Ridgewood NJ, In July 2018, after a fire occurred in a classroom at the district’s Willard Elementary School. A subsequent inspection of a “smart plug” installations identified other similar devices at Willard and Orchard Elementary School that exhibited heat damage leading the district to promptly remove the devices in August 2018.
Ridgewood NJ, looks like the Ridgewood blog was not the only one with unanswered questions about the fighting incident that took place at Stevens and Brookside fields. We recently observed that the ,
“Ridgewood High School “ANTI BULLYING POLICY” was adapted in 2016 , it has very clear rolls for students , parents and staff, While the kids involved in the incident have gotten all the attention , the little public information that is available about the incident and what led up to the incident would lead anyone to suspect the Ridgewood High School anti bullying policy , despite years of finger wagging was not followed and it appears that not only were students documented to be in violation of the policy but clearly so were some staff and parents .”
After an investigation of the incident the Ridgewood Police charged a 14-year-old with aggravated assault and simple assault. The 16-year-old was charged with simple assault.
Which all let us to ask , “who knew ,when did they know and why did they not act?”
Looks like we were not alone Fort Lee attorney Rosemarie Arnold delivered two notices of intent to Ridgewood High School on Thursday stating that the parents of a 16-year-old boy intend to sue the Board of Education, high school principal Thomas Gorman and superintendent Daniel Fishbein because they allegedly violated their own policies regarding bullying and social media, sounds just like our article .
According to their website the Law Offices Rosemarie Arnold is based in Fort Lee Law and represents clients In New Jersey And New York. On their website they claim , ” we are a strong voice for victims of negligence.”
Aronold seems to go after big cases an is not afraid of a little attention. On her home page it states, “Our law firm receives significant attention in professional publications and major media outlets due to our success in high-profile cases.”
In the notice Arnold claims that the Ridgewood High School “did not implement proper social media and bullying policies and procedures’ .The notice also accuses Ridgewood High School of “not enforcing the meager policies they had in existence — therefore, students knew there were no penalties for violation of the policies, creating a culture of unrelenting bullying and harassment.”
Arnold went even further by accusing the school and district officials of a cover up, “to protect the school’s reputation and the reputation of the child of a teacher in the district.”
Arnold has also filed suit against SNAP Inc., the Delaware-based parent of Snapchat, as well as 47 unidentified students who “instigated, incited, aided or abetted and filmed the beating of the victim.”
Trenton NJ, Attorney General Christopher S. Porrino announced today that New Jersey has filed a four-count lawsuit against Insys Therapeutics, Inc. charging that the company engaged in a greed-driven campaign of consumer fraud and submission of false claims to health insurers to increase the market share for its powerful opioid-fentanyl drug Subsys.
Filed today in Superior Court in Middlesex County, the State’s complaint charges that, despite Subsys only having Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for the “narrow” purpose of treating breakthrough cancer pain in opioid-tolerant patients, Insys unlawfully directed its sales force to push Subsys for prescription to a broader patient population – patients suffering any type of chronic pain – and at higher doses.
Among other things, the complaint alleges that, Insys’s greed has put “hundreds” of lives in jeopardy and “led to the death of at least one New Jersey resident” – a 32-year-old Camden County woman who was prescribed Subsys for fibromyalgia. In addition, the suit notes that two New Jersey state employee health benefits plans paid a total of approximately $10.3 million to reimburse Subsys prescriptions between 2012 and the third-quarter of 2016, while the State Worker’s Compensation Program paid another $300,000.
“The conduct alleged in our lawsuit is nothing short of evil,” said Attorney General Porrino. “Knowing full well it was putting lives in peril by pushing for broad based consumption of a highly-specialized and incredibly powerful prescription drug – a form of fentanyl approved only for treatment of pain-racked and opioid-tolerant cancer patients – Insys allegedly forged ahead and did it anyway.
“We contend that the company used every trick in the book, including sham speaking and consulting fees and other illegal kickbacks, in a callous campaign to boost profits from the sale of its marquee drug Subsys,” Porrino said.
The State’s lawsuit includes three counts alleging violation of New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act and one count alleging violation of the New Jersey False Claims Act. The suit asks that Insys be assessed maximum civil penalties for each violation of the Consumer Fraud Act, and seeks three times the State’s actual damages for violations of the False Claims Act, per that statute. The suit also seeks to have Insys held responsible for costs and fees incurred by the State in bringing the case.
From the 2012 market launch of Subsys until the present, the drug has accounted for approximately 98 percent of net revenues for Insys, a Delaware corporation with headquarters in Chandler, AZ.
Insys, which has raised the price of Subsys every year since its launch, sold $74.2 million worth of the drug in New Jersey between 2012 and the third-quarter of 2016.
The State’s lawsuit alleges corporate decision-makers devised a strategy to expand what they recognized as a limited market for Subsys by aggressively pushing “off label” uses of the drug – even to podiatrists and other specialty practitioners who typically would have little call to prescribe powerful Schedule II painkillers.
Off-label use denotes use of a drug for purposes other than that for which it was approved by the FDA. Based on their independent medical judgment, physicians have discretion to legally prescribe drugs for off-label use. However, drug companies are prohibited from promoting their products for such uses in an untruthful or misleading way, and influencing healthcare provider’s prescription decisions with payments and other benefits.
“Insys made tens of millions of dollars in sales in New Jersey,” said Porrino. “Clearly, raking in more money was the engine that drove this subversive and illegal plan to push a potent and, in the wrong patient, potentially lethal form of fentanyl to a broader audience. As we explicitly claim in our lawsuit, Insys and its leadership were willing to do whatever was necessary to make Subsys successful.”
Packed in a single-dose spray device intended for oral administration, Subsys is a transmucosal, immediate-release formulation of fentanyl. In the drug’s first year on the market, a one-month supply of the lowest available strength of Subsys – 100 mcg doses – cost approximately $2,800. By 2015, the price of the same supply had spiraled to more than $4,000. The State’s lawsuit alleges that Insys regularly misled health insurance plans and pharmaceutical benefits managers to help secure coverage for Subsys prescriptions.
Specifically, the complaint charges, Insys representatives used or developed false records – including false diagnoses of cancer, breakthrough cancer pain and other afflictions – to help lock in pre-authorization approvals and ensure paid reimbursement claims.
The complaint alleges that Insys representatives went so far as to conceal the company’s telephone number from benefits managers and insurers so those entities would not be aware that it was Insys Reimbursement Center employees – calling directly from Insys – in an effort to obtain insurance reimbursement approvals for prescriptions of Subsys.
The suit also alleges that Insys routinely misled consumers by, among other things, making false representations that doctors and other prescribers were prescribing Subsys on the basis of their unbiased, independent clinical judgment when, in fact, that clinical judgment had been “co-opted based on Insys’s unlawful payment of kickbacks to prescribers.”
More than 840 people in New Jersey died from heroin or opioid abuse in 2010 and according to the State’s lawsuit, the confirmed heroin/opioid death toll in New Jersey jumped to more than 1,000 in the first half of 2016 alone (with projections of 2,000 deaths or more by year’s end.) At the same time, the complaint asserts, the number of people admitted to state-licensed or certified substance abuse treatment programs in New Jersey due to abuse of heroin or other opiates increased from about 33,000 in 2012 to more than 38,000 in 2016.
The complaint further points out that, according to the National Institute of Drug Abuse, 80 percent of new heroin users began their addictions by misusing prescription pain medications. It also notes that opiate-related deaths in the U.S. have more than quadrupled since 1999, according to the national Centers for Disease Control.
“As we allege, The fact that Insys was unlawfully flooding the market with a fentanyl product 50 times stronger than heroin and 100 times more potent than morphine seems not to have troubled the company at all,” Porrino said. “Nor, it appears, was it bothered by the notion that such a strategy could contribute to, and exacerbate, the grave opiate crisis being confronted by New Jersey and every other state. Insys launched a business plan that we allege was propelled by titanic greed and corporate irresponsibility, and we’re committed to holding them accountable for it.”
Assistant Attorney General John M. Falzone and Deputy Attorneys General from the Division of Law’s Government and Healthcare Fraud Section — including Section Chief Janine N. Matton, and Deputy Attorneys General Lara J. Fogel and Evan A. Showell – handled the Insys matter on behalf of the State.
Former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement Leads Battle Against Christie Administration
June 23,2017
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood NJ, A class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case of Holland v. Porrino, et al concerns a Dallas Cowboys football fan involved in a bar fight, who claims he was denied his constitutional right to bail by a New Jersey judge.
32-year-old Brittan Holland was arrested and charged following an argument and fight with a Philadelphia Eagles fan in Winslow Township. He was subsequently ordered to be released wearing a GPS ankle monitor pending his trial. However, the suit contends that this action reflects the unlawfulness of New Jersey’s bail reform laws, which took effect on January 1. Intended to make things more fair for defendants who lack the financial resources to be bailed out, the new system calls for judges to utilize a risk assessment tool to determine whether to hold defendants in jail or release them on a simple promise to appear.
Filed by former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement on behalf of Holland and Lexington National Insurance Corporation, which represents others in Holland’s situation, the suit maintains that New Jersey’s current bail reform laws are illegal. Clement, widely regarded as one of the greatest constitutional litigators of our time, contends that bail is guaranteed in the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution.
The defense is led by Attorney General Christopher Porrino, representing Governor Chris Christie’s administration, to which he reports. Christie was strongly behind the push for New Jersey bail reform when it passed in 2014.
By ordering Holland’s release on the condition that he wear an ankle monitor, Clement’s suit states that he was thus denied the option of bail, to which he should have been legally entitled.
Since taking effect, the state’s new bail laws have been highly controversial, with both law enforcement and victims groups criticizing it as creating a threat to public safety. Under the former system, which used money bail to create accountability, potentially dangerous defendants were carefully monitored by bail agents after being released. With the new system, there is little incentive for a person who has been freed from jail to show up for court.
As for Brittan Holland, Clement’s suit claims that under the previous law, he would have very likely “paid a nonexcessive amount of bail to secure his future appearance, likely with the help of a surety company like Plaintiff Lexington National. He then would have enjoyed his full pre-trial liberty, just like any other presumptively innocent member of society.” However, because the court never had the option to set bail, Holland’s release was secured through non-monetary conditions, which included the use of an ankle monitor, through which his “liberty is sharply curtailed.” The suit adds, “he cannot shop for food or basic necessities and cannot take his son to baseball practice”
The plaintiff in this case is bringing three claims against New Jersey bail reform: (1) deprivation of his Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment right to bail by denying his right to bail as an option in the first instance; (2) deprivation of his rights of due process; (3) violation of his Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, as a result of being required to be placed on GPS and other monitoring.
A preliminary injunction motion has been filed, with the court being asked to hear the matter by July 17 – and rule on it in an expedited fashion. Practically speaking, New Jersey’s bail reform laws could face a court injunction within the next four weeks. If that occurs, it would entirely derail the new laws and once again, restore monetary bail, within the discretion of a judge, as a required consideration as a first option when it comes to setting bail.
About the American Bail Coalition
The American Bail Coalition is dedicated protecting the Constitutional right to bail and the promotion, protection and advancement of the surety bail profession in the United States. Comprised of the nation’s largest surety insurance companies, ABC works with local communities, law enforcement, legislators and other criminal justice stakeholders to utilizes its expertise and knowledge of the surety bail industry to develop more effective and efficient criminal justice solutions.
A New Jersey mother is suing the hospital where she gave birth, claiming nurses gave her the wrong newborn to breastfeed.
Melissa Richman, 39, of Ridgewood, says The Valley Hospital failed to double-check identification bracelets when maternity ward staff retrieved her hours-old baby for a 4:30 a.m. feeding. Twenty minutes into breastfeeding the infant, Richman says the nurse came back with shocking news.
“She actually said there was a terrible mistake. This was not your baby.”
In their lawsuit against The Valley Hospital, Melissa Richman and her husband David say the breastfeeding mixup deprived their newborn daughter of colostrum, the nutrient-rich milk produced by a new mother in the hours immediately following childbirth.
BY ALEXANDRA HOEY
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
The fate of a lawsuit that claims “conflicts of interest” by multiple former planning board members paved the way for high-density development proposals, has been rescheduled to Monday.
The suit, which was filed in May by attorney Kevin Mattessich on behalf of a resident’s grassroots organization, Ridgewood Citizens for Reasonable Development Inc. (RCRD), was supposed to be decided by Superior Court Judge William Meehan on Wednesday, Oct. 19.
Princeton University is scheduled to go on trial this week in New Jersey tax court to defend its property tax exemption, in a closely watched lawsuit that a coalition of residents filed to make Nassau Hall pay more real estate taxes.
The case is due to start Thursday morning, before a judge who so far has rebuffed past attempts by the university to get the litigation thrown out. The initial phase of the case will be heard in Trenton, with university president Christopher L. Eisgruber the first witness the school intends to have testify.
Attorney Bruce I. Afran, the attorney for the four residents who brought the case, said Friday that both sides are preparing to go to trial. For its part, the university had no comment.
The two sides continue to try to settle the suit to avoid a trial and resolve a matter without enduring the uncertainty of a protracted legal battle that could end up at the state Supreme Court.
JANUARY 20, 2016, 9:12 PM LAST UPDATED: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2016, 10:05 PM
BY JIM NORMAN
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
Arthur Lomando, the man accused of ambushing a Midland Park woman and stabbing her to death in her driveway last October, is suing the New York City Transit Authority for $50 million for injuries he suffered when he allegedly jumped in front of a subway train after the slaying, his lawyer said Wednesday.
BERGEN COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE
Arthur Lomando
The lawyer, Andrew F. Plasse, said Lomando did not jump in front of the train as authorities have said he did, but instead fell from the platform of the 168th Street station of the downtown A train as a result of being “jostled” by people in an “overcrowded” station.
N.J.’s credit rating may fall more if court rules against state in lawsuit challenging Christie’s pension-reform law New Jersey’s low-end credit rating could continue to fall if the state Supreme Court rules that retired public workers are entitled to yearly increases in their pensions, according to Moody’s Investors Service. (Salvador Rizzo, The Record)Read more
Ridgewood announces $2.1 million settlement in lawsuit over boy’s drowning at Graydon Pool
MARCH 4, 2015, 11:23 PM LAST UPDATED: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 2015, 11:30 PM
BY CHRIS HARRIS
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
RIDGEWOOD — A wrongful-death lawsuit filed against the village by the family of a 13-year-old boy who drowned in Graydon Pool in 2008 has been settled.
Ridgewood’s manager, Roberta Sonenfeld, said BetWinner Argentina ,the $2.1 million settlement was reached Wednesday.
Sonenfeld briefly discussed the settlement during Wednesday night’s council meeting.
Soo Hyeon Park, his sister and parents had just arrived from South Korea when they went to visit friends in Ridgewood on July 15, 2008. As he swam to a dock in the deep end of the pool with the two sons of his host, the boy began struggling to stay afloat and went under.
None of the nine lifeguards on the stands around the pool that day saw the boy while he was in distress.
In 2011, a jury had awarded Soo’s family $10 million in damages. That decision was vacated in January by the state’s Appellate Court and a new trial was ordered.
East Orange officials and William Mowell, former assistant executive director of the East Orange Water Commission, pictured right, have been facing a lawsuit by a former commission employee. (File photo/New Jersey Department of Corrections) (File photo/New Jersey Department of Corrections)
Lawsuit involving contaminated drinking water in E. Orange, S. Orange to be settled soon
EAST ORANGE — A tentative settlement has been reached in a lawsuit over an effort to hide elevated levels of an industrial solvent in drinking water pumped to residents in the city and neighboring South Orange.
The agreement would resolve a lawsuit filed by former East Orange Water Commission employee Thomas Valenza involving claims that the commission’s former executive director, Harry Mansmann, and former assistant executive director William Mowell schemed to hide the water contamination.
Mansmann and Mowell were both indicted in February 2013 on criminal charges related to the alleged scheme. Mansmann later died and Mowell was sentenced on Dec. 12 to three years in state prison after pleading guilty.
In the lawsuit, which was initially filed in April 2013 in New Jersey Superior Court, Valenza alleges he was directed to turn off contaminated wells before collecting samples, but he refused to do so. Valenza was later “forced to retire,” after learning about illegal activity at the agency, the lawsuit states.
Warning: Undefined array key "sfsi_riaIcon_order" in /home/eagle1522/public_html/theridgewoodblog.net/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-icons/libs/controllers/sfsi_frontpopUp.php on line 165
Warning: Undefined array key "sfsi_inhaIcon_order" in /home/eagle1522/public_html/theridgewoodblog.net/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-icons/libs/controllers/sfsi_frontpopUp.php on line 166
Warning: Undefined array key "sfsi_mastodonIcon_order" in /home/eagle1522/public_html/theridgewoodblog.net/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-icons/libs/controllers/sfsi_frontpopUp.php on line 177