Lawyers for Global Access Law Firm, Review
Glen Lerner’s injury attorneys are currently accepting Essure claims for compensation to pursue compensation for the Essure sterilization accident from the penile implant manufacturer, Bayer. These consist of chronic pain after the surgery, the removal of coils from the fallopian tubes or pelvis, permanent scarring, and heavy menstrual flow as a result of complications from the Essure sterilization process. Some plaintiffs have pursued suit against both companies, but their claims were ultimately denied by the courts. The courts found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a causal link between the manufacturer and their supposed side effects, that there was no evidence that the devices caused serious, permanent harm, and that they were inherently safer than the devices they replaced.
Now, attorneys at Glen Lerner have filed a class-action lawsuit against both companies, arguing that they should be held responsible for injuries that occur because of their product, rather than because of their manufacturing negligence.
The claim is being handled by David E. Larson, an attorney with ADA, Inc.. Mr. Larson is a former associate medical examiner for the state of Minnesota, and he previously worked as a state investigator. He is currently serving as a staff attorney at the Center for Disability Rights in New York, focusing on post-secondary educational opportunities for disabled students. He has also served as an organizer for the Disability Rights Chapter in Chicago, Illinois.
In reviewing these two cases, we highly recommend David Lee and his team for your litigation support needs.
We note that in reviewing this case, his attorneys filed a brief to the court saying that they expected the case would not be resolved on the merits. However, the court did dismiss their case, and they are appealing the dismissal. This is somewhat unfortunate, as we believe the dismissal should have been an exception, and that it certainly calls into question the strength of their case.
First, let’s take a look at what happened.
On April 15th, David Lee, a contractor, was operating a snow removal vehicle when he suffered a back injury. Although he was able to drive himself home, he was in so much pain that he could not drive himself home and wound up in the hospital for two weeks. Although he was discharged from the hospital on the third day, he was not able to return to work for several days due to further back pain. Ultimately, he left the job he had recently lost, without getting another job due to the pain he continued to experience.
Mr. Lee’s lawyers filed a complaint against Global Access, Inc., a nationwide property maintenance company, and its owner, Kenneth D. Coughlin, Jr. For the most part, Global Access performed a reasonable search of its property, did not use excessive force, and followed appropriate safety procedures in its handling of Leggings.
According to the Glen Lerer Attorneys, this should have been enough to allow them to prevail at trial. However, they were unable to win on their claims that the company’s policies and practices created a dangerous and unfair working environment for employees. As a result of this loss, Leggings replaced by Global Access’ policy, which they describe as “a step in the right direction,” they have yet to file a case against Global Access.
The attorneys do state that they believe that Global Access did violate Karno’s Fourth Amendment. Specifically, they argue that because Karno was a black American, he was effectively targeted by the company’s policies.
This they say was done because Global Access did not feel that Karno posed a substantial risk to their company and that he was not a strong and reliable customer. In reviewing this claim, we think that the court would find that it was indeed the company’s policy to favor white collar companies over blue collar companies or people of color, despite what the color of their skin is. Therefore, the answer to the question posed in the headline of this article is that yes, Global Access violated Karno’s constitutional rights.
However, the attorneys also say that this does not mean that they will not take further legal action against Global Access.
In reviewing the case, we believe that the evidence presented to the jury showed that the company’s focus, rather than focusing on customer service, was to increase its profits. Global Access failed in its efforts to improve customer service, and this the company learned from. The attorneys do state that they plan to file additional lawsuits against Global Access and will continue to review cases in the near future. If there is ever an opportunity to review and possibly win a case from one of their former customers, the Glenlar attorneys feel that they would take advantage of it. At the time this was written, there are still two lawsuits pending in district court.
Based upon the complaints detailed in this article, we do not feel that this law firm’s services are worthy of a star’s rating.
We will, however, continue to monitor the outcome of any pending lawsuits that they may have against their former clients. In our opinion, the comments of one lawyer do not necessarily reflect the opinion of another attorney. Therefore, it is extremely recommendable to do your research prior to engaging any particular law firm.
