Salvador Juarez was diagnosed with mesothelioma in June of 2007.  After spreading God's word as a pastor for several decades, he developed this deadly form of cancer related to his exposure to asbestos.  He was exposed to asbestos as a merchant marine in the late 1940s and early 1950s, then again while doing work at the homes of members of his congregation that needed help and in building and remodeling churches.  He fought hard against this cancer, but lost the battle in October, only 4 months after the diagnosis.  He was determined to have his family donate a portion of the funds received as settlements in his lawsuit to his church, directly across the street from his house.  They did, and on Sunday, August 23, 2009, I was invited to the dedication of the newly remodeled fellowship hall for the church.

I was happy just to be invited and brought my camera to take pictures of the event to show others in my office who also worked on Mr. Juarez's case.  Imagine my surprise when I was asked to cut the ribbon for this dedication.  As happy as the church and family were with the work we did on the case, it doesn't compare to the happiness in knowing what you do on a daily basis can help in so many ways. 

Whether its a newly remodeled church, a college education for a grandchild, much needed home repairs, or a much-needed vacation to see family or friends just one last time, the settlements we are able to obtain can do a lot of good for people whose lives have been irreversibly changed, through no fault of their own. 

One of my colleagues e-mailed me an article about the possession of medical tests and HIPAA rules.  The crux of the article was that the rules behind HIPAA - enacted to protect patients' medical record confidentiality - are being used against patients by medical providers.  The article discusses a patient who wanted to physically take a copy of some test results to a specialist, as recommended by the doctor who ran the tests, but was told it was against the provider's policy to allow it, or there would be a $25 copying charge.  However, the provider would be able to fax a copy of the results to the specialist at no charge.  The frustration of the patient was wholly justified - it was her test and test results, for which she already paid.  And the basis for the policy cannot be to protect the confidentiality of the records when the patient was the one requesting the copy. 

I have had to deal with numerous hospitals and similar policies over the years, but more frequently upon the passage of HIPAA.  Many of my clients with mesothelioma or lung cancer have had pathology tissue and x-rays taken around the time of the diagnosis of their asbestos-related disease.  In order to obtain certain necessary expert reports in our clients' cases, we need to send the tissue and sometimes x-rays to the expert for review.  This is rather difficult when the facility in possession of the tissue or x-rays claims it is their "policy" not to release them, even upon receipt of a signed authorization from a client.  Many times, I have successfully compelled the pathology tissue and x-rays from hospitals and medical providers, but this is an unnecessary hurdle.  If the tissue was cut from a patient, and that patient or the family, needs to have it reviewed by an expert or specialist, then the materials should be treated as if they belong to the patient.  I've been amused by the basis for some of these policies, or lack thereof, particularly when it comes to a deceased patient, as the basis certainly has nothing to do with continued treatment of the patient.  Although these policies can cause additional hurdles in lawsuits, at least there is a remedy through the court system.  And we will continue to jump those hurdles in the best interests of our clients.

I read an article online a few days ago about a new advertising campaign to hit theaters.  Don't be surprised to see ads for lawsuit abuse when you sit down to see the newest movie of your chosing at your local movie theater.  The point of this campaign, apparently, is to "educate" the popcorn-eating public about frivolous lawsuits.   What you likely won't hear in these ads are the various state rules prohibiting the filing of frivoulous lawsuits, and the consequences for doing so to the filing party and the attorney. 

In Texas, "Attorneys or parties who shall bring a fictitious suit as an experiment to get an opinion of the court, or who shall file any fictitious pleading in a cause for such a purpose, or shall make statements in pleading which they know to be groundless and false, for the purpose of securing a delay of the trial of the cause, shall be held guilty of a contempt.  If a pleading, motion or other paper is signed in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, after notice and hearing, shall impose an appropriate sanction...upon the person who signed it, a represented party, or both."  Tex. R. Civ. P. 13.  Ample case law exists on this topic.  And most attorneys will not file lawsuits that could violate this rule. 

That said, there are a handful who will, and they tend to give the entire profession a bad name.  And there are others who file lawsuits, whether or not valid, that sound ridiculous to most people.  Take, for example, a recent lawsuit filed against the Oakland A's for excluding men in a Mother's Day promotion.  Really?  Did the lawyer want a floppy hat from Macy's?  No, he was obviously looking to make a buck.  The reason these cases make headlines is because they are out-of-the-ordinary.  They enrage listeners, including most lawyers. 

The reason lawyers are referred to as "counselors" is because that is part of the job - we counsel people, oftentimes, to advise them they do not have a claim that we can file.  Even the sponsor of the ads to be released in theaters has a section on its website dedicated to the "most ridiculous lawsuits."  There will always be a small number of people who will file the most outrageous lawsuits.  And some of the "facts" section is based on public perception of lawsuits.  When the worst-of-the-worst lawsuits make headline news, of course public perception is going to be skewed. 

This coverage, and the ads coming to your movie theater, will take the focus far from any wrongdoing of defendants in legitimate lawsuits.  It victimizes the victims all over again.  Yes, of course there are companies who are wrongly sued.  But more often, companies are sued because they have or haven't done something to protect someone from getting hurt.  When someone is injured or killed because of the actions or inactions of another person or a company, they or their family deserve their day in court.  It is a right granted to every citizen of this country.  I would urge the popcorn-eating public not to support organizations that are working to minimize or take away our rights.

I learned this week that my English Pointer, Claire, has a form of cancer.  It cannot be resected from her leg, and it has spread to her lymph node in that leg.  I was faced with 2 options: do nothing and see what happens or put her through chemo.  She is an 11-year-old dog, but as spunky as ever and not in any pain from the cancer.  Before learning that the cancer had spread, I thought chemo would be a bit extreme.  But the fact that it spread concerns me.  Several years ago, our black lab, Katie, died unexpectedly at the age of 3, with no warning.  She just collapsed and died.  There was nothing I could do about it.  Well, there is something I can at least try for Claire.  She was rescued off the street - literally (Westheimer) - when she was about a year old, and has been a sweet girl ever since.  I would like for her to live a long happy life, and to me, that means trying to stop the spread of her cancer. 

As I was debating on what to do about my dog, I thought about the decisions our mesothelioma clients must face.  I can only imagine the hours of time these victims' families spend talking to doctors, researching the internet, talking to other friends and family, and praying for an answer as to what they should do.  Mesothelioma (meso for short) is such a terrible disease.  Some patients respond well to chemo and radiation.  Others are too frail to treat, and are sent home for care with their families or hospice just to make sure they are comfortable.  Dr. Roy Smythe at Scott & White has performed extra-pleuralpneumonectomies on some of our clients, but it is rare for a meso victim to be in a position that such a drastic surgery would be recommended.  It involves removing various organs and tissues in an effort to get rid of the cancer.  It is not a cure, and is painful, but it is also a way to lengthen life for some victims of this terrible disease. 

For my dog, chemo will only be a shot, a pill and an IV drip, if I understand correctly.  Side effects are less severe in dogs than in humans.  My decision wasn't too difficult.  A meso victim has a much more difficult decision to make.  Everyone is different.  As an attorney who represents meso victims every day, I can understand each and every treatment decision made by clients.  There is no right or wrong.  I hope the decision I had to make for Claire will be the only cancer treatment decision I ever have to make.  I wish she could speak and let me know what she wants to do.  Then again, I remember an old Far Side cartoon where all the people were wearing headsets called canine decoders, and all the dogs were just saying "Hey!" "Hey hey hey!"