Monday, April 30, 2012

Immigration Laws Dredge Up Old Case

Story first appeared in Reuters.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide how broadly to apply its two-year old ruling that immigrants have a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel and must be told about possible deportation stemming from a guilty plea.

The justices said they would consider whether its March 31, 2010, ruling would apply retroactively to previous convictions or would only to convictions after that date. Raleigh Immigration Lawyers said in their Supreme Court appeal that the issue has profound practical significance.

In its original ruling, the Supreme Court decided by a 7-2 vote that an immigrant's constitutional right to effective counsel was violated when his attorney mistakenly told him he could plead guilty to drug charges without being deported.

Columbus Immigration Lawyers had said at the time the decision could potentially affect thousands of immigrants every year.

Since the decision, U.S. courts of appeals have issued conflicting rulings on whether the high court's ruling applied retroactively. The U.S. Justice Department told the Supreme Court the issue involved a recurring question of substantial importance that warranted review.

The case before the high court involves a woman who was born in Mexico in 1956, came to the United States in the 1970s and now lives in Chicago. She was indicted in 2003 for participating in a scheme to submit fraudulent automobile insurance claims for personal injuries.

She pleaded guilty and was sentenced to four years of probation and ordered to pay $22,500 in restitution.

In 2009, she sought to overturn her conviction on the ground her trial attorney never informed her that deportation was a potential consequence of her guilty plea. She later said she was entitled to relief under the high court's 2010 ruling.

But a federal appeals court rejected her request. It said the 2010 decision did not announce a new rule that would apply retroactively, but simply applied the existing standard for ineffective assistance of counsel to a new factual scenario.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in the case during its upcoming term that begins in October, with a decision likely early next year.


For more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
For national and worldwide related business news, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For local and Michigan business related news, visit the Michigan Business News blog.
For healthcare and medical related news, visit the Healthcare and Medical blog.
For real estate and home related news, visit the  Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.
For technology and electronics related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
For organic SEO and web optimization related news, visit the SEO Done Right blog.

Rite Aid Pharmacy Not Responsible for Prescription in Case

Story first appeared in Reuters.
An upstate New York woman who had a stroke after she took the wrong dosage of a medication has lost a bid to hold her pharmacy liable.

In a unanimous decision released Thursday, the Appellate Division, Third Department, held that a Rite Aid in Cobleskill did not have a duty to warn the patient or contact her physician after she was prescribed a lower-than-normal dosage of Coumadin, a drug designed to prevent blood clots.

To fulfill the duty which the plaintiff requests is to require the pharmacist to interject himself into the doctor-patient relationship and practice medicine without a license.

The patient suffered a stroke in 2008. In 2010 she sued her doctor and the pharmacy for negligence. She claimed that the doctor prescribed an "inadequate" dosage of Coumadin, according to the court, which led to her having the stroke soon after. Rite Aid, she alleged, should have contacted the doctor before filling the prescription.

Last year, a state Supreme Court Justice of Albany County denied a pre-discovery motion by Rite Aid to dismiss the claims against it. He  ruled that a trial should be held to address potential questions of fact.

While pharmacists may be found negligent for prescribing dosages that fall below or exceed medically-acceptable levels, they are not required -- or qualified -- to monitor each patient's unique medical condition, the court held. The panel also found that a pharmacist's chief duty is to fill prescriptions as written by physicians, and that the pharmacy met that obligation.

In reaching this conclusion, the courts do not suggest that a pharmacy is no more than a warehouse for drugs. However, it is recognized that a pharmacist's professional judgment must defer to the prescribing physician's training, experience and knowledge of the particular patient's condition, stated New York Medical Negligence Lawyers.


For more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
For national and worldwide related business news, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For local and Michigan business related news, visit the Michigan Business News blog.
For healthcare and medical related news, visit the Healthcare and Medical blog.
For real estate and home related news, visit the  Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.
For technology and electronics related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
For organic SEO and web optimization related news, visit the SEO Done Right blog.

U of M in Danger of Losing Funding Due to Student Protest

Story first appeared in The Detroit News.

A labor group's use of college students to stage Friday night protests outside an Italian restaurant in Dearborn could cost the University of Michigan millions in taxpayer funding.

The Detroit-based Restaurant Opportunities Center of Michigan settled its 15-month labor dispute with upscale restaurant chain Andiamo in March 2011. Now House Republicans are trying to compel U-M to drop its association with the group as part of strings attached to $4.7 million in new state funding.

Tucked in the House education budget at the request of the Michigan Restaurant Association is a provision prohibiting universities from collaborating with a non-profit worker center whose documented activities include coercion through protest, demonstration or organization against a Michigan business.

University professors nationwide are decrying the provision as an infringement of academic freedom, while Republican legislators say universities shouldn't be promoting free speech protests against businesses that pay the taxes that support university operations.

A Detroit News inquiry into the origins of the proposed law found it stems from protests staged in 2009 and 2010 during Friday night dinner hours at Andiamo's Dearborn location on Michigan Avenue. Dearborn Labor and Employment Lawyers are following the case with interest.

U-M's connection is its School of Social Work internship in community activism, which lets students receive internship credit for working with the workers' organization, said the vice president of governmental affairs at the Michigan Restaurant Association.

A U-M graduate student interning with the workers' organization got other students to join in the weekly protests, and the restaurant association wants the university to cut all ties with the workers' group.

University professors are demanding that lawmakers remove the provision from performance measures universities have to satisfy to qualify for $36 million in new money next school year.

Michigan budget plans don't include the provision, so the two Republican-controlled chambers will have to decide whether to keep it during budget negotiations next month.

If the provision becomes law, it will be the latest example of legislators chipping away at the autonomy of universities.

Andiamo settles

The university professors' association has sent lawmakers a letter signed by 134 university faculty and administrators from across the country opposed to the funding stipulation.

Republican lawmakers are caving to business interests without considering past allegations of Andiamo violating labor laws, say Lansing Labor and Employment Lawyers.

In July 2010, Andiamo settled allegations with the National Labor Relations Board that it illegally retaliated against two former employees. The company promised not to "call our employees liars" and "not engage in surveillance" of workers, according to a report from the labor board's Detroit office. The company also agreed to give one worker $30 in unpaid wages.

Operations 'frustrating'

The Andiamo attorney and Restaurant Opportunities Center coordinatoru declined to comment because of legal stipulations in their March 2011 confidential settlement. The group educates restaurant workers about their workplace rights and demands employers follow labor laws. In the past, she has said Andiamo had an "environment of intimidation."

The group is one of several social justice and human services organizations social work students can work for to get university internship credit, a U-M spokesman said.


For more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
For national and worldwide related business news, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For local and Michigan business related news, visit the Michigan Business News blog.
For healthcare and medical related news, visit the Healthcare and Medical blog.
For real estate and home related news, visit the  Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.
For technology and electronics related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
For organic SEO and web optimization related news, visit the SEO Done Right blog.

Google Battles Antitrust in Europe Too

Story first appeared in The New York Times.

Google may soon be fighting antitrust battles on two fronts.

The European Commission has been looking for two years into whether the search giant abused local competition laws, and it is expected soon to either file formal charges or achieve a significant settlement.

Now the Federal Trade Commission, which began examining Google last year, is starting its own antitrust inquiry. The commission hired a former federal prosecutor this week to lead any potential case.

The European Commission and the F.T.C. are investigating the same things. But, Google faces a tougher situation in Europe, where courts have a lower threshold for assessing market dominance. Also, antitrust regulators in Europe are much more powerful than they are in the United States. For instance, they do not need a court order to impose sanctions.

The move by the F.T.C. could help embolden the European Union’s competition commissioner to send Google a formal charge known as a Statement of Objections.

The antitrust authorities in Europe may have grown wary of being seen as being too tough on successful U.S. technology companies like Microsoft and Google. So the appointment of a seasoned litigator to head the investigation in the United States could help the commissioner to move a bit faster with his case.”

Google acknowledges that its prominence invites scrutiny, but says that its search service — which it points out is free to users — does not stack the deck and that there are competing search engines.

Google’s share of the search market is more than 90 percent in some of the largest markets in the European Union. That is significantly higher than in the United States, where Google’s market share is less than 70 percent.

Any decision on filing a case in the United States is likely to be many months away. But bringing in a seasoned litigator was widely interpreted as a signal by the trade commission that it meant business.

The agency has been investigating Google’s behavior since last spring. Regulators have taken depositions and issued subpoenas involving Google and some of its competitors, according to people who have been contacted by the trade commission.

The commission is looking at whether Google has abused its dominance in Internet search and advertising, giving its own products an advantage over those of others while maintaining that it offers a neutral, best-for-the-customer result.

Antitrust lawyers say that proving a case of unfair competition against Google will be difficult, because it will not be enough simply to show that some search results rank lower when Google changes its algorithm. The trade commission will have to prove in part that the changes were purposely designed to disadvantage competitors.

The issues raised by the inquiry have come into sharp focus in the example of niche search sites. If a user searches for airfares to Los Angeles, for instance, the first result that comes up is from Google flight search, which lists airlines on the route and ticket prices. Other travel companies selling tickets are farther down the results list.

Studies of Internet user behavior show that consumers rarely look beyond the first few results of a search. If Google has purposely changed the way it ranks results to make its own product show up at the top of the list, even if it is not the best result for the user, that could be interpreted as anticompetitive conduct.

The same theory would apply to the advertisements that appear on the right-hand side of the Google results page. If Google changed how it determines which ads appear at the top in a way that makes it less likely that an ad for a competitor ranks at the top, that could be anticompetitive behavior.

Google says the changes it makes are to make its search engine more useful.

The trade agency is also looking at whether Google made exclusionary agreements with other companies to have a powered by Google search box on their own Web sites, and whether it strong-armed phone manufacturers using the Android operating system to offer only Google search on their phones, sources close to the investigation said.

The search company, which did not exist when the antitrust case against Microsoft was first developed nearly two decades ago, is now a commanding presence in the tech world. It has been embroiled recently in numerous investigations.

In just the last week, Google officially responded to a Federal Communications Commission complaint that it had obstructed an investigation into its Street View project, its plan to photograph every street of the inhabited world. Google denied obstructing the inquiry but agreed to pay a $25,000 fine. It also said that Street View had been investigated by the Justice Department, which did not pursue a case. The Justice Department declined to comment.

If the trade commission files an antitrust suit against Google, a Silicon Valley lawyer can claim a share of the credit. The Silicon Valley antitrust lawyer, represents several companies who have complained to the government about Google. He was also the primary instigator of the federal government’s case against Microsoft. He has said that the search giant was able to succeed only because Microsoft was hobbled. Competitors need room to breathe, he said.


For more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
For national and worldwide related business news, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For local and Michigan business related news, visit the Michigan Business News blog.
For healthcare and medical related news, visit the Healthcare and Medical blog.
For real estate and home related news, visit the  Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.
For technology and electronics related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
For organic SEO and web optimization related news, visit the SEO Done Right blog.

Google Antitrust Escalates

Story first appeared in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
Federal regulators escalated their antitrust investigation of Google on Thursday by hiring a prominent litigator, sending a strong signal that they are prepared to take the Internet giant to court.

The Federal Trade Commission is examining Google's immensely powerful and lucrative search technology, which directs users to hundreds of millions of online and offline destinations every day. The case has the potential to be the biggest showdown between regulators and Silicon Valley since the government took on Microsoft 14 years ago.

Then as now, the core question is whether power was abused. The agency's inquiry has focused on whether Google has manipulated its search results, making it less likely that competing companies or products appear at the top of a results page.

Federal Trade Commission officials cautioned that no decision had been made about whether to bring a formal case against Google. But the hiring of a former Justice Department prosecutor who played a lead role in the conviction of the Oklahoma City bomber, immediately catapulted the investigation to another level. The agency has hired outside litigators only twice in the last decade.

This shows Google that if it doesn't give you the remedy you want, you're going to litigate, say Chicago Antitrust and Trade Regulation Lawyers.

Several antitrust experts compared the hiring of the former Justice Dept. prosecutor -- who has brought about 40 major cases in government and private practice and won them all -- to the government's hiring to represent it against Microsoft.

The Microsoft case in the late 1990s transformed the tech industry, reining in its most powerful company and allowing for the rise of new companies like Google. Now Google wields the same sort of power that Microsoft once did, and is under the same sort of scrutiny.

It has been involved in one privacy controversy after another over the last year. Indeed, the announcement of the hiring eclipsed Google's formal response earlier Thursday to a fine by the Federal Communications Commission for obstructing a separate investigation.

The litigator noted that she does not underestimate Google. No one else was underestimating it Thursday either. Antitrust cases charging the abuse of a monopoly are difficult to prove.

The general issue underlying the investigation is whether Google abuses its power in the market for Internet search. Google controls about 66 percent of the United States search market, according to comScore. Microsoft's Bing accounts for about 15 percent of Internet searches, with Yahoo gathering 14 percent.

Competitors have said that Google at times adjusts the algorithm that produces its search results to lower the likelihood that a link to a competitor or a potential competitor for its products appears near the top of the results.

For example, if Google were to program its system so that a consumer's search for "washing machines" is more likely to produce as its top result a link to Google-related shopping sites, that could be interpreted as putting its competitors at a disadvantage.

Questions have also been raised about whether Google has done the same thing with the paid advertisements that appear on the right-hand side of a Google search page.

While critics might say that Google is manipulating its results to hinder competitors, Google might assert that it is tweaking its model to provide the best results to consumers.
Google's power comes not from its large market share, but from the fact that consumers are unable to evaluate the product. It would be difficult to decide in many cases whether the results are exclusionary in a bad way or in a way that helps consumers.

Google argues the latter, and has said many times that competition is a click away. When the company announced in June that the F.T.C. had begun a review of its business, it noted that it makes public much information about how its rankings work.

Earlier Thursday, Google formally denied obstructing a Federal Communications Commission investigation into whether privacy laws had been violated in its Street View project, but agreed to pay a small fine anyway.


For more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
For national and worldwide related business news, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For local and Michigan business related news, visit the Michigan Business News blog.
For healthcare and medical related news, visit the Healthcare and Medical blog.
For real estate and home related news, visit the  Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.
For technology and electronics related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
For organic SEO and web optimization related news, visit the SEO Done Right blog.