“The Man in the Area” Award Presented to Howard Nations

Posted on by

Posted by Andrea Schmauss, IT Administrator, The Nations Law Firm

“The Man in the Area” Award Presented to Howard Nations

“The Man in the Area” Award Presented to Howard Nations

May 20, 2013 – “The Man in the Arena” is an excerpt from Theodore Roosevelt’s speech “Citizenship In A Republic,” delivered at the Sorbonne, in Paris, France on 23 April, 1910.  These powerful words were the inspiration behind the naming of the award, “The Man in the Arena,” which was presented to Howard Nations at the APITLA National Interstate Trucking Conference in St Louis last month.  Mr. Dan Ramsdell, Founder and National Director of the Association of Plaintiff Interstate Trucking Lawyers of America made the presentation.  Congratulations, Howard Nations, for this most deserved award.

“The Man in the Arena” by Theodore Roosevelt

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

Video of award presentation and Howard Nations’ acceptance speech: http://youtu.be/P2gQHT2En40

Grant’s ECO-Art “Texas, Our Texas” Will Be Displayed for One Year at the U.S. Capitol

Posted on by
By Andrea Schmauss
Grant Manier and eco-art

Grant Manier with Russell Martinez, Accepting Grant’s eco-art “Texas, Our Texas” for the upcoming ceremony in Washington D.C. June 26, 2013

Each spring, the Congressional Institute sponsors a nationwide high school visual art competition to recognize and encourage artistic talent in the nation and in each congressional district.

Congressman Kevin Brady has chosen Eco-Artist, Grant Manier, from Houston Focus Academy as the winner of the Congressional Art Competition for the 8th District of Texas.

The Congressional Art Competition Winner’s reception is scheduled for Wednesday, June 26, in Washington D.C.

Grant’s eco-art “Texas, Our Texas” will be displayed for one year at the U.S. Capitol.

Dan Pastorini and Grant Manier Collaborate on Art for Charity

Posted on by

By  Andrea Schmauss

March 18, 2013 – Dan Pastorini was in our studio last week learning the technique of “Paint by Paper” from veteran Eco Artist, Grant Manier.  Their work of art which consisted of over 3,000 pieces of recycled paper, will be auctioned off at an upcoming charity event.   Mr Pastorini very gracious autographed many helmets, banners, photos and “Love Ya Blue” signs for the many fans on our staff.

Dan Pastorini autographs memorabilia for our staff

Dan Pastorini autographs memorabilia for our staff

Dan Pastorini and Grant Manier work on art

Dan Pastorini and Grant Manier work on art

Dan Pastorini and art by Grant Manier

Dan Pastorini and art by Grant Manier

 

Supreme Court to Take Different Look at Generic Drug Manufacturer Liability

Posted on by

By Buck Daniel

March 20, 2013 – Two years ago, the Supreme Court severely limited the conditions under which consumers could sue generic drug manufacturers. The Pliva v. Mensing decision stated that generic manufacturers do not have control over a drug’s warning label content due to FDA regulations; and therefore, the companies cannot be sued for failing to alert patients to the risks of taking its drugs. However, a new case is before the Supreme Court testing a different theory of liability. The case, Bartlett v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., advances not a theory of  inadequate warnings, but one that claims the generic drug itself was defective. Bartlett comes to the Supreme Court on appeal regarding a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit that upheld a jury verdict for the plaintiff and argued that even if Mutual could not have changed the drug’s design, it had no obligation to continue selling a defective product. The results of this case has far reaching implications, because if the Supreme Court reverses the decision by the First Circuit patients will be left with very few options if they are injured by a generic drug. Which begs the questions, “Can you sue a generic manufacturer for any wrongdoing, no matter how disgusting their behavior?”

ASR Trial Verdict: What Does it Mean for Your ASR Hip Case?

Posted on by

Posted by Kim Truongle

March 9, 2013 – As reported in this blog yesterday, a jury in California returned a verdict for the Plaintiff for nearly $8.34 million.  $8 million of that figure was awarded for non-economic damages, including physical pain and emotional suffering and distress.  The jury agreed the ASR hip was defectively designed and the warnings regarding the risks of the implant were inadequate.  The verdict was awarded after successful arguments by the Plaintiff’s attorneys to overcome defense attempts at blaming the method of implantation and the Plaintiff’s other health conditions.  This is a large victory for the California Plaintiff, as well as for all other Plaintiffs who have an ASR case pending against DePuy and Johnson & Johnson.

What does this first trial verdict in an ASR case mean for your hip case?

Does this mean my case will gross millions of dollars? 

No.  The amount of this verdict has NO immediate bearing on the value of individual cases.  It is important to remember that trials involve very specific facts; some of them may be applicable to you, and some may not.  Additionally, case expenses are usually borne by the client, meaning that the costs of bringing this Plaintiff’s case to trial will most likely come out of the funds he ultimately receives – trying a case against DePuy, Johnson & Johnson, or any pharmaceutical company is not cheap.

The real impact this verdict has on the individual cases is that it is a weight that can push the Defendants to come to the negotiating table.  This does not mean they will settle the cases immediately, but it is a force that may push them towards negotiations sooner than later.

When will my ASR hip trial occur? 

The likelihood of your individual ASR hip case going to trial is low.  There are many cases ahead of you in the court system, and the Judges overseeing the state and federal consolidations selected trials from the earliest cases in their courts, long before we came to know of you.  However, this does not necessarily mean you will have to wait longer than most others for resolution of your claim.  For cases like these with many claimants around the country, our experience is that if we reach a settlement, the defendants will likely negotiate a settlement of all our firm’s cases at once.  This does not mean everyone we represent, nor everyone around the country, will necessarily gross the same amount.  This is not a class action.  We will post more information explaining the possible settlement process when the time for negotiations nears and is more appropriate.  We are not at that stage of these cases yet.

With yesterday’s verdict in California, the Plaintiffs are on the right track in this litigation.  For additional questions on your ASR hip case, please call us at (800) 269-3050.

Final Days to Place Your Bids at the STCL Animal Law Clinic Auction

Posted on by
Grant Manier and his Owl

Grant Manier and his Caribbean Owl artwork

By Andrea Schmauss

March 5, 2013 – Grant Manier stopped by the STCL auction to meet with staff and visitors. Proceeds from the auction will benefit The Animal Law Clinic at South Texas College of Law, Caring Critters, Inc., and SNAP (Spay-Neuter Assistance Program Houston). The auction is open to the public and is being held in the downstairs hallway at STCL, located at

1303 San Jacinto St, Houston, TX 77002. The tables showing all of the items will be accessible during the school’s open hours, 9am until 5pm, Monday through Thursday. You have till Wednesday, March 6th to place your bids.

TVM Jury Awards Punitive Damages

Posted on by

Posted by Kim Truongle

March 1, 2013 – The jury that awarded a transvaginal mesh Plaintiff a $3.35 million verdict this week in New Jersey tacked on an additional $7.76 million award for punitive damages against the manufacturer Defendants.  

What are punitive damages?

Punitive damages are damages awarded to serve two purposes.  One, punitive damages are intended to punish the Defendants for wrongdoing and the wanton disregard of the Plaintiff’s rights.  Two, punitive damages are exemplary damages, or damages meant to set an example and deter similar wrongdoing by others.

 Does that mean my case will gross millions of dollars?

No.  The amount of this verdict has NO bearing on the value of individual cases.  Furthermore, although the Judge overseeing the New Jersey trial is a well-respected and highly regarded Judge, the likelihood of appeal is still high.

 What does this punitive damages verdict mean for my individual case?

The real impact this verdict has on the individual cases is that it is a weight that can push these particular Defendants to come to the negotiating table.  This does not mean they will settle the cases immediately, but it is a force that may push them towards negotiations sooner than later.

For additional questions on your TVM case, please call us at (800) 269-3050.

Tvm Jury Verdict: What Does It Mean?

Posted on by

Posted by Kim Truongle

February 27, 2013 – Yesterday, a jury in New Jersey found in favor of a mesh implant Plaintiff, awarding her a $3.35 million verdict. What does this mean for your mesh implant case?

This does NOT mean that all mesh cases will gross millions, nor that they will resolve for anywhere near that much. It is important to remember that trials involve specific facts; some of them may be applicable to you, and some may not. Also keep in mind that despite this verdict, the odds of this Plaintiff receiving her funds any time soon are quite low. The likelihood that this case will be appealed by the Defendants to therefore keep the case tangled in further litigation is high. Furthermore, case expenses are usually borne by the client, meaning that the costs of bringing this Plaintiff’s case to trial will most likely come out of the funds she ultimately receives – trying a case against Johnson & Johnson or any pharmaceutical company is not cheap.

The jury in the New Jersey case unanimously found that there was no design defect and instead put the blame on the Defendants for other failures. Defective design is one key cause of action in these cases, so this shows that juries may not always side with the Plaintiffs regarding every issue alleged. In other words, despite some seemingly large dollar verdicts, in no way are mesh cases “slam dunk cases”.

This does NOT mean the cases are close to resolution or settlement. There is still more work to do before we can sit across the table from Defendants and negotiate a settlement that is fair. Valuation of a case involves both personal and legal facts, as we take into account what each client has and will go through, as well as the facts that help shape the legal framework. The latter may involve things like additional development of the science, finding out more about what the companies did or should have done, etc.

We are optimistic about the verdict out of New Jersey, but there is still a road ahead. Sometimes, that road will run smoothly, but there may also be a few bumps we will have to navigate around as we move ahead. As a national pharmaceutical litigation firm, we use our experience to stay the course towards a resolution that is fair for our clients. If you have any questions, please phone our office at (800) 269-3050.