The memo should request a set-timed conference call amongst decision makers to evaluate new information and answer questions. The call should suggest developing a plan to disassociate the Taco Bell brand from the consumer health violation, as well as reevaluate current use of approved genetically modified substances in its restaurants. Kraft Foods, Inc. should be second in the communication pipeline. Being late on a Friday, a direct telephone call would be the source of communication in order to streamline answers to this external crisis. The main point delivered should be to get in touch with Aventis and come to a conclusion as to how this contamination occurred.
Temple v. Synthes Corp. (pg 762) Medical implant user (P) v. Implant manufacturer (D) NATURE OF CASE: Appeal of dismissal with prejudice of action for damages for products liability, medical malpractice, and negligence. FACT SUMMARY: Temple's (P) federal suit against Synthes (D), the manufacturer of a plate implanted in Temple's (P) back, was dismissed when Temple (P) failed to join the doctor and the hospital responsible for installing the plate. CONCISE RULE OF LAW: Joint tortfeasors are not necessary parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. FACTS: A plate and screw device implanted in Temple's (P) back malfunctioned. Temple (P) filed a federal court products liability action against Synthes (D), the manufacturer
Unit 5 Assignment Kaplan University In the case of Ms. Charlize Theron vs watch maker Raymond Weil we are to discuss three items, how the contract between these two people was allegedly breached, what defenses may be available to the defendant, and what remedy may be available to the plaintiff. The first question I will address is how exactly the contract was breached. Mrs. Theron signed a contract with the watchmaker Mr. Weil stating that from October 2005 through December 2006 she would only wear Weil's high-end watches. But in fact she was wearing the competitions watches as well as Weil’s. Now this would be considered a breach but after reading the article several times it said she was not allowed to represent any other jewelry
Earshad Jafar Legal Studies Period 8 January 11th, 2012 Terry C. O’Neal is guilty in the killing of Nicole Anderson because he was not supposed to be driving in the first place to the pizzeria. In the state of New York when you have a permit you are only suppose to drive when a license driver except when they are going to school then back home and no where else. Terry went to the pizzeria somewhere he was not supposed to go. Terry O’Neal also admitted when he was speeding. The visors of the vehicle said do not make quick turns or similar maneuvers because it may cause the vehicle to roll over and he jerked the vehicle to avoid Pat Young.
In response to the recent lawsuit by Phyllis Toote against Pathmark Stores, Inc., legal options to settle the lawsuit will be discussed. On July 7, 2014 Ms. Toote entered a Pathmark grocery store in San Diego, CA and proceeded to the soda aisle and tripped over a box of soda. The plaintiff was not severely injured, but she did experience some discomfort and proceeded to the hospital to be evaluated. (Cheeseman, 2012) If Pathmark decides to go to trial, this is the scenario that will be likely. This trial will be handled by the California State Court System.
If the medical imaging professional was listed in the paper then the time of his arrest his employer should have been notified. His employer then should have taken disciplinary action against the professional as a code of conduct and standard of care. In this case I would think that the facility would be held in neglect. He or she should have been deciplined, whether it is suspension or community service. Medical negligence means a breach of the health care providers duty to follow the applicable standard of care, which results in harm to the
Barbara Perez Breach of Contract PA300: Real Estate Law Prof: James Roche March 3, 2015 To: Barbara Buyer Date: 3/2/2015 From: Barbara Perez, Paralegal Re: Action on terminated property sale at 123 Van Buren Street, North Bergen, NJ 07047 I am contacting you in regards to the issue indicated. There are quite a few ethical issues in your businesses with Mr. Sam Salesperson and Seller. For instance, Mr. Salesperson did not produce the appropriate contract concerning the earnest payment on the two occasions where he had promised to do so. He also did not practice impartially as a dual agent and appeared to be biased towards the seller. It was even more unethical not to disclose the agreement that had been in the works with the other
However, the company refused to acknowledge the certification and would not bargain and filed an exception with the Board on the union certificate. After the board found the certificate valid, North Star had officially violated section 8(a) (5) and 8(a) (1) of the LMRA since they refused to recognize and bargain with the union. Before the union certification, North Star had maintained a health care plan for its employees and historically had this plan for some time. The plan required employees to contribute to the payment of premiums. North Star was also allowed to make unilateral changes in the amount of money the employees needed to contribute depending on costs of health care coverage.
The conclusion of a justification report should show convincingly that the recommendation is justified by the advantages that will be realized. Re: Request for Formal Grievance Hearing Pursuant to LSA Certificate of Coverage Complaint and Grievance Procedure Dear Grievance Committee, I am writing this letter to express my concern over the decision by my health plan, UK-HMO, to deny coverage for the purchase of hearing appliances (hearing aids) for my son. I have had numerous contacts with plan representatives regarding this matter since December 4, 2000. A written appeal was submitted to the plan on December 7, 2000. The appeal was reviewed, and the decision of denial of coverage for hearing aids was upheld in a letter dated December 19, 2000.
Protests were launched because people believed the use of a carton character was intended to target children. Peart (1993) writes: U.S. Surgeon General Antonia Novello demanded that the tobacco company remove Joe Camel from all its advertising and marketing. Although the Surgeon General’s office had no legal authority to force a change, Novello said the company should do it [stop using Joe Camel] for moral reasons, because the ads enticed youngsters to smoke. As evidence, she cited a study showing that children as young as age 6 recognized the Joe Camel character and linked it [the cartoon character] with smoking.