January 2010 Archives

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?