Class Action Suit Seeking Insurance Coverage for Viagra Filed in NY Federal Court; Plaintiffs Seek Full Insurance Coverage for $10-per-Pill Wonder Drug

1998 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 138-138
1976 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 1021-1106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin S. DuVal

The common question class action has been a source of division and controversy in the legal community. Hailed by its proponents as both a means for small claimants to obtain redress and a deterrent to corporate wrongdoing, the class action has been attacked by others as tantamount to “legalized blackmail” and as threatening to swamp the already overburdened judicial system with proceedings of extraordinary complexity. Two empirical studies of the class action have also reached diametrically opposed conclusions. A study by the American College of Trial Lawyers found that the common question class action suit “has mandated heavy expenditures of judicial time, effort and expense” and has sacrificed “procedural and substantive fairness to the party opposing the class,” while a study commissioned by the Senate Commerce Committee found that most class actions “proceed with reasonable smoothness in the Federal court.” Proposals to restrict the use of class actions have been advanced. While these proposals have not been adopted, the courts have increasingly limited the circumstances under which class actions may be maintained.


1986 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 367-375
Author(s):  
Win L. Tillery ◽  
Joseph C. Carfioli

Frederick L. was identified as a learning disabled person in need of special education. Because the school district did not operate appropriate programs for students at or above grade 5, he was deprived of a program to meet his needs. The parents initiated a class action suit in the federal courts seeking an appropriate remedy. Throughout the course of litigation, the federal court has served a key role as mediator in effecting sweeping changes in programs for learning disabled students. These changes have provided for special education of the learning disabled from school entry to age 21 and include provisions for equal access to vocational training for exceptional persons.


2008 ◽  
Vol 28 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 63-66
Author(s):  
Bui Pham Van

In Vietnam, continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) with a straight line and one bag was first used in 1998. Because the complication rate, mainly as a result of catheter obstruction and peritonitis, was very high (50%), treatment was stopped after the first 10 cases. Use of the modality resumed only in 2001. However, because of skepticism and concern on both the part of physicians and patients about the effectiveness of peritoneal dialysis (PD) and about the infection risk, CAPD developed very slowly. Until late 2004, patient numbers were very limited, and there was only one PD unit in the entire country. Since then, CAPD using Y-set and two-bag system—plus routine omentectomy during catheter insertion and better patient selection and training in bag exchange—has resulted in much better outcomes with fewer complications, and the technique has been developing far faster. This success, together full insurance coverage of both dialysis and erythropoietin since 2005, has led to a steep rise in the number of patients on PD and the number of PD units. As a result, despite the initial difficulty, the number of PD patients increased to nearly 700 in just 3 years (2004 – 2007), while it took more than 20 years before more than 3000 patients were receiving hemodialysis. Automated PD and icodextrin are not yet available in Vietnam.


2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 255-271
Author(s):  
Andrew W. Bell

This Comment seeks to clarify the scope of cross-jurisdictional tolling in Texas. Although both Texas and federal courts interpreting Texas law have addressed this issue, no Texas court has specifically addressed whether putative members of a class action lawsuit—which was filed in a federal court located in Texas and that asserts Texas property-related claims—can rely on the class action lawsuit to toll the statute of limitations applicable to their claims. Part I of this Comment provides a brief history of the class action tolling doctrine, specifically describing American Pipe and its progeny. Part II discusses recent Texas case law decisions on the American Pipe doctrine and their applicability when cross-jurisdictional tolling is involved. Part III briefly discusses the policy concerns behind cross-jurisdictional tolling. Part IV recommends that Texas should adopt cross-jurisdictional tolling in property-related cases, especially when the class action lawsuit is filed in a federal court located in Texas. Finally, Part V summarizes the points discussed in this Comment.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document