RFK Jr.’s Trial Lawyer Ties Raise Red Flags
We must ensure that all future health decisions are made with the best interests of all Americans in mind — not the financial motives of profit-seeking plaintiffs’ lawyers.
(7th Cir., filed October 18, 2016): Arguing that the plaintiffs’ speculative claim that they might have paid less for a medication if defendants had packaged it more efficiently does not describe a cognizable injury in fact, and therefore, they lack standing. Accepting plaintiffs’ theory would invite abusive class-action litigation. If plaintiffs’ novel standing theory were accepted, it would encourage lawyers to bring class-action suits over any business practice that could be portrayed as inefficient, based on conjecture that greater efficiency might have translated into savings for customers.
The Court ruled in favor of ATRA’s position on March 6, 2017. The Court reversed the grant of class certification and ordered the case to be dismissed for lack of standing.
We must ensure that all future health decisions are made with the best interests of all Americans in mind — not the financial motives of profit-seeking plaintiffs’ lawyers.
Proposed Reforms Aim to Slash $1,372 Annual ‘Tort Tax’ for Every Georgian
Nuclear Verdicts® and Insurance Fraud Plague State’s Legal System
New Report Ranks Seattle-Area Courts Among Worst in US
$1,046/Person ‘Tort Tax’ — Court Expands Liability, Michiganders Pay
Courts Threaten Preemie Formula Access, Residents Pay $1,475/Person/Year ‘Tort Tax’