Why Amendments to Rule 23 Are Not Enough: A Case for the Federalization of Class Actions

Class action litigation can be a useful tool to protect consumers from corporate misconduct, particularly where the individual claims are too small to be economically viable. However, class actions are subject to abuse by unscrupulous counsel, some of whom use the mechanism to enrich themselves at the expense of the clients they claim to represent. As one commentator has noted, In many of these cases, the victimized consumers often receive pennies, or nearly-worthless coupons, while plaintiffs\u27 counsel receives millions in legal fees. Moreover, class actions are increasingly being filed over frivolous matters, often without the knowledge or consent of the proposed class members. Indeed, although they were [o]nce considered a tool of judicial economy... class actions are now often considered a means of defendant extortion

Preference Elicitation Tool for Abnormal Uterine Bleeding Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background It is estimated that one-third of women will experience abnormal menstrual bleeding. The majority of these cases are not due to cancer or pregnancy complications and, as a result, women are faced with a variety of treatment alternatives, the selection of which is largely dependent on personal preferences for care rather than clinical outcomes. Objective This randomized trial was designed to evaluate a preference elicitation tool to promote physician–patient collaborative decision making for treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB). Methods Adaptive conjoint analysis (ACA) was used to create a preference elicitation tool in English and in Spanish. Women with AUB were enrolled to the study and randomly assigned to ACA or usual counseling at the initial clinic visit at four clinics (three in Indianapolis, IN, USA, and one in Southern Pines, NC, USA). The ACA tool elicited preferences across eight attributes: treatment efficacy; sexual function; medical care; cost; fertility; frequency of medication use; permanence; and recovery time. t tests were used to compare differences in the primary outcomes of decision regret and treatment satisfaction at the follow-up visit. The study was designed to have 80 % power to detect significant differences between groups for the primary outcomes of regret and satisfaction. Results Women were enrolled in the study between September 2009 and March 2012. 183 participants were randomized to ACA and 191 to usual counseling. Overall, mean (standard deviation) treatment satisfaction was high at 35.71 (9.72) (scale of 0–44), and decision regret was low at 25.9 (21.0) (scale of 0–100), creating ceiling effects for the selected outcome variables; there were no significant differences between the ACA and control groups at the follow-up assessment. There was a strong inverse relationship between age and decision regret (p = 0.007). Exploratory subgroup analysis in the youngest quartile comprising 64 women aged 19–35 years showed a statistically non-significant difference in mean regret scores for the ACA group versus usual counseling (24.6 vs. 34.6, respectively; p = 0.08). Conclusions A preference elicitation tool at the initial consultation visit did not reduce decision regret or improve treatment satisfaction among patients with AUB; however, there is a need for additional research to further understand this tool’s potential role in promoting collaborative decision making, which may be particularly important among younger women

Re-Examining Gasperini: Damages Assessments and Standards of Review

In May, 2001, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc.1 While the Court\u27s decision in Cooper was undoubtedly correct insofar as its holding goes, the case created a collateral issue for federal courts sitting in diversity under both the Erie Doctrine,2 and under the Court\u27s prior precedent as announced in Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc.3 In Cooper, the Court held that an appellate court reviewing a punitive damages award for Constitutional excessiveness should apply a de novo standard because a punitive damage award is not a finding of fact, and, therefore, reviewing the award de novo does not invade the province of the jury.4 Conversely, the Gasperini Court held that the proper standard of review was abuse of discretion.5 Admittedly, the award in Gasperini was compensatory, not punitive, and principled distinctions can be made between the two types of awards, particularly in light of the Cooper Court\u27s rationale for application of the de novo standard, i.e., that a punitive damage award was not a fact.6 However, the case poses a problem that goes far beyond a court\u27s having to apply two standards of review, and may rise to constitutional proportions

A SLAPP in the Face: Why Principles of Federalism Suggest that Federal District Courts Should Stop Turning the Other Cheek

This article examines the nexus between state and federal law where SLAPP and Anti-SLAPP statutory schemes are litigated by a federal district court sitting in diversity. In particular, this article will explore the standard the federal court should apply when an Anti-SLAPP early motion to dismiss is brought by SLAPP defendant and the plaintiff challenges dismissal on the basis of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure pursuant to the regime established by the Supreme Court in Hannah v. Plumer

Defining Constitutional Parameters: The Forced Drugging of Civilly Committed Mental Patients

This Note explores the constitutional issues surrounding the forced administration of psychotropic drugs. This author discusses the impact of the recent Supreme Court decision, Washington v. Harper, on forced medication and criticizes the judicial system\u27s present treatment of these issues. Ultimately, this author proposes a preferred analytic framework and standard of review for deciding such cases, focusing on First Amendment, rather than due process rights. Eds