Legal Issues

Paxil Birth Defect Litigation - Battle of the Decade

Paxil Birth Defect Litigation - Battle of the Decade

Stock Photo

A year ago, the FDA reclassified Paxil from a Category C drug to a Category D for pregnant women. Category C is for drugs that have been shown to harm the fetus in animals. Category D means a drug has been found to harm the human fetus.

In a December 1, 2006, news release, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Committee on Obstetric Practice, advised that Paxil should be avoided "by pregnant women or women planning to become pregnant due to the potential risk of fetal heart defects, newborn persistent pulmonary hypertension, and other negative effects."

An interesting comment in the announcement states: "Unpublished data regarding the use of Paxil® during the first trimester of pregnancy have raised concerns about an increased risk of congenital heart malformations."

Avoiding Suspicious Activity Reports In Cash Transactions

Avoiding Suspicious Activity Reports In Cash Transactions

Stock Photo

Many people ask "just what is considered illegal or suspicious activity when moving cash?" Some people have gone to the bank with the cash proceeds of a garage sale or a car sale on the weekend, and recounted horror stories of multiple questions by bank employees and have sometimes been reported to the government as suspected criminals.

The reality is that such reporting is very plausible. Most western countries have enacted cash transaction legislation that mandates it. In Australia, anything over $10,000 must be reported to regulators, and any amount under that that bank staff deem suspicious. Likewise in the U.S. So, if you’re unusually scruffy-looking and wander into a bank with $4,000 cash to deposit, it’s very possible you will be reported by the teller. (See our article Money Laundering Defined on the web site www.powerprivacy.com for details on U.S. Currency Transfer Reports, or CTRs.)

State Criminal Record Restrictions (Part 1 of 5)

State Criminal Record Restrictions (Part 1 of 5)

Stock Photo

Misdemeanor Conviction Record Limitations

In this first article of our five part series on State Criminal Record Restrictions for use by employers, we look at states that prohibit the use of misdemeanor convictions for employment screening.

As of publication, five states impose limitations on the use of misdemeanor records as a disqualifier for employment. These laws have been enacted, in part, to address the “job relevance” issue – it is believed by some that misdemeanor crimes are not severe enough to be an indicator to job performance. If you live in any of the following states, we urge caution when reviewing misdemeanor criminal records prior to the hire of a new applicant.

New York City Board of Health Bans use of Trans Fat at Restaurants

New York City Board of Health Bans use of Trans Fat at Restaurants

Stock Photo

Trans Fats are going to be banned after an unanimous vote by the New York City Board of Health. This means by July 1st, restaurants in New York City will have to change the kinds of oils that they use to fry in to oils without any Trans fats. The restaurants will also have to eliminate Trans fats from all other foods that they prepare by July 1st, 2008. Other cities may soon follow the example of this ban and could become a nationwide change.

Trans fat have been the pinpointed in numerous research studies as being bad to eat. Trans fat is a man-made product that adds hydrogen to stabilize the oil and preventing rancidity. This hydrogenation process helps to keep the food from going bad and increase the life of the food. They have the potential to raise bad “LDL” cholesterol and at the same time lower good “HDL” cholesterol. Trans fats have been linked to everything from Alzheimer’s to heart disease.

Sheshunoff and Duenez: The Activist Texas Supreme Court

Sheshunoff and Duenez: The Activist Texas Supreme Court

Stock Photo

How many times have you heard it during this election cycle? We are constantly told that we need conservative judges that “enforce the law, not make the law” or judges that “ strictly interpret the law.” Two recent Texas Supreme Court cases demonstrate the fallacy in these statements.

On October 20, 2006 (almost two years after the case was argued before the Court), the Texas Supreme Court handed down an opinion in Alex Sheshunoff Management Services, Inc. v. Johnson. The issue in this case was whether a covenant not to compete signed five years after the employee started working for the company was enforceable. In holding for the employer, the Court had to ignore a prior Supreme Court opinion and the plain language of the statute. Instead of being conservative, the Court was extremely activist in its decision.

Syndicate content
Share/Save/Bookmark

      

Post to Facebook

Important: The material on Best Syndication is for informational purposes only and is not meant to be advice. Authors may have or will receive monetary compensation from the company's product/s mentioned. You should always seek professional advice before making any legal, financial or medical decisions and this website cannot substitute or replace any trained professional consultation.
Use of this site means that you agree to our TERMS OF SERVICE

Advertise On This Site
Copyright © 2006-2015 By Best Syndication All Rights Reserved