VENUE-INTERPRETATION OF TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1406(a)

A tort action for injuries sustained in Wyoming was commenced in an Illinois state court and removed to the proper United States District Court in Illinois. Defendant interposed the Illinois statute of limitations as a defense. In order to take advantage of the longer Wyoming statute of limitations, plaintiff moved to transfer the suit to the United States District Court for Wyoming under authority of Title 28, United States Code, section 1406(a), providing for the transfer of actions from district courts where venue was improperly laid. The motion to transfer was denied and the, complaint was dismissed. Held, section 1406(a) does not authorize transfer of a suit from a district wherein venue was properly laid. Dismissal affirmed. Riley v. Union Pac. R. Co., (7th Cir. 1949) 177 F. (2d) 673.

JUDGMENTS-RES JUDICATA BETWEEN ADVERSE CODEFENDANTS

ln an attempt to enforce a personal judgment, the judgment creditor brought a statutory equity suit jointly against the judgment debtor (plaintiff in the present suit) and the defendant insurance company to reach and apply the proceeds of a motor vehicle liability policy. The bill was dismissed as to the insurance company. In a subsequent action by plaintiff on the policy, the answer set up the equity decree as res judicata. Plaintiff demurred on the ground that the answer failed to allege that the parties were adversaries inter sese under the pleadings of the former suit. Held, order overruling the plaintiff\u27s demurrer sustained. The answer alleged that the parties had been adversaries and had litigated the issues involved in the action on the policy. It cannot be said as a matter of law that an answer which sets up the defense of res judicata must allege that the parties were adversaries under the former pleadings. Gleason v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Company, 324 Mass. 695, 88 N.E. (2d) 632 (1949)

FEDERAL PROCEDURE-VENUE-WAIVER OF TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1391(a), UNDER NONRESIDENT MOTORIST STATUTES

A Connecticut resident brought a suit based on diversity of citizenship in a United States district court in Massachusetts against an Ohio corporation, alleging a cause of action arising from an automobile collision upon a Massachusetts highway. Plaintiff secured personal jurisdiction over the defendant by serving process upon the Registrar of Motor Vehicles for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and by giving notice to defendant in accordance with the Massachusetts nonresident motorist statute. Upon defendant\u27s motion, the action was dismissed for improper venue. Held, defendant is not a Massachusetts resident for purposes of federal venue as defined by Title 28, United States Code, section 139l(c). The operation of defendant\u27s motor vehicle on Massachusetts highways did not amount to a voluntary consent to be sued or a waiver of the federal venue privilege. Dismissal affirmed. Martin v. Fischbach Trucking Co., (1st Cir. 1950) 183 F (2d) 53

PROBATE PROCEEDINGS-ADMINISTRATION OF DECEDENTS\u27 ESTATES- THE MULLANE CASE AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW

In a recent decision by the United States Supreme Court, a new chapter has been added to the law on the requisites of notice under the due process clause of the Constitution. This case held that publication of notice prior to a judicial settlement of accounts by the corporate trustee of a common trust fund does not afford due process of law to those beneficiaries with present interests whose addresses are known to the trustee. The court refused to classify the action as in rem or in personam but held that whatever its technical definition, the published notice was not reasonably calculated to reach known beneficiaries. Because of the apparent likeness between this trust accounting procedure and procedures employed by many of the states for the administration of decedents\u27 estates, practitioners and writers are speculative as to whether the methods of notice now authorized by the various probate codes will be sufficient under the due process test applied in this case

FEDERAL COURTS-VENUE-TRANSFER TO A MORE CONVENIENT FORUM UNDER TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1404(a)

A cause of action based on diversity of citizenship was brought in a United States District Court in Pennsylvania by a New York corporation against a Delaware corporation. Plaintiff joined a New York corporation as an involuntary plaintiff. Defendant then moved for a transfer based on forum non conveniens to the Southern District of New York. Held, this suit could not have been brought originally in the Southern District of New York since the present involuntary plaintiff, amenable to process in that district, could only have been joined as a defendant and diversity of citizenship would have been absent. Masterpiece Productions, Inc. v. United Artists Corp., (D.C. Pa. 1950) 90 F. Supp. 750

Efficacy of a trivalent influenza vaccine against seasonal strains and against 2009 pandemic H1N1: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial

Background: Before pandemic H1N1 vaccines were available, the potential benefit of existing seasonal trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV3s) against influenza due to the 2009 pandemic H1N1 influenza strain was investigated, with conflicting results. This study assessed the efficacy of seasonal IIV3s against influenza due to 2008 and 2009 seasonal influenza strains and against the 2009 pandemic H1N1 strain. Methods: This observer-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study enrolled adults aged 18–64 years during 2008 and 2009 in Australia and New Zealand. Participants were randomized 2:1 to receive IIV3 or placebo. The primary objective was to demonstrate the efficacy of IIV3 against laboratory-confirmed influenza. Participants reporting an influenza-like illness during the period from 14 days after vaccination until 30 November of each study year were tested for influenza by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. Results: Over a study period of 2 years, 15,044 participants were enrolled (mean age ± standard deviation: 35.5 ± 14.7 years; 54.4% female). Vaccine efficacy of the 2008 and 2009 IIV3s against influenza due to any strain was 42% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 30%, 52%), whereas vaccine efficacy against influenza due to the vaccine-matched strains was 60% (95% CI: 44%, 72%). Vaccine efficacy of the 2009 IIV3 against influenza due to the 2009 pandemic H1N1 strain was 38% (95% CI: 19%, 53%). No vaccine-related deaths or serious adverse events were reported. Solicited local and systemic adverse events were more frequent in IIV3 recipients than placebo recipients (local: IIV3 74.6% vs placebo 20.4%, p < 0.001; systemic: IIV3 46.6% vs placebo 39.1%, p < 0.001). Conclusions: The 2008 and 2009 IIV3s were efficacious against influenza due to seasonal influenza strains and the 2009 IIV3 demonstrated moderate efficacy against influenza due to the 2009 pandemic H1N1 strain

Pre-hospital assessment of the role of adrenaline : measuring the effectiveness of drug administration in cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC-2) : trial protocol

Despite its use since the 1960s, the safety or effectiveness of adrenaline as a treatment for cardiac arrest has never been comprehensively evaluated in a clinical trial. Although most studies have found that adrenaline increases the chance of return of spontaneous circulation for short periods, many studies found harmful effects on the brain and raise concern that adrenaline may reduce overall survival and/or good neurological outcome. The PARAMEDIC-2 trial seeks to determine if adrenaline is safe and effective in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. This is a pragmatic, individually randomised, double blind, controlled trial with a parallel economic evaluation. Participants will be eligible if they are in cardiac arrest in the out-of-hospital environment and advanced life support is initiated. Exclusions are cardiac arrest as a result of anaphylaxis or life threatening asthma, and patient known or appearing to be under 16 or pregnant. 8000 participants treated by 5 UK ambulance services will be randomised between December 2014 and August 2017 to adrenaline (intervention) or placebo (control) through opening pre-randomised drug packs. Clinical outcomes are survival to 30 days (primary outcome), hospital discharge, 3, 6 and 12 months, health related quality of life, and neurological and cognitive outcomes (secondary outcomes). Trial registration (ISRCTN73485024)

Meta-Analysis of the Prognostic Impact of Anemia in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

This study was funded by an award from the North Staffordshire Medical Institute, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom.Peer reviewedPostprin

Mechanical versus manual chest compression for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC) : a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Mechanical chest compression devices have the potential to help maintain high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), but despite their increasing use, little evidence exists for their effectiveness. We aimed to study whether the introduction of LUCAS-2 mechanical CPR into front-line emergency response vehicles would improve survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. METHODS: The pre-hospital randomised assessment of a mechanical compression device in cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC) trial was a pragmatic, cluster-randomised open-label trial including adults with non-traumatic, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest from four UK Ambulance Services (West Midlands, North East England, Wales, South Central). 91 urban and semi-urban ambulance stations were selected for participation. Clusters were ambulance service vehicles, which were randomly assigned (1:2) to LUCAS-2 or manual CPR. Patients received LUCAS-2 mechanical chest compression or manual chest compressions according to the first trial vehicle to arrive on scene. The primary outcome was survival at 30 days following cardiac arrest and was analysed by intention to treat. Ambulance dispatch staff and those collecting the primary outcome were masked to treatment allocation. Masking of the ambulance staff who delivered the interventions and reported initial response to treatment was not possible. The study is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN08233942. FINDINGS: We enrolled 4471 eligible patients (1652 assigned to the LUCAS-2 group, 2819 assigned to the control group) between April 15, 2010 and June 10, 2013. 985 (60%) patients in the LUCAS-2 group received mechanical chest compression, and 11 (<1%) patients in the control group received LUCAS-2. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 30 day survival was similar in the LUCAS-2 group (104 [6%] of 1652 patients) and in the manual CPR group (193 [7%] of 2819 patients; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·86, 95% CI 0·64-1·15). No serious adverse events were noted. Seven clinical adverse events were reported in the LUCAS-2 group (three patients with chest bruising, two with chest lacerations, and two with blood in mouth). 15 device incidents occurred during operational use. No adverse or serious adverse events were reported in the manual group. INTERPRETATION: We noted no evidence of improvement in 30 day survival with LUCAS-2 compared with manual compressions. On the basis of ours and other recent randomised trials, widespread adoption of mechanical CPR devices for routine use does not improve survival

The view from everywhere: Disciplining diversity in post–World War II international social science

This paper explores the attempt of social scientists associated with Unesco to create a system of knowledge production to provide the international perspective necessary for democratic governance of a world community. Social scientists constructed a federal system of international associations that institutionalized American disciplines on an international scale. An international perspective emerged through the process of interdisciplinary international research. I call this ideal of coordinating multiple subjectivities to produce objectivity the “view from everywhere.” Influenced by social psychological “action-research,” collaborative research was group therapy. The attempt to operationalize internationalists' rallying slogan, “unity in diversity,” illuminated tensions inherent in the mobilization of science for social and political reform. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/64294/1/20394_ftp.pd