ARisperdal lawsuithas been filed against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as well as key officials in those departments.
The complaint, which was filed by a Pennsylvania law firm, alleges these agencies failed to consider a citizen petition by the law firm that requested a change in labeling for the anti-psychotic drugRisperdal. The plaintiffs claim the FDA denied the request without a proper meeting or hearing, or even without considering all the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs to demonstrate the dangers of Risperdal, particularly to children.
Complaint filed in federal court
The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on January 29, 2015. Defendants listed in the complaint include the HHS, FDA, Sylvia Mathews Burwell, Secretary of the HHS, and Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D., Commissioner for the FDA. The plaintiff in the complaint is a law firm that has represented hundreds of children who have suffered serious injury after taking Risperdal and its generic counterparts.
The plaintiff filed a citizen complaint with the FDA after receiving confidential documents establishing the dangers associated with Risperdal consumption by minors. The information came to the plaintiff as a result of their representation with young clients that had been injured by the drug. In the petition, the plaintiff requested the FDA to obtain those documents directly or release the plaintiff from confidentiality orders put in place by Risperdalmanufactures Johnson & Johnson and their subsidiary Janssen.
According to the complaint, the FDA denied the plaintiff’s petition and “expressly refused” to consider facts the plaintiff had submitted involving the inadequate labeling of Risperdal. The plaintiffs further state in their complaint that the FDA’s denial “puts at risk numerous pediatric patients who are prescribed Risperdal drugs.” Risperdal and generic versions of the drug have been linked to serious side effectsin young male patients, including abnormal breast growth and other issues with sexual development.
Sacramento - More than 800 pages of records released by the California Department of Public Health have revealed horrific crimes, including deadly physical abuse and neglect, rape, and brutal beatings, inside five mental health institutions.
According to the documents, which were first obtained by the Center for Investigative Reporting, 13 developmentally disabled residents have died as a direct result of abuse and neglect at five state-run homes for more than 1,100 developmentally disabled men, women and minors: Fairview Developmental Center in Costa Mesa, Lanterman Developmental Center in Pomona (now closed), Porterville Developmental Center in Porterville, Canyon Springs Developmental Center in Cathedral City and Sonoma Developmental Center in Eldridge.
The report documents many incidents in which staff physically and sexually abused residents. In October 2013, a psychiatric technician at Canyon Springs choked a patient. A Porterville staff member kicked a patient who was having difficulty while using a toilet in January 2013. A blind Sonoma patient was struck in the head in November 2005. A Porterville resident died in 2003 after staff members used an "inappropriate restraint" to take him down after he stole a set of keys. Improper restraint was also blamed for the death of a wheelchair-bound female Porterville patient in 2011.
In December 2010, a 6'3", 400-lb. (191 cm, 181 kg.) Porterville orderly ferociously attacked a patient who had disobeyed an order to remain in place. The patient, who has the cognitive level of a 10-year-old, had gone to his room to lay down, infuriating the orderly, who threw the victim to the floor before stomping on his back. As other staff members held the man down, the orderly climbed on him and choked him until he lost consciousness and suffered a heart attack. "Fuck him," the orderly said as staff attempted to revive the patient, who survived but spent 11 days on a ventilator in an intensive care unit.
In other cases, staff neglect resulted in residents raping and sexually abusing other patients. At Porterville, staff "failed to ensure that clients were protected from sexual abuse" and failed to protect women housed with "male clients who had criminal sexual histories." At Canyon Springs, staff also failed to protect residents from sexual abuse. One resident with a history of "overly sexual behavior" was involved in "at least nine incidents of abuse" targeting other residents. Sometimes staff members were the perpetrators of sexual abuse; several cases of assault and improper touching and relationships are documented. A male employee at Sonoma was also arrested in 2012 after masturbating in front of female patients.
Neglect has also proven deadly. At Porterville, an improperly restrained patient was left unattended and was strangled by a seatbelt in March 2011. "Lack of supervision" was blamed for the November 2004 choking death of a Fairview patient. That same year, another Fairview resident deemed a "choke risk" was "fed inappropriate food" and choked to death. Another Fairview patient died after falling out of a bed "because side rails weren't operable or appropriate." In September 2011, Fairview was also blamed for the death of a patient with "a history of pulling out his tracheostomy tube" who "was left unattended by facility staff" when he killed himself by removing the tube from his throat.
"Failure of the facility to protect" a Lanterman resident from "repeated client-to-client altercations" was cited in a 2003 beating death. Also at Lanterman, a patient "with history of bowel obstruction" died of medical neglect after suffering seizures, sepsis and bowel obstruction. Failure to notify medical staff and immediately initiate CPR is blamed for the October 2010 death of a Sonoma patient. A misplaced feeding tube by Sonoma nurses who "didn't follow policy" resulted in the slow, painful death of a patient in 2012. Multiple deaths due to medication or treatment errors are also documented in the report.
There have also been many cases of resident-on-resident violence at the five facilities. Multiple brutal assaults at Fairview in early 2012 left one resident hospitalized with "skull and facial fractures and bleeding in the brain." Another victim was pulled to the ground and kicked in the face. Yet another Fairview resident suffered multiple fractured ribs in a vicious attack.
Later in 2012, Fairview staff "neglected to provide adequate interventions" during an assault that left a resident with a broken nose and eye socket. At Canyon Springs, one resident tortured another by repeatedly burning him with cigarettes. In December 2002, a Sonoma patient stabbed another in the eye with a butter knife.
The abuse was sometimes deadly. In July 2011, a teenage Fairview resident smothered another teen with a pillow and stabbed the victim with a pencil. The report cites the "facility's neglect" as a contributing factor in the brutal slaying.
Verbal and psychological abuse, as well as humiliation, are documented with regularity. Multiple patients who soiled themselves were forced to wear their dirty clothing as punishment. Others were called derogatory names, including "retard." The report also documents health and sanitation violations, including a rat and cockroach infestation in the Porterville kitchen.
Despite overwhelming evidence, police repeatedly failed to prosecute or even investigate crimes involving mental institution residents. California Department of Developmental Services (DDS) spokeswoman Nancy Lungren told Digital Journal her agency "obviously regrets" the abuses that occurred at the state institutions, but that the Department of Public Health documents—which consist exclusively of citations for violations—tell "only one side of the story."
"It's not all bad if you visit the facilities," Lungren said in a phone interview. She insisted the facilities named in the DPH citations "are committed to the health and safety of [their] residents and are continuously improving conditions in areas found to be deficient in the citations." Lungren added "there are plans of correction in place" to address the issues highlighted in the citations. She said corrective actions include "firing people, upgrading staffing and changing how we do things."
Recurring incidents of resident abuse in state institutions have rekindled a long-running debate among mental health professionals, advocates and policymakers about the effectiveness of housing patients in larger institutions. While some important health outcomes have been demonstrably superior in such facilities, many professionals favor housing patients with relatives or in small group homes. According to researchpublished by the National Council on Disability, an independent government policymaking agency, this home- and community-based services (HCBS) approach boosts patient independence, behavior and happiness.
HBCS advocates also say their approach is more likely to encourage patients to participate in their own wellness process.
"The problem with many institutions, and I'm not saying this is true for all of them, but many take a clinician point of view, which means mental illness is diagnosed as a disease that needs to be treated, not as a person that can participate in their own recovery," Maureen DeCoste, communications director of the Mental Health Association of San Francisco, a charitable advocacy, education, research and service organization, told Digital Journal via email. "Often, this type of treatment can be dehumanizing [and] the person becomes secondary." DeCoste said that this may not be applicable to the abuse documented in the DPH citations.
Others argue larger institutions play an important role in patient care and that the movement to deinstitutionalize the developmentally disabled and mentally ill has been a failure.
"Asylums for the severely mentally disabled would provide stability and structure," wrote Christine Montross, a psychiatrist at Butler Hospital in Providence, Rhode Island in a recent New York Times op-ed. "They deserve the relief modern institutionalization would provide."
Thank You Digital Journal.
"They deserve the relief modern institutionalization would provide."
Oh yes, by All Means.
"The program, Congressman Snapdoodle, is sound."
"It's simply underfunded."
"Just give us a few Billion more and we'll fix it, . . . by paying it out in bonuses to our Top People who will straighten it out just like they did at the Veterans Administration."
Needless to say, the gargantuan troll-like conflict of interest that arises as soon as the foundation of the leading candidate for the presidency of the United States begins accepting money from overseas is apparent to every sentient being on the planet except members of the Clinton family and the growing number of advisers, consultants, strategists, pollsters, groupies, allies, and hangers-on whose livelihood depends on that family’s political success. “These contributions,” the foundation said in a statement to the Journal, “are helping improve the lives of millions of people across the world, for which we are grateful.”
What I love about this statement is its flip shamelessness, the way in which its airy sentimental public relations gobbledygook is both a denial of what is obviously a corrupt practice and an implicit endorsement of it. I do not doubt for a moment that the Clinton flack who led the email chain that came up with this blistering retort to the Journal is indeed “grateful” for every single one of the donations that foreign governments are making to his organization, because life in Manhattan and North Caldwell, New Jersey, is very expensive and these kids are not going to be paying for college on their own you know. If a little charity on the part of his excellency Sultan Qaboos of Oman can help pay for the lake house in Connecticut and the monthly installment on that brand new Tesla you’ve been eyeing through the window of the store on 25th Street, well, what’s the harm? The programs you run—“transforming communities,” “creating partnerships of purpose,” devising other alliterative slogans—“improve the lives of millions of people across the world.” OK, maybe not “millions of people,” but certainly the lives of the oligarchs and monarchs and functionaries and foreign agents who sign checks to the Clintons and can count on reciprocity, not to mention the lives of one very special pair of grandparents, their beloved daughter, her husband (especially when Goldman Sachs is footing the bill for losses at his hedge fund), and beautiful Charlotte.
Constitution? We don't got to obey no stinking Constitution.
Wonder how they continue to get away with it? California Diversion Programs(7) 14th amendment Due Process and Equal Protection? As if 'Therapeutic Jurisprudence' weren't a blatant enough piece of Statism, It wouldn't do to have our Courts pissing off our Legislators by actually basing their rulings on the highest law of the land and upsetting the infinite multiverses of carve outs those Legislators enacted which either openly or tacitly promised 'Social Justice'. wiki;
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In United States
constitutional law, the doctrine of constitutional
avoidance dictates that a federal court should
refuse to rule on a constitutional issue if the case can be resolved on a
nonconstitutional basis. When a federal court is faced with a choice of ruling
on astatutory, regulatory or
constitutional basis, the Supreme Court has
instructed the lower court to decide the federal constitutional issue only as a
last resort: "The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question
although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other
ground upon which the case may be disposed of."Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 297
U.S. 288, 347 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring).
The avoidance doctrine flows from
the canon of judicial self-restraint, and is intertwined with the debate over
the proper scope of federal judicial review and the allocation of power among
the three branches of the federal government and the states. It is also
premised on the "delicacy" and "finality" of judicial
review of legislation for constitutionality, concerns regarding the credibility
of the federal courts, and the "paramount importance of constitutional
adjudication in our system." These
elements demonstrate a significant overlap between the avoidance doctrine and
other jurisdictional or justiciability barriers. The avoidance doctrine
reflects such other justiciability doctrines as standing and ripeness, and
permeates jurisdictional doctrines such as Pullman abstention and the adequate
and independent state ground doctrine.
Historical development of the
Louis D. Brandeis
The avoidance of unnecessary
constitutional decisions has been urged as early as 1833 by Chief JusticeJohn Marshall in Ex
parte Randolph, 20 F. Cas. 242, 254 (C.C.D. Va. 1833) (No. 11,558).
Although Brandeis's concurring
opinion in Ashwander is the primary cite for the modern formulation
of the avoidance doctrine, Chief Justice Marshall had cautioned previously that
no questions of "greater delicacy" can be presented to the federal
judiciary than those involving a constitutional challenge to a legislative act. He
instructed that if such questions "become indispensably necessary to the
case," they must be decided, but "if the case may be determined on other
points, a just respect for the legislature requires, that the obligation of its
laws should not be unnecessarily and wantonly assailed." In Ex
parte Randolph, the Chief Justice, while riding circuit, considered
a challenge to a congressional act which provided that Treasury agents could
issue warrants for military
officers charged with disbursing public funds who failed to pay
and settle their accounts at the Treasury
Department. The court concluded that the terms of the act did not
apply to an officer temporarily acting as the ship's purser due to the death of
the regularly commissioned purser and granted his petition for habeas corpus. Justice
Louis D. Brandeis's concurring opinion in Ashwander provides the
most significant formulation of the avoidance doctrine, even though the
Brandeis formulation had no effect on the outcome of the case because the Justice
concurred in the plurality
opinion, and the plurality considered and decided the properly
presented constitutional issues. In Ashwander, Justice Brandeis
identified seven components of the avoidance doctrine.
Justice Stevens has called the
Ashwander concurrence "one of the most respected opinions ever written by
a Member of this Court."Brandeis,
a leader of the progressive movement prior to his judicial appointment offered
a broad framing of the avoidance doctrine. The doctrine was adopted heartily by
Felix Frankfurter, who was attacked as too "liberal" while a Harvard
scholar and an active supporter of New Deal programs. This
tool of judicial restraint espoused by "liberals" was in large part
inspired by the response of Brandeis and Frankfurter to the activist
"conservative" Court of the 1930s, which struck down legislation as
infringing on freedom of contract and other doctrines such as substantive due
recent years, doctrines of judicial restraint have more often been criticized
when used by "conservative" jurists.
^ Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of
L.A., 331 U.S. 549, 571 (1947) (reciting a non-exhaustive list of grounds
supporting the avoidance doctrine); see also Paul A. Freund (1957).
"Introduction". In Alexander M. Bickel. The
Unpublished Opinions of Mr. Justice Brandeis. University of Chicago Press.
p. xvii. ISBN978-0226046020. (Judicial
self-restraint is premised on an "awareness of the limits of human
capacity, the fallibility of judgment, the need for diffusion of power and
responsibility, the indispensability of husbanding what powers one has, of
keeping within bounds if action is not to outrun wisdom.").
^ See Helen Shirley Thomas
(1960). Felix Frankfurter: Scholar on the Bench. The Johns
Hopkins University Press. pp. 19–20. ISBN978-0801806285.; Melvin
I. Urofsky (1991). Felix Frankfurter: Judicial Restraint and Individual
Liberties. Twayne's Twentieth-Century American Biography Series. Twayne
Pub. pp. 20–22. ISBN978-0805777741.
^ See, e.g., Gerald M. Gallivan
(1985). "Supreme Court Jurisdiction and the Wyoming Constitution: Justice
v. Judicial Restraint". Land and Water Law Review20:
159.; Steven M. Kahaner (1988). "Separation of Powers and the
Standing Doctrine: The Unwarranted Use of Judicial Restraint".George
Washington Law Review56: 104.; Christopher A. Crain (1990). "Note, Judicial
Restraint and the Non-Decision in Webster v. Reprod. Health Servs.". Harvard
Journal of Law & Public Policy13: 263.; see
also Linda Greenhouse (July 22, 1993). "The
Supreme Court: A Sense of Judicial Limits". The New
York Times. p. A1. (referring to the Ginsburg nomination and
noting surprise at a "liberal" jurist espousing techniques of
'Progressives' have dropped this on your head.
Are you going to vote for 'Progressive' candidates again?
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment 14, US Constitution 1868
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
What D Bunker is NOT:
D Bunker is Not African American.
D Bunker is Not Hispanic American.
D Bunker is Not a Jewish American.
D Bunker is Not a Gay American.
D Bunker is an American, Period. And this PO'd American has had 10 times more than twice too much of enough of Anyone claiming special rights for themselves over Anyone else. Far too many good men and women of all races, creeds and colors have given Everything and more to establish that None of Us are better than the Next of Us, AS LAW, to allow Any Ideology, especially one which is Wholly Smoke and Mirrors, to rule and ruin the lives of Any of us.