The sudden and unexpected death of a Minnesota woman who fell victim to a nationwide Salmonella Typhimurium outbreak has prompted a wrongful death lawsuit against Virginia-based Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) -- a maker of bulk peanut butter and peanut paste.
Fred Pritzker, founder and president of national food safety law firm Pritzker | Olsen, P.A., filed the complaint Monday in Hennepin County District Court in Minneapolis for the heirs and of Shirley Mae Almer, 72, of Perham, Minnesota: Jeffrey Almer as trustee of the heirs of Shirley Mae Almer v. Peanut Corporation of America, a Virginia business entity and King Nut Companies, an Ohio business entity.
King Nut Companies is an Ohio-based firm that allegedly distributed the contaminated peanut butter that came out of PCA's plant in Blakely, Georgia, according to the complaint.
According to the complaint, the product was delivered to a nursing home in Brainerd, Minnesota, where Mrs. Almer was temporarily residing.
The complaint alleges that her death on December 21 was a direct result of consuming peanut butter that contained the same genetic strain of Salmonella that has sickened more than 500 other people in 43 states. On January 13, the FDA announced that PCA initiated a recall that included the product that had been served to Mrs. Almer.
"This is a very large and significant recall," Pritzker said. "It points to a number of vulnerabilities in our food safety system that require legislation and funding to correct. Consumers should feel concerned and demand a significant overhaul."
The complaint alleges negligence on behalf of PCA and King Nut for failure to train and properly supervise peanut butter production workers and other employees; failure to safely produce, store and transport its products; failure to maintain sanitary conditions during and after production; failure to prevent cross-contamination and failure to properly test its products, as well as other acts of negligence.
The complaint also alleges that PCA and King Nut are negligent per se for failing to comply with Minn. Stat. Chapter 31 and 21 USC Sec. 331.
The complaint also makes a claim for damages under the doctrine of strict liability.
Pritzker said Mrs. Almer was the "canary in a coal mine" whose death helped lead health investigators to the plant in South Georgia. Now federal officials view the PCA plant as the outbreak's lone, known source.
According to the complaint, Mrs. Almer's children were notified January 6 that she died with a Salmonella infection. Days later, the Minnesota departments of health and agriculture traced the problem to a five-pound pail of King Nut creamy peanut butter that had been in use at the nursing home.
Pritzker said grieving family members were angered to learn that the peanut butter served to Mrs. Almer contained the same deadly pathogen associated with hundreds of Salmonella infections since mid-September.
Mrs. Almer, who grew up in New York Mills, Minnesota, still owned a bowling alley in Wadena. She had survived two bouts with cancer in recent years and was cancer free when she was sickened with Salmonella. Just before she became ill, family members were planning to take her out of the nursing home. Instead, she became so sick from the bacteria that she was taken to a hospital, where she died.
Pritzker | Olsen has considerable experience and a reputation for success in representing survivors of foodborne illnesses (including E. coli, Listeria, Salmonella and Shigella). The firm is involved in virtually every national outbreak and has collected large sums on behalf of people injured or killed by adulterated food. In addition, the firm is devoted to educating the public about food safety issues and advocating for badly needed food safety legislation and increased funding for the federal, state and local agencies charged with protecting our food and enforcing food safety laws.
Pritzker and members of his firm are frequent guests and commentators about food safety issues and have been interviewed by and profiled in a number of media sources including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and CNN.

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the U.S. government is properly imprisoning two people as enemy combatants in Guantanamo - the first legal victory for the Bush administration in the issue for a long time, and the first of an expected 200 or more similar cases.
    U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington, D.C., was the jurist who ruled about a month ago that the Bush administration had illegally imprisoned five Algerians at Guantanamo for nearly 7 years. He ordered the administration to release them.
    The recent case involved a Yemeni, Moath Hamza Ahmed al Alwi, and a Tunisian, Hisham Sliti.
    Judge Leon found that Sliti was an al Qaeda recruit who attended a military training camp in Afghanistan.
    Judge Leon ruled that though there was no proof that al Alwi had made war upon U.S. forces, his ties to the Taliban were sufficient to justify his imprisonment as an enemy combatant.

A lawyer for jailed evangelist Tony Alamo asked a federal court Tuesday to remove religious references from a lawsuit against his client, saying they have the potential to draw the court into theological debate to decide the case.

John Hall of Little Rock said in a court filing that claims made by two former members of the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries were based on religious beliefs and not matters for argument in a court of law.

Hall gave as examples claims that Alamo engaged in practices to intimidate church members by withholding food, marrying young girls and performing severe beatings. Hall said Alamo's defense to each of these allegations was based largely on the Bible, and the filing cites numerous biblical passages.

"All of these fall within the ambit of defendant's religious beliefs," the filing says.

The suit, filed Nov. 25 in federal district court at Texarkana, claims that Seth Calagna and Spencer Ondrisek were beaten and subjected to abuse as teenagers in the church. The suit says the former church members, now adults, suffered physical pain, emotional distress, scarring and disfigurement. It seeks more than $75,000 in damages.

The Supreme Court took aim at one of its favorite targets Tuesday, criticizing a California-based federal appeals court for its ruling in favor of a criminal defendant.

The justices threw out a decision by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Michael Robert Pulido, who was convicted for his role in robbing a gas station and killing the defendant.

A U.S. District Court judge set aside Pulido's conviction because the trial judge in the case gave the jury improper instructions.

The high court said in an unsigned opinion that the appeals court ruling affirming the federal judge's action used faulty reasoning. The justices did not reinstate Pulido's conviction.

Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter agreed that the appeals court made a mistake, but would have affirmed its ruling anyway because the underlying decision in favor of Pulido was correct.

Last month, the court overruled the 9th Circuit in an environmental case involving the Navy's use of sonar and its potential harm to whales.

The case is Hedgpeth v. Pulido, 07-544.

A paralyzed man who has sued hundreds of businesses over accommodations for the disabled lost his Supreme Court appeal Monday to get out from under a court order requiring special permission to file new lawsuits.

Jarek Molski has been labeled a "vexatious litigant" by federal courts in California because he has filed roughly 400 lawsuits alleging that restaurants and other businesses are in violation of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. Molski is paralyzed from the chest down and uses a wheelchair.

The justices rejected his case without comment.

Molski frequently complains about the lack of handicapped van parking, counters that are too high, narrow doorways and grab-bars installed too high or low in bathrooms. In addition, he often says he was injured in the course of his visit. Targeted business owners often have settled out of court rather than pay attorneys and take the time to fight the lawsuits.

A federal judge in Los Angeles described the lawsuits as extortion. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling that Molski was an abusive litigant, although it noted that many of the establishments he sued probably were violating federal law.

"On the other hand, the district court had ample basis to conclude that Molski trumped up his claims of injury," the appeals court said.

The case is Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 08-38.

The Supreme Court spent an hour on Tuesday talking about dirty words on television without once using any or making plain how it would decide whether the government could ban them.

The dispute between the broadcast networks and the Federal Communications Commission is the court's first major broadcast indecency case in 30 years.

At issue is the FCC's policy, adopted in 2004, that even a one-time use of profanity on live television is indecent because some words are so offensive that they always evoke sexual or excretory images. So-called fleeting expletives were not treated as indecent before then.

The words in question begin with the letters "F" and "S." The Associated Press typically does not use them.

Chief Justice John Roberts, the only justice with young children at home, suggested that the commission's policy is reasonable. The use of either word, Roberts said, "is associated with sexual or excretory activity. That's what gives it its force."

Justice John Paul Stevens, who appeared skeptical of the policy, doubted that the f-word always conveys a sexual image.