Handful of law firms continue to press brain-cancer lawsuits
by JEFFREY SILVA
* March 24, 2003
WASHINGTON-Plaintiffs' lawyers are leaning toward an appeal
of U.S.
District Judge Catherine Blake's dismissal of five class-action
lawsuits
on headset health protection and say they have no plans to drop
a slew
of brain-cancer lawsuits pending before a Baltimore judge who
has been
hostile to wireless health litigation and highly supportive
of
industry's federal pre-emption arguments.
The legal developments come as two newly
published studies by Swedish
scientists, including one whose testimony was debunked in
the $800
million cancer suit thrown out by Blake last year, link cell-phone
use
to brain tumors.
Meanwhile, Reuters reported data from a
conference in Italy pointing to
a 40-percent increase in brain tumors in the United States
and Europe in
the past 20 years.
Still, the decision to continue pressing
health litigation, despite
Blake's dismissal of Christopher Newman's brain-cancer lawsuit
and her
recent headset ruling, remains a high-risk proposition for
plaintiffs'
lawyers. The costs can be huge, both in terms of the hundreds
of
thousands of dollars in legal expenses and judicial precedent.
But those
costs pale in comparison to the risk to industry, which has
spent
millions defending itself the past two decades, of losing
a single case.
A handful of law firms are pressing the
brain-cancer and headset
class-action lawsuits. In some cases, they work together and
in others
they do not.
"We intend to go forward," said
Jeffrey Morganroth, whose Michigan law
firm represents six brain-cancer victims who have filed lawsuits
against
wireless firms, trade associations and standards bodies.
Morganroth conceded the mobile-phone industry
has fared well in Blake's
court to date. But he said all brain-cancer cases are not
the same and
that the ruling on the Newman case, litigated by the law firm
of
Baltimore Orioles owner Peter Angelos and under appeal in
a Richmond
circuit, does not necessarily dictate the outcome of his law
firm's
cases.
"We have a different philosophy of
how to present and package the
cases," said Morganroth. Morganroth said his legal team
will be relying
on a different set of experts than those Angelos relied on
in the Newman
case. However, it is not clear that Morganroth's experts have
committed
to having their research and scientific careers scrutinized
by industry
lawyers who were highly effective in undermining testimony
of Newman's
experts.
At least one other plaintiff is expressing
more caution. Lawyers
representing a Texas brain-cancer victim recently asked Blake
to stay
all further proceedings in its lawsuit against wireless firms,
pending
the outcome of the Newman appeal in Richmond. The final brief
in the
appeal should be filed today. The court then likely will set
a date for
oral argument, which is expected to take place later this
year.
Elsewhere, RCR Wireless News learned last
week that Georgia's Brian
Barrett, a plaintiff in one brain-cancer case before Blake,
died last
November. However, the lawsuit will continue on behalf of
his estate and
his wife.
Message from Jeff Silva
Enhancement
of allergic skin wheal responses by microwave radiation from
mobile phones in patients with atopic eczema/dermatitis syndrome.
Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2002 Dec;129(4):348-50
Related Articles,Links
Kimata H.
Department of Allergy, Unitika Central
Hospital, Uji, Uji City, Kyoto,
Japan. unitikah@m12.alpha-net.ne.jp
Microwave radiation from mobile phones
enhanced skin wheal responses
induced by house dust mite and Japanese cedar pollen while
it had no
effect on wheal responses induced by histamine in patients
with atopic
eczema/dermatitis syndrome (AEDS). Microwave radiation also
increased
plasma levels of substance P (SP) and vasoactive intestinal
peptide
(VIP) in patients with AEDS. These results indicate that microwave
radiation from mobile phones may enhance allergen-induced
wheal
responses in association with the release of SP and VIP. This
finding
may be useful in elucidating the pathophysiology and treatment
of AEDS.
Copyright 2002 S. Karger AG, Basel
PMID: 12483040 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=
PubMed&list_uids=12483040&dopt=Abstract
News
from Berkeley, California
You might know by now that groups of neighbors
are trying to stop
base-station antennas proposed by Sprint in their residential
area. Last
Friday, they filed two sets of addenda to their appeals. They
have
strong reasons as why the antennas should not be installed.
A big day is
coming for them. It is April 1st, when the City Council will
decide on
their appeals. The following e-mail was sent by one of the
appellants to
the Mayor of Berkeley and the City Council, as well as neighbors,
friends, activists, media, etc.
Radi
Re: Appeal of Use Permit #02-10000053 (base-station
antennas on 1600
Shattuck Avenue)
Appellants: Shahram Shahruz, Frances Strassman, Kaoru Reynolds,
Simone
Gaddini, Patricia Cloud, Daniel Wolfe
To: Mayor Tom Bates and Council Members, Margaret Breland,
Miriam
Hawley, Linda Maio, Betty Olds, Maudelle Shirek, Dona Spring,
Kriss
Worthington, Gordon Wozniak
CC: City Clerk Sherry Kelly and neighbors, friends, media,
etc
Dear Mayor Tom Bates and Council Members:
On Friday, March 21, 2003, we filed 21
copies of a set of addenda with
the Office of City Clerk. Each set has 147 pages. We did lots
of work to
put the addenda together.
Please note that the addenda is an important
part of our appeal.
Therefore, please pay close attention to it. Also, going through
the
pages of our addenda could be fun. Some interesting features
of the
addenda: - There are many nice photographs in the addenda.
Also, there are more than 700 signatures
by neighbors, visitors,
parents, directors of day-care centers, business owners and
their
employees, etc,
who oppose the installation of base-station antennas on the
roof of the
building at 1600 Shattuck Avenue.
Perhaps, you can find names of a friend
or two among the names of
signers.
- Evidence that Sprint PCS has breached
the laws pertaining to
telecommunications facilities in several instances.
- Evidence that the Staff Report by the
Planning and Development
Department, dated 12/12/2002, erroneously stated that "Two
e-mails and
one letter were received in opposition to the project."
There were more
than 10 letters and e-mails opposing the project (please see
Addendum
6).
This alarms us that the upcoming Staff
Report due on 3/27/2003 would
make poor judgment of the points we have made in our appeal
or downplay
the community opposition.
Let's hope that the errors of the past
get corrected.
Best regards,
Shahram Shahruz, PhD,
Research Scientist
March 24, 2003
NY Times Magazine
March 23, 2003
The
Sound of Things to Come
By MARSHALL SELLA
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/magazine/23SOUND.html
Informant Wolfgang W. Scherer
|