Everyone knows about the woman who sued McDonald's because her coffee was too hot, right?  Over the years it has become the poster child for so-called “frivolous lawsuits” and the “greedy lawyers” who file them. It was a punch line of Seinfeld and Letterman and has evolved into the go-to citation for water cooler conversations about lawsuits happening daily across the country.

But what if I told you 79 year-old Stella Liebeck didn’t just suffer an inconvenient burn to her mouth like most people might assume? What if, instead, I told you she suffered 3^rd degree burns on her legs and groin after spilling the coffee as a passenger in a parked car? That she required multiple surgeries and skin grafts to treat her injuries. That Ms. Liebeck’s lawsuit asked for $20,000 in medical expenses and time off work, not the $2.8 million the jury eventually awarded her.

Would it change your mind?

Monday night you’ll have the chance to find out. A new documentary called Hot Coffee takes a closer look at the facts of the case and the very real public relations war that has been waged to influence our thinking about the legal system. It will premiere this coming Monday (June 27) at 8 p.m. CST on HBO.

The film debuted at the Sundance festival earlier this year and has garnered favorable reviews. Variety magazine has called it an “eye-opening indictment of the way big business spins the media,” and after the HBO premier last night, writer Peter Debruge had this to say:

"Hot Coffee" takes the subject of tort reform (yawn, right?) and the Republican assault against trial lawyers and turns the conversation upside down, emerging as a powerful piece of advocacy journalism that challenges some of the facile imagery of greedy litigants and stupid juries. The memorable case that provides the title -- a woman who sued McDonald's after being scalded by its coffee -- is only one of several that served as fodder for both libertarians like John Stossel and late night comics, yet which take on a different hue upon closer inspection.

"You can't wine and dine juries," as one lawyer puts it, citing the corrosive influence of money on other branches of government -- and even, increasingly, the judicial system, illustrated in the doc by the well-financed political campaigns waged against judges.

I plan to watch. I hope you do, too. My guess is that we’ll all come away with a new appreciation on how our court system works and who is actually influencing the way we think.

Ventura County, California sheriff deputies have discovered that hundreds of people may have been wrongly convicted of driving under the influence since January 2011 as a result of a type of suspected faulty breathalyzer called the Alco-Sensor V, a handheld testing device made by a St. Louis-based company, Intoximeters, Inc. 

A DUI or DWI conviction has stiff penalties, as it should.  In 2009, there were 10,839 fatalities caused by alcohol-impaired driving crashes in the United States, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. We don't condone drunk driving and proper convictions ought not be overturned; however, convictions should be based on proper evidence. When a DUI is based on a breathalyzer, the machine must be accurate.

In Ventura County, where the reported inaccurate breathalyzer tests occurred, the penalties associated with driving under the influence are a $3,300 fine, a revoked driver’s license and arrest. Of course, a DUI arrest can cause much more expense than just this.

News reports indicate that at least 300 people in Ventura County may have suffered these penalties after receiving a faulty alcohol breath test. The authorities are currently reviewing the cases and notifying defendants whom they believe may have been wrongly convicted. Of course, many drivers may have suffered an arrest for a crime they didn't commit.

Our experienced defective device attorneys are in a position to help people convicted of a DUI in California and throughout the country if their conviction is based on evidence gathered by the alleged type of defective breathalyzer-like device. Our lawyers DO NOT fight DUI convictions in criminal court, rather our attorneys are investigating civil claims for money damages against the parties responsible, according to media reports, for the reported faulty breathalyzer.

At long last, we’re seeing some meaningful, in-depth media coverage surrounding asbestos exposure and the horrible diseases it causes, like mesothelioma.

This is all courtesy of a collaboration between the BBC's International News Service and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. "Dangers in the Dust" is being rolled out this week across the BBC's international services, and through ICIJ’s more than 50 partner publications worldwide, including the McClatchy publishing company, owner of over 30 daily newspapers in the U.S. The series examines the dangers of asbestos on an international level and also includes a story on victims of “take home” asbestos exposure called, "Asbestos still killing families, decades later."

When most people think of mesothelioma – if they’ve ever even heard of mesothelioma – they think of a disease that strikes retired workers. They don’t think of people like our 39-year-old client Julie Gundlach. Since her mesothelioma diagnosis, she has been a tireless advocate for mesothelioma and asbestos-related illnesses.

When I was contacted by a reporter with McClatchy’s Illinois newspaper, the Belleville News-Democrat, writing an investigative piece on the dangers of asbestos and the “third wave” of asbestos victims, Julie immediately came to mind.

Julie is a young mother living with peritoneal mesothelioma. She lives in St. Louis with her husband, and she was exposed to asbestos when her father brought it home on his clothing after working as an industrial electrician.

Fact: people like Julie who don’t work around asbestos can be exposed to asbestos by others who do.

It’s called “take home” exposure. Here’s how it works: The asbestos dust gets on an worker’s clothes and skin. When they leave to go home so does the dust, causing them to expose their spouses, children and other immediate family members. In some cases, children have developed mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases later on in life because they hugged their parents. In Julie’s case, her childhood playroom doubled as her family’s laundry room where her father’s asbestos-covered clothes were washed.

Helping people like Julie as they fight to be that “one-in-a-million survivor,” as she says in the article, is rewarding. Her story illustrates the important role the legal process plays in ensuring mesothelioma cancer patients receive the funding they deserve to get the best treatments available.

As the BND article accurately states, she has had three surgeries and made over 25 trips to New York for treatment. "If it were not for the legalities, I would have never been able to receive the medical treatment I received," Gundlach said in the article. "I'm still not able to work. Mesothelioma kills innocent people, asbestos kills innocent people, it's not banned, and that is the story, that is the issue."

“Take Home” Asbestos Exposure In the Courtroom

Laws affecting victims of asbestos exposure are not relics from past generations. They continue to evolve in real time. Cases involving “take home” asbestos exposure can be especially combative because the company’s defense lawyers argue “take home” exposure isn’t their client’s problem because family members aren’t employees.

The Appellate Court ruled that companies are required to take steps to prevent the deadly dust from reaching the workers’ home. This is important because some courts have gone the other way and ruled the companies have no duty to the workers’ families; even though the risk of disease in the home was completely foreseeable.

For families like Julie Gundlach’s, this is very important. If certain companies are able to change the laws, sick family members will have no legal recourse. It is our goal to continue to fight for victims and make sure they have access to the courts.

Over the last 24 hours reports from St. Louis area news outlets have surfaced about a methane gas exposure issue due to a defunct landfill in Maryland Heights, Missouri. The Missouri Pass Landfill, located near the Ashton Park neighborhood and Ranken-Jordan Pediatric Hospital, has reported elevated levels of methane gas, potentially exposing area residents, families and businesses.

Now, according to the DNR's press release, letters have been sent to over 150 property owners within 1500 feet of the landfill. As most know, the immediate danger for the folks in Ashton Park and surrounding homes in Maryland Heights, is an explosion. Landfills, of course, are full of decaying waste, which produces methane gas. The gas can migrate underground to nearby homes and, if it leaks through a crack and comes in contact with a pilot light or other flammable material, can become explosive. (Note: You should leave your home immediately if you smell gas and call 911.)

KMOV News Channel 4 is reporting that some property owners were shocked and had no idea about the potential threat of the landfill. And according to a press release from the DNR, "The company will be following up with door-to-door visits in the near future offering to monitor for methane and to provide property owners with an explosive gas meter."

We'll keep a close eye on this story as it continues to develop. My hope is that this methane gas exposure is contained and no one's home or business in the Ashton Park neighborhood or surrounding area has been - or will be - damaged in the process. But if you live in that area or know someone who does, remember - better safe than sorry. If you smell gas, leave your home immediately.

To learn more about our investigation into the Maryland Heights landfill methane gas situation, feel free to contact us. 

We lost one hell of a fighter and good man this week. Ernest Conry, a husband, father and friend to many, lost his battle with mesothelioma on September 18, 2009. He passed away at his home in St. Louis, Missouri.

Ernie lived with pleural mesothelioma for over 7 years. His resilience against the disease is truly a testament to the power of a positive attitude. He was always quick with a joke and happy to spread the cheer. For years he attended the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation's annual symposium, where he took it as his mission to bring a bit of laughter to the many families and patients in pain.

Ernie once said, "The thing to do is get up and do something. Don’t let the cancer bog you down. Wait until someday it might bog you down, but my God, if you are still moving, keep moving. Go on about like you don’t have a disease. So the thing to do is get up and do something. Keep moving and enjoy it. You know, take the life that you have going for yourself and make use of it."

Born in 1933 in Tennessee, Ernie moved to St. Louis as a child. He entered the automotive field at age 17, becoming an apprentice auto mechanic at a Ford dealership. He was drafted into the army in 1953, and arrived in Inchon, Korea, six months after the armistice had been signed. From 1950 to 1998, when he retired on a union pension, Ernie worked consistently as a mechanic at a series of Ford dealerships.

Once diagnosed with mesothelioma, he took it upon himself to visit St. Louis area union halls and mechanic shops, distributing literature about the dangers of asbestos. He gave numerous seminars to our staff here at the firm. He taught us a lot - not just about asbestos in the auto industry, but about strength, character and resilience.

Ernie gave freely of himself, and all he ever expected in return was the pleasure of good company. He was a wonderful man. And he will be dearly missed.

Yesterday I spoke at Pennsylvania's first Environmental Justice Conference.  First, let me say that this was a remarkable event, combining thought leaders from every area of this complex and critically important movement - academics, medical professionals, journalists, grass roots advocates, community organizers, and attorneys like me.  It was an honor to participate in this dialogue.

What is environmental justice?  The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection offers this definition: "Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies."

This is a passionate discussion, and I can’t help but think of the many people whose lives have been directly touched by an environmental injustice. For instance, I think of communities like Ambler, Pennsylvania, where they continue to grapple with millions of tons of soil contaminated by asbestos dumped on the outside of town - sometimes called the "white mountain."  I've represented people with mesothelioma from this town.  Met their families.  Sat in their living rooms. 

I think of the folks of Libby, Montana - and the environmental injustice that blanketed asbestos on their homes, streets, and ultimately in their lungs.

My panel offered a wealth of information from some exceptionally smart folks about the law’s role in helping manage and push these issues forward.  Speakers included Daniel Isales of the US EPA Environmental Science Center, Adam Cutler of the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, and Joan Johnson, also of the US EPA.

What struck me as I met with people and listened to humbling stories like the one about the Harlem neighborhood where one-third of the children suffer from asthma due to the poor air quality, I was reminded yet again why it is I do what I do.

The plight of folks suffering from asbestos disease is one of the greatest tragedies and environmental injustices in the world’s history. Innocent people, too often in lower-income households and forgotten communities, were essentially poisoned by the companies where they were employed.  Corporate profits were put above personal safety, and hard-working Americans were left to pay the price. From 1999 to 2005, more than 18,000 people died from mesothelioma.

For those that believe that personal injury lawsuits are clogging up our judicial system, I offer that while, yes, there are “frivolous” lawsuits – those are the exception. In fact, less than 10% of all litigation involves personal injury matters.

Furthermore, the legal system is a critical mechanism for providing equal access and recourse to American citizens. This is a cornerstone of our great country, giving a voice to those without power and creating a sense of accountability for those that do. Legal action can often be a catalyst to help curtail future wrongdoing. Asbestos litigation is a textbook example of this – forcing increased corporate responsibility for providing safe, asbestos-free work environments.

Bringing an injustice in front of a jury of your peers is truly the great equalizer, and good things come of it.  Case in point: Ambler was recently added to the EPA's National Cleanup List.  While I can’t draw a direct line between asbestos lawsuits and the EPA’s action, I’d like to believe that litigation has helped bring additional attention to the community’s very serious issues.

I leave this conference with a renewed sense of dedication to our clients and a distinct sense of humility in the role we play in protecting the rights of those that have suffered an environmental injustice.