Podcasts about romanucci

Syracuse University College of Law Professor Gregory Germain joins Rich and Tina to discuss the verdict in Trump's hush money trial. Perry Law Associate and Former Law Clerk of the Senate Judiciary Committee Joshua Kolb discusses his representation of Michael Cohen during Trump's hush money trial. Romanucci & Blandin Law Founding Partner Antonio Romanucci discusses […]

Case Western Reserve School of Law Professor Emeritus Jonathan Entin joins Rich and Tina to discuss the latest with Ohio's abortion legislation, Issue 1. Advitam IP attorney Natalie Elizaroff joins Legal Face-Off to discuss the latest efforts to combat pornographic deepfakes. Romanucci Blandin Law Founding Partner Antonio Romanucci discusses the latest developments with the impacts […]

In this episode, Kenny and prominent civil rights attorney Antonio Romanucci of Chicago-based trial firm Romanucci & Blandin, discuss his involvement in high profile civil rights and mass shooting cases, including the historic civil lawsuit alongside Ben Crump against the City of Minneapolis and four police officers for the murder of George Floyd. Romanucci also shares what he does to build strong relationships with his clients as well as what he does to create a culture of wellness at his firm. 

Tony Romanucci, the Chicago-based attorney representing the Nichols family, joins Lisa Dent to explain why he believes the five officers fired and charged in Tyre Nichols's death should be held accountable for their actions and why those actions point to a bigger problem with the department. A sixth Memphis police officer has also been relieved […]

Tensions between law enforcement and communities of color were on the rise well before the murder of George Floyd.  Join Attorney Tony Romanucci in this continuing conversation on the current state of policing in America.  Mr. Romanucci discusses previous cases of brutality that weren't publicized and discusses how disturbing practices continue to propagate.  Mr. Romanucci's information is available at:https://www.rblaw.net/professionals-romanucci ( https://www.rblaw.net/professionals-romanucci).

George Floyd's murder was a spark into an already loaded powder keg.  Despite extensive press and publicity, misconceptions regarding the murder and the subsequent trials remain.  Join Floyd family co-counsel Antonio Romanucci as he discusses the case and the issues that were pervasive in the Minneapolis Police Department for years. More information on Mr. Romanucci is available at: https://www.rblaw.net/professionals-romanucci.

Attorney Michael Holden, Partner, Romanucci & Blandin, joins John Williams to talk about the survivors of the mass shooting at the Highland Park Fourth of July Parade filing a lawsuit against gun maker Smith & Wesson for their role in making it possible for the shooter to carry out the massacre.

Attorney Michael Holden, Partner, Romanucci & Blandin, joins John Williams to talk about the survivors of the mass shooting at the Highland Park Fourth of July Parade filing a lawsuit against gun maker Smith & Wesson for their role in making it possible for the shooter to carry out the massacre.

Attorney Michael Holden, Partner, Romanucci & Blandin, joins John Williams to talk about the survivors of the mass shooting at the Highland Park Fourth of July Parade filing a lawsuit against gun maker Smith & Wesson for their role in making it possible for the shooter to carry out the massacre.

Washington Post national political enterprise reporter Robert Samuels speaks with Ben Crump and Antonio Romanucci, who represented the family of George Floyd in their civil suit against the city of Minneapolis, about where the country is today two years after Floyd's murder. Recorded on Monday, May 23, 2022.

Stephan Blandin, founding partner in Romanucci & Blandin LLC, joins Lisa Dent on Chicago’s Afternoon News to explain how two former chemical plants in Union, IL may be responsible for dumping toxic, cancer-causing chemicals into the ground. Follow Your Favorite Chicago’s Afternoon News Personalities on Twitter:Follow @LisaDentSpeaksFollow @SteveBertrand Follow @kpowell720 Follow @maryvandeveldeFollow @LaurenLapka

In this episode of Trial Lawyer View, host Jason D. Lazarus has an in-depth conversation with one of the George Floyd family civil attorneys, Tony Romanucci of Romanucci & Blandin, LLC. They discuss how his Italian immigrant parents instilled in him his passionate work ethic and how his first job with the Cook County Public Defender's Office shaped his career fighting for social justice in police misconduct cases. They also talk about how the death of Michael Brown led to the creation of AAJ's Police Misconduct Litigation group, Romancucci's involvement in the George Floyd case and how he hopes it will change the world. They also talk about other groundbreaking litigation against large corporations, like aluminum bat manufacturers and Sterigenics, that have led to safer practices. Learn more about Tony Romanucci: https://bit.ly/2ZLI7hw

Lenny sits down with Antonio Romanucci, founding partner of the Chicago-based firm Romanucci & Blandin. Mr. Romanucci was recently honored to represent the family of George Floyd in the civil lawsuit against the City of Minneapolis and four of its police officers alongside Lead Counsel Ben Crump. In today's episode, Mr. Romanucci joins Lenny to explore discourse and the legislative process following the stalled negotiations between Senate Democrats and Republicans on the topic of police reform in the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.

The Lanza Group former FBI agent Jeff Lanza analyzes the FBI's investigation in the Gabby Petito case.  ACLU of Illinois Director of Communications and Public Policy Edwin Yohnka discusses Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot suing gangs and 9/11's impact on civil liberties.  Romanucci & Blandin attorney Ian Fallon discusses his lawsuit against Plainfield Central High School […]

In this episode Jonathan Rosenfeld chats with Bryce Hensley an Attorney at Romanucci & Blandin, LLC Here, they discuss: Roundup Lawsuit Update 2021   Read the Transcript Download the PDF Jonathan Rosenfeld: Hello everybody. I am Jonathan Rosenfeld. And today I am joined by attorney Bryce Hensley, and we are going to talk about the Roundup litigation, the 2021 updates with respect to the Roundup Weed Killer litigation. Bryce, thanks for joining me today. Bryce Hensley: Thanks for having me, John. Jonathan Rosenfeld: Now, Bryce, one of the largest emerging trends in mass torts in the past several years involves Roundup Weed Killer, and specifically the correlation between non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and use of Roundup. Bryce, many people have contacted our office in relation to these cases and one of the ongoing things they ask is really what is the status of these cases? People have been watching the news, they see a lot of headlines, but can you sort of bring this up to date with the status of the Roundup cases in 2021. Bryce Hensley: Right now the status of the Roundup litigation is there have been cases pending for over five years in various courts across the country, those include California, St. Louis, here in Chicago and various other states. There've been three trials that have proceeded in California that resulted in such decisive victories for Roundup users against the manufacturers that those companies, which is Monsanto and Bayer, the company that purchased Monsanto, has set aside billions of dollars for Roundup users to settle their claims, which typically involve non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or various subsets of that type of cancer. Jonathan Rosenfeld: So at this point, one of the followups that we're seeing with a lot of these potential clients is they're reading these news headlines that Bayer has set aside billions of dollars to resolve these cases. And obviously if you have a potential case, one of the followup questions that a lot of people are asking is really what is the settlement amounts per person when it comes to the Roundup lawsuit. Everything is ultimately about dollars and cents here and if someone's looking at this and saying, hey, Bayer, put aside all this money, how does that translate into what I'm going to get? Jonathan Rosenfeld: What is my piece of the pie? How would you respond to that? And what type of monetary recovery are we looking at here possibly? Bryce Hensley: Well, if you have been diagnosed with a form of cancer and you've used Roundup in the past, my first recommendation would be to reach out to an attorney, an attorney experienced in handling these types of cases. Our office has handled over dozens of cases, and we've also settled a case involving Roundup exposure. Each case is different though. And so the settlement values are really going to depend on a number of things, which include your diagnosis, the amount of Roundup you used, the extent of the treatment you received, the type of the treatment you received, your age and a number of other factors that may increase or decrease the value of your potential settlement. Jonathan Rosenfeld: Bryce, one of the things that I want to also ask you as sort of a follow up here is you mentioned that these cases have been going on now for years. In terms of the time to file a lawsuit and the time to file a Roundup lawsuit, ultimately everything is governed by a statute of limitations, a time requirement that you have to file a lawsuit. How are you looking at the statute of limitations with respect to potential Roundup cases? Bryce Hensley: John, that's a great question. There is still time to bring Roundup lawsuits, but there's two important things that have to be taken into consideration as to why people should move forward and call an attorney immediately. The first you already referenced, which is the statute of limitations. Every state in the United States has what's called a statute of limitations. That's a time period that governs the amount of time where you can actually file a lawsuit and move forward. Now that varies from state to state, and it's important to reach out to an attorney who has knowledge of various state statute of limitations. Bryce Hensley: What also may come into play there is when you first found out about the potential connection between Roundup and your cancer diagnosis. And a second important reason why it's important to reach out to an attorney immediately is because while these companies have set aside billions of dollars, there are also tens of thousands of individuals who have filed claims or filed lawsuits or are currently pending around the country. So it's important to reach out immediately before that money gets dispersed to other people. Jonathan Rosenfeld: Who qualifies to bring around a case? A lot of times people may be watching these videos and they may be saying to themselves, hey, I may not have a diagnosis of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or a different type of cancer, but my family member is. Who qualifies under the guise, the parameters of the Roundup litigation to file a lawsuit? Bryce Hensley: Anybody who had exposure to Roundup could qualify for a potential settlement. These could be landscapers. These could be farmers, or these could be individuals using Roundup around their homes. Now whether or not you qualify also depends on the type of cancer diagnosis that you have. Roundup settlements typically resolve when an individual has exposure to the product and was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or one of its subsets. Now whether or not an individual qualifies is ultimately going to depend on their diagnosis and then the value of that claim is going to depend on a number of things, including the type of diagnosis, the age that an individual was diagnosed. Bryce Hensley: It's going to depend on their Roundup, use the type of Roundup use that they had, and it's going to depend on a number of other risk factors that ultimately are used to determine the value of the case. Jonathan Rosenfeld: So the bottom line is if you think you have a potential Roundup case, now is the time to really take action and really contact an attorney. If you've been sitting on the sidelines watching this play out, now is really the time to act. Bryce, I want to ask you, can you give us an idea of the volume of cases that have been filed, the volume of Roundup lawsuits that have been filed? Bryce Hensley: Right now, there are tens of thousands of lawsuits involving Roundup of exposure pending around the country. In fact, it's believed that the number may even exceed 100,000 cases. Our office is handling many of these cases all over the country in various states, and we're currently evaluating settlement opportunities in those cases. But because there's so many cases, it's important that you reach out to an attorney immediately. While all these companies have set aside billions of dollars to settle Roundup claims, there are thousands of people out there and that money can disappear pretty fast. Jonathan Rosenfeld: Now, if someone's watching this video and they're saying to themselves, well, I think I have a case. I've got a diagnosis of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. I may have lived in an agricultural area when I was younger. I may have used Roundup. But you know what, I mean, that was three houses ago. I don't have the product anymore. What would you tell those people about, how you would essentially show the evidence that you would use to show that they actually used and were exposed to Roundup if they don't have the product anymore? Bryce Hensley:   Well, John, that's a great question. There are a lot of people out there who no longer have any proof of their Roundup use. They may have thrown out the Roundup. They may have tossed out the receipts. They may have never gotten the receipts in the first place. But in the Roundup litigation, what many individuals have done is they filled out what are called affidavits or sworn statements attesting their Roundup use, or they may have a family member fill out an affidavit or a sworn statement attesting to their Roundup use.

On this episode of Lessons From The Tank Podcast, Joe Altieri, president and inventor of FlexScreen that appeared on Shark Tank Season 11 Episode 10 talks with Shark Tank Entrepreneur Rebecca Romanucci from Shark Tank Season 12 Episode 19 about her company DynoSafe and the lessons she learned from her Shark Tank experience. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/lessonsfromthetank/message

In this episode Jonathan Rosenfeld chats with Martin D. Gould an Attorney at Romanucci & Blandin, LLC. Here, they discuss: Paraquat Lawsuit Update: The Alleged Connection Between Paraquat and Parkinson's Disease   Read the Transcript Download the PDF Johnathan Rosenfeld: Hello, I am Johnathan Rosenfeld. Today, I am joined today with Marty Gould on the Personal Injury podcast, and I am going to talk with Marty about an emerging area of product liability litigation involving Paraquat herbicide. Marty, I appreciate you joining me today. Thank you. Marty Gould: Thanks for having me on, John. Johnathan Rosenfeld: Now, Marty, we are sort of really in the early, early, early phases of what may emerge to be a very, very significant piece of product liability litigation involving Paraquat. First off, can you just give us a little bit of overview in terms of what Paraquat is, and how it's used, and why it's used? Marty Gould: Paraquat is a chemical herbicide that's used primarily in farming. It can also be used to kill weeds. And if you're a farmer, or a landscaper, or a groundskeeper, a gardener, you probably come into contact with Paraquat. In 2011, a study by the National Institute of Health found that people exposed to Paraquat are approximately 2.5 times or 250% more likely to develop Parkinson's Disease. Johnathan Rosenfeld: So today we're seeing there's been a trickle of lawsuits that have been filed down in southern Illinois, but we're seeing a trickle of lawsuits that have been filed primarily by agricultural workers who have been exposed to Paraquat during their work. The allegations are that they were never warned of the potential dangers related to Paraquat. Is that correct? Marty Gould: That's correct. Now that we're publicly finding out about the links between Paraquat and Parkinson's, lawsuits have been filed. A lot of them in southern Illinois against various companies that manufactured it or sold it. Most of these plaintiffs are Illinois crop dusters, or farmers, landscapers, and it's essentially that there was knowledge about these harms that weren't disclosed to the consumers. Johnathan Rosenfeld: So, whenever you bring in a case in terms of product's liability, you have to make these allegations in your complaint. The primary allegation, I guess at this point, is that these manufacturers knew or should have known of these dangers but failed to put any warnings on the product while they were using this. Correct? Marty Gould: And that's essentially the basis of the complaints is that they knew about a harm. Just like in all the other cases with Zantec or Roundup, there was knowledge from studies in their own independent research about these harms, or the risk of harm, and the failure to warn the consumer that use of it could increase the risks of Parkinson's or whatever the disease might be. They have certain obligations to consumers in regards to putting them on notice. Johnathan Rosenfeld: Now, these cases are really in the early stages. I anticipate there's going to be many, many, many more of these cases coming forward, many more lawsuits coming forward. It's safe to say that there have not been any settlements related to Paraquat lawsuits at this time? Marty Gould: Not any on a wide-scale basis, but there has been a lot going on in terms of Paraquat and various countries is reviewing Paraquat, its safety. So the European Union banned the herbicide back in 2007. China, Brazil, and several other countries have abandoned its use. And I don't think we're too far away from seeing it banned in many other countries. Johnathan Rosenfeld: Now, we can talk a little bit about or look to the litigation involving Roundup weed killer herbicide and what we've seen in terms of those lawsuits and the damages and those lawsuits, can you talk a little bit about the damages that may be available in a Paraquat lawsuit? Marty Gould: So in a personal injury case, you can seek compensation for your lost income, your lost earning capacity if we established that you did have Parkinson's or increased your risk of Parkinson's and it caused all sorts of damages and you couldn't work, those are all things you can legally get compensated for. But also, more importantly, you get compensated for the physical and emotional pain and suffering, and the tremors that you're getting, the physical pains you get. These are all things that you can legally seek financial compensation for. And that's why it's important to speak with a lawyer to find out what your rights are and what types of compensation you can personally collect in your case. Johnathan Rosenfeld: Marty, some of these people who may be watching this video today or listening to this podcast, they may have been affected either individually or they may have a family member who's been impacted by the use of Paraquat or Paraquat exposure. What would you tell them in terms of moving forward? A lot of times, these people may be sitting back and they may be thinking, "Oh, you know what? This happened years ago. I may not have a claim. The time may have evaporated for me to pursue a case." What would you tell these people? Marty Gould: It's important to speak with a lawyer who can examine your specific facts and know your rights. Many states have laws that allow you to still bring claims even if your exposure was from decades ago or your Parkinson's that you had was diagnosed decades ago because many states have what's called the Discovery Rule. It's the point in time that you realize that your harm was caused by the defendant's negligence. So, it's important always consult with a lawyer even if you think maybe it's too late or maybe you think that there could be other causes of the Parkinson's to find out what your rights are and see if there's a possible connection. Johnathan Rosenfeld: Marty, this was great information. I appreciate you joining me today. Thank you. Marty Gould: Thanks for having me on, Jon.

In this episode Jonathan Rosenfeld chats with Martin D. Gould an Attorney at Romanucci & Blandin, LLC. Here, they discuss: Zantac Cancer Lawsuit FAQ: 4 Most Asked Questions   Read the Transcript Download the PDF Jonathan Rosenfeld: Hello, and good afternoon. I am Jonathan Rosenfeld, and today I am joined by Marty Gould. Marty is currently working on many lawsuits involving Zantac and the development of cancer. Marty, first off, thank you for joining me today, I appreciate it. Marty Gould: Thanks for having me on, Jon. Jonathan Rosenfeld: Now, Marty, this is a really quickly emerging area of mass tort litigation that we're seeing. A lot of people have been taking Zantac and the generic version of Zantac over the past 10, 20 years. And today we are learning that some of these people are developing various types of cancers after taking these drugs, both prescription and over the counter. Today I want to run through with you some of the most frequently asked questions by people related to this litigation. I want to run through the four most common questions asked by people who have a potential Zantac case. These are based on the data that we're seeing today from Google search, frankly. I wanted to go through with you quickly, so we can get this information to people in a concise way. First off, has Zantac been withdrawn from the market? Marty Gould: Yes, it has. Jon, in September, 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration reported that there was a link between one of the ingredients of Zantac and NDMA in cancer, and they issued a public warning. And then in April, 2020, the FDA announced that all Zantac brand heartburn drugs, prescription and over the counter, should be immediately pulled from the market because of potential NDMA contamination. And subsequently, retailers across the country, Walmart, Walgreens, CVS, suspended the sale of the over-the-counter Zantac and ranitidine products. Jonathan Rosenfeld: Second question for you, what type of cancer is related to Zantac use? What types of cancers are you seeing today in claims and lawsuits that you are filing against the different manufacturers of these drugs? Marty Gould: We represent hundreds and hundreds of individuals that have cancer because of Zantac use, or in tragic situations, the families of people deceased because of that cancer. From our experiences and from the research, the cancers most commonly linked to Zantac use or ranitidine use are bladder cancer, colon cancer, prostate cancer, kidney cancer, liver cancer, stomach cancer, and breast cancer. There's also some potential cancers that have a weaker link to the use of Zantac that we're still looking at, and those include pancreatic, ovarian, and melanoma. Jonathan Rosenfeld: One of the questions that we're seeing over and over again by people, is there a settlement related to Zantac lawsuits at this time, as of today's date, we are today April, 2021? Is there a Zantac lawsuit settlement? Marty Gould: There is not a Zantac lawsuit settlement yet, at least not on a wide scale. The cases are all being consolidated, or most of them are, in a multi-district litigation in federal court. There hasn't been any bellwether cases yet, but we're very optimistic that there is going to be a settlement and a resolution for our clients and for many of the other victims and survivors out there. Jonathan Rosenfeld: Along these lines, a lot of people are also looking into what the value of these cases are. They're asking, "What is a Zantac lawsuit worth?" While we don't know what the cases are worth in terms of dollars and cents today, can you just give us a rundown of the damages potentially available in these cases? Marty Gould: Sure. In a personal injury case, you can get what's called economic and non-economic damages. In terms of economic damages, you can get compensation for lost income, so if you got cancer and you couldn't work. Or God forbid it was your loved one who got cancer and is deceased, you can get compensation for the lost income that your family would have had in lost earning capacity or lost future income, medical bills. You can get compensation for all your medical bills. And then you can get the non-economic damages, which can be very significant in a case. And that includes the emotional distress, the physical and emotional pain and suffering. And then there's something called loss of consortium. If you've lost a loved one because of cancer caused by Zantac, you can recover for loss of familial support from having that person around and supporting your loss of love. So it's important to speak with a lawyer to just understand your rights and what types of compensation is available under law. Jonathan Rosenfeld: Marty, this was great information, and I really look forward to talking with you in the future as this litigation continues to move forward. Thank you. Marty Gould: Thanks for having me on, Jon.

In this episode Jonathan Rosenfeld chats with Martin D. Gould an Attorney at Romanucci & Blandin, LLC. Here, they discuss: Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation Abuse: Legal Claims for Sexual Abuse   Read the Transcript Download the PDF Jonathan Rosenfeld: Hello. Thank you for joining me today. I am Jonathan Rosenfeld and today on the Personal Injury Podcast, I am joined by my colleague, Marty Gould, and we are going to talk a little bit about an emerging area of litigation, which is abuse in a drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility. Marty, first off, thank you for joining me today. Marty Gould: Thanks for having me on, Jon. Jonathan Rosenfeld: Now, one of the areas that's really come out in the past few years in terms of medical treatment, is this whole concept of drug and alcohol rehabilitation facilities for people who may have had substance problems as children, as adults. And a lot of these facilities have opened up across the country. They promise everyone an opportunity, in a lot of situations, to get clean, get sober during a short term rehabilitation stay, where they live in a facility for maybe a 30 day, 60 day, 90 day period. And unfortunately, one of the things that we're seeing here, which is really no different than abuse in other closed environments, such as a boarding school, is we're seeing the instructors and some of the other supervisors involved, mistreat these people who may be in a particularly vulnerable situation and very difficult time in their life. Jonathan Rosenfeld: What have you seen in terms of your experience? What are you seeing in terms of abuse and mistreatment in these institutions? Marty Gould: Well, Jon, substance abuse has become a national epidemic. The national survey on drug use and health, estimates that 20.7 million people needed substance abuse treatment in 2017. So a lot of these people are going to facilities, whether it's a live-in facility or a day facility, to get treatment so they can get on the right path. And what I've seen in some of our cases is whether it's an unknown rehab center or a small one up in to the most prestigious ones throughout the country, is that you'll have a staff member or a counselor take advantage of these vulnerable people and engage in sexual relationships, which are prohibited or should be prohibited by every institution, because they know these people are vulnerable. And it derails them. They start using drugs again because of it, or they're out doing things that they're not supposed to be doing, with the counselor. Marty Gould: And some of the cases that we have, the counselor or the staff member was engaging in a relationship with the patient, financially exploits them. Ask them for loans, "Can I borrow a thousand dollars?" That turns into 15,000. That turns into $50,000 and they find ways to take advantage of these people. And if any anything like that happens, you have a potential legal claim against the individual and the entity. They have to make sure that there's policies and procedures in place to protect their patients and to make sure this type of thing doesn't happen. They're aware that it can happen and that the patients are uniquely vulnerable. Jonathan Rosenfeld: You know, I think one of the really sad things in these situations is the fact is, as you just stated, the emergence of these facilities out there, the growth of this industry, has really expanded way beyond the capacity of any state's legislatures to implement any laws or safeguards to protect patients at these facilities. And so what we're seeing right now is a lot of times, states are playing catch up in terms of trying to apply laws and regulations to these facilities that may have essentially gone unregulated for some time. But at the end of the day, as a victim of abuse, you still have the ability to pursue a civil claim against the institution, just as if you're the victim of abuse in a church set. Jonathan Rosenfeld: Can you talk a little bit about what's involved in terms of civil claims for victims of abuse in a drug or rehab facility? Marty Gould: Sure. Jon, as you mentioned, the federal government doesn't really have an official definition of what constitutes a drug treatment or rehabilitation center. So, the licensing can vary from state to state, and unlike in a doctor's office or a medical facility, drug rehab facilities are treated like businesses under the eye. They're not as closely regulated. But they still have duties that they owe their patients. There's still obligations, rules that they have to follow based off just the standards in the industry, and the violation of those standards, like permitting a staff member or counselor to engage in sexual relationships or financially exploit patients, serves the basis for liability, and we file claims of negligence. Failure to adequately screen or negligent hiring of a staff member, negligent supervision, failure to investigate. We even had a counselor at one of these facilities, disclose confidential information to a patient's spouse when the relationship went sour. That's a violation of countless roles. One is, you can't have a relationship with your patient and two is, you certainly can't disclose confidential information to any third party. Jonathan Rosenfeld: I think it's important to realize that in these situations, it's not just episodes of sexual abuse that give rise to civil claims. It can be other privacy violations. It can be other situations involving defamation of character. These cases typically go way beyond some of the more traditional sex abuse claims that you and I handle, correct? Marty Gould: That's correct. There's nine different types of negligence and abuse that can occur in a drug treatment center. And the key to the equation there is that these people are uniquely vulnerable. They're there to get help, and it's very important to make sure that the policies and procedures are in place to ensure that they do get that help, and that they're not exploited and abused. Jonathan Rosenfeld: Well, Marty, this is really an area of litigation that unfortunately, I don't think we're going to really be hearing the end of any time soon. But I really appreciate your time, and I'm going to look forward to talking with you about these situations, if it comes up in the future. Thank you. Marty Gould: Thanks for having me on, Jon.

In this episode Jonathan Rosenfeld chats with Martin D. Gould an Attorney at Romanucci & Blandin, LLC. Here, they discuss: Orphanage Abuse: Legal Rights of Abuse Victims   Read the Transcript Download the PDF Jonathan Rosenfeld: Good afternoon. I am Jonathan Rosenfeld. And today on the Personal Injury Podcast, I am joined by my colleague, Attorney Martin Gould. And Marty, I am going to talk with you a little bit about an emerging area of litigation involving abuse in an orphanage setting. Now, orphanages in today's world are... they're not really a commonplace occurrence. This was not the case decades ago. And unfortunately, one of the things that we're seeing today is that there was a lot of abuse carried on at these institutions behind closed doors over the past 20, 30, 40 years. Can you share a little bit of background about these cases and about some of the cases that you're seeing today? Martin Gould: No, John, the orphanage cases, I think, are some of the worst cases out there because you're dealing with children that are the most vulnerable. They're at an orphanage for a reason. You got no parents that are looking out for them. And I would argue that there's even a higher level, higher duty that's owed to these children to make sure that they're safe. And unfortunately, it has been a breeding ground for a lot of abuse for decades. Now, orphanages aren't as common now. The Department of Children and Family Services has now made a preference for foster care facilities so all orphans aren't in one location, but there's many cases such as Maryville Academy in the Chicago land area, Angel and Guardian Orphanage, where they had clergy that were abusing children, volunteers or other staff that were abusing young children. And it has been the basis for many of the cases that you and I have, in terms of filing lawsuits and seeking other types of recovery. Jonathan Rosenfeld: So, in some of these cases, we're talking about the orphanage itself, but we're also talking, in a lot of situations, about a religious organization that may be sponsoring the orphanage, or may be sponsoring the foster care. In those situations where you have a religious organization who may be providing the funding and may be providing some of the staffing, they may be overseeing the placement of some of these children, do those religious organizations hold some responsibility when there is abuse that's carried out at these institutions? Martin Gould: Yes. So, ultimately, a lot of these religious organizations were being paid by the state to run the orphanages and they were the ones responsible for the orphanages. So, if you're looking at, for example, like Angel and Guardian Orphanage, it might have been run by the archdiocese. They're owned and operated by the archdiocese or different diocese. But then they were staffed by nuns from a certain religious order. There could have been an association with a religious order that provided priests for a period of time. And then there could have been a different entity that hired the janitorial staff or the teachers. So, in those cases, it's important to speak with a lawyer who can tell you who the potential defendants are, because there may be many different entities that were responsible for the safety of the children within one institution. Jonathan Rosenfeld: When we're talking about abuses perpetrated in an orphanage or in a foster care setting, ultimately, these victims are really entitled to damages and compensation from the perpetrators involved and from the organizations that supervised these organizations. When it comes to damages in these cases, what exactly are these victims entitled to under the law? We're here in Illinois, but in general, can you talk about the damages in these cases? Martin Gould: So, in a sexual abuse case, it's not always so easy to quantify our damages, but it can be the most significant type of damage you can recover in a case. And that's the psychological trauma, emotional distress, psychological and physical pain and suffering. These are all things that you legally can seek compensation for, and they can be very significant when it comes to childhood abuse. The public knows that. People understand that abuse when you're a child can cause lifelong traumas. You can also recover money for counseling, treatment, struggles you've had with addictions. These are all things that you can seek compensation for legally in most states. Jonathan Rosenfeld: In a situation where someone is an adult and the abuse may have been perpetrated at an orphanage, in a foster care home, in another institutional setting, is there a way that they can move forward in terms of pursuing a civil claim today when that abuse may have occurred decades ago? Martin Gould: So, Jon, we always encourage survivors to come forward and find out what the rights are. Even in states where the statute of limitations may have expired and there's no revival statute, we still try and find a way to get resolution for the client, but every state is different and the statute limitations laws in every state are different. And it's also important to understand whether or not your state has a potential bill by the state legislature that might change the laws that allow you to bring your claims that may have already been expired years ago. You can also bring a claim even if the perpetrators are deceased. That doesn't necessarily prevent you from bringing your case and proving your case. And you should still speak with a lawyer. Jonathan Rosenfeld: Now, for a lot of these people, reliving these episodes of abuse is traumatic, as an understatement, but can you give us a little flavor for how these cases can play out? Having spoken to a lot of victims out there, I know there's a lot of hesitation and a lot of anxiety around the fact that they may have to confront the perpetrator. In your experience, how are these cases typically play out? Are they going to be forced to be in a room alone with a perpetrator? That's a concern that comes up frequently. Can you just sort of give us a little bit of how this process works? Martin Gould: So, at the outset, we speak with our client, we go through a questionnaire, get as much information as we can. Then we reach out to the potential defendants, whether it's the religious institution, a public school, a private school, a former employer. And we tell them about what happened. And then we start discussing what the next steps are. Whether we can engage in a pre-suit discovery, mediation process where we can exchange information. Our client can give a statement, if they're okay with that, to let the other side know kind of what happened and how it's impacted them. Or we file a lawsuit. But it's the client and what their preferences are always control how we go about trying to seek some type of resolution settlement for them. So, it's a lot of communication back and forth regarding how they want to litigate this case and what they feel comfortable with in terms of next steps. Jonathan Rosenfeld: And so, there's an element of control, just so people out there know, there's an element of control out there for the victims, but also in no situation would a victim ever be forced to be in a room with the perpetrator without the presence of their attorney. Correct? Martin Gould: That's right. We would always be present and shoulder to shoulder with our client the entire process. Jonathan Rosenfeld: Marty, I'm going to follow up with you as some of these cases move forward. We can talk a little bit more about these cases in detail, but I really want to thank you for joining me today and sharing your insight on these really disturbing cases. Thank you. Martin Gould: Thanks for having me, Jon.

In this episode Jonathan Rosenfeld chats with Martin D. Gould an Attorney at Romanucci & Blandin, LLC. Here, they discuss: Can You Sue a Boarding School for Sexual Abuse by a Teacher?   Read the Transcript Download the PDF Jonathan Rosenfeld: Hello. Good afternoon. Thank you for joining me today. I'm Jonathan Rosenfeld and today on ‎The Personal Injury Law Podcast, I am joined by attorney Marty Gould, and we are going to talk about a merging area of litigation involving sexual abuse that occurred in schools and specifically in boarding schools. This is an area that Marty has considerable experience with, and I really appreciate his insight. Marty, to begin with, boarding schools in general, a lot of people, a lot of parents send their children to boarding schools because they are looking for a school that can provide them with individualized instruction, where they may get some more personalized attention ... which is great, but unfortunately, I think what we're seeing in some situations is ... some teachers and some other school officials maybe taking this a little bit too far, a little bit too extreme. Can you talk a little bit about some of your experience with abuse in a boarding school setting? Marty Gould: Sure. Well John, there's 67 New England private boarding schools and over the past 25 years, according to a Boston Globe story, more than 200 students have accused private school authorities of sexual abuse or sexual harassment, and that includes teachers, administrators, staff members, and even in one case, an admissions officer. One of the issues with the boarding schools is that you're in a more intimate setting with the teachers. They're not only teaching you, but sometimes they're living in the dorms, they're inviting you to their homes, and because of the access that you have to a teacher, which can be good in certain circumstances, it also makes children more vulnerable. That's often where children are abused. They're groomed by somebody who's supposed to be their mentor and there's more opportunities to abuse the child because they're also interacting with the student outside of the classroom. It's like I said, sometimes even in the teacher's homes, and that's why it's important for a school to have the right policies and procedures in place to make sure students who are uniquely vulnerable at a boarding school are safe. Jonathan Rosenfeld: I think one of the positive things of these boarding schools is that they really are all-encompassing when it comes to school, when it comes to sports, when it comes to socialization, when it comes to living arrangements. Unfortunately I think, we've seen in some situations is that these schools have really insulated the students from the outside world and sometimes these episodes of abuse may go on for some time without getting reported until after the fact. Can you share maybe, without getting into too much detail or anything, can you share some situations that you may have run into where someone is a victim in this setting? Marty Gould: We've had several cases involving sexual abuse of students by teachers at boarding schools. Then in one of the instances, sometimes there's a feeling to protect the school's reputation at the expense of the allegation and they either ask the teacher to quietly resign, where then they go on and they can apply to another school and they can abuse a child again. That's called passing the trash and those circumstances, you can potentially hold both institutions responsible. In a case that, John, you and I recently resolved, the school didn't have a two-adult policy in regards to having the students at teachers' houses or places that were in private, and unfortunately one teacher was able to groom a student, invite the student back to their home and then began abusing them there. That's why it's important for schools to have the right policies like a two-adult policy when it comes to being with students in private settings and other policies to make sure that the children are safe because their parents aren't around like they would be in a regular public high school or a high school you attend in your own community. Jonathan Rosenfeld: One of the things that comes up in boarding school cases, and really all types of sexual abuse is this whole concept of grooming. When we talk about grooming, it seems sort of an innocuous type thing to begin with, but it, over time, these relationships morph from a peer relationship or a teacher-student relationship into something that transitions into something much more deviant. Can you talk a little bit about this grooming concept and what's involved in some of these situations? Marty Gould: John, one of the supposed benefits of attending a boarding school is the opportunity to develop close bonds with your teachers. They're in a better position, maybe, to write a recommendation because they see you so often. Predators are able to use that expectation that they'll be able to be close with that student unsupervised and they take advantage of it. So innocent invitations to go to sporting events, lunches, dinners by yourself with the teacher, can turn into building trust with that student and the student becomes confident with that relationship, and then that's when the relationship can take a turn where they can be abused. Marty Gould: John, in the case that we had, the teacher was using her position of power to coerce the student into continuing the relationship that they wanted to get out of. The student's grades were docked while he was attending this school and he felt like he was trapped. He was trying to get into college and then when he tried to step away from the relationship, he suffered academically. That's essentially how it happens. It's that confidence that you build and they're grooming you early on and that's how they can take advantage of you. Jonathan Rosenfeld: Now, in boarding school cases and really all civil litigation, there's an issue of statute of limitations. A lot of times, this episode may occur when someone's young and maybe in their early teen years or something. It may not be for 10 or 20 years after the episode, that they actually develop the confidence to come forward and say, "Hey, look, this happened to me. I was a victim here." There's a lot of feelings of guilt. There's a lot of feelings of sadness, anger, frustration, it goes on and on and on, but ultimately there's the statute of limitations, these time constraints to file a case. Obviously, these cases are fact-dependent, but can you talk a little bit about how the statute of limitations applies to a boarding school sexual abuse case? Marty Gould: So the statute of limitations that applies generally would be the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse within the state in which the boarding school in which the abuse occurred. That can vary from state to state. What's important to know is that because of the public pressure, because of the media attention regarding childhood sexual abuse, politicians have changed a lot of laws that have now allowed survivors to finally bring claims that may have been expired. That's why it's very important to speak to a lawyer to find out if there's [inaudible 00:08:18] but if the laws have changed, whether it's through, what's called the revival statute, that creates a window in which you can file claims that may have been barred by a time limit, or to check to see if there's any legislation pending in that state. Marty Gould: So people will call me and say, "I heard that the statute of limitations expired in XYZ state," and I'll say, "That's true, except that there's a bill pending in your state legislature that may be passed, that will say, 'You may have an opportunity to bring this case in six months.'" So we follow all those in all the different states that we're in, to make sure that we know if there's going to be an opportunity to bring these clamps. Jonathan Rosenfeld: I think what you just spoke about in terms of the evolving law that applies to these situations is really the reason why people need to reach out to an attorney who has experience with these cases specifically, because a lot of times, I've heard people, I've spoken to people who've said, "Hey, I spoke to my accident attorney down the street, I spoke to him or her about the situation and they've told me I don't have a case." At the end of the day, they really need to talk to someone who has experience with these particular cases. Now, if someone is watching this and they say, "Hey, I want to reach out to an attorney, but I don't have the assets. I don't have the funds to hire an attorney." What would you say to them? How do you handle these types of cases and how would you help someone if they don't have the funds necessary to fund this type of litigation? Marty Gould: Well, first John, I would say that it's always important to know your rights. Even if we take on cases, even if the statute of limitations has expired, we try and do an outreach to the church or the boarding school or whomever it may be, to see what kind of a possible resolution we can reach even without filing a lawsuit. The last thing that a survivor needs to deal with in these situations is worrying about paying legal fees, and that's why we don't charge any money for any consultation. We don't charge any fees unless we can actually get a compensation and a recovery for the survivor. If we're unable to, if we take on the case and we for whatever reason cannot obtain any type of settlement, the survivor doesn't owe us any money. Jonathan Rosenfeld: Well, I appreciate your time and hopefully, if people are watching this and they have some questions, they'll certainly be able to reach out to you because you're certainly an advocate for these people. So thank you for joining me today. I appreciate it. Marty Gould: Thanks for having me on your podcast, John.

In this episode Jonathan Rosenfeld chats with Martin D. Gould an Attorney at Romanucci & Blandin, LLC. Here, they discuss: Royal Rangers Sex Abuse: Sexual Abuse Claims and Lawsuits   Read the Transcript Download the PDF Jonathan Rosenfeld: Hello, thank you for joining me today. I am Jonathan Rosenfeld and today on the Personal Injury Podcast, I am joined by Attorney Marty Gould. And we are going to talk about an emerging area of litigation, the Royal Ranger sexual abuse cases and lawsuits. Marty, thank you for joining me today. I appreciate it. Marty Gould: Happy to be on John. Thanks for having me. Jonathan Rosenfeld: Now, Marty, to begin with, the Royal Rangers, to be honest with you, is an organization that a lot of people may not have heard of in the past. It is not a big name organization. Can you give us a little background about the Royal Rangers and what it is and where exactly it's headquartered? Marty Gould: Sure. The Royal Rangers is a, it's essentially an organization similar to the boy Scouts of America, except that it has religious purpose. So their motto on their website is that the program helps leaders play a vital role in helping boys develop a Christian like manhood. And they had many different Royal Rangers organizations throughout California, Idaho, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, in several other states throughout the country. It was structured in a similar format to the boy Scouts. They had the Ranger Kids, Discovery Rangers, Adventure Rangers, and the Expedition Rangers. Jonathan Rosenfeld: Now, the organization's got these altruistic goals, but unfortunately like many other organizations, some of those goals and some of those areas that they want to really focus on fell to the wayside and there's been some reported issues of abuse in the Royal Rangers. And some of these individuals have come forward recently and they've made allegations that they were abused in the organization by their leaders. Can you share some insight as to some of these allegations and what is actually being alleged? Marty Gould: In 2018, there were six men from Oregon that filed a lawsuit against the Royal Rangers and the Assemblies of God church, alleging that they were sexually abused in the 1980s by Royal ranger leaders. These leaders, in the boy Scouts, called the boy scout troop leader in the Royal Rangers they're typically called commanders. And essentially the allegations were that they weren't properly screening and vetting these people that were leading these young boys to different adventures and camping trips and so forth and that's where the abuse going on. Marty Gould: And a lot of the same allegations that happened in the boy Scouts, where kids were being abused on camping trips or during meetings. We have many cases involving the Royal Rangers, you and I John. And our case, in several of our cases, we've heard that many of these commanders that were leading these troops were allowed to bring whomever else they wanted onto these trips. So you had a commander in charge of a bunch of boys, bring his friends, other males that nobody really knew who these people were, what type of backgrounds they had. There wasn't much screening and policies and procedures in place to protect the children. And unfortunately many kids were sexually abused and it's caused a lot of trauma. Jonathan Rosenfeld: And so now I guess we're seeing a lot of people come forward. I think there's some truth, that there's strength in numbers in some of these cases. A lot of times it's not the, it takes a lot of courage for anyone to come forward. But a lot of times when people see others who may have experienced a similar situation step out, they're more willing to come forward. And in those situations, what would you tell those people who may be watching this and saying, Hey, I was part of the Royal Rangers, I experienced some of those issues? What would you say to them? Marty Gould: You're not alone. Together, we're stronger. And it's important to take your life back, take control of what happened and help make sure this doesn't happen to anybody else. We have a number of clients that we represent and other lawyers taking on these cases, but shedding light to reveal what happened and make sure this doesn't happen again. Jonathan Rosenfeld: Marty, I appreciate the work that you're doing in this area. You're really an asset to a lot of people who really need an advocate out there. Want to thank you for joining me today and I appreciate it. Marty Gould: Happy to be on your podcast, John. Thanks for having me.

In this episode Jonathan Rosenfeld chats with Martin D. Gould an Attorney at Romanucci & Blandin, LLC. Here, they discuss: Church Sexual Abuse Lawsuits: What is Sexual Abuse?   Read the Transcript Download the PDF Jonathan Rosenfeld: Hello, everybody. Welcome back to the Personal Injury Podcast. Today. I am joined by Marty Gould, a good friend and colleague, and we are here today to talk about sexual abuse lawsuits in the church and, what is sexual abuse? Marty, first off, thank you for joining me today. I appreciate it. Marty Gould: Happy to be on. Jonathan Rosenfeld: Marty, for those of us who don't really have a full understanding of the breadth of this issue, can you give us some background and give us a short explanation about what sexual abuse is at least in the eyes of the law? Marty Gould: Oftentimes when people talk about sexual abuse in a lawsuit context, it often refers to childhood sexual abuse. It includes many different types of abuse. It could be fondling, oral sex, penetration of any kind, but it can also be showing somebody pornography. John, you and I have a case out in California where a teacher was sending explicit text messages and photographs to a student. That is considered sexual abuse under the law, and it's a basis for a lawsuit. It can also include emotional abuse, so it includes the grooming aspect that happens before the actual physical contact. In lawsuits, it's a broad definition. Anything that can be considered sexual, or that happens to a child under the age of 18 years old. Jonathan Rosenfeld: Now, one of the emerging issues in the area of sexual abuse litigation is really cases involving the church. Can we talk a little bit about the cases that are involved, the church and sexual abuse involving clergy and the priest, what those cases typically involve? Marty Gould: Most of those lawsuits involve institutional negligence claims against the church. In every lawsuit, you can sue the perpetrator. But in a civil case, all you can get is financial compensation. So a large part of the case is against the institution for covering up abuse, for protecting pedophiles or suspected pedophiles, for failing to investigate allegations of abuse. The claims are often brought in terms of negligent hiring, for not doing a proper investigation to a potential priest who's moving to your parish. So many times, a lot of these priests may have allegations against them in a different diocese or even in a different state. Marty Gould: Like in many of our cases, they came from California or Pennsylvania. Usually, they're being shipped out of there for a reason. The new diocese that's taking him in has an obligation to call the former employer and say, "Hey, why is this guy leaving? What happened? Then if they know of any allegations of abuse, they have an obligation to investigate and to warn the public if there's credible allegations. That's unfortunately, something that didn't happen for many, many decades. Priests were moved from one parish to another without warning the parishioners about this person's history, and they continued to abuse children time and time again. Jonathan Rosenfeld: Now, do church officials have an obligation to report episodes of abuse if they're a witness to something in their organization, in their church, in their school? Do they have some type of legal obligation to report the abuse to authorities? Marty Gould: In many states, they do. The laws have progressed over time, and every state's law can be a little bit different, but for the most part, clergy are now considered mandatory reporters. So whether they hear about abuse in a confessional, or whether a reported abuse from the survivor themselves, or from a parent, they have an obligation to report it. Typically, the law would require them to report it to the Department of Children and Family Services within that state, or even law enforcement. If the Department of Children and Family Services becomes aware of it, they do their own investigation. It's a separate investigation that's typically, also done by law enforcement. If the allegations are proven to be true, criminal charges are brought and ideally, there's criminal consequences. Jonathan Rosenfeld: Now, in the issue of a clergy sexual abuse lawsuit, we're generally talking about monetary damages. When we're talking about monetary damages, we're trying to put a value on the restitution to the individual and the harm to the individual. Can you talk a little bit about what the damages are in these cases, and how the church in general, in the past has valued these types of cases? Marty Gould: Childhood sexual abuse is probably the most heinous crime that can be committed. We're talking about children that are uniquely vulnerable. When it's a religious leader, like a priest, the child is taught to respect and to listen to that authority. That breach of that trust, coupled with physical and emotional abuse, can cause devastating consequences. Legally, you're allowed to recover for emotional distress, psychological trauma, and physical pain and suffering, or emotional pain and suffering. We articulate those injuries, the other side through the testimony of our clients, but also through counselors. Many times, a lot of survivors end up using drugs to cope with what happened. We get those records and explain to the church, because of what happened, they went down a certain path. They became addicted to certain drugs to cope with what happened, and that's all part of the damages aspect that we seek compensation from the church. Jonathan Rosenfeld: The church in the past, can you give us an idea as to the payments that the church has made on some of these cases? Not necessarily on an individual basis, but in general. This has been a pretty substantial problem for the church. We're focusing right now on the Catholic Church, but the truth is, is that, this can be any religious institution. But the amount of payments that have gone on over the past several decades have been substantial. Do you have any idea about these payments and about the type of damages we're talking about here? Marty Gould: Legally, when somebody commits a harm against you, whether it's caused by the negligence of the religious institution, whether it's a Catholic church, a synagogue, a temple, or whomever, you can recover, what's called economic, non-economic damages. So we can get compensation for the psychological trauma and harm, the lost earning capacity, lost income that that person might have had had they finished school or done things in a different way when they weren't dealing with that abuse. Marty Gould: Recoveries have been significant, hundreds of millions of dollars have been paid in these cases across the country. That's why it's important to go find a lawyer who can assess your case, work up your case, and articulate to the other side how this has dramatically impacted your life. If you haven't done counseling yet, many people, because they don't come forward earlier because they're afraid they may not be believed, or it's a repressed memory and they haven't done counseling yet, that doesn't mean you didn't have an injury. And that doesn't mean that we can't articulate to the church, or whomever, how it's impacted you. Jonathan Rosenfeld: Now, one of the things that victims frequently come forward and ask is, "What type of help is out there for me to help me recover from this episode?" It's easy for us to sit here and say, "Hey, you know what? Do some treatment and move on." But the truth is, is that, these people really have lifelong issues. Can you just give out a few resources available for someone who's a victim of abuse? Marty Gould: There's many great networks out there in survivor groups that can help victims and survivors. One of the ones that I've worked with in the past, and I've had many clients be a part of, is called the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, also known as SNAP. It's a support group of survivors of clergy sexual abuse and their supporters throughout the country. If you reach out, you can engage in support groups. You can also try and find counseling through them. There's also an organization called Bishop Accountability, which documents a lot of allegations of abuse. Marty Gould: It's a good resource in terms of finding out more information about what went on in your specific parish or diocese, religious order. There's an organization called Drug Rehab, another one called the Addiction Center, Road to Recovery, Campus Safety, all great organizations that help people deal with some of the traumas, and deal with addictions that are often associated with traumas. Then of course, counseling with an attorney who can help direct you to possible counseling through the institution. We can sometimes get the institution to pay for your counseling if you don't have health insurance. So there's many different great networks out there and resources where you can get support to help move path this. Jonathan Rosenfeld: Well, certainly, there seems to be some light at the end of the tunnel for some of these people. Marty, I really appreciate you sharing with us today your insight on this important topic. I want to thank you for your time. Marty Gould: Happy to be on. Thanks for having me, John.

In this episode Jonathan Rosenfeld chats with Martin D. Gould an Attorney at Romanucci & Blandin, LLC. Here, they discuss: Zantac Lawsuits Update   Read the Transcript Download the PDF Jonathan Rosenfeld : Hi, I am Jonathan Rosenfeld and I am an attorney, and I am with my good friend and colleague Marty Gould today. We are here to talk about probably one of the largest and most prolific drug recalls in the United States ever, certainly in recent history, and that involves the popular heartburn medication Zantac. Jonathan Rosenfeld : Marty is very active with the Zantac litigation, and he is here today to discuss the status of the litigation who qualifies for this and to sort of give us some insight as to how these cases may play out. Jonathan Rosenfeld : Marty, first off, thank you for joining me today. I appreciate it, and could you just briefly introduce yourself, and let us know a little bit about the background and just what Zantac is and bring us up to date with the current status of the recall on Zantac? Marty Gould: John, thanks for the introduction. I'm of counsel with Rosenfeld Injury Lawyers. Our team represents hundreds and hundreds of individuals that have cancer that we believe was caused by a Zantac consumption or generic. Zantac was a very popular heartburn and acid reflux medication. Marty Gould: Millions and millions of people have used Zantac for those purposes, and recent studies have shown that there's a connection between an ingredient in Zantac, ranitidine, and cancer. It's the chemical structure of the Zantac tablet that once it's consumed, and once it's mixed with water in your body, it causes what's called NDMA, a very toxic substance that is linked to cancer. Marty Gould: For that reason, people that have been taking Zantac, many of these people for years and years on a frequent basis, are now getting cancer. Typically, it's a stomach cancer, bladder cancer, stomach cancer, but also the blood-based cancers such as liver cancer. Right now, there's a litigation that's being handled, a multi-district litigation, where all the Zantac cases are being filed in the Southern District of Florida. Marty Gould: Anyone who has a case, they're filing their claims there, and the lawyers are litigating those cases now. We're still in the earlier stages, and there's trials that are expected to start going in probably 2022. Jonathan Rosenfeld : Now, you mentioned that these cases are filed in what's called a multi-district litigation or MDL. I want to talk with you about the differences between an MDL that some people may not be familiar with and a traditional lawsuit. First off, I guess, as a starting point, I guess, what is an MDL case? Marty Gould: Sure. Multi-district litigation is essentially a type of case where all the cases may be a little bit different, so if you've been taking Zantac for one year, several times a week, and somebody else has been taking Zantac for 10 years on a daily basis, you may have a different type of case because your exposure was different. If you have a family history of cancer, that may be a relevant facts. Marty Gould: Everyone's case is a little bit different. Everyone's injuries are a little different. Some people tragically are filing a case on behalf of a loved one who's deceased, who has died because of cancer linked to Zantac. Others may just have an early diagnosis, so the injuries are different every case. Marty Gould: A multi-district litigation, essentially, consolidates all the different cases into one courtroom for efficiency purposes. It's typically done in a federal courthouse. In this case, it's a federal courthouse in the Southern District of Florida. Marty Gould: To avoid having rulings in many different states, in many different jurisdictions that could be conflicting, you'll have one judge who will oversee the litigation. Will set various deadlines, and essentially, the cases are litigated in a fashion where there's bellwether cases. The steering committee that's litigating most of these cases will choose a certain number of cases, that will be the first cases to be litigated, the first cases to go to trial. Marty Gould: Once these bellwether cases are concluded, that usually allows the rest of the plaintiffs to know what the potential value of these zantac cases are, and it usually drives settlements. If there's successful results at trial, it usually results in a settlement agreements or settlement discussions on other people that have cancer that was linked to Zantac. Jonathan Rosenfeld : Right now, we have this MDL that's been filed in Florida, but we also have a recall that was issued by the food and Drug Administration, the FDA, related to Zantac, and that would happen in 2000... I'm sorry, in September 13, 2019, the FDA issued that recall. Why, I guess, did the FDA issued this recall, and what is the impact that you see in terms of the recall on the pending litigation? Marty Gould: There are studies going back to the '80s that linked NDMA and Zantac to cancer, and as of late, because lawsuits were filed, the US Food and Drug Administration started its own investigation, and September 13, 2019, they essentially published a public warning about the link. There was additional research and lab testing. Marty Gould: The levels of NDMA found were significantly higher than which was deemed to be safe for a body to consume, certainly very alarming. The FDA certainly announced that this was a potential health hazard. Marty Gould: In the wake of the FDA safety warnings, the drug manufacturers for Zantac and its generic brands pulled off the drug from shelves across the country. Walmart, Walgreens, CVS, many of the big retailers pulled the drug because the consensus was it wasn't safe to be consumed. Marty Gould: The unfortunate reality is that, while people now aren't being exposed to Zantac and the cancer-causing substances within the tablets, we still have thousands and thousands of people that have been using Zantac for years and have existing injuries. That's what these cases are about. It's about compensating people for their past harms and for their current harms. Jonathan Rosenfeld : Let me ask you this, so you mentioned that, first off, Zantac has been on the market since the 1980s, so this has been on the market for a long time. I guess as a consequence of the patents are on the original drug expiring, now we have different manufacturers and generic versions of this that were on the market. Is that correct? Marty Gould: That's correct. You had various drug manufacturers that were producing Zantac or a generic version of it, ranitidine, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, [Oringer 00:09:03], and the claims are essentially falling into two categories, defective design or manufacturer of that drug, that it was defective. It was harmful. It shouldn't have been sold to the public in the first place. Marty Gould: The second part of that is the failure to warn consumers, because people are taking these drugs because the advertisements are saying, look, this is a safe drug, and I can remember some of the Zantac commercials. They had somebody with a fire extinguisher, and he's using it and it's, "Hey, this is going to extinguish your heartburn and your acid reflux. It's a safe drug to use." That was the message, and that wasn't the case. Marty Gould: I think through the discovery process, we'll get more specifics. When did these drug manufacturers first know that it wasn't harmful? If there's studies out there from the '80s saying that there was that potential harmful cancer-causing link, there's good reason to believe that the manufacturers had that information, and because they were selling it to millions and millions of consumers, they didn't act on that information. Jonathan Rosenfeld : I guess at this point, if you took Zantac or the generic equivalent, first off, does it make any difference in terms of pursuing a legal claim? In other words, if I took Zantac manufactured by Sanofi or by Glaxo, does it make any difference in terms of my legal rights, in terms of filing a lawsuit at this point? Marty Gould: Well, John, as you know, we represent hundreds and hundreds of plaintiffs who have used either the name brand or the generic. There are legal differences, and that's why I think it's important for people to speak with a lawyer to understand what the potential legal ramifications are if you were only consuming a generic, but there's a few things to keep in mind. Marty Gould: When we sign a case, the first thing we tell people is, for one, do you have any Zantac in the house? Do you have any ranitidine in the house? Were you prescribed it? We've had many clients that still have the bottle, preserved the bottle. That's going to be evidence in the case. It's something we certainly want to hold on to. Marty Gould: Then, I guess, the next part of that is proving the use of the drug, medical records. Some people were prescribed it. Other people maybe, because it was sold over the counter, weren't prescribed it, but had reported to other primary care physician or other doctors when they were asked, are you on any drugs prescribed or over counter? They mentioned Zantac. Marty Gould: Those are some things to keep in mind, but there is a difference in terms of the cases, if it's generic versus name brand. That's why it's important to speak to a lawyer about that. Jonathan Rosenfeld : Now, these cases are filed, and they're pending in this MDL in Southern District of Florida. Can you give us a little insight as to how these cases are handled in terms of an MDL, what the court really does to sort of get a grasp of these cases? Jonathan Rosenfeld : We have people from really all over the country who have been impacted and what the court is doing in terms of unifying these cases and getting a grasp as to how people have been impacted. Logistically, it seems like a little bit of a nightmare to have all these different people and all these different cases and everything else. Jonathan Rosenfeld : As a person who has been impacted, either individually or if I have a family member who may have been impacted, and I'm looking at this and saying like, oh boy, do I even want to get involved? Can you just give some insight as to what a plaintiff could expect if they were to get involved with the case? Marty Gould: Sure. Step one is, we have an internal questionnaire that we have potential clients fill out, which asks a lot of the questions that the court is going to want to know, the type of cancer the individual has, when they used the drug, how often they use it, are they still using it, and that's essentially the information that we're going to have to submit to the court. Marty Gould: Judge Rosenberg from the Southern District of Florida, the federal judge who's overseeing the case, has essentially issued a questionnaire. It's called a census plus form that all claimants have to complete and file in the Zantac case. Those questions are the questions that we have our clients answer, when they used it, how often, for how long, what's their diagnosis. Marty Gould: From there, that allows the court, the defense and the lawyers, to have a better idea of each individual's claim. It provides a basis to verify the claims and make sure that the ones we have are legitimate claims that we can ideally get compensation for. Marty Gould: With that, there may be a second phase to the case, where after the census plus form is submitted, we may have a more detailed questionnaire that we have to submit to the court, sometimes with you attached medical records, verifying your cancer diagnosis and any medical records that list Zantac as a drug that you use, whether it was prescribed, or perhaps you referenced it to a doctor. Marty Gould: That's not the only way you can prove use. Your testimony is evidence, so many people don't keep receipts. Maybe they didn't tell their doctors they're taking it because it's over the counter. You can still have a case, even if you don't have that. Your testimony is evidence. If you have family members that knew you were taking it, their witnesses, they can provide evidence. Marty Gould: There's many ways in which we go about proving your use and litigating your case. It starts with that initial intake to find out whether you meet the certain criteria that we believe would put you in a position to file a claim. Jonathan Rosenfeld : Now, before you even get to the point where you're filing a claim, I guess the first step is, hey, are you eligible? When I'm talking about eligible, I'm talking about the timeframe for bringing a case. Every single case is governed by a statute of limitations, and the statute of limitations in these cases, it varies by where the person lives. Is that correct? Marty Gould: That's correct. Even though there is a multi-district litigation in Florida, that doesn't mean that Florida law is controlling here. Every case, every claim in every client's case can be a little bit different, because you're applying laws often from that state in which the individual had experienced the harm, where they were consuming the Zantac. Marty Gould: If you were consuming the Zantac while you were living in Illinois and then you were diagnosed with cancer, and then you move to Michigan or Florida, the law that would apply in terms of the statute of limitations would likely be Illinois law, but every case is a little bit different. It's important to speak with a lawyer to help you find out whether there's an issue with the statute limitations. Marty Gould: With cases against drug companies, such as this or Roundup or Losartan, many people have consumed the drug decades earlier, and they consumed it for a long period of time. It's not like being in a car accident where if you were hit by a car, you knew that you were injured the day of the accident. There is a period of time, a latency period, where you may not be diagnosed with cancer. Marty Gould: It's the worst news to get. It's a very traumatic situation, but you may not get that diagnosis until 10 years after you had been taking Zantac. There's something called the discovery rule in many states, a point in time where you discovered that you were injured and discovered why you were injured. That could trigger the running of the statute of limitations. Marty Gould: Every case is a little bit different, but if you had consumed it a long time ago, that may not close the door to pursue a case, and you should certainly call lawyer and find out if you still can. Jonathan Rosenfeld : Interesting. One of the ancillary issues here is we have a whole nother group of potential plaintiffs who may have taken Zantac or the generic equivalent, and they may have developed a cancer and they may have have died from that cancer. Jonathan Rosenfeld : In those situations, can the family of the deceased pursue a claim at this point? Can they pursue a wrongful death claim if their loved one took Zantac in the past? They may not have been aware of the connection between their cancer and the NDMA in Zantac. Marty Gould: In many cases, you can. A family can file a wrongful death case on behalf of a loved one who was taking Zantac and, unfortunately, died of cancer. There's still the same process is involved, where we file a census plus form. We try and retrieve as many of the medical records as we can, although you can still pursue it. Marty Gould: Then there's also something to note is, sometimes, because we're dealing with cancer cases, we have clients that file lawsuits while they're still alive, and then tragically, they died during litigation. The family can then step in and pursue that litigation for the loss of that loved one, for the wrongful death and survival damages. Marty Gould: Courts recognize the sad reality that many claimants may not survive to see the under this case or really any of these cases, and because of that, in some of those circumstances, we can fight to have a deposition of the individual before they pass away. It varies from case to case, and it varies in terms of the health of the plaintiff. Marty Gould: But it's certainly something we've done in many cases where we've taken a deposition of our client before he passed away, and judges understand that, and the defense attorneys understand that. Then they're sensitive to the situation and the emotional difficulties surrounding giving testimony in that circumstance. Jonathan Rosenfeld : Now these, the pending Zantac cases, they're civil lawsuits, and I want to talk with you about damages in a case like this. Now you and I, we don't have a crystal ball. We have no way of anticipating how these cases may play out. There's still a lot of evidence that needs to be disclosed by all parties involved, but obviously, when you file a civil lawsuit, your sole recourse really is to get economic compensation. Jonathan Rosenfeld : Obviously, we have no way of predicting the value of these cases, but can you just talk through the available damages in a civil case, such as Zantac, where someone at home may be thinking, well, I don't know if it's worth bringing a case. It may not be that much, which I hear pretty consistently. Can you just sort of explain the potential damages available in these cases? Marty Gould: Yes. We're talking about cancer lawsuits here. The damages are catastrophic. It's the worst news for anybody to hear that they were diagnosed with cancer, and we're also talking about a case where the allegation is that these drug manufacturers were creating a drug that was dangerous, was cancer-causing. Marty Gould: People were consuming this, and it was essentially like putting gunpowder and a fuse in somebody's body. It was being lit once it's mixed with water and other substances within your body and causing a very toxic cancer-causing substance, NDMA. The types of recoveries in a situation like that, where somebody's wrongful conduct caused somebody else to get cancer, in some cases to die. Marty Gould: You can get what's called loss of consortium. The family can get a recovery and survival claim, family can get a recovery for the loss of love, the loss of having that person around, pain and suffering for when the person was alive, emotional trauma, emotional distress, economic damages, lost income that the person could have earned, past and future lost income. If they weren't able to work for a period of time, because of the cancer treatment. Marty Gould: You can also get punitive damages in these cases. At this stage, we don't know yet whether we will, but there's certainly going, in many of these cases, we do get punitive damages. Those are additional damages, which can be significant, as a way to punish the drug manufacturers if they in fact knew about the harms and didn't warn people, or didn't take the necessary actions to protect the consumers. Jonathan Rosenfeld : Well, it certainly seems like these are cases which really are going to be an emerging area of litigation. I really appreciate you sharing your insight with us. Jonathan Rosenfeld : If someone is sitting on the sideline, sitting at home, is there anything you would tell them to do at this point in terms of moving forward? If they're sitting on the sideline and they're a little hesitant at this point, do you have any suggestions for them? Marty Gould: They should immediately contact a lawyer to understand their rights, because they don't have to make a decision whether they want to file a claim or not just yet. But they should understand are there any deadlines that could apply to them, is there any statute limitations that may be expiring soon, and speak with a lawyer and find out what their rights are and also whether they have a potential claim. Marty Gould: Maybe they don't, but it would probably give them some peace of mind to know that they had asked the lawyer. They had spoken to a lawyer, and they did not meet the criteria, but you don't want to sit around and do nothing if there's a chance that your Zantac consumption did cause serious injuries up to and including cancer. Marty Gould: If you were taking Zantac for a long period of time and you don't have cancer, you should still be monitoring their health. I would speak to a doctor about it, just to get their opinions on whether you are at risk, and more importantly, to make sure that you don't take any other substances like Zantac that have this toxic substance, and that you switched to alternative drugs that are safer for heartburn or acid reflux. Jonathan Rosenfeld : This is great information, Marty. I really appreciate you sharing your expertise with us today. I look forward to talking with you about this again as these cases proceed towards trial. Thanks again, and I'm going to put your contact information in our show notes, but we appreciate your time. Thank you.

In this episode of Money Talks, Hugh interviewed founder of the Dynosafe!, serial entrepreneur, Rebecca Romanucci. Rebecca created DynoSafe to provide independence to our disabled Veterans who have difficulty or are unable to go to the grocery store or pharmacy, DynoSafe is the patented, temperature-controlled, IoT, smart home device which secures to your home, protecting deliveries from theft and because it is climate-controlled, it protects perishable items like groceries, medication, electronics and take-out food from the elements. We discussed: 1) Rebecca's background as a daughter whose father served in the Navy for 30 years! 2) The genesis of Dynosafe and what she has learned as an entrepreneur. 3) Her amazing success story and entrepreneurial lessons as a winner on the ABC hit show, Shark Tank! Hugh Meyer - https://instagram.com/hughmeyerofficial https://www.linkedin.com/in/hughmeyer/ Rebecca Romanucci - linkedin.com/in/romanucci-rebecca-p3 DynoSafe.com (Company Website)

In this episode Jonathan Rosenfeld chats with Martin D. Gould an Attorney at Romanucci & Blandin, LLC. Here, they discuss: Robert Anderson Abuse Read the Transcript Download the PDF Jonathan Rosenfeld: Hi. My name's Jonathan Rosenfeld. I am an attorney, and I am here today with my good friend, colleague, and what else? Respected co-counsel on a lot of these cases, Marty Gould. And today we are going to talk a little bit about a really disturbing news story that's come up involving sexual abuse claims involving the University of Michigan and a doctor who is employed at the University of Michigan for decades, Robert Anderson MD. And these are news stories which really have been making the tabloids in the Michigan area, but they really can translate to other jurisdictions as well. And Marty handles a lot of different sexual abuse cases across the country in different contexts, but today I want to sort of get an update from Marty as to the status of these cases. And before we even get to that, I'm going to let Marty introduce himself and give a little bit of background about these particular cases, because whether you've heard about this or not, I think Marty does a great job giving the relevant background, because these are really, really disturbing situations. Jonathan Rosenfeld: And when we look at them in the context that they are in, this went on for decades just right under the university's nose. So Marty, could you just share with us a little bit about the Robert Anderson situation and really help the audience get some grasp as to what happened in the situation? Marty Gould: Well, I'm of counsel at Rosenfeld Injury Lawyers. We handle sexual abuse cases all across the country. We represent many, many survivors of physician abuse. And this one is particularly disturbing. The case involves Dr. Robert Anderson. For nearly 50 years, Dr. Anderson was in charge of the medical care for the University of Michigan college athletes. He also was in charge of medical care for many of the University of Michigan other students at the Student Health Center. He retired in 2003, and he passed away in 2008. Recently, there's been a number of lawsuits filed in state and federal court in Michigan alleging abuse by this physician for decades. He was performing unnecessary medical exams, hernia exams, prostate exams, and groping, fondling, and grabbing student's genitals, penetrating students, forcing students to touch his genitals. And there's a whole litany of other allegations made against him. Marty Gould: Hundreds of people have come forward. The University of Michigan set up a hotline for survivors to file complaints, and they had over 250 complaints against Dr. Anderson. This was so well-known for so long that Michigan athletes actually had a nickname for him called Dr. Drop Your Drawers and Dr. Glove. There's reports that other administrators or supervisors knew about it. So it's just a very, very traumatic, unfortunate situation. And because he wasn't stopped earlier, hundreds of other student athletes and students were abused by this person and have all sorts of psychological injuries as a result. Jonathan Rosenfeld: Now, one of the situations that comes up in a lot of childhood sexual abuse cases is what happens in a situation such as this where, Dr. Anderson died I believe in 2008 or so, but how do I bring a case against an individual who may be deceased? A lot of times, childhood sexual abuse survivors may be hesitant to bring a case, because the perpetrator may be serving time in jail or they may be deceased. Can you explain a little bit about how that works in a situation such as this where Dr. Anderson is no longer with us, what that involves in terms of a victim pursuing a claim? Marty Gould: In many of our cases, the offender is deceased, and we're still able to pursue cases and receive substantial compensation for clients. And there's various ways you can go about proving your case. For one, the testimony of your client is evidence. But in those cases that we do pursue, it's difficult to pursue a case against the offender. You have to sue the estate for the offender. In many cases, they don't have substantial assets. But you can still sue the institution for their own failures and for their own culpability in failing to prevent the abuse, failing to investigate it, failing to take necessary precautions to make sure students and children are protected. In those cases, any evidence regarding reports made to the institution is evidence in the case. So if we're able to find out if there was other reports from other students. In this circumstance, Dr. Anderson, Roger Stone actually stated that he had made reports and he was aware of supervisors that were aware of Dr. Anderson decades ago. Okay, that's evidence in a case like this, that's evidence against the university where we would argue that. Marty Gould: Well, at that point in time where reports were made, more should have been done to supervise Dr. Anderson and to make sure students were being treated in a safe environment. So the ways in which you go about the evidence is through testimony of other witnesses and any documentation that you can find, emails, letters, and that's typically primarily how you go about establishing these cases. Jonathan Rosenfeld: In a situation like this, where this took place at the University of Michigan, a very, very well-respected institution, the cases are now actually, as you mentioned, they're now actually proceeding against the University of Michigan. As a victim, what type of damages can a victim pursue in a sexual abuse claim against the university? In other types of personal injury cases that we handle, we talk about specials. We look at their medical bills, we look at the amount of time that they may have lost from work. We look at a lot of hard economic damages in a childhood sexual abuse situation. We may not have those tangible economic damages and the case may be primarily composed of non-economic damages, pain, and suffering, loss of normal life, disability even. I want to talk with you a little bit about how the damages in these cases may play out for a potential victim. Can you talk a little bit about that? Marty Gould: In the Dr. Anderson cases, the University of Michigan has filed motions to dismiss the claims, but with those, they've also acknowledged the abuse that has occurred. They're not disputing really that Dr. Anderson was abusing students and children, and they're working to set up a claims process. So in the claims process, how would we go about establishing somebody's injuries from these such situations. There's acknowledgement through research, through state governments, even the federal government, of the fact that sexual abuse causes serious psychological traumas, it causes all sorts of injuries, such as a post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, anxiety, inability to sleep, inability to eat, trust problems, inability to be in it in some circumstances. We go about establishing how it's impacted somebody through the testimony of the survivor, through testimony from their loved ones, family members, significant others, spouses, even friends, some cases, employers, it's totally up to the survivor regarding who they think will assist in providing that testimony, medical records. Marty Gould: Many of our clients have counseling that they've had to go through throughout their lives. Some of them had to be institutionalized, because of psychological breakdowns or suicide attempts. Some of them have never had counseling up until just now. They didn't want to tell anybody and they'd just started getting counseling. Those records can be introduced into the case and through all of that, we help build a picture for the claims handlers, the insurance companies, the defendants, to explain to them how this abuse has impacted our client. And it can impact them through financially, whether it's through psychological treatment that they have to pay for, medical bills, if they were admitted for suicide or other serious psychological injuries, financially, has it impacted their ability to work in any way? To respond to supervisors, to work on a team. And then non-economic ways, just the emotional trauma, the pain and suffering. Marty Gould: And in these cases, you can also get punitive damages. The courts can award you punitive damages, if there's evidence that meets that requirement, and that's additional compensation you can receive. And it's meant to deter future conduct. It's to send a message to the institution that they should have done things differently. Had they done things differently, students and children wouldn't have been abused. And this punitive damages is a message to them saying they got to change the way in which they do business. Jonathan Rosenfeld: Now, there's no way that you and I can sit here and predict how these cases will shake out. But I just want to point out that unfortunately, there have been some other situations similar to this involving colleges and universities. Obviously in the past couple of years, there's been a settlement involving Larry Nassar at Michigan State University. And that involved a $500 million settlement for 332 people. There was a settlement involving the University of Southern California for 215 million people involving George Tyndall. That happened in 2020. Everyone knows about Jerry Sandusky at Penn State. And in that situation, the university paid out $109 million. Ohio State has paid out $45 million to 185 victims, involving Richard Strauss, another sports doctor. So, I think the bottom line is, these cases do have substantial value. Obviously, a lot of it's going to be dependent on the situation involving the individual and how their attorney relays that information and helps convey those damages to the decision-makers in the case, whether it's a judge or jury or a mediator. Jonathan Rosenfeld: But before you even get to the damages, can we talk a little bit about how the statute of limitations applies to a situation like this? And the statute of limitations is basically a time for bringing a legal claim that is set forth by the state legislature, which says, "Hey, you have X amount of time to file a lawsuit or resolve a case." Typically, if you fail to do so within that statute of limitations, you will be barred from collecting a penny. In this particular situation involving Robert Anderson, can you share with us a little bit about how a statute of limitations would apply? And I don't expect you to necessarily say with absolute specifics, but if you could generally lay forth how the statute of limitations would apply to this particular context, that'd be great. Marty Gould: Sure. Well earlier you mentioned all these other cases where they had physicians that abused many students, and you were talking about numbers like 332 survivors in the case against Larry Nassar at Michigan State. Hundreds, 185 at Ohio State University, hundreds of others and University of Southern California. When you have those type of numbers of students that were abused, there was red flag after red flag that was ignored or concealed. And that's why in these cases there ends up being settlements, because once you get down to the evidence, you don't have physicians or anybody, teachers or religious leaders that can abuse that many people without others seeing something. And that's why these cases are so significant. Now, in terms of the statute of limitations, there's a lot of variables involved, the age of the person when the abuse occurred. Marty Gould: So that's why it's very important for a survivor to immediately speak with a lawyer who can explain to them what the potential statute of limitations is. Many of these cases involving University of Michigan student athletes, there an argument by the university saying that the statute of limitations has expired. Depending on the time period in which the abuse occurred, it may actually be the case depending on the facts and time and the circumstances, but because of the outrage regarding what happened, there's bills that are being proposed in the state of Michigan seeking to change some of the laws seeking to create a window to which survivors can file claims against the University of Michigan and anybody else such as public officials that are responsible for what happened. So it's important to understand what those potential laws are. In the Larry Nassar situation. In many of those cases, the statute limitations had expired. And the state of Michigan did the same thing, they created a window for survivors to file claims. Marty Gould: So that's why it's important to speak with a lawyer to find out, even if perhaps somebody had told you the statute of limitations expired in your case, is there a chance that there may be a viable case in the near future and to keep tabs on any legislation in Michigan or really any state in which you were abused. And there may be an issue with the statute of limitations. Jonathan Rosenfeld: So really these cases are very case-specific and situation-specific. I think the ultimate the message to people I guess, would be if you are sitting at home and sitting on the sidelines and watching this whole situation unravel, and you are a victim, I guess, the bottom line is now is the time to move forward and really, and contact an attorney and sort of get your claim on file while that window of opportunity may be open. Marty Gould: Correct. Now is the time, now is always the time to, at the very least, even if you don't want to pursue a case, speak with a lawyer to find out what your rights are, what deadlines are coming up, what your options are. You don't have to file a claim and while I would encourage everyone to do so, and you can do so confidentially, if you have concerns. Know your rights, Jonathan Rosenfeld: Marty, I really appreciate you explaining the situation with me today. As someone who has worked with you, I really admire your dedication to the clients. You certainly are someone who is really willing to roll up their sleeves and really be an advocate for clients. And I really appreciate your time today. And I look forward to speaking with you again about these cases as we watch them move forward in the claims process. Thank you. Marty Gould: Thanks, Jon.

In this episode Jonathan Rosenfeld chats with Martin D. Gould an Attorney at Romanucci & Blandin, LLC. Here, they discuss: Jeffery Epstein Abuse Read the Transcript Download the PDF Jonathan Rosenfeld: Hi. I'm Jonathan Rosenfeld, and I am an attorney in Chicago, Illinois. I am here today with my good friend, colleague, Marty Gould. Today, I want to talk with Marty a little bit about a sex abuse case that has made the headlines pretty much all over the world really, for the past couple of years, and that involves Jeffrey Epstein. Marty and I have worked together on different types of sex abuse cases. And as attorneys who prosecute these cases, I wanted to get some insight from Marty about the status of these cases and what is going on and how victims can potentially get involved in terms of filing a claim. But before we get to any of that, Marty, can you... First off, thank you for joining me today, and can you please just give us a little bit of background about yourself? Marty Gould: Sure. I'm of counsel of Rosenfeld Injury Lawyers. We handle sexual abuse cases all across the country. We're in over 20 to 25 states, and that's essentially what I do. It's the focus of my practice. We're not only lawyers, but we're advocates. We're advocating to change to limitations laws to give access to the courts for survivors. And we're also advocates in terms of fighting to make sure our clients get counseling and injustice in their cases. Jonathan Rosenfeld: Now, I want to talk with you about these Jeffrey Epstein cases. And before I do that, we were just talking a little bit about the Netflix documentary, Filthy Rich, about these cases. If anyone is looking for something to watch which is both horrifically disturbing and gripping at the same time, I would highly recommend that you watch this documentary because it really goes through how Jeffrey Epstein basically systematically found these young girls. You know, He sought them out. He essentially, he corralled them into his world in Florida, and it's really just a shocking thing to witness as to how he was able to manipulate the system. Jonathan Rosenfeld: And we can talk a little bit about the cases in general, but today I want to really take a step back and I want to talk with you a little bit about what is going on in terms of these claims are being handled. These, unlike other types of sexual abuse claims where involving a church or a school or other organization, these cases are actually being brought in a separate claims handling manner. Can you share with us a little bit about what is going on in terms of these Jeffrey Epstein cases, how they're being handled and what the status of them currently is? Marty Gould: As most people are aware of from all the media reports, Jeffrey Epstein was a very wealthy financier who was alleged to have transported underage girls to his homes in the U.S. Virgin Islands, to New York and to his ranch in New Mexico and forced them into sex work. Most of the survivors were abused between 2001 up until 2018. And he was criminally charged. He was criminally charged over a decade ago. And then he was also criminally charged more recently, he was brought to a federal detention facility in August 2019. Before the survivors could get justice in the criminal process, he committed suicide. Law enforcement is still investigating the case. They're still investigating any other potential co-conspirators, and you have the civil cases. There's really two processes in which survivors can get justice. One is many have filed lawsuits in the state of New York, for anyone that was abused as a minor, they can file up until August 14 2021, which is when the New York child victims act window expires, the time period in which anyone who abuses the child in New York has to file a lawsuit. Marty Gould: The executors of Epstein's estate also created a separate process. They separated from the actual civil justice system. There is an Epstein's victims compensation fund that was created. It's an entirely voluntary process where survivors can submit claims. And many of those circumstances, they provide some type of testimony, a statement. So the claims handlers can assess what happened. They can also get counseling through that process and attempt to seek justice that way. Over 50 claims have been settled through that process thus far, in over $50 million, I'm sorry, over 150 claims have been settled through that process. And more than $50 million has been paid out Jonathan Rosenfeld: Now in these civil cases. And these are really what you're talking about in terms of the victims fund, that does not necessarily mean that they're filing a lawsuit, does it? Marty Gould: It does not. Jonathan Rosenfeld: Okay. Marty Gould: A survivor doesn't have to file a lawsuit. They can go through the Epstein victim compensation program, which is also confidential, and they can attempt to resolve their case that way. The process typically involves filling out a questionnaire. The questionnaire asks when the abuse occurred, where it occurred, how they met Jeffrey Epstein, any other potential witnesses, and typically involves a statement. And then it's submitted to claims handlers who assess the cases and they may provide a potential settlement amount. And it typically goes back and forth with the lawyers. You don't have to accept the settlement. It's important to have a lawyer negotiating with you and helping you put the package together to understand what the case should settle for and to make sure you're meeting all the required deadlines. Jonathan Rosenfeld: Now, as an attorney who handles different types of civil cases involving sexual abuse, can you just talk a little bit about the damages in these cases? Unlike other types of personal injury cases where, I have a broken bone and everyone can see that I have a broken bone. A lot of times in a sexual abuse setting, a victim may walk into a room and he or she looks healthy, relatively happy. They don't really look very different than you or I. How, as a trial attorney, how do you convey the damages in a case like that? So that person can get the compensation that they really are entitled to. Marty Gould: Psychological scars, I think are some of the worst injuries that anybody can have. And like you pointed out, it's not always easy to show a jury what those scars are because they don't walk into court in a wheelchair or with a cast on their arm or their neck, but there're ways to let the jury or the claims handlers or the insurance adjuster or the defense attorneys know how it's impacted a person. Typically, it starts with the testimony from the survivor, and they provide testimony about how it's impacted them. Trust issues they've had, the feelings of anger, humiliation, their personal pain and suffering from what happened. In many cases, clients have also went through counseling or in some cases they've spoken about the abuse and how it's impacted them. In many cases, people have went through counseling and never mentioned the abuse. Marty Gould: That's fine too. You can still use that to help show how it's impacted you. If you are exhibiting depression, anxiety, and perhaps you didn't tie it to that specific abuse until you actually saw a counselor or until you heard about these cases, and until you started going through this process. So any prior counseling records, therapists records, we also look at your employment history. If you've had difficulties listening to supervisors or holding a job, that could be evidence of one way in which the abuse impacted you. Marty Gould: Testimony from family members. If you have a wife, girlfriend, siblings, they can also provide testimony about how it's impacted you, how it's impacted your relationship with your children, perhaps you're not as affectionate or you don't like when people touch you. So there're many ways in which we can explain to the other side, how it's impacted you. And in some cases, if you haven't done counseling yet, because you just never want to tell anybody, or you didn't have the financial means to do so, we can get you into counseling and even a recent counselor who's treated you, they can provide testimony. Some people have post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, anxiety disorders. So there's many ways in which we go about explaining the psychological traumas, even though you may not have any visible physical injury to show. Jonathan Rosenfeld: Now, these cases, as you mentioned, is claims, they're actually being handled in the U.S. Virgin Islands. And there's a couple high profile administrators who are overseeing the claims process. Now, if a victim is sitting at home and they're saying to themselves, "Well, I don't have the resources, how am I going to get to the U.S. Virgin Islands?" First off, I assume they don't have to go to the U.S. Virgin Islands to pursue a claim, correct? Marty Gould: That's correct. Jonathan Rosenfeld: Okay. And the other thing that comes up in a lot of these cases, having represented victims in sexual abuse cases, is sometimes there's a perception that they need funds or some kind of money to get a case started. Now, you and I work on a lot of these cases and we handle these cases on what's called a contingency fee basis where we only get paid when, and if a case gets resolved, we advance all of the costs associated with bringing a case. Jonathan Rosenfeld: Can you just elaborate a little bit about the contingency process, and again, just sort of explain to folks at home how that process works. Because a lot of times there's a horrible predicament that victims face, where they feel even more trapped than they need to be, because they feel like they can't contact an attorney without having the financial resource to pay them. And so in a situation like this, where we handle a case on a contingency fee, can you explain to them a little bit how that works, and sort of what that process is? Marty Gould: If in many of our cases, the defendants in the case are institutions, they're companies, they have the means to hire lawyers and pay them on an hourly basis, whatever that may be, hundreds of dollars it could be. And then every couple of weeks, they get a check from the company paying off the legal fees. They front all the costs. Our clients are regular people. Most of our clients, if not all of our clients have endured terrible traumas. The last thing that they need to be worrying about when they're thinking about pursuing a case is how they're going to pay for lawyers to represent them. Marty Gould: We take case on a contingency fee basis where we only collect an attorney's fee if we recover for the client, if we're able to actually obtain a settlement to a jury trial through a mediation, through any other means, that's how we collect our attorney's fees. And if we can't, if we take on your case and the case gets dismissed because of a statute limitations argument, or we couldn't prove our case, we don't collect anything from you. And that's just because of the nature of the type of work we do. And just from a fairness perspective, it's a lot for a survivor or a client to be thinking about, especially at this time. Jonathan Rosenfeld: One of the nice things about the contingency fee agreement is that really the interest of the client and the attorney who's representing them are really in line with one another, because we want them to recover as much as possible under their circumstance, because it really serves them as well. That's again, it's how it's an incentive for us to secure that recovery. And I guess in a situation like this, given sort of the timeframe involved in terms of pursuing a claim with this victim's fund, do you have any recommendations to a person who may be a victim of Jeffrey Epstein who maybe sort of has been sitting on the sidelines for a while and watching this whole situation play out? Do you have any advice for them as to what they can or should do at this point in terms of moving forward? Marty Gould: They should speak to a lawyer as soon as possible. There's deadlines that are very important to follow. There's a claims deadline for March 25th. There's also registration deadlines that the Epstein compensation fund has created. So my advice would be speak with a lawyer as soon as possible and find out what potential deadlines there are that could impact any potential case you have, but you don't want to miss your chance at getting compensation or getting closure through this process because you didn't speak with a lawyer and find out what your options were and when those deadlines were. Jonathan Rosenfeld: Now, I'm going to ask you a little bit about another issue that seems to come up consistently in these cases. And that is a product related to privacy. As a victim of a sexual crime, if you will, a lot of times people, there's a huge hesitation involved with pursuing a claim or a lawsuit because they just don't want their name going out in public. In most lawsuits, it's a public record, they're filed in a courthouse. And that is a public record where that can be searched by the plaintiff's name or the defendant's name. In a case involving sexual abuse, are there any safeguards that can be put into place to protect their privacy and to really insulate them from getting the scrutiny from either friends, relatives, or even from media at this point? Marty Gould: The laws in most states permit survivors in childhood sexual abuse cases to file their lawsuits anonymously. Most of these lawsuits are filed as a John Doe or a Jane Doe because there's an understanding of the sensitive, personal, confidential nature of these types of cases. So with that process, it allows somebody to pursue a case, to fight for justice, to obtain compensation, without having to worry about everybody in their community finding out what had happened to them. Marty Gould: And for that reason, we have people from all different backgrounds. Some people have public jobs. Some people are former or current police officers that were abused as children that have brought claims. So we have all different types of clients and that mechanism allows them to pursue their cases without having to disclose their name publicly. Now there's still the option to file your case publicly if that's what you want to do. And it's totally up to the client. In the mediation process, such as the Epstein compensation program, it's all done confidentially. So there's no requirement for you to publicize your name as somebody who was abused by Jeffrey Epstein. The same is applied for the Boy Scouts of America cases. All those survivors, their names are kept confidential unless they decide they don't want to have their name kept confidentially. So there's typically that option in nearly every state in every compensation program I've been involved with, and that I'm aware of. Jonathan Rosenfeld: Well, I really appreciate you sitting down with me today and sort of giving us an update about how these cases are being handled. And if anyone has a question about a potential claim, or if they're looking for more information, I am going to put your contact information in our show notes so they can reach out to you directly. But again, thank you for spending some time with me today, and I appreciate your expertise on this area.  

Biz Coach, Super Joe Pardo interviews Rebecca Romanucci of Dynosafe from Shark Tank Season 12 Episode 19. Watch Rebecca's pitch on Shark Tank: https://youtu.be/jTIf-mK-Jp8

Biz Coach, Super Joe Pardo interviews Rebecca Romanucci of Dynosafe from Shark Tank Season 12 Episode 19. Watch Rebecca's pitch on Shark Tank: https://youtu.be/jTIf-mK-Jp8

Biz Coach, Super Joe Pardo interviews Rebecca Romanucci of Dynosafe from Shark Tank Season 12 Episode 19. Watch Rebecca's pitch on Shark Tank: https://youtu.be/jTIf-mK-Jp8

Biz Coach, Super Joe Pardo interviews Rebecca Romanucci of Dynosafe from Shark Tank Season 12 Episode 19. Watch Rebecca's pitch on Shark Tank: https://youtu.be/jTIf-mK-Jp8

Class actions and mass torts often grab headlines due to their profound impact on large numbers of people.  On this episode, John and Matt are joined by David Neiman and Bryce Hensley, both of Romanucci and Blandin in Chicago for a roundtable discussion about all things aggregate litigation.  This is a must-listen for anyone interested in what goes on behind the scenes of some of the biggest cases out there.Host Matthew Heimlich is an attorney at Walsh, Knippen & Cetina, Chartered, with offices in Wheaton and Chicago, Illinois.  Matt's law practice is focused on the representation of injured victims and their families in nursing home negligence, motor vehicle collision, medical malpractice and other personal injury cases. He is a member of the DuPage County Bar Association, Illinois State Bar Association, Illinois Trial Lawyers Association and the American Association for Justice.  A link to his firm's website and biography and be found here.   Host John Risvold is a personal injury trial lawyer at The Collins Law Firm P.C., with offices in Naperville, Illinois.  He has dedicated his career to fighting those responsible for injuring his clients. He focuses his practice on medical negligence, nursing home neglect, and catastrophic personal injury. John is active in several professional organizations that work to ensure his clients' access to the courts remains intact, including the American Associate for Justice, the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association, and the Chicago Bar Association.  A link to his firm's website and biography and be found here.  Email us at ontrialpodcast@gmail.comFollow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram @OnTrialPodcastIf you like what you hear, please rate and subscribe on your preferred podcast platform.  

Attorney Antonio "Tony" Romanucci discusses his recent 21 million dollar verdict in Chicago, Illinois on a case involving a police chase through Chicago streets.