All consumers should check their credit report annually for accuracy. When doing so, keep these common problems in mind. If you find a violation and are not satisfied, please contact me.

1.  Carefully review all of your personal information. If your name is misspelled, your credit report lists incorrect addresses or a wrong social security number for you, or someone else's name, these are FCRA violations and should should be addressed.

2.  Find the full name and contact information of any company listing tradelines on your credit report. If it hasn't given its full company name and correct contact information, this is a FCRA violation and the tradeline should be corrected or removed altogether.

3.  Lingering Tradelines. Look at the date of last activity (DOLA) for each tradeline. Any negative tradelines older than 7 years or positive tradelines older than 10 years have to be removed. If they are not, this is a FCRA violation.

4.  Reaged Accounts. Reaged Accounts are tradelines with incorrect dates of last activity, that allow the tradeline to be included on a credit report for a longer period of time than the legal 7 or 10 years mentioned above. Companies that do this may be guilty of willful FCRA violations.

5.  Medical debt. Tradelines may not list the name of the health care institution where care was received. If an institution where medical care was provided is listed, it violates recent changes to the Act and the tradeline must be removed.

6.  Debts that were not validated. If you mailed a debt validation letter but did not receive a response validating the debt after 30 days, and the tradeline remains on your credit report, a violation of the FCRA has been committed.

Pole dancing as a form of entertainment is often made the butt of a joke. Yet, it's being taught in fitness centers around the country as a serious form of exercise. A New York City newspaper recently carried a story about a woman who filed a lawsuit against Crunch Fitness in New York for an injury she suffered in a pole dancing class. It's the kind of story that makes you think, "Pole dancing is risky business, what did she expect?" The method of injury seems so strange it becomes difficult to take the idea of a lawsuit seriously.

But maybe that is the point.

The tort "reform" movement in this country takes many forms. There is the obvious lobbying in Congress and in state legislatures every year to put limits on the types of injuries for which people can recover - capping pain and suffering awards or limiting recoveries in medical malpractice cases. In addition, there are efforts to limit our rights to sue drug manufacturers for failing to warn about the dangerous side effects of their drugs. There are also efforts to create more opportunities for defendants to delay lawsuits and challenge claims, making it harder and more expensive for an injured person to get his or her case heard by a jury.

But there is another side to tort reform and that is the business of reporting lawsuits that can be portrayed and misinterpreted as being funny or frivolous, even though the claims may be valid.

It all comes down to how you tell the story.

Take the McDonald's case. The story is usually told as if the woman should have known she would be badly burned if she spilled coffee in her lap. The subtext of most stories about that case was, "Duh, what did she expect?" What nearly all stories (except the excellent Wall Street Journal article) failed to say was that McDonald's was serving coffee in-stores and at its drive-in windows at nearly scalding hot temperatures - far hotter than most other restaurants and far hotter than you would serve it at home. In addition, McDonald's coffee had been spilling in laps and burning people for years. McDonald's knew about these cases and had been sued repeatedly, yet still served its coffee, not hot, but scalding hot. The second or third degree burn that results from having that coffee fill your lap for 2 to 3 seconds does not make for a Hap Hap Happy Place.

When the media tell stories in a humorous or derisive way, the tendency is for people to look down their noses at the justice system and at the lawyers who bring personal injury cases. It makes people think the system is broken and needs to be fixed. The "fix" that is readily offered by corporations and their lobbyists is tort "reform."

Tort "reform" is not just about shaping the laws; it's also about shaping the way people think about personal injury law, tort/personal injury lawyers and injured people. It's about stigmatizing injured plaintiffs and their lawyers. It's about prejudicing the people who are going to sit on juries in personal injury cases and turning those people into jurors who will be biased against injured people and the lawyers who represent them. Ultimately it's about stripping people of their right to hold corporate wrongdoers and their agents responsible. Who benefits from that?

The tort "reform" movement isn't about creating a more fair justice system. It's about creating a justice system that is more favorable to the corporations and industries that pay for lobbyists and legislators to twist the law in their favor.

Phrases like "frivolous lawsuits," "the McDonald's case" and "personal responsibility" are used by lobbyists, TV personalities and others to trigger the accumulated reactions their audience members have had from consuming biased and misleading stories. These terms become the rallying cries for tort reform in our legislatures.

So when you see a news story about a woman suing a fitness club for injuries suffered during a pole dancing class, does the injury or lawsuit seem funny or frivolous or make you wonder, "What was she thinking?" Is the news story controlling or twisting the way you think about the case? What additional facts would you need to see the story in favor of the injured person?

The Crunch Fitness website says: "The dancer's pole isn't just for professionals anymore. This challenging and sexy class combines intense upper body and core strength, coordination and balance..." In some stories, the woman in question was said to be a ballroom and tap dancer taking a free class. There are reports she was prodded by the instructor, in her first class, to get into an upside down position on the pole. When she was upside down, hanging by her legs, and asked the instructor for help, the instructor walked away. She lost her grip, fell and injured her shoulders. She was out of work for six months.

When you are a student new to an activity, you naturally look to your instructor for guidance and assistance. If he gets you into a dangerous position, then abandons you when you ask for help, is that fair treatment? Or is it his duty to help you get out of the danger he got you into?

News stories have a point of view. Whether a story about a lawsuit aims to entertain or to shape the way you think about a subject or an entire issue, it is slanted. If the feeling or reaction you get leaves you thinking something is wrong with the justice system, do you feel well informed, or like the facts have been twisted?

      NBC News has reported that credit card companies are experimenting with annual fees for certain card holders to make up for lost revenues. http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/33335064/ns/business-consumer_news/

      If your bank indicates an intention to impose a fee for your credit card, raise a fuss, and if you can afford it, consider closing your account to make a point. But not all consumers can or should do that, because as noted in the news story, credit scores can be adversely affected by closing and reopening credit card accounts. Savvy consumers will think twice before closing their accounts, but now is the time to make your point if you so choose. Let the card company know in writing why you're cancelling the card--so there will be no doubt in its corporate mind.

      Introduced July 14, 2009 to the House of Representatives, America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, otherwise known as HR 3200 (the lengthy text of which can be seen here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.3200) provides many health care coverage improvements for Americans. Some of the provisions are smart and simple improvements of protections for consumers of health care insurance. One might be tempted to us as an example minimum standards for health insurance programs. However, as with all regulatory action, minimum standards must be regulated, and that reduces flexibility and adds costs which ultimately will be borne by consumers either in their premiums or through taxation. A better approach would be to rely on user-friendly, standardized, disclosures that present a menu of benefits, so that consumers could price shop in light of fair disclosures and evaluate what omissions and inclusions may be driving a plan's premium costs. Why not standardize the minimum benefits? An easy answer might focus on elective procedures that involve moral issues. On strictly religious grounds, some consumers may not want their premium payment to cover abortion services. Another example might focus on the age or gender of a consumer: an elderly man might choose not to have coverage for obstetrical or gynecological services, whereas a younger person might choose to omit coverage for geriatric services. The question is, do we want one size fits all policies, or mightn't consumers benefit from accepting certain risks in order to save premiums. Less controversial consumer protections would be requirements that coverage must be provided for a price that is not based on preexisting conditions, increased transparency, disclosures and clear notices.

      The similar Senate Bill, Affordable Health Choices Act S. 1679 (seen here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:S1679:) now contains a variety of amendments that have been survived the committee hearing. A good summary of the recent proposed amendments can be see here: http://www.towersperrin.com/tp/showhtml.jsp?url=usa/service-areas/health-care-reform/health-care-reform-pulse.htm#

      Virginia consumers frustrated by arbitration clauses in Federal claims against powerful corporations may get relief soon. Yesterday, the Department of Defense Appropriations bill was amended by a provision to limit forced arbitration in employment contracts with defense contractors. The vote was 68-30, and now moves on to a conference committee for reconciliation with the House version.

      The Defense Appropriations bill may seem an odd place for consumers to begin getting relief, but that is a function of the fact that claims against defense contractors are more likely to be large, and the injustice arising from forced pre-injury arbitration more stark. For example, there is the case of Jamie Leigh Jones, who after being drugged, raped, and confined in Iraq tried to pursue a lawsuit against her employer. She was denied due to a forced arbitration clause.

      Jamie Leigh Jones is testifying today in support of the bipartisan Arbitration Fairness Act (S. 931 / H.R. 1020). The Act would ensure that the decision to arbitrate is made voluntarily and after a dispute has arisen, so corporations cannot manipulate the system in their favor at the expense of consumers and employees.

      Virginia has an Arbitration Act that strongly favors arbitration clauses, even if they are buried in small print in the back of a contract. If you don't think its fair for companies to slip these into their contracts with consumers, let your state Senator or Delegate know you want change.