Colorado Business Litigation Lawyer Blog

As a Colorado native, I’m always on the lookout for articles that tout the advantages of Colorado living.

Boulder’s dailycamera.com reports that a bed bug problem at the University of Colorado dorms and family housing apartments merely mirrors a similar problem across the country. According to CU officials, the bed bugs were centered mostly in the family housing apartments than elsewhere, at least in part because residents of those apartments are more likely to engage in international travel.

As I sit here contemplating this information, I can’t for the life of me figure out the moral behind this news. Does it imply, as it clearly appears to, that people in foreign countries are more likely to have a bed bug problem than people in the U.S? Is it possible that bed bugs in foreign countries merely have a yearning to move to the U.S? Or do the U.S. family travelers to foreign lands live a not so hygienic lifestyle when they are in foreign countries?

As you can see, I had too much time on my hands today.

Check out more insightful blogs:

"Man’s Prosthetic Leg Set on Fire," Colorado Business Litigation Lawyer Blog, posted 07/13/10

"Don't Tase Me Bro," Colorado Business Litigation Lawyer Blog, posted 05/11/10

"Colorado’s Vicious Wiener Dog," Colorado Business Litigation Lawyer Blog, posted 02/25/10

Yet another digression from my assigned duty of composing a Colorado Business blog dedicated to legal analysis.

A group of friends in New Mexico, Colorado’s good neighbor to the south, decided they would spice up an otherwise mundane drinking contest. They agreed --no doubt drunkenly-- that the person who drank the least would be set on fire.

The unfortunate loser drank only six beers, after which the non-losers (for obvious reasons, I hesitate to call them winners) promptly set the loser’s prosthetic leg on fire. Quite predictably, the fire soon spread to the man’s body. The winners, in a semi-lucid interval, decided to take the still burning man to the hospital. Instead, they left him at the side of the highway.

Dona Ana County deputy sheriffs found the man, naked and still burning. He told deputies that he removed his clothes because of the pain. The man was taken to a burn center for treatment. His condition is unknown.

The thing about wagers like this is that nobody thinks they will lose. And yet, a loser there surely will be.

Moral: if you’re drunk and with friends who are also drunk, don’t make wagers that will result in the contestants only getting drunker, especially if you are drunk enough to allow yourself to be set on fire. And to the person who drove the man to the location where he was found, DON’T DRINK AND DRIVE, even with a burning man in your car. The non-losers will no doubt face serious criminal charges.

A Colorado Springs woman undergoing chemotherapy treatments for leukemia four times a week almost lost her health insurance coverage over an alleged one cent shortage in her premium payment. Yes, you read that right: one cent.

La Rosa Carrington, the single mother of two teenage daughters lost her job in May. Under COBRA, she was allowed to keep her insurance coverage, but was required to pay a part of the premium. When she calculated the premium, using the discount she was entitled to under the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, she sent in a check for $165.15. She soon received a notice from Discovery Benefits, a North Dakota benefits administrator, telling her that her premium was one cent short and that she would lose her insurance coverage.

Dumfounded, Carrington called Discovery and spoke with two customer service reps. Both told her that it was company policy not to waive even one cent of the premium due. She then spoke with a supervisor, who told her the same thing. Carrington threatened to take the issue to the media. Shortly thereafter, she received a call from the supervisor, saying that the supervisor had done the calculation and got the same figure as Carrington.

An executive vice-president for Discovery gave yet another excuse. She said the COBRA software rounded the calculation of $161.1545 up to the nearest penny. Carrington had rounded down, using commonly accepted rounding principles such as those used by the Internal Revenue Service. Needless to say, Carrington’s insurance was reinstated.

This incident not only exposes the grossly impersonal nature of huge corporations, but also makes one wonder if common sense plays even a miniscule part in business transactions.

Continue reading " Something to Make Your Day Just a Little Drearier " »

Denver, Colorado District Judge Edward D. Bronfin entered an Order on June 24, 2010, dismissing all charges against a man accused of a bias motivated crime, robbery and second degree assault, all felonies.

Judge Bronfin’s order noted that Denver Officer Paul Baca stated in the sworn affidavit for arrest warrant that Aaron Puller, 22, was identified by two witnesses as having participated in the crimes. These identifications were the only evidence linking Puller to the crimes. Questioning of these two witnesses was videotaped.

The judge viewed relevant portions of each videotape and found that neither witness had in fact claimed that Puller was a participant. One witness denied even knowing Puller.

In explaining his reasons for dismissing the charges, Judge Bronfin concluded that the statements in the affidavit were false or at least made with a “reckless disregard for the truth.”

It is unknown whether the Denver District Attorney will appeal the dismissal of the charges. A more basic issue is whether or not officer Baca will be disciplined and/or charged with perjury. We shall wait and see.

In May 2009, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Public Patent Foundation filed a lawsuit against Myriad Genetics and the University of Utah Research Foundation. The lawsuit challenged patents granted to Myriad on two genes related to breast and ovarian cancer. U.S. District Court Judge Robert Sweet in New York invalidated the seven patents in his March 29, 2010 ruling.

Myriad and its founder, Mark Skolnick, were granted patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Mutations of these genes have been linked to breast and ovarian cancer. With the patents, Myriad had exclusive rights to perform diagnostic testing on the genes, the power to prohibit outside research, and the discretion to decide the cost for the preventative tests.

ACLU, joined by individual patients and medical organizations, charged in the lawsuit that the patents restrict scientific research and patients’ access to medical care. The union of plaintiffs also asserts that genes are products of nature and, therefore, are not subject to patents. Judge Sweet agreed, ruling the patents were “improperly granted.”

As reported by John Schwartz of the New York Times, Myriad and companies like it that hold patents on approximately 20% of human genes argue that the patent system rewards the considerable investment required for research by providing a temporary monopoly. In response to being a product of nature, Myriad contests that isolating the DNA makes it patentable.

The ACLU believes that a patent should not be granted until a company or individual develops a test or drug based on a gene, not when the gene has been isolated.

The decision is likely to be appealed. Watch for updates in the future.

Comment: The dictionary definition of a patent is “a grant made by a government that confers upon the creator of an invention the sole right to make, use, and sell that invention for a set period of time.” In other words, patents are intended to protect ideas or knowledge, not things created by nature. Last time I checked, genes were not inventions.

Continue reading " Gene Patents – Rewarding Innovation or Inhibiting Research? " »