TortsProf Blog

Editor: Christopher J. Robinette
Widener Commonwealth Law School

Friday, January 9, 2009

(Updated) More Web Shenanigans

Eric Turkewitz is experiencing some of the sketchier side of law firm advertising too.

Update: Eric received an apologetic call from someone at the law firm in question; they apologized and said they were embarrassed by the spamming done on their behalf.  Though this blog has received quite a few contacts from the Peterson Firm, there have been no contacts from them.


January 9, 2009 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Personal Injury Roundup No. 20 (1/9/09)

I hope you are making progress on your New Year's resolutions.  Here's what happened in torts for the first week of 2009:

Reform, Legislation, Policy

  • FDA announced a new rule that will require food and cosmetic labels to disclose color additives made from insects, specifically,  carmine and cochineal extract made from the cochineal insect, by 2001.  Notably, companies will not have to disclose that the ingredients are made from bugs, only their existence in a product.  (FDA Final Rule (pdf), Bloomberg)
  • Oregon med-mal fight looms.  (TortsProf)
  • Daschle promises health care reforms if appointed health secretary.  (LegalNewsline)

New Lawsuits

  • Vogue model filed suit in Manhattan seeking to compel Google to disclose identity of anonymous commenter who made allegedly defamatory statement about the model.  (How Appealing, Turley). 
  • Israeli victims of Palestinian terrorist attacks have sued various U.S. oil companies under the Alien Tort Claims Act alleging that the companies indirectly financed Hamas by giving kickbacks to Saddam Hussein in the Oil for Food Program.  (BLT)
  • Florida woman plans to sue hospital for leaving part of a knife in her head. Not that it matters but the knife was not from the surgery, but rather left behind after an assailant stabbed the woman. (Fox News, UPI)
  • Veterans bring class action against the CIA and Defense Department alleging that they were used in biological and chemical experiments without sufficient consent.  (San Jose Mercury News, Bloomberg)
  • San Fran chiropractor brings libel and invasion of privacy suit over negative Yelp review.  (SFGate)
  • Family of man shot on New Year's Day by San Francisco transit police files $25 million suit against Bay Area Rapid Transit. (Pop Tort)

Trials, Settlements & Other Ends


  • The Eighth Circuit affirms dismissal of suit seeking to hold cold medicine manufacturers liable for methamphetamine epidemic in Arkansas.  (Court's opinion (pdf), How Appealing, Drug & Device)
  • The Pants Lawsuit:  Roy Pearson seeks rehearing from D.C. Court of Appeals.  (Point of Law


  • Bill gets curious about (TortsProf)

- SBS 

January 9, 2009 in Roundup | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, January 8, 2009

Updated (x5): An Interesting Invitation and Some Digging:

I got this e-mail yesterday:

William G. Childs,

I am Jesse Herman, the Awareness Coordinator at the Mesothelioma Cancer Center ( Lately I have been reaching out to attorney bloggers and site administrators in efforts to getting some of our information published. Your website seems like a good fit.

As you may know, homes built before 1980 likely have asbestos insulation in them. When homeowners remodel, they may expose themselves to asbestos, which could lead to the deadly cancer called mesothelioma. There are many environmentally safe and healthy ways to insulate your home and this is among the topics we like to discuss. Additionally, there are laws in place to help consumers and victims.

If this sort of content is something you think is helpful, I will attach an article for your site and you can let me know if it qualifies. Hopefully we can work together to help each other out.

Thank you for all your help,

Jesse Herman
Mesothelioma Cancer Center

(The only thing I have taken out is the sender's e-mail address.)

Sounds helpful, no?  And a look at the about page at makes it sound good too: "Since 1995, has been recognized as the web's leading resource for up-to-date information regarding asbestos exposure and resulting illnesses."  How nice! And look, the New York Times quoted one of their staff and referred to the site as simply "an asbestos information web site."

As is my (admittedly geeky) wont, I thought I'd look around a bit.

Um...wait.  The domain has indeed been registered since 1995.  But let's look through the wayback machine a bit.  At least in 2003 reveals a blog with indie music discussion and stuff about design (I think associated with this non-law firm), which is a little odd, and as of 2006 it was just a domain parking site.  So maybe not so much with the "since 1995" thing.

Let's look around the actual site some more.  If you scroll down to the bottom you learn that it's sponsored by the Peterson Law Firm, which is, of course, an asebestos law firm (plaintiff-side).  According to the disclaimer, the firm doesn't own, and says that it does refer people to law firms nationwide.  The Privacy Policy states that is a "completely separate entity" from the Peterson firm.

But as of early 2007, was plainly a site just for the Peterson firm (another example here, and a 2006 example, not naming a particular firm, is here). doesn't have anything after early 2007, so I don't know when it switched over to the current content.  That said, the controlling entity (as noted below) was formed in 2007, so that's not the end of the question.

So let's look a little further into the ownership of and that statement that it's a "completely separate entity" from the law firm.  The domain registration reflects that it's owned by the "Asbestos & Mesothelioma Awareness Group" with an address different from that of the Peterson Law Firm.  Interesting, though, that the address (3208 East Colonial Dr. in Orlando) is that of a UPS Store that includes mailbox services, and is three miles from the Peterson firm's address.

Interesting.  Maybe we should look more at the Asbestos & Mesothelioma Awareness Group, the entity that at least owns the domain., the Florida Secretary of State's helpful but ridiculously slow site, shows an entity by that name with managers Carl H. Peterson IV and Raymond Apelado.  Peterson?  Founding partner of the Peterson law firm.  Apelado owns over 50 domains, including, and appears to own Apelado Enterprises (an "internet marketing" company).  And the Asbestos & Mesothelioma Awareness Group's principal place of business according to its most recent annual report?  That'd be 20 N. Orange Ave., Suite 400, which is the address of none other than the Peterson law firm.  The Asbestos & Mesothelioma Awareness Group appears to have been formed in 2007.

What about that "Mesothelioma Cancer Center" referenced on the site and in the initial e-mail?  The has no results for it.  CorporationWiki does not bring back any results for it either.  A University of Florida site refers to an entity with that name at, which is -- yes indeed -- another law firm site, but not, seemingly, related to the Peterson Law Firm or  I think that the name is just a coincidence, and that the "Mesothelioma Cancer Center" doesn't exist as a separate entity, but I'm not sure. 

(As an aside: how interesting to have a public university's website listing of "Advocacy and Support Groups" link to a private law firm's site, but that is, perhaps, for another day.)

Does any of it matter?  I think so: A casual reader (a) would probably think the site is entirely independent, perhaps just getting funding from a law firm, but would not understand that the site is both for-profit and part of an LLC with a managing partner from that law firm; and (b) would probably think that any referrals to lawyers would be done to a range of firms across the country, when I would bet that a substantial majority go to the Peterson Law Firm (which may well refer out their cases; no idea if they actually do litigation or if they just do referrals).  The fact that the NYT cited it without noting the affiliation seems to suggest that the affiliation is not all that obvious.

Put more briefly: I think it's a stretch, at best, to call these entities "completely separate." 

I observe that I'm (no surprise) not the only one to get the e-mail; here's a real estate blogger post; here's one relating to cleanup after hurricanes. 

The posts seem factual and potentially helpful, I should note -- I'm not criticizing the content.  My concerns are about how clear it would be to information seekers that the information is coming from an entity that is clearly very closely connected to a for-profit law firm.

Back to grading.

Update: A reader points me to this very interesting discussion of whether to include a link to in the Wikipedia entry for mesothelioma.  (Note: See update 3 below.)  Someone there did some of the same research I did, though not including all of the corporate control stuff or the UPS store.  He also notes this Parloff piece from last spring on a similar site.

Update 2: Welcome, visitors from I observe in our stats.  Also, be sure to read the comments below and the discussion of a similar investigation done by the guy at

Update 3: One "elkyyy" removed the Wikipedia discussion of's efforts to be included in the Wikipedia entry; happily, it is archived here.  Hey, that's interesting: Elkyyy has attempted multiple times to post links to, and those efforts have been criticized.  And s/he's tried to hide those discussions multiple times.  (Note: the Talk page about has been restored by an editor who noted that its deletion was "unexplained.")

Update 4: As I noted in a separate post, Eric Turkewitz received some comment spam on behalf of Simmons Cooper.  Not long after he posted his concerns, that firm contacted him to apologize and assure him that it would stop.  As noted above, people from the Peterson Firm have visited this blog, but, rather than act along the lines of the people at Simmons Cooper, they've stayed silent, and someone, from either or their firm, has attempted to scrub the Wikipedia talk page.

Update 5: Gene Apelado, the co-owner of, called me today.  In brief, I think it is fair to say that he agreed with some of my criticisms above.  He stated that some of it was a combination of bad timing and other factors rather than an attempt to disguise the site's association with the Peterson Firm.  He did not identify any errors in my post.  He stated that the group will be making some changes to the site and its disclosures in an attempt to become more transparent and that he would notify me when those changes are made.


January 8, 2009 in Current Affairs, Products Liability | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack (1)

Pacman Jones to Sue ESPN Over Reports of Additional Strip Club Incident

And Mike Florio (a lawyer and proprietor of contemplates whether the now-former Dallas Cowboy Adam "Pacman" Jones has a reputation to harm.


January 8, 2009 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, January 7, 2009

Prisoners Sue Over "Vile" Chicken Dinner

The Burlington Free Press reports on a trial to start this week in federal court in Vermont, brought by prisoners against ConAgra for an allegedly foul frozen chicken dinner.

[The plaintiff] Butts had started munching on a chicken breast when he noticed the meat contained an intact digestive tract, from esophagus to rectum, he wrote. The internal organs appeared to contain corn, grain and chicken feces, Butts wrote.

The case is brought pro se and will have a one-day trial tomorrow.

Thanks to Sam Charron for the pointer.


January 7, 2009 in Products Liability | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

"Damages" Second Season

The hit Damages returns for a second season tonight at 10 pm (EST) on FX.    If you missed this show last year, Season One was a tort-full story line.  Glenn Close stars as Patty Hewes, a New York litigator who spent Season One doing everything to win a $2 billion class-action against a corrupt businessman.  Season Two reportedly picks up where Season One ended.  Though the Times review of Seasons Two is not full of praise, you might want to give it a try.


January 7, 2009 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Oregon Med Mal Fight Approaching

So reports regarding a bill that would cap damages for doctors in the Oregon Health & Science University, but not for physicians throughout the rest of the state.  Democratic Senator Alan Bates has said that he will block any such effort that doesn't apply to all state doctors.


January 7, 2009 in Legislation, Reforms, & Political News | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1)

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Pothole Map No Longer All That Useful

The NYT has a fascinating piece (h/t Overlawyered) on a phenomenon I'd never heard about -- maps purporting to detail thousands of sidewalk defects throughout New York City, used in lawsuits to show that the city had notice of dangerous situations.  Walter Olson wrote about it back in '93.  The New York Court of Appeals ruled last month [PDF] that, in two cases, the maps did not identify the defect with sufficient specificity to put the city on notice of the danger.

Update: You can see more about the case at The New York Medical Malpractice Blog.


January 6, 2009 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Are you in San Diego? Informal Torts Discussion at AALS

The AALS Torts & Compensation Section will be having an informal discussion about Torts teaching and scholarship at the AALS Annual Meeting in San Diego this week.   The group will meet in the lobby bar of the Marriott at 4:45 pm on Friday, January 9th.   Professor Ellen Bublick, Chair of the AALS Torts and Compensation Section, invites interested professors to join the discussion on Friday. 


January 6, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Sebok on the Supreme Court's Latest Preemption Decision: Altria Group v. Good

In his latest Findlaw column, Tony Sebok discusses the Supreme Court's recent preemption decision in Altria Group v. Good (pdf).  Sebok believes that "the two deeply-divided opinions produced by the Court give us hints as to how it will decide the next preemption case, Wyeth v. Levine."  In particular, Sebok notes that Justice Stevens based his majority opinion on the "presumption against preemption," which Justice Thomas disagreed with strongly in his dissent.   


January 6, 2009 in Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, January 5, 2009

Pharmalot Ending

So posts Ed Silverman.

Alas.  It was a terrific resource for all people interested in the world of pharma.


January 5, 2009 in Products Liability | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

"Big Dose of Change" for FDA on the Way?

The Philadelphia Inquirer has a story today covering President-Elect Obama's task in choosing an FDA head.  The (clever) lede:

President-elect Barack Obama is prowling for a new head for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which, in the eyes of some outraged Americans, is like hunting for someone to put tainted toothpaste back in its tube.


January 5, 2009 in Legislation, Reforms, & Political News, Products Liability | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)