What turned the 11 isolated false claims into a pattern, CSX alleged, was the filing of a large number of entirely legitimate cases as part of a system of fraud.
Private parties should not be permitted to drag their state court litigation into federal court to punish the attorneys who filed personal injury suits against them.Īttorneys for Peirce and Raimond moved to dismiss CSX's RICO claims, contending that the "11 allegedly false claims filed over the course of eight years did not amount to a 'pattern of racketeering,' but instead were merely 'sporadic and isolated' incidents lacking the requisite continuity and relatedness," the AAJ brief states. These are appropriate tools designed precisely for this purpose, according to the brief. "State counterparts to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and state tort remedies - including civil actions for fraud, malicious prosecution and abuse of process - provide state courts with the means to combat fraudulent claims and make whole the victims of such illicit activity." "Indeed, the overwhelming weight of authority holds that the filing of a lawsuit, even if baseless or fraudulent, does not come within the scope of RICO," the brief states. Legitimate litigation activities by an attorney on behalf of his or her client generally are not deemed to be acts of mail fraud for purposes of subjecting the attorney to civil liability under RICO, according to the brief. "Lawyers representing workers have long made use of x-ray screening and mass filings to make asbestos-exposed workers aware of their rights and provide access to the courts for their compensation claims." "Although the reading of x-rays involves some subjective interpretation, they have long been accepted as the basis for filing claims for asbestos injury. "Plaintiffs in these lawsuits are victims of the largest occupational injury disaster in U.S. "In the context of asbestos litigation, the use of mobile screening units and the filing of 'mass lawsuits' are neither unlawful nor unusual," the amicus brief states. On March 3, the American Association for Justice filed an amicus brief in the appeal. However, that was eventually tripled to $1,287,721.41 under the RICO Act, which contains a provision for treble damages. The three defendants were ordered to pay $429,240.47 in the beginning. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. The lawsuit, which was filed in 2005, spent years going through U.S. Harron, a radiologist who read the x-rays for Peirce and Raimond, was also named in the lawsuit by CSX for allegedly fabricating proof for the claims in question. Of those, at least 11 claims were false, according to a 2005 lawsuit filed against Peirce and Raimond by CSX.ĭr. Raimond, filed approximately 5,300 asbestosis claims against CSX. One recent West Virginia lawsuit involving RICO is CSX Transportation's lawsuit against a former Pittsburgh law firm known as Peirce, Raimond & Coulter PC.įrom 2000 through 2006, two Pittsburgh attorneys, Robert N. "In my years of practice, I've only been involved in three RICO-related cases, and those cases were all related to the same dispute," Majestro said.
Majestro said it is a very complex statute that attorneys don't deal with much. "It's not a civil cause of action that is used very often."
"RICO is really rare," West Virginia Association for Justice President-Elect Anthony Majestro said. (Legal Newsline) - The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act has recently been used as a claim against attorneys who allegedly committed fraud during the course of a lawsuit.
0 kommentar(er)
