploited and abused.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

Well, Marty, this is really an area of litigation that unfortunately, I don't think we're going to really be hearing the end of any time soon. But I really appreciate your time, and I'm going to look forward to talking with you about these situations, if it comes up in the future. Thank you.

Marty Gould:

Thanks for having me on, Jon.

In this episode Jonathan Rosenfeld chats with Martin D. Gould an Attorney at Romanucci & Blandin, LLC. Here, they discuss:

Read the Transcript

Download the PDF

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

Good afternoon. I am Jonathan Rosenfeld. And today on the Personal Injury Podcast, I am joined by my colleague, Attorney Martin Gould. And Marty, I am going to talk with you a little bit about an emerging area of litigation involving abuse in an orphanage setting. Now, orphanages in today's world are... they're not really a commonplace occurrence. This was not the case decades ago. And unfortunately, one of the things that we're seeing today is that there was a lot of abuse carried on at these institutions behind closed doors over the past 20, 30, 40 years. Can you share a little bit of background about these cases and about some of the cases that you're seeing today?

Martin Gould:

No, John, the orphanage cases, I think, are some of the worst cases out there because you're dealing with children that are the most vulnerable. They're at an orphanage for a reason. You got no parents that are looking out for them. And I would argue that there's even a higher level, higher duty that's owed to these children to make sure that they're safe. And unfortunately, it has been a breeding ground for a lot of abuse for decades. Now, orphanages aren't as common now. The Department of Children and Family Services has now made a preference for foster care facilities so all orphans aren't in one location, but there's many cases such as Maryville Academy in the Chicago land area, Angel and Guardian Orphanage, where they had clergy that were abusing children, volunteers or other staff that were abusing young children. And it has been the basis for many of the cases that you and I have, in terms of filing lawsuits and seeking other types of recovery.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

So, in some of these cases, we're talking about the orphanage itself, but we're also talking, in a lot of situations, about a religious organization that may be sponsoring the orphanage, or may be sponsoring the foster care. In those situations where you have a religious organization who may be providing the funding and may be providing some of the staffing, they may be overseeing the placement of some of these children, do those religious organizations hold some responsibility when there is abuse that's carried out at these institutions?

Martin Gould:

Yes. So, ultimately, a lot of these religious organizations were being paid by the state to run the orphanages and they were the ones responsible for the orphanages. So, if you're looking at, for example, like Angel and Guardian Orphanage, it might have been run by the archdiocese. They're owned and operated by the archdiocese or different diocese. But then they were staffed by nuns from a certain religious order. There could have been an association with a religious order that provided priests for a period of time. And then there could have been a different entity that hired the janitorial staff or the teachers. So, in those cases, it's important to speak with a lawyer who can tell you who the potential defendants are, because there may be many different entities that were responsible for the safety of the children within one institution.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

When we're talking about abuses perpetrated in an orphanage or in a foster care setting, ultimately, these victims are really entitled to damages and compensation from the perpetrators involved and from the organizations that supervised these organizations. When it comes to damages in these cases, what exactly are these victims entitled to under the law? We're here in Illinois, but in general, can you talk about the damages in these cases?

Martin Gould:

So, in a sexual abuse case, it's not always so easy to quantify our damages, but it can be the most significant type of damage you can recover in a case. And that's the psychological trauma, emotional distress, psychological and physical pain and suffering. These are all things that you legally can seek compensation for, and they can be very significant when it comes to childhood abuse. The public knows that. People understand that abuse when you're a child can cause lifelong traumas. You can also recover money for counseling, treatment, struggles you've had with addictions. These are all things that you can seek compensation for legally in most states.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

In a situation where someone is an adult and the abuse may have been perpetrated at an orphanage, in a foster care home, in another institutional setting, is there a way that they can move forward in terms of pursuing a civil claim today when that abuse may have occurred decades ago?

Martin Gould:

So, Jon, we always encourage survivors to come forward and find out what the rights are. Even in states where the statute of limitations may have expired and there's no revival statute, we still try and find a way to get resolution for the client, but every state is different and the statute limitations laws in every state are different. And it's also important to understand whether or not your state has a potential bill by the state legislature that might change the laws that allow you to bring your claims that may have already been expired years ago. You can also bring a claim even if the perpetrators are deceased. That doesn't necessarily prevent you from bringing your case and proving your case. And you should still speak with a lawyer.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

Now, for a lot of these people, reliving these episodes of abuse is traumatic, as an understatement, but can you give us a little flavor for how these cases can play out? Having spoken to a lot of victims out there, I know there's a lot of hesitation and a lot of anxiety around the fact that they may have to confront the perpetrator. In your experience, how are these cases typically play out? Are they going to be forced to be in a room alone with a perpetrator? That's a concern that comes up frequently. Can you just sort of give us a little bit of how this process works?

Martin Gould:

So, at the outset, we speak with our client, we go through a questionnaire, get as much information as we can. Then we reach out to the potential defendants, whether it's the religious institution, a public school, a private school, a former employer. And we tell them about what happened. And then we start discussing what the next steps are. Whether we can engage in a pre-suit discovery, mediation process where we can exchange information. Our client can give a statement, if they're okay with that, to let the other side know kind of what happened and how it's impacted them. Or we file a lawsuit. But it's the client and what their preferences are always control how we go about trying to seek some type of resolution settlement for them. So, it's a lot of communication back and forth regarding how they want to litigate this case and what they feel comfortable with in terms of next steps.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

And so, there's an element of control, just so people out there know, there's an element of control out there for the victims, but also in no situation would a victim ever be forced to be in a room with the perpetrator without the presence of their attorney. Correct?

Martin Gould:

That's right. We would always be present and shoulder to shoulder with our client the entire process.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

Marty, I'm going to follow up with you as some of these cases move forward. We can talk a little bit more about these cases in detail, but I really want to thank you for joining me today and sharing your insight on these really disturbing cases. Thank you.

Martin Gould:

Thanks for having me, Jon.

In this episode Jonathan Rosenfeld chats with Martin D. Gould an Attorney at Romanucci & Blandin, LLC. Here, they discuss:

Read the Transcript

Download the PDF

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

Hello. Good afternoon. Thank you for joining me today. I'm Jonathan Rosenfeld and today on ‎The Personal Injury Law Podcast, I am joined by attorney Marty Gould, and we are going to talk about a merging area of litigation involving sexual abuse that occurred in schools and specifically in boarding schools. This is an area that Marty has considerable experience with, and I really appreciate his insight. Marty, to begin with, boarding schools in general, a lot of people, a lot of parents send their children to boarding schools because they are looking for a school that can provide them with individualized instruction, where they may get some more personalized attention ... which is great, but unfortunately, I think what we're seeing in some situations is ... some teachers and some other school officials maybe taking this a little bit too far, a little bit too extreme. Can you talk a little bit about some of your experience with abuse in a boarding school setting?

Marty Gould:

Sure. Well John, there's 67 New England private boarding schools and over the past 25 years, according to a Boston Globe story, more than 200 students have accused private school authorities of sexual abuse or sexual harassment, and that includes teachers, administrators, staff members, and even in one case, an admissions officer. One of the issues with the boarding schools is that you're in a more intimate setting with the teachers. They're not only teaching you, but sometimes they're living in the dorms, they're inviting you to their homes, and because of the access that you have to a teacher, which can be good in certain circumstances, it also makes children more vulnerable. That's often where children are abused. They're groomed by somebody who's supposed to be their mentor and there's more opportunities to abuse the child because they're also interacting with the student outside of the classroom. It's like I said, sometimes even in the teacher's homes, and that's why it's important for a school to have the right policies and procedures in place to make sure students who are uniquely vulnerable at a boarding school are safe.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

I think one of the positive things of these boarding schools is that they really are all-encompassing when it comes to school, when it comes to sports, when it comes to socialization, when it comes to living arrangements. Unfortunately I think, we've seen in some situations is that these schools have really insulated the students from the outside world and sometimes these episodes of abuse may go on for some time without getting reported until after the fact. Can you share maybe, without getting into too much detail or anything, can you share some situations that you may have run into where someone is a victim in this setting?

Marty Gould:

We've had several cases involving sexual abuse of students by teachers at boarding schools. Then in one of the instances, sometimes there's a feeling to protect the school's reputation at the expense of the allegation and they either ask the teacher to quietly resign, where then they go on and they can apply to another school and they can abuse a child again. That's called passing the trash and those circumstances, you can potentially hold both institutions responsible. In a case that, John, you and I recently resolved, the school didn't have a two-adult policy in regards to having the students at teachers' houses or places that were in private, and unfortunately one teacher was able to groom a student, invite the student back to their home and then began abusing them there. That's why it's important for schools to have the right policies like a two-adult policy when it comes to being with students in private settings and other policies to make sure that the children are safe because their parents aren't around like they would be in a regular public high school or a high school you attend in your own community.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

One of the things that comes up in boarding school cases, and really all types of sexual abuse is this whole concept of grooming. When we talk about grooming, it seems sort of an innocuous type thing to begin with, but it, over time, these relationships morph from a peer relationship or a teacher-student relationship into something that transitions into something much more deviant. Can you talk a little bit about this grooming concept and what's involved in some of these situations?

Marty Gould:

John, one of the supposed benefits of attending a boarding school is the opportunity to develop close bonds with your teachers. They're in a better position, maybe, to write a recommendation because they see you so often. Predators are able to use that expectation that they'll be able to be close with that student unsupervised and they take advantage of it. So innocent invitations to go to sporting events, lunches, dinners by yourself with the teacher, can turn into building trust with that student and the student becomes confident with that relationship, and then that's when the relationship can take a turn where they can be abused.

Marty Gould:

John, in the case that we had, the teacher was using her position of power to coerce the student into continuing the relationship that they wanted to get out of. The student's grades were docked while he was attending this school and he felt like he was trapped. He was trying to get into college and then when he tried to step away from the relationship, he suffered academically. That's essentially how it happens. It's that confidence that you build and they're grooming you early on and that's how they can take advantage of you.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

Now, in boarding school cases and really all civil litigation, there's an issue of statute of limitations. A lot of times, this episode may occur when someone's young and maybe in their early teen years or something. It may not be for 10 or 20 years after the episode, that they actually develop the confidence to come forward and say, "Hey, look, this happened to me. I was a victim here." There's a lot of feelings of guilt. There's a lot of feelings of sadness, anger, frustration, it goes on and on and on, but ultimately there's the statute of limitations, these time constraints to file a case. Obviously, these cases are fact-dependent, but can you talk a little bit about how the statute of limitations applies to a boarding school sexual abuse case?

Marty Gould:

So the statute of limitations that applies generally would be the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse within the state in which the boarding school in which the abuse occurred. That can vary from state to state. What's important to know is that because of the public pressure, because of the media attention regarding childhood sexual abuse, politicians have changed a lot of laws that have now allowed survivors to finally bring claims that may have been expired. That's why it's very important to speak to a lawyer to find out if there's [inaudible 00:08:18] but if the laws have changed, whether it's through, what's called the revival statute, that creates a window in which you can file claims that may have been barred by a time limit, or to check to see if there's any legislation pending in that state.

Marty Gould:

So people will call me and say, "I heard that the statute of limitations expired in XYZ state," and I'll say, "That's true, except that there's a bill pending in your state legislature that may be passed, that will say, 'You may have an opportunity to bring this case in six months.'" So we follow all those in all the different states that we're in, to make sure that we know if there's going to be an opportunity to bring these clamps.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

I think what you just spoke about in terms of the evolving law that applies to these situations is really the reason why people need to reach out to an attorney who has experience with these cases specifically, because a lot of times, I've heard people, I've spoken to people who've said, "Hey, I spoke to my accident attorney down the street, I spoke to him or her about the situation and they've told me I don't have a case." At the end of the day, they really need to talk to someone who has experience with these particular cases. Now, if someone is watching this and they say, "Hey, I want to reach out to an attorney, but I don't have the assets. I don't have the funds to hire an attorney." What would you say to them? How do you handle these types of cases and how would you help someone if they don't have the funds necessary to fund this type of litigation?

Marty Gould:

Well, first John, I would say that it's always important to know your rights. Even if we take on cases, even if the statute of limitations has expired, we try and do an outreach to the church or the boarding school or whomever it may be, to see what kind of a possible resolution we can reach even without filing a lawsuit. The last thing that a survivor needs to deal with in these situations is worrying about paying legal fees, and that's why we don't charge any money for any consultation. We don't charge any fees unless we can actually get a compensation and a recovery for the survivor. If...

In this episode Jonathan Rosenfeld chats with Martin D. Gould an Attorney at Romanucci & Blandin, LLC. Here, they discuss:

Read the Transcript

Download the PDF

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

Hello, thank you for joining me today. I am Jonathan Rosenfeld and today on the Personal Injury Podcast, I am joined by Attorney Marty Gould. And we are going to talk about an emerging area of litigation, the Royal Ranger sexual abuse cases and lawsuits. Marty, thank you for joining me today. I appreciate it.

Marty Gould:

Happy to be on John. Thanks for having me.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

Now, Marty, to begin with, the Royal Rangers, to be honest with you, is an organization that a lot of people may not have heard of in the past. It is not a big name organization. Can you give us a little background about the Royal Rangers and what it is and where exactly it's headquartered?

Marty Gould:

Sure. The Royal Rangers is a, it's essentially an organization similar to the boy Scouts of America, except that it has religious purpose. So their motto on their website is that the program helps leaders play a vital role in helping boys develop a Christian like manhood. And they had many different Royal Rangers organizations throughout California, Idaho, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, in several other states throughout the country. It was structured in a similar format to the boy Scouts. They had the Ranger Kids, Discovery Rangers, Adventure Rangers, and the Expedition Rangers.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

Now, the organization's got these altruistic goals, but unfortunately like many other organizations, some of those goals and some of those areas that they want to really focus on fell to the wayside and there's been some reported issues of abuse in the Royal Rangers. And some of these individuals have come forward recently and they've made allegations that they were abused in the organization by their leaders. Can you share some insight as to some of these allegations and what is actually being alleged?

Marty Gould:

In 2018, there were six men from Oregon that filed a lawsuit against the Royal Rangers and the Assemblies of God church, alleging that they were sexually abused in the 1980s by Royal ranger leaders. These leaders, in the boy Scouts, called the boy scout troop leader in the Royal Rangers they're typically called commanders. And essentially the allegations were that they weren't properly screening and vetting these people that were leading these young boys to different adventures and camping trips and so forth and that's where the abuse going on.

Marty Gould:

And a lot of the same allegations that happened in the boy Scouts, where kids were being abused on camping trips or during meetings. We have many cases involving the Royal Rangers, you and I John. And our case, in several of our cases, we've heard that many of these commanders that were leading these troops were allowed to bring whomever else they wanted onto these trips. So you had a commander in charge of a bunch of boys, bring his friends, other males that nobody really knew who these people were, what type of backgrounds they had. There wasn't much screening and policies and procedures in place to protect the children. And unfortunately many kids were sexually abused and it's caused a lot of trauma.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

And so now I guess we're seeing a lot of people come forward. I think there's some truth, that there's strength in numbers in some of these cases. A lot of times it's not the, it takes a lot of courage for anyone to come forward. But a lot of times when people see others who may have experienced a similar situation step out, they're more willing to come forward. And in those situations, what would you tell those people who may be watching this and saying, Hey, I was part of the Royal Rangers, I experienced some of those issues? What would you say to them?

Marty Gould:

You're not alone. Together, we're stronger. And it's important to take your life back, take control of what happened and help make sure this doesn't happen to anybody else. We have a number of clients that we represent and other lawyers taking on these cases, but shedding light to reveal what happened and make sure this doesn't happen again.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

Marty, I appreciate the work that you're doing in this area. You're really an asset to a lot of people who really need an advocate out there. Want to thank you for joining me today and I appreciate it.

Marty Gould:

Happy to be on your podcast, John. Thanks for having me.

In this episode Jonathan Rosenfeld chats with Martin D. Gould an Attorney at Romanucci & Blandin, LLC. Here, they discuss:

Read the Transcript

Download the PDF

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

Hello, everybody. Welcome back to the Personal Injury Podcast. Today. I am joined by Marty Gould, a good friend and colleague, and we are here today to talk about sexual abuse lawsuits in the church and, what is sexual abuse? Marty, first off, thank you for joining me today. I appreciate it.

Marty Gould:

Happy to be on.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

Marty, for those of us who don't really have a full understanding of the breadth of this issue, can you give us some background and give us a short explanation about what sexual abuse is at least in the eyes of the law?

Marty Gould:

Oftentimes when people talk about sexual abuse in a lawsuit context, it often refers to childhood sexual abuse. It includes many different types of abuse. It could be fondling, oral sex, penetration of any kind, but it can also be showing somebody pornography. John, you and I have a case out in California where a teacher was sending explicit text messages and photographs to a student. That is considered sexual abuse under the law, and it's a basis for a lawsuit. It can also include emotional abuse, so it includes the grooming aspect that happens before the actual physical contact. In lawsuits, it's a broad definition. Anything that can be considered sexual, or that happens to a child under the age of 18 years old.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

Now, one of the emerging issues in the area of sexual abuse litigation is really cases involving the church. Can we talk a little bit about the cases that are involved, the church and sexual abuse involving clergy and the priest, what those cases typically involve?

Marty Gould:

Most of those lawsuits involve institutional negligence claims against the church. In every lawsuit, you can sue the perpetrator. But in a civil case, all you can get is financial compensation. So a large part of the case is against the institution for covering up abuse, for protecting pedophiles or suspected pedophiles, for failing to investigate allegations of abuse. The claims are often brought in terms of negligent hiring, for not doing a proper investigation to a potential priest who's moving to your parish. So many times, a lot of these priests may have allegations against them in a different diocese or even in a different state.

Marty Gould:

Like in many of our cases, they came from California or Pennsylvania. Usually, they're being shipped out of there for a reason. The new diocese that's taking him in has an obligation to call the former employer and say, "Hey, why is this guy leaving? What happened? Then if they know of any allegations of abuse, they have an obligation to investigate and to warn the public if there's credible allegations. That's unfortunately, something that didn't happen for many, many decades. Priests were moved from one parish to another without warning the parishioners about this person's history, and they continued to abuse children time and time again.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

Now, do church officials have an obligation to report episodes of abuse if they're a witness to something in their organization, in their church, in their school? Do they have some type of legal obligation to report the abuse to authorities?

Marty Gould:

In many states, they do. The laws have progressed over time, and every state's law can be a little bit different, but for the most part, clergy are now considered mandatory reporters. So whether they hear about abuse in a confessional, or whether a reported abuse from the survivor themselves, or from a parent, they have an obligation to report it. Typically, the law would require them to report it to the Department of Children and Family Services within that state, or even law enforcement. If the Department of Children and Family Services becomes aware of it, they do their own investigation. It's a separate investigation that's typically, also done by law enforcement. If the allegations are proven to be true, criminal charges are brought and ideally, there's criminal consequences.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

Now, in the issue of a clergy sexual abuse lawsuit, we're generally talking about monetary damages. When we're talking about monetary damages, we're trying to put a value on the restitution to the individual and the harm to the individual. Can you talk a little bit about what the damages are in these cases, and how the church in general, in the past has valued these types of cases?

Marty Gould:

Childhood sexual abuse is probably the most heinous crime that can be committed. We're talking about children that are uniquely vulnerable. When it's a religious leader, like a priest, the child is taught to respect and to listen to that authority. That breach of that trust, coupled with physical and emotional abuse, can cause devastating consequences. Legally, you're allowed to recover for emotional distress, psychological trauma, and physical pain and suffering, or emotional pain and suffering. We articulate those injuries, the other side through the testimony of our clients, but also through counselors. Many times, a lot of survivors end up using drugs to cope with what happened. We get those records and explain to the church, because of what happened, they went down a certain path. They became addicted to certain drugs to cope with what happened, and that's all part of the damages aspect that we seek compensation from the church.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

The church in the past, can you give us an idea as to the payments that the church has made on some of these cases? Not necessarily on an individual basis, but in general. This has been a pretty substantial problem for the church. We're focusing right now on the Catholic Church, but the truth is, is that, this can be any religious institution. But the amount of payments that have gone on over the past several decades have been substantial. Do you have any idea about these payments and about the type of damages we're talking about here?

Marty Gould:

Legally, when somebody commits a harm against you, whether it's caused by the negligence of the religious institution, whether it's a Catholic church, a synagogue, a temple, or whomever, you can recover, what's called economic, non-economic damages. So we can get compensation for the psychological trauma and harm, the lost earning capacity, lost income that that person might have had had they finished school or done things in a different way when they weren't dealing with that abuse.

Marty Gould:

Recoveries have been significant, hundreds of millions of dollars have been paid in these cases across the country. That's why it's important to go find a lawyer who can assess your case, work up your case, and articulate to the other side how this has dramatically impacted your life. If you haven't done counseling yet, many people, because they don't come forward earlier because they're afraid they may not be believed, or it's a repressed memory and they haven't done counseling yet, that doesn't mean you didn't have an injury. And that doesn't mean that we can't articulate to the church, or whomever, how it's impacted you.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

Now, one of the things that victims frequently come forward and ask is, "What type of help is out there for me to help me recover from this episode?" It's easy for us to sit here and say, "Hey, you know what? Do some treatment and move on." But the truth is, is that, these people really have lifelong issues. Can you just give out a few resources available for someone who's a victim of abuse?

Marty Gould:

There's many great networks out there in survivor groups that can help victims and survivors. One of the ones that I've worked with in the past, and I've had many clients be a part of, is called the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, also known as SNAP. It's a support group of survivors of clergy sexual abuse and their supporters throughout the country. If you reach out, you can engage in support groups. You can also try and find counseling through them. There's also an organization called Bishop Accountability, which documents a lot of allegations of abuse.

Marty Gould:

It's a good resource in terms of finding out more information about what went on in your specific parish or diocese, religious order. There's an organization called Drug Rehab, another one called the Addiction Center, Road to Recovery, Campus Safety, all great organizations that help people deal with some of the traumas, and deal with addictions that are often associated with traumas. Then of course, counseling with an attorney who can help direct you to possible counseling through the institution. We can sometimes get the institution to pay for your counseling if you don't have health insurance. So there's many different great networks out there and resources where you can get support to help move path this.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

Well, certainly, there seems to be some light at the end of the tunnel for some of these people. Marty, I really appreciate you sharing with us today your insight on this important topic. I want to thank you for your time.

Marty Gould:

Happy to be on. Thanks for having me, John.

In this episode Jonathan Rosenfeld chats with Martin D. Gould an Attorney at Romanucci & Blandin, LLC. Here, they discuss:

Read the Transcript

Download the PDF

Jonathan Rosenfeld :

Hi, I am Jonathan Rosenfeld and I am an attorney, and I am with my good friend and colleague Marty Gould today. We are here to talk about probably one of the largest and most prolific drug recalls in the United States ever, certainly in recent history, and that involves the popular heartburn medication Zantac.

Jonathan Rosenfeld :

Marty is very active with the Zantac litigation, and he is here today to discuss the status of the litigation who qualifies for this and to sort of give us some insight as to how these cases may play out.

Jonathan Rosenfeld :

Marty, first off, thank you for joining me today. I appreciate it, and could you just briefly introduce yourself, and let us know a little bit about the background and just what Zantac is and bring us up to date with the current status of the recall on Zantac?

Marty Gould:

John, thanks for the introduction. I'm of counsel with Rosenfeld Injury Lawyers. Our team represents hundreds and hundreds of individuals that have cancer that we believe was caused by a Zantac consumption or generic. Zantac was a very popular heartburn and acid reflux medication.

Marty Gould:

Millions and millions of people have used Zantac for those purposes, and recent studies have shown that there's a connection between an ingredient in Zantac, ranitidine, and cancer. It's the chemical structure of the Zantac tablet that once it's consumed, and once it's mixed with water in your body, it causes what's called NDMA, a very toxic substance that is linked to cancer.

Marty Gould:

For that reason, people that have been taking Zantac, many of these people for years and years on a frequent basis, are now getting cancer. Typically, it's a stomach cancer, bladder cancer, stomach cancer, but also the blood-based cancers such as liver cancer. Right now, there's a litigation that's being handled, a multi-district litigation, where all the Zantac cases are being filed in the Southern District of Florida.

Marty Gould:

Anyone who has a case, they're filing their claims there, and the lawyers are litigating those cases now. We're still in the earlier stages, and there's trials that are expected to start going in probably 2022.

Jonathan Rosenfeld :

Now, you mentioned that these cases are filed in what's called a multi-district litigation or MDL. I want to talk with you about the differences between an MDL that some people may not be familiar with and a traditional lawsuit. First off, I guess, as a starting point, I guess, what is an MDL case?

Marty Gould:

Sure. Multi-district litigation is essentially a type of case where all the cases may be a little bit different, so if you've been taking Zantac for one year, several times a week, and somebody else has been taking Zantac for 10 years on a daily basis, you may have a different type of case because your exposure was different. If you have a family history of cancer, that may be a relevant facts.

Marty Gould:

Everyone's case is a little bit different. Everyone's injuries are a little different. Some people tragically are filing a case on behalf of a loved one who's deceased, who has died because of cancer linked to Zantac. Others may just have an early diagnosis, so the injuries are different every case.

Marty Gould:

A multi-district litigation, essentially, consolidates all the different cases into one courtroom for efficiency purposes. It's typically done in a federal courthouse. In this case, it's a federal courthouse in the Southern District of Florida.

Marty Gould:

To avoid having rulings in many different states, in many different jurisdictions that could be conflicting, you'll have one judge who will oversee the litigation. Will set various deadlines, and essentially, the cases are litigated in a fashion where there's bellwether cases. The steering committee that's litigating most of these cases will choose a certain number of cases, that will be the first cases to be litigated, the first cases to go to trial.

Marty Gould:

Once these bellwether cases are concluded, that usually allows the rest of the plaintiffs to know what the potential value of these zantac cases are, and it usually drives settlements. If there's successful results at trial, it usually results in a settlement agreements or settlement discussions on other people that have cancer that was linked to Zantac.

Jonathan Rosenfeld :

Right now, we have this MDL that's been filed in Florida, but we also have a recall that was issued by the food and Drug Administration, the FDA, related to Zantac, and that would happen in 2000... I'm sorry, in September 13, 2019, the FDA issued that recall. Why, I guess, did the FDA issued this recall, and what is the impact that you see in terms of the recall on the pending litigation?

Marty Gould:

There are studies going back to the '80s that linked NDMA and Zantac to cancer, and as of late, because lawsuits were filed, the US Food and Drug Administration started its own investigation, and September 13, 2019, they essentially published a public warning about the link. There was additional research and lab testing.

Marty Gould:

The levels of NDMA found were significantly higher than which was deemed to be safe for a body to consume, certainly very alarming. The FDA certainly announced that this was a potential health hazard.

Marty Gould:

In the wake of the FDA safety warnings, the drug manufacturers for Zantac and its generic brands pulled off the drug from shelves across the country. Walmart, Walgreens, CVS, many of the big retailers pulled the drug because the consensus was it wasn't safe to be consumed.

Marty Gould:

The unfortunate reality is that, while people now aren't being exposed to Zantac and the cancer-causing substances within the tablets, we still have thousands and thousands of people that have been using Zantac for years and have existing injuries. That's what these cases are about. It's about compensating people for their past harms and for their current harms.

Jonathan Rosenfeld :

Let me ask you this, so you mentioned that, first off, Zantac has been on the market since the 1980s, so this has been on the market for a long time. I guess as a consequence of the patents are on the original drug expiring, now we have different manufacturers and generic versions of this that were on the market. Is that correct?

Marty Gould:

That's correct. You had various drug manufacturers that were producing Zantac or a generic version of it, ranitidine, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, [Oringer 00:09:03], and the claims are essentially falling into two categories, defective design or manufacturer of that drug, that it was defective. It was harmful. It shouldn't have been sold to the public in the first place.

Marty Gould:

The second part of that is the failure to warn consumers, because people are taking these drugs because the advertisements are saying, look, this is a safe drug, and I can remember some of the Zantac commercials. They had somebody with a fire extinguisher, and he's using it and it's, "Hey, this is going to extinguish your heartburn and your acid reflux. It's a safe drug to use." That was the message, and that wasn't the case.

Marty Gould:

I think through the discovery process, we'll get more specifics. When did these drug manufacturers first know that it wasn't harmful? If there's studies out there from the '80s saying that there was that potential harmful cancer-causing link, there's good reason to believe that the manufacturers had that information, and because they were selling it to millions and millions of consumers, they didn't act on that information.

Jonathan Rosenfeld :

I guess at this point, if you took Zantac or the generic equivalent, first off, does it make any difference in terms of pursuing a legal claim? In other words, if I took Zantac manufactured by Sanofi or by Glaxo, does it make any difference in terms of my legal rights, in terms of filing a lawsuit at this point?

Marty Gould:

Well, John, as you know, we represent hundreds and hundreds of plaintiffs who have used either the name brand or the generic. There are legal differences, and that's why I think it's important for people to speak with a lawyer to understand what the potential legal ramifications are if you were only consuming a generic, but there's a few things to keep in mind.

Marty Gould:

When we sign a case, the first thing we tell people is, for one, do you have any Zantac in the house? Do you have any ranitidine in the house? Were you prescribed it? We've had many clients that still have the bottle, preserved the bottle. That's going to be evidence in the case. It's something we certainly want to hold on to.

Marty Gould:

Then, I guess, the next part of that is proving the use of the drug, medical records. Some people were prescribed it. Other people maybe, because it was sold over the counter, weren't prescribed it, but had reported to other primary care physician or other doctors when they were asked, ...

In this episode Jonathan Rosenfeld chats with Martin D. Gould an Attorney at Romanucci & Blandin, LLC. Here, they discuss:

Read the Transcript

Download the PDF

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

Hi. My name's Jonathan Rosenfeld. I am an attorney, and I am here today with my good friend, colleague, and what else? Respected co-counsel on a lot of these cases, Marty Gould. And today we are going to talk a little bit about a really disturbing news story that's come up involving sexual abuse claims involving the University of Michigan and a doctor who is employed at the University of Michigan for decades, Robert Anderson MD. And these are news stories which really have been making the tabloids in the Michigan area, but they really can translate to other jurisdictions as well. And Marty handles a lot of different sexual abuse cases across the country in different contexts, but today I want to sort of get an update from Marty as to the status of these cases. And before we even get to that, I'm going to let Marty introduce himself and give a little bit of background about these particular cases, because whether you've heard about this or not, I think Marty does a great job giving the relevant background, because these are really, really disturbing situations.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

And when we look at them in the context that they are in, this went on for decades just right under the university's nose. So Marty, could you just share with us a little bit about the Robert Anderson situation and really help the audience get some grasp as to what happened in the situation?

Marty Gould:

Well, I'm of counsel at Rosenfeld Injury Lawyers. We handle sexual abuse cases all across the country. We represent many, many survivors of physician abuse. And this one is particularly disturbing. The case involves Dr. Robert Anderson. For nearly 50 years, Dr. Anderson was in charge of the medical care for the University of Michigan college athletes. He also was in charge of medical care for many of the University of Michigan other students at the Student Health Center. He retired in 2003, and he passed away in 2008. Recently, there's been a number of lawsuits filed in state and federal court in Michigan alleging abuse by this physician for decades. He was performing unnecessary medical exams, hernia exams, prostate exams, and groping, fondling, and grabbing student's genitals, penetrating students, forcing students to touch his genitals. And there's a whole litany of other allegations made against him.

Marty Gould:

Hundreds of people have come forward. The University of Michigan set up a hotline for survivors to file complaints, and they had over 250 complaints against Dr. Anderson. This was so well-known for so long that Michigan athletes actually had a nickname for him called Dr. Drop Your Drawers and Dr. Glove. There's reports that other administrators or supervisors knew about it. So it's just a very, very traumatic, unfortunate situation. And because he wasn't stopped earlier, hundreds of other student athletes and students were abused by this person and have all sorts of psychological injuries as a result.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

Now, one of the situations that comes up in a lot of childhood sexual abuse cases is what happens in a situation such as this where, Dr. Anderson died I believe in 2008 or so, but how do I bring a case against an individual who may be deceased? A lot of times, childhood sexual abuse survivors may be hesitant to bring a case, because the perpetrator may be serving time in jail or they may be deceased. Can you explain a little bit about how that works in a situation such as this where Dr. Anderson is no longer with us, what that involves in terms of a victim pursuing a claim?

Marty Gould:

In many of our cases, the offender is deceased, and we're still able to pursue cases and receive substantial compensation for clients. And there's various ways you can go about proving your case. For one, the testimony of your client is evidence. But in those cases that we do pursue, it's difficult to pursue a case against the offender. You have to sue the estate for the offender. In many cases, they don't have substantial assets. But you can still sue the institution for their own failures and for their own culpability in failing to prevent the abuse, failing to investigate it, failing to take necessary precautions to make sure students and children are protected. In those cases, any evidence regarding reports made to the institution is evidence in the case. So if we're able to find out if there was other reports from other students. In this circumstance, Dr. Anderson, Roger Stone actually stated that he had made reports and he was aware of supervisors that were aware of Dr. Anderson decades ago. Okay, that's evidence in a case like this, that's evidence against the university where we would argue that.

Marty Gould:

Well, at that point in time where reports were made, more should have been done to supervise Dr. Anderson and to make sure students were being treated in a safe environment. So the ways in which you go about the evidence is through testimony of other witnesses and any documentation that you can find, emails, letters, and that's typically primarily how you go about establishing these cases.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

In a situation like this, where this took place at the University of Michigan, a very, very well-respected institution, the cases are now actually, as you mentioned, they're now actually proceeding against the University of Michigan. As a victim, what type of damages can a victim pursue in a sexual abuse claim against the university? In other types of personal injury cases that we handle, we talk about specials. We look at their medical bills, we look at the amount of time that they may have lost from work. We look at a lot of hard economic damages in a childhood sexual abuse situation. We may not have those tangible economic damages and the case may be primarily composed of non-economic damages, pain, and suffering, loss of normal life, disability even. I want to talk with you a little bit about how the damages in these cases may play out for a potential victim. Can you talk a little bit about that?

Marty Gould:

In the Dr. Anderson cases, the University of Michigan has filed motions to dismiss the claims, but with those, they've also acknowledged the abuse that has occurred. They're not disputing really that Dr. Anderson was abusing students and children, and they're working to set up a claims process. So in the claims process, how would we go about establishing somebody's injuries from these such situations. There's acknowledgement through research, through state governments, even the federal government, of the fact that sexual abuse causes serious psychological traumas, it causes all sorts of injuries, such as a post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, anxiety, inability to sleep, inability to eat, trust problems, inability to be in it in some circumstances. We go about establishing how it's impacted somebody through the testimony of the survivor, through testimony from their loved ones, family members, significant others, spouses, even friends, some cases, employers, it's totally up to the survivor regarding who they think will assist in providing that testimony, medical records.

Marty Gould:

Many of our clients have counseling that they've had to go through throughout their lives. Some of them had to be institutionalized, because of psychological breakdowns or suicide attempts. Some of them have never had counseling up until just now. They didn't want to tell anybody and they'd just started getting counseling. Those records can be introduced into the case and through all of that, we help build a picture for the claims handlers, the insurance companies, the defendants, to explain to them how this abuse has impacted our client. And it can impact them through financially, whether it's through psychological treatment that they have to pay for, medical bills, if they were admitted for suicide or other serious psychological injuries, financially, has it impacted their ability to work in any way? To respond to supervisors, to work on a team. And then non-economic ways, just the emotional trauma, the pain and suffering.

Marty Gould:

And in these cases, you can also get punitive damages. The courts can award you punitive damages, if there's evidence that meets that requirement, and that's additional compensation you can receive. And it's meant to deter future conduct. It's to send a message to the institution that they should have done things differently. Had they done things differently, students and children wouldn't have been abused. And this punitive damages is a message to them saying they got to change the way in which they do business.

Jonathan Rosenfeld:

Now, there's no way that you and I can sit here and predict how these cases will shake out. But I just want to point out that unfortunately, there have been some other situations similar to this involving colleges and universities. Obviously in the past couple of years, there's been a settlement involving Larry Nassar at Michigan State University. And that involved a $500 million settlement for 332 people. There was a settlement involving the University of Southern California for 215 million people involving George Tyndall. That happened in 2020. Everyone knows about Jerry Sandusky at Penn State. And in that situation,...