Posted by Sydney J. Kpundeh.

The famous over the counter drug Tylenol was at the center of a case that was brought before a Pennsylvania federal district court in early November. The case involved a lady who had taken Extra Strength Tylenol for many years to treat various conditions. In Mid-August of 2010, she underwent lumbar laminectomy surgery and afterwards she was instructed by her doctor to take Regular Strength Tylenol in conjunction with Lorcet, a prescription drug containing acetaminophen, but not to exceed 4 grams of acetaminophen in a 24-hour period. For approximately two weeks, she used the Regular Strength Tylenol, as instructed, until the bottle ran out, after which she began using Extra Strength Tylenol. At some point, she stopped taking the Lorcet due to its side effects. On August 29, she unfortunately was diagnosed with acute liver failure and died two days later.

After her passing, her sister filed a products liability lawsuit, “including claims for defective design and negligent failure to warn against McNeil, which manufactures the drug, and Johnson & Johnson, McNeil’s parent company.” Her sister insisted that the defendants knew that Tylenol could cause liver damage when taken at or just above the recommended dose. Also, she claimed defendants were liable for the her sister’s death because they had failed to warn her of the “risks of injury and/or death.” The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that the sister had not offered sufficient evidence to support her failure to warn claim.

Under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer’s Liability Doctrine, there are two factors that must be shown to find the scope of a manufacturer’s legal duty. The first is that there is some potential danger and the second is that there is a possibility of a different design to avert that danger. In this case, sufficient evidence was presented to show that the manufacturers knew or should have known that Extra Strength Tylenol could cause liver damage. The facts also showed that the manufacturers were working to find a substitute. Finally, the evidence also showed that the plaintiff’s sister died of acetaminophen-induced liver failure after taking Extra Strength Tylenol as directed.

Sydney is a political science major with a minor in legal studies at Seton Hall University, Class of 2016.

This entry was posted in Blog Business Law, Student Posts and tagged Extra Strength Tylenol, Johnson Johnson, Regular Strength Tylenol, sydney on December 6, 2015 by Victor N. Metallo, MAE, MBA, MLIS, JD.

Posted by Briana Brandao.

This article, written by Jenna Pizzi, on March 02, 2015, argues whether or not a union of New Jersey business groups should be mandated to provide paid sick leave to its employees in Trenton. As of now, seven New Jersey municipalities possess a local paid sick leave law. A lawsuit was filed in state court on behalf of these New Jersey business groups on Monday, March 2nd. They claimed that the new law was unconstitutional. As stated by the business groups, “The ordinance allows the city to reach outside its given powers by forcing requirements on employers.” They also asked that the law be banned from taking effect within the upcoming week.

The reasoning behind this possible injunction is that business groups feel the new law tries to reach outside the boundaries of Trenton. As stated per the lawsuit, “The law as written seeks to reach outside the city boundaries to impose the law on business owners that are not located in Trenton but have employees that work here.” The business group’s attorney, Christopher Gibson, also argued, “Trenton’s mandatory paid sick leave ordinance is vague, ambiguous and . . . impossible to interpret, administer or implement.”

Although New Jersey business groups make valid points, the new ordinance faces great controversy as a vast number of voters approved it earlier on in November of 2014. Trenton spokesman, Michael Walker, even went on to say, “Trenton voters demanded that the ordinance become law and the city is preparing to enforce it.” If Trenton’s paid sick leave ordinance were to take effect, it would mean that for every thirty hours worked, a worker would be eligible to earn one hour of sick time. For New Jersey businesses with ten employees or more, it would result in a maximum of five sick days per year. For New Jersey businesses with less than ten employees, it would result in up to three paid sick days per year.

The increase in paid sick days would allow employees the opportunity to take care of themselves as well as any immediate family members who may need care. However, it is important to note, if employers offer better benefit packages, they are not required to award more paid sick time to their employees.

Briana is a business administration major with a concentration in management and fashion studies at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Under new FDA rules, movie theaters, chain restaurants, and supermarkets with 20 or more locations will have to provide calorie counts on the foods they sell.  The stores have until November 2015 to comply and provide calorie information on their menus.  Amusement parks, vending machines, bakeries, coffee shops, and convenience stores must also comply with the new rules.

The move to include these food establishments came from a push by the restaurant industry.  Restaurant owners argued that grocery stores and the like that sell prepared foods should also be made to place calorie counts on their food.  “Representatives for the supermarket industry have said it could cost them up to a billion dollars to put the rules in place — costs that would be passed on to consumers.”

Smaller outlets are exempt from the rules for now, as are airplanes, trains, and food trucks.

Posted by Barkimba Diallo.

In the last few months, a federal investigation has helped yield numbers of guilty pleas in South Jersey. A firefighter in Atlantic City, a Margate doctor, two local pharmaceutical representatives and six others admitted fraud of more than $25 million.  The number of convictions is expected to go up due to court documents showing that more than $50 million was paid to one compounding pharmacy. According to the article, this is a minor fraud case compare to the trial of Senator Bob Menendez where a Florida eye doctor Salomon Melgen abetted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was convicted of Medicare fraud for more than $100 million in five years. Sen. Bob Menendez and Harry Reid allegedly contacted former Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for advice on the trial and She replies in the negative.

Marc Pfeiffe, of the Bloustein Local Government Research Center at Rutgers University, said that “New Jersey’s $2.5 billion State Health Benefits Plan’s generosity presents opportunities for fraud.” He also added that the $25 million fraud represents just a smidge of what really goes on. Public servants involved in the crime do not fear the consequences of their actions as they are aware that the malaise is deep rooted.

Marc Pfeiffer, of the Bloustein Local Government Research Center at Rutgers University, said that fraud is the big reason why we don’t have fair competition among health providers because the choice of beneficiaries is done based on who gives the most kickbacks. He concluded that we should imbibe the best practices in the private sector if we want to root out corruption.

Barkimba is a graduate student at the Felicano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Source:

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/breaking/our-view-corruption-cases-show-health-benefits-fraud-out-of/article_04e17d37-7eec-564a-b7c2-623e260d7a00.htmlLinks to an external site.

Posted by Briana Brandao.

This article, written by MaryAnn Spoto, brings to question whether or not Rutgers University violated the New Jersey open public meetings law, during one of their meetings held back in September of 2008. Francis McGovern Jr, a lawyer as well as audience member of this meeting, objected to the way these meetings were promoted and handled. McGovern noted that audience members waited over four hours while board members discussed issues behind closed doors. Once the board of governors finally reassembled, many audience members had grown tired of waiting and already left.

McGovern also noted that the Rutgers board of governors failed to mention topics discussed behind closed doors such as talk of Rutgers new football stadium. She stated, “This case is about governmental transparency,” and believes these long and tedious closed sessions dissuade public attendance. During her case, she asked that the court make it mandatory for Rutgers to hold public meetings first. She believed that by not bringing to light all issues discussed among Board of Governors, that Rutgers violated the law.

Although many may argue that McGovern had reason behind her case, the Supreme Court still ruled that Rutgers University was in compliance with the law. The court did not believe that Rutgers conducted their meetings in a way that discouraged public attendance. The court also stated that Rutgers Board of Governors did not violate the open public meetings law.

However, the court did agree that lawmakers should in fact look into tightening the law. Discussion of tightening this law would allow citizens the opportunity to challenge public organizations trying to get around the law. All in all, Rutgers University was pleased with the court’s decision.

Briana is a business administration major with a concentration in management and fashion studies at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Tommy Donofrio.

Every motor vehicle must display a license plate signifying that it has been properly registered with the appropriate state or local government. Symbols, colors, or slogans representing the cultural heritage of each state are typically included in the license plate design of each state or jurisdiction. Upon registration, a unique alphanumeric identifying number is assigned to the user. Sometimes, individuals, businesses or organizations remit additional fees to be able to display custom or personalized license plates. These plates, which may help raise awareness and funds for specific causes or groups, must adhere to particular guidelines. That is, perhaps, until now. Recently, the Supreme Court was called on to decide if the “decision to exclude the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) from the specialty license plate program violated the organization’s free speech rights under the First Amendment.”

Not surprisingly, this is the first time the Supreme Court is called on to clarify the law surrounding specialty license plates. The Supreme Court will determine if a message on a specialty plate is considered to be a form of “private” or “government” speech. If it is private, then the First Amendment protects the message. For the Sons of Confederate Veterans, this means that they have the right to display the confederate battle flag to “honor the reputation of soldiers who fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War” even though the state of Texas finds this message racist and offensive. Conversely, if the Supreme Courts determines that specialty plates are a form of government speech, as Texas officials claim, then the state “is allowed to select the message that it is willing to publicly support.” The Sons of Confederate Veterans will not be able to freely express their message.

Although it may seem a trivial issue, it has far reaching ramifications. The Supreme Court’s decision is important because it will influence every state and local jurisdiction going forward. According to Richard W. Garnett of Notre Dame Law School, the ruling will effect “all of the many, many ways that government property and funds facilitate expression and communication.” If the court sides with the state, both individuals and businesses may be hindered from raising awareness and revenue through the use of personalized plates in the future. A decision is expected by early summer.

Tommy is a business administration major with a concentration in management at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Research proposal posted by Valentina Reyes.

Tort law carries the “no duty to rescue” principle, which establishes an individual’s freedom to choose whether to intervene in situations of peril while imposing no sanction on those who choose not to act. “While there is properly in law a duty not to harm, there is not . . . a negative duty not to allow harm to happen” (U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes). So long as there is no fiduciary relationship – which is defined as a relationship of trust or legal obligation of a person to another – between the two parties, an individual is not obliged to intervene, even if refraining from doing so may lead to the impending death of the other. This principle was established with the idea that people should not be held responsible for the demise of others unless they were directly involved with the causation of the incidents that led to the other’s peril, or had some established duty of care to the other, and to protect one’s freedom of choice.

In some instances, some courts may find that if a person began to rescue another and then ceased, the rescuer may be found liable if the reasonable person would have continued to rescue the victim. Under the umbrella of negligence, this is called “undertaking to act.” However, some states provide immunity from liability under specific statutes typically referred to as “Good Samaritan laws.” These statutes are put in place to protect those who, in good faith, decide to help in an emergency situation from being sued in civil court for any damage which may result from their act or omission to act. Depending on the situation, courts may wish to protect a rescuer or deem them responsible for negligent acts if the additional damage caused to the plaintiff resulted from an unreasonable act by the rescuer.

While the “no duty to rescue” principle was put in place to protect people’s liberty to choose, it also gives people power to allow others to perish. On the one hand, people are free to choose whether to get involved, but if they choose not to help when they are capable of helping and when the help may save a life, then they have the indirect power over another’s life. The principle also reinforces individualistic behavior that is already very much present in American society and culture which is often noted as being extremely averse to collectivism. Further, if a person intends another to perish by doing nothing, they may be able to get away with being the indirect cause of the other’s demise by choosing to do nothing out of a desire to cause the other harm. In this case, we have the element of mens rea without actus reus (so long as the bystander was not involved in the proximate cause of the victim’s accident or ailment), and the person intending to do harm by doing nothing could be protected under the law. In the case that the defendant was involved in the proximate cause of the victim’s accident, as was the case in Podias v. Mairs, the defendant could be found guilty for doing nothing because at that point, a fiduciary relationship is formed because but for the defendant’s actions, the victim would not have been put in danger.

Catholic social teaching teaches us that we should love everyone and show a sense of community towards our neighbors. We should treat everyone how we would like to be treated and respect and protect all forms of life. Whether we are free to choose, we should do the correct thing and provide help when we can for those who need it because if we are the difference between life and death for another, it does not take much away from us to give another what they can never get back. Gaudium et Spes states “[…] the duty which is imposed upon us, that we build a better world based upon truth and justice. Thus, we are witnesses of the birth of a new humanism, one in which man is defined first of all by this responsibility to his brothers and to    history.”

Works Cited

http://www.siue.edu/~evailat/i-mill.html

http://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/specific-legal-duties.html

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1187493.html

https://www.stthomas.edu/media/catholicstudies/center/ryan/conferences/2005-vatican/Uelmen.pdf

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

http://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/specific-legal-duties.html

http://negligence.uslegal.com/specific-duties/duty-to-rescue/

https://www.shrm.org/legalissues/stateandlocalresources/stateandlocalstatutesandregulations/documents/goodsamaritanlaws.pdf

Research proposal posted by Brian Kane.

In the digital age, the rights and laws regarding privacy are being contested now more than ever. Today personal privacy, both digital and physical, is being discussed. One of the earliest examples of privacy laws in the United States is the 4^th amendment. Under this amendment gives “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” (Fourth Amendment, U.S. Constitution). This and other laws, including the Federal Wiretap Law of 1968, are designed to protect the individual against unlawful searches of personal property by an unfair government. The individual right to privacy is held sacred in this country.

However, the laws of privacy protection are not absolute. Communications and interactions in general areas, such as online chatrooms, and digital communication used for work. Surveillance monitoring by employers has been contested by employees in courts in multiple cases. In City of Ontario, California v. Quon, for example, a search was justified because there were “reasonable grounds” and done “for a non-investigatory work-related purpose” (Ontario v. Quon).

Some argue that the privacy laws are for the best interests of individuals. Individuals and consumers are protected when the monitoring parties have clearly defined limits and barriers. When the government requires search warrants and the corporations are required to obtain consent, the best interests of those being monitored are kept in mind. The constant surveillance by powerful entities removes the right for individuals to act freely and live their own lifestyle. Gratuitous monitoring dehumanizes the employee and implies guilt without any evidence.

Privacy law is not completely virtuous, however. Like all laws, some may seek to exploit privacy law and use it to shield unproductive, immoral, and unethical behavior. When employees use corporate email accounts for personal business, they often claim a right to privacy when investigation begins. Many act recklessly online in this digital age, assuming that the right to privacy is absolute and unbreakable. There are instances where there is legitimate reasons to investigate an individual. When there is probable cause, public good supersedes individual privacy.

The issue of privacy and surveillance laws raises many ethical questions. The rights of individuals and the definition of individualism is put into question when anyone is monitored by a third party. There is concern for the maintenance of human dignity, as some see these searches dehumanizing and distressing on private lives. Pope Leo XIII spoke out against increased surveillance, saying that it intruded and lead to control over individuals. In Catholicism, the holy sacrament of confession revolves around the private recounting of sins and transgressions. When discussing privacy, the matter common good is raised. Aquinas believes that law is created for the common good, “made by him who has the care of the community and promulgated” (2 Bix).

Privacy and Surveillance Law is a widely contested issue in the catholic faith and general ethics. It has its advantages and disadvantages, as any other issue in law, but it will continue to be contested as new innovations shape the information age.

Works Cited

Bix, Brian H. “Secrecy and the Nature of Law.” October 2013. University of Pennsylvania School, Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law. Web. 3/3/2016. Avaliable: https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/2418-bixsecrecy-and-the-nature-of-law-full

City of Ontario v. Quon. 560 U.S. 746. Accessed 3/3/2016.

Posted by France Jennica Osmann.

As the holidays are approaching, Cyber Monday is the main day of the year where families are out for great deals for Christmas shopping online. A recent article in the San Jose Mercury News stated:

Cyber Monday is not the only day to find good deals online during the holiday season. If you miss an online special, don’t sweat: Chances are that you’ll be able to get a reasonable deal later in the holiday season or even after Christmas. Be aware of sales tax and any other fees. Depending on whether the merchant has an in-state ‘presence,’ it may or may not add sales tax — Amazon does, along with all merchants that have brick-and-mortar stores in California. California residents are supposed to declare any tax-free online purchases on their state tax returns and pay the sales tax, though I’m not sure how many people actually comply with that law.

For those who decided that they would shop on Cyber Monday, they should also be cautious of scams throughout the holidays. And don’t forget to protect yourself when shopping offline. “Credit card scams and hacks are on the rise so, again, check your recent activity frequently during the holiday season report any suspicious activity.”  The author of the article stated, “I was reminded of this the other day when my bank called to tell me that my Visa card was used to buy gas and groceries in Georgia. I haven’t been to Georgia since I got that card, so it probably resulted from a merchant being hacked.”

Finally, as you try to minimize the risk of online shopping scams, don’t forget that all shopping has risks. Personally, I’m just as worried about pickpockets in malls and fender benders in parking lots as I am about online scams.

France is a business management major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Briana Brandao.

This article, written by MaryAnn Spoto, brings to question whether or not Rutgers University violated the New Jersey open public meetings law, during one of their meetings held back in September of 2008. Francis McGovern Jr, a lawyer as well as audience member of this meeting, objected to the way these meetings were promoted and handled. McGovern noted that audience members waited over four hours while board members discussed issues behind closed doors. Once the board of governors finally reassembled, many audience members had grown tired of waiting and already left.

McGovern also noted that the Rutgers board of governors failed to mention topics discussed behind closed doors such as talk of Rutgers new football stadium. She stated, “This case is about governmental transparency,” and believes these long and tedious closed sessions dissuade public attendance. During her case, she asked that the court make it mandatory for Rutgers to hold public meetings first. She believed that by not bringing to light all issues discussed among Board of Governors, that Rutgers violated the law.

Although many may argue that McGovern had reason behind her case, the Supreme Court still ruled that Rutgers University was in compliance with the law. The court did not believe that Rutgers conducted their meetings in a way that discouraged public attendance. The court also stated that Rutgers Board of Governors did not violate the open public meetings law.

However, the court did agree that lawmakers should in fact look into tightening the law. Discussion of tightening this law would allow citizens the opportunity to challenge public organizations trying to get around the law. All in all, Rutgers University was pleased with the court’s decision.

Briana is a business administration major with a concentration in management and fashion studies at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Dylan Beland.

One of the most talked about issues in business law news is the Wells Fargo scandal. The story behind this scandal is that the Department of Justice and many attorneys are investigating the possibility that Wells Fargo has millions of fake accounts opened at their banks. The result of the investigation was Wells Fargo had to pay a 185 million dollar fine.  Wells Fargo had to let go over 5,300 workers for fraudulent sales tactics.

From this, the concern and worry in the banking industry instigated a lot of questions about the fake accounts being opened. Employees were pushed to reach near-impossible sales targets, which in turn led to the creation of fake accounts. Mike Mayo, a banking analysist at CSLA, said the investigation “reflects pent-up frustration by the public over the lack of accountability at big banks post financial crisis.”

The people that could see some blame for this are the investors of the banks. One of Wells Fargo’s biggest investors has not spoken, since the situation has arisen. Warren Buffett is Wells Fargo’s biggest investor and he owns Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway.

On September 20, Wells Fargo is meeting with the Senate and is having John Stumpf, CEO, represent and testify at the hearing. He apologized for the fake accounts but also said he does not plan on resigning from being CEO of Wells Fargo.

Dylan is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.