[ RadSafe ] Cancer suit filed against Los Alamos Labs

Mon Jun 23 13:16:59 CDT 2008

I was on a Jury and was the Foreperson.  It concerned a siut against a 
lawyer who hadn't given the widow all the information due her.  The widow 
had a disease that required her to be in a wheel chair.  Each time the court 
was in session, they rolled her out.  The disease and wheel chair had 
nothing to do with the case, but I'm sure it was for effect.  They settled 
on the last day.  The lawyer probably figured we would go against him 
because her condition.  As it was we knew the action was for our benefit. 
We could have been emotionally involved, but saw through action.

Ed Baratta

edmond0033 at comcast.net
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steven Dapra" <sjd at swcp.com>
To: "Tena Graben-Galyon" <ilovemycat2 at comcast.net>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 11:31 PM
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Cancer suit filed against Los Alamos Labs

> June 22
>
>         No, I've never sat on a jury.  Based on what you have written, I 
> will now say it doesn't say much for the honesty of lawyers, nor does it 
> say much for their interest in seeing that justice is done, without 
> respect to emotion.  Okay, now let's hear from the lawyers who want to 
> excoriate me because I don't want decisions to be based on emotion.  Or 
> whatever.  Somebody will have a sob story.  It never ends, does it?
>
> Steven Dapra
>
>
>
> At 10:59 PM 6/22/08 -0400, Tena Graben-Galyon wrote:
>>Steven:
>>
>>Have you ever sat on a jury?  I have served in more than one state and 
>>have
>>found that, in my experience, neither side wanted educated jurors.  I
>>watched on most of the occasions where, during the juror interview part, 
>>as
>>soon as the attorney found out the prospective juror was educated, the
>>prospective juror was struck off.  Both sides always seem to want the 
>>little
>>70ish year old housewife who may or may not have finished high school and
>>probably has no idea how much her husband makes, but would base her 
>>decision
>>on emotions and not the facts of the case.  At least that is what I have
>>always observed.  I can remember on quite a few occasions thinking to
>>myself, "those are not a jury of my peers."  Not that I was  stuck up or
>>anything, but lets face it, that 70ish year old woman who has never held a
>>job in her life outside the home and never received a higher education has
>>never walked in my shoes.  How can she be a peer; however, that is the 
>>type
>>of person lawyers like for a juror.  They are more easily influenced and
>>persuaded.  They tend to let their emotions drive their decisions and not
>>the facts of the case. IMHO
>>
>>Tena A. Graben-Galyon, CQA
>>President
>>Graben Galyon Consultants
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On 
>>Behalf
>>Of Steven Dapra
>>Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 10:32 PM
>>To: Dan W McCarn; radsafe at radlab.nl
>>Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Cancer suit filed against Los Alamos Labs
>>
>>
>>June 22
>>
>>          This doesn't say much for the intellectual rigor of jurors, does
>>it?
>>
>>Steven Dapra
>>
>>
>>At 07:17 PM 6/22/08 -0500, Dan W McCarn wrote:
>> >Dear Group:
>> >
>> >Having been involved in civil environmental litigations as an expert
>> >witness, sometimes it doesn't matter to a jury if a person was exposed 
>> >to a
>> >contaminant exceeding a drinking-water quality threshold or not.  If 
>> >those
>> >contaminants at issue can even be detected, or a case made that they 
>> >might
>> >have been present at one time is enough to move a jury to return a 
>> >verdict
>> >in favor of the plaintiff. This, of course, also extends into the more
>> >emotive issues related to radiation or radionuclide exposure.
>> >
>> >Dan ii
>> >
>> >Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; 
>> >USA
>> >Home: +1-281-903-7667; Austria-cell:  +43-676-725-6622
>> >HotGreenChile at gmail.com   mccarn at unileoben.ac.at 
>> >UConcentrate at gmail.com
>> >
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
>>Behalf
>> >Of Perle, Sandy
>> >Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 4:18 PM
>> >To: Steven Dapra; radsafe at radlab.nl
>> >Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Cancer suit filed against Los Alamos Labs
>> >
>> > >>According to an article in the Las Cruces (NM) Sun-News, Ryman's
>> >daughter "said her father's doctors were mystified about the cause of
>> >his
>> >cancer until they talked to her about his past.
>> >"I told the doctor he grew up in Los Alamos, and he looked at me, put
>> >down
>> >his pen and said, 'Your dad has radiation exposure,' [the daughter]
>> >said."
>> >
>> >The link is <http://www.lcsun-news.com/ci_9152106>.  (How's that for a
>> >diagnosis?  The doctor never so much as saw the patient.)<<
>> >
>> >Steve,
>> >
>> >Not an unusual occurrence. This happens more often than you think.
>> >Worker works with radiation and becomes ill. Member of the public
>> >becomes ill and it's the radiation that causes the illness. This trend
>> >towards litigation is partly what I have written about in the ALARA
>> >dialogue. Employers are at risk where radiation is a part of the work.
>> >People do get ill, and, where there is an illness, radiation is often
>> >suggested at the root cause, right or wrong. If employers or businesses
>> >don't do what is considered prudent, they are portrayed as ruthless and
>> >not concerned about the public's or their worker's welfare. Juries can
>> >be swayed. I observe where employees believe that they have been treated
>> >fairly at work, generally don't sue. If they believe that management has
>> >not treated them fairly, they will often sue.
>> >
>> >Regards,
>> >
>> >Sandy
>> >
>> >----------------------------------------------------------------
>> >Sander C. Perle
>> >President
>> >Mirion Technologies
>> >Dosimetry Services Division
>> >2652 McGaw Avenue
>> >Irvine, CA 92614
>> >+1 (949) 296-2306 (Office)
>> >+1 (949) 296-1144 (Fax)
>> >
>> >Mirion Technologies: http://www.mirion.com/
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>>
>>Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood 
>>the
>>RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
>>http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>>
>>For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings 
>>visit:
>>http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>>No virus found in this incoming message.
>>Checked by AVG.
>>Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1513 - Release Date: 6/22/2008
>>7:52 AM
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood 
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings 
> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
> 