This user hasn't shared any biographical information
Hershey Error Results in 86% of Potential RSR Claimants Not Getting Proper Notice of Overtime Rights
Posted in Hershey Overtime Lawsuit on May 25, 2012
Hershey was ordered by the Court to provide the names and addresses of RSRs so that we could provide RSRs with a Court approved Notice of their right to join the Hershey RSR Overtime Case. (Case Number 3:11-CV-05117-BZ) However, 86% of the contact information we were provided was incorrect. As a result of Hershey’s error, hundreds of eligible present and former RSRs with claims for unpaid overtime did not get proper Notice, and the clock is ticking on their right to seek overtime compensation.
Hershey has agreed to provide a “corrected list” and we will be asking the Court to extend the time of the Notice to ensure that RSRs’ ability to be compensated for their past overtime is not affected by this delay. In the meantime, present and former RSRs who worked with Hershey since 2008 and want to be compensated for their unpaid overtime should submit their consent to join the suit to see if they are eligible for compensation along with over 80 people who have already joined.
Hershey changed its policy in early 2012 to allow RSRs to receive some overtime pay, but made no provision for any of the overtime worked by RSRs in the years before. This case seeks recovery for monies owed to present and former RSRs who were not compensated for their countless overtime hours.
If you are a present or former RSR please remember that the current deadline to join this action to protect your rights to overtime compensation is June 30, 2012.
Current and Former RSRs should note that they are protected from retaliation or discrimination from Hershey by joining the suit. The Notice provides:
VIII. NO RETALIATION OR DISCRIMINATION PERMITTED
Federal and state law prohibits Hershey from taking adverse action against persons based upon the fact that they have exercised their rights to participate in this lawsuit. So if you are presently an RSR, Hershey is barred from retaliating against you for participating in this lawsuit.
Notice and Consent to Join form for RSRs is located here.
For RSRs who worked in California, the Notice and Consent to Join form is located here.
For more information go to http://www.hersheyovertime.com/
Or contact:
The Brandi Law Firm
354 Pine Street, 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Toll Free: 800-481-1615
E-mail
David C. Feola
HOBAN & FEOLA, LLC
1626 Wazee Street, Suite 2A
Denver, CO 80202
Toll Free: 800-590-3184
E-mail
Fosamax Again linked to Rare Thigh Fractures
Posted in Fosamax Osteoporosis Drug on May 22, 2012
A new study published May 21, 2012 on line by the Archives of Internal Medicine said it found a link between bisphosphonate use (one of which is Fosamax) and atypical thigh fractures.
Of 477 patients fifty years and older hospitalized at one center for a subtrochanteric or femoral shaft fracture, 39 had atypical fractures and 438 had common fractures. The study examined patients between 1990 and 2010. Among those with atypical fractures, 82.1% had been taking bisphosphonates compared with just 6.4% of those with common fractures, Raphael P.H. Meier, MD, from University Hospitals of Geneva, and colleagues reported online in the Archives of Internal Medicine.
They also noted that the atypical-fracture group had a longer treatment period on bisphosphonates – including alendronate (Fosamax), risedronate (Actonel), pamidronate (Aredia), and ibandronate (Boniva) – than the classic-fracture group, at a mean of 5.1 years versus 3.3 years (P=0.02). The study concluded that: “Atypical femoral fractures were associated with bisphosphonate use; longer duration of treatment resulted in augmented risk. The incidence of atypical fractures increased over a 12-year period, but the absolute number of such fractures is very small.”
According to Douglas Bauer, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, in an accompanying commentary to the article the study “adds further data suggesting that the association between bisphosphonate use and atypical fractures is causal”
On October 13, 2010, the FDA warned patients and health care providers about the risk of an atypical thigh bone fracture, a rare but serious type of thigh fracture, in people who take Fosamax and similar drugs for the treatment of osteoporosis. The FDA stated that these fractures, called “atypical subtrochanteric” fractures, often appear in the bone just below the hip joint. These risks are increased in people using Fosamax for five years or more. These fractures, while rare, have been mostly reported in patients taking Fosamax or other drugs of this type.
Additional sources:
Increasing Occurrence of Atypical Femoral Fractures Associated with Bisphosphonate Use
Atypical Femoral Fracture Risk in Patients Treated with Bisphosphonates
Bone Drugs Linked to Rare Thigh Fractures
Bone Drug Link to Uncommon Breaks Confirmed
The Brandi Law firm represents a number of people who have suffered atypical femur fractures while using Fosamax. If you or a loved one have taken Fosamax or another bisphosphonate drug and have suffered these fractures, please click here to speak to a Brandi Law Firm Fosamax Attorney for a no-cost consultation or call us at 1-800-481-1615 or contact us online.
Our San Francisco, California drug medication side effect lawyers have a number of cases pending throughout the country and have been evaluating numerous other cases. We have the experience to prove your case and the compassion to understand the life altering effect of a severe fracture and the resulting disability on your daily life and activities.
Hershey Overtime Notice Correction
Posted in Hershey Overtime Lawsuit on May 18, 2012
We have just learned that the Court ordered Notice was not sent to the correct addresses of all present and former RSR’s due to incorrect addresses being supplied by the Hershey Company.
We are working to rectify this and the Notice will be re sent as soon as Hershey provides the correct addresses.
If you are a present or former RSR, please remember the deadline to join this action to protect your rights to overtime compensation is June 30, 2012. Hershey changed its policy on January 28, 2012 to provide 7.5 hours of overtime per week for RSR’s but made no provision for all the overtime worked by RSR’s before that date. This case seeks recovery for monies owed to present and former RSR’s who were not compensated for their countless overtime hours.
For more information go to http://www.hersheyovertime.com/
Or contact:
The Brandi Law Firm
354 Pine Street, 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Toll Free: 800-481-1615
E-mail
David C. Feola
HOBAN & FEOLA, LLC
1626 Wazee Street, Suite 2A
Denver, CO 80202
Toll Free: 800-590-3184
E-mail
Court Orders Notice to RSRs in Hershey Overtime Lawsuit
Posted in Hershey Overtime Lawsuit on May 15, 2012
United States Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman has ordered that present and past Retail Sales Representatives (“RSRs”) who worked for The Hershey Company (“Hershey”) are entitled to Notice and the opportunity to join a lawsuit pending in United States District Court in San Francisco for unpaid overtime and related damages. Judge Zimmerman’s Order provides that present and former RSRs who worked for Hershey up to three years prior to January 28, 2012 have until June 30, 2012 to opt into the class matter by filing a Consent to Join.
The Court also noted that no punitive action can be taken against any person joining by Hershey, stating:
VIII. NO RETALIATION OR DISCRIMINATION PERMITTED
Federal and state law prohibits Hershey from taking adverse action against persons based upon the fact that they have exercised their rights to participate in this lawsuit. So if you are presently an RSR, Hershey is barred from retaliating against you for participating in this lawsuit.
Notice and Consent to Join form for RSRs is located here.
For RSRs who worked in California, the Notice and Consent to Join form is located here.
Seventy-five present and former RSRs have joined the action filed in US District Court in San Francisco seeking unpaid overtime from the chocolate giant. Previously, this office successfully represented over 100 RSRs seeking unpaid overtime in a wage and hour FLSA collective action. On February 23, 2011, Judge Zimmerman issued an order holding that the Hershey RSRs who had joined the previous overtime case against Hershey were entitled to overtime compensation. The Court held that the RSRs are not exempt under the “outside sales” or “administrative exemptions” as a matter of law. Shortly thereafter the case was resolved. (See Campanelli vs. Hershey Co., 765 F. Supp 2d 1185 (N.D. Cal. 2011).
Unfortunately, Hershey made no attempt to pay past overtime owed to its current and former RSRs so on October 19, 2011 a second wage and hour FLSA collective action was filed by 12 present and former RSRs by The Brandi Law Firm, in conjunction with Colorado attorney David Feola. Since then these twelve have been joined by over 60 others who filed consents to join. It is estimated upwards of 600 additional present and former RSRs may be eligible to join this case. Effective January 28, 2012, Hershey changed the RSR status to non-exempt and began paying overtime for 7.5 hours per week but made no provisions to pay for the countless unpaid hours worked by current and former RSRs in the last several years. Present and former RSRs can protect their rights by joining this pending matter before June 30, 2012.
For more information go to http://www.hersheyovertime.com/
Or contact:
The Brandi Law Firm
354 Pine Street, 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Toll Free: 800-481-1615
E-mail
David C. Feola
HOBAN & FEOLA, LLC
1626 Wazee Street, Suite 2A
Denver, CO 80202
Toll Free: 800-590-3184
E-mail
Hershey RSR Overtime Litigation Update
Posted in Hershey Overtime Lawsuit on April 24, 2012
Seventy-five present and former Retail Sales Representatives (RSR) have joined the action filed in US District Court in San Francisco seeking unpaid overtime from the chocolate giant. (Case Number 3:11-CV-05117-BZ) Previously this office represented over 100 RSRs seeking unpaid overtime in a wage and hour Fair Labor and Standards Act (FLSA) collective action. On February 23, 2011, the Honorable Magistrate Bernard Zimmerman, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, issued an order holding that the Hershey RSRs, who were present and former employees and who had joined the previous overtime case against Hershey, were entitled to overtime compensation. The Court held that the RSRs are not exempt under the “outside sales” or “administrative exemptions” as a matter of law. Shortly thereafter the case was resolved. (See Campanelli vs. Hershey Co. (N.D. Cal, 2011) 765 F. Supp 2d 1185 )
Unfortunately, Hershey made no attempt to pay past overtime owed to its current and former RSRs, so on October 19, 2011 a second wage and hour FLSA collective action was filed by 12 present and former RSRs by the Brandi Law Firm, in conjunction with Colorado attorney David Feola. Since then, these twelve have been joined by over 60 others who filed consents to join. It is estimated that upwards of 600 additional present and former RSRs may be eligible to join this case. On February 1, 2012, Hershey changed the RSR status to non exempt, and began paying overtime of 7.5 hours per week but made no provisions to pay for the countless unpaid hours worked by current and former RSRs in the last several years.
In the current litigation it is anticipated that Notice will shortly be sent to many of the present and former Hershey RSR’s advising them of their opportunity to join the case. If any present or former Hershey RSR seeks more information about this suit or their eligibility to obtain potential compensation for unpaid overtime they can contact the Brandi Law Firm (800) 481-1615, David Feola (800) 590-3184.
Click here for more information or go to www.hersheyovertime.com
FDA Edges Closer Towards Action on Metal Hip Implants
Posted in DePuy Hip Replacement, Drug and Medical Device Litigation on April 6, 2012
Previously we have chronicled some of the problems surrounding the De Puy ASR metal on metal hips that have required revisions by countless people in the USA and elsewhere.
In April 2010, the United Kingdom’s (U.K.) Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) issued a medical device alert that included specific follow-up recommendations for patients implanted with metal on metal hip replacements. The recommendations included blood tests and imaging for patients with painful metal on metal (MoM) hip implants. In 2009, citing “declining sales, Johnson and & Johnson stopped marketing the De Puy ASR. On August 26, 2010 the De Puy ASR was effectively recalled.” (DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. is a Johnson & Johnson company.)
DePuy Orthopaedics Voluntarily Recalls ASR™ Hip System
In May 2011 the FDA ordered manufacturers of metal on metal implants to collect more safety data on the devices. Covered by the order are DePuy ASR, and devices by Zimmer and Stryker.
In February 2012 the New York Times reported that Johnson & Johnson continued to market an artificial hip in Europe and elsewhere after the 2009 rejection by the FDA of its sale in the USA.
Britain Extends Monitoring for People with Metal Hips
Hip Implant U.S. Rejected Was Sold Overseas
In February 2012, MHRA published a medical device alert with updated advice on the management and monitoring of patients implanted with MoM hip systems recommending that people with metal on metal hip implants undergo annual examinations to make sure they are not suffering tissue damage or other problems.
On March 29, 2012, The FDA announced an Advisory panel hearing set for June 27-28 to gather information that will help decide if new requirements are needed before a device can be sold in the USA.
About 270,000 hip replacements are performed each year in the United States, accounting for nearly 40 percent of all joint replacements, according to the British Medical Journal. Failure rates on the nearly 500,000 people in the USA who have received metal on metal implants is unclear, but data from orthopedic registries in Australia and England has shown that all-metal hips are failing prematurely at two to three times the rate of those made from metal and plastic. Studies have indicated that the use of the larger ball component increases the amount of torque and motion at the points where that ball and cup or the ball and stem are joined, generating debris.
This office is currently representing numerous people injured by De Puy ASR and other metal on metal hip implants. If you would like more information contact the Brandi Law Firm at (800) 481-1615 or click here to learn more about the Brandi Law Firm DePuy Attorneys.
Is that Ruby Real?
Posted in Macy's Fake Gem Lawsuit on December 22, 2011
The controversy over selling as real rubies glass filled and treated gem stones is the recent subject not only of recent lawsuits against MACY’S, (SF Superior Court Nos. CGC-09-495171 and CGC-10-495868) but a topic of great concern amongst professionals who strongly resent the practice of falsely portraying rubies as real when they are not. The Roskin Gem News report, a professional trade journal has weighed in on the practice with guidelines and information for professionals to avoid being duped:
Glass Filled Rubies – the Inside Details
Also see articles from the Accredited Gemologist Association:
Put Lipstick on a Rock and Call it a Ruby
Composite “Rubies” Pose Serious Problem for Consumers
Unfortunately consumers generally do not possess the knowledge or the expertise to know when they are buying a “ruby” that is not a real ruby. Real rubies are from the mineral corundum and are magnificent in color, hard, durable, brilliant in color, and command high prices.
How do fake rubies become real? You take a stone that is of poor quality and you add lead glass or treat it with heat to enhance its color and presentation. When pressed some will concede it is not real but insist on calling them rubies. Others will say when pressed the stone is a “treated ruby”, “enhanced ruby”, “composite ruby” or even “hybrid gemstone”. In a “composite ruby” much of the surface is fractured and the fractures are filled with glass.
The Roskin Gem News report quotes Chris Smith, President and CEO of American gemological Laboratories in New York: “After this ruby goes through the process of being cleaned, in an acid bath to clean out foreign material, what’s left is very brittle. You can literally crush it between your thumb and index finger. In the strict sense, it may still be a single piece, but you cannot polish it. So the lead glass is infused into the ruby, stabilizing it in order to be polished. Sometimes there’s more ruby than glass, but sometimes there’s more glass than ruby.”
Few will tell you the truth that what you see is not what you think you see. But isn’t that the essence of a fraud, namely, combining something fake (e.g. treatments or additives) with lies and presenting to the consumer as high value fact something that is a near worthless fiction.
What do glass filed rubies look like?
To the naked eye there is no difference to the ordinary consumer.
But under magnification, the difference is significant.
What are some of the problems with glass filled rubies?
Obviously there is the stability issues referred to by Mr. Smith. The glass filler also cannot stand household acids found in cleaning supplies containing bleach or foods such as lemons, limes, vinegar, etc. The stone below was exposed to fresh lemon juice for 48 hours and then lightly heated with torch.
So keep that ruby ring away from the kitchen or laundry
What about the price differential between glass filled and real rubies? Dramatic.
On this subject, Suzan Flamm, Assistant General Counsel of the Jeweler’s Vigilance Committee, which describes itself as “The Industry’s Guardian of Ethics and Integrity” wrote:
“The Federal Trade Commission regulates the use of many of the words associated with jewelry products, including “ruby,” “gem” and “natural.” Understanding the proper use of these words, as defined in the FTC’s Jewelry Guides, is the first step in determining the exact nature of the disclosure required.
As a starting point, the Guides state that “it is unfair or deceptive to use the unqualified [word] ‘ruby’…to describe any product that is not in fact a natural stone of the type described.” As to the use of the word “natural,” the FTC also provides boundaries, stating: “It is unfair or deceptive to use the word … ‘natural’ … to describe any industry product that is manufactured or produced artificially.”
The word “gem” is also subject to restrictions, as follows: “It is unfair or deceptive to use the word ‘gem’ to describe, identify, or refer to a ruby … product that does not possess the beauty, symmetry, rarity, and value necessary for qualification as a gem.”
Applying these rules, a seller must determine whether or not the stone sold is properly described as either “natural”, a “ruby” or a “gem.” For composite ruby, the words “natural“ or “gem” are probably inappropriate descriptors. Further, the unqualified word “ruby” is not appropriate – it should always be described.”
Sadly, sellers are ignoring the requirements of the law and simply presenting as real that which his fake.
If you purchased fine jewelry, rubies, diamonds, sapphires or other gemstones from Macy’s anywhere in the US since 2006, you may have a claim. To find out more about these issues, whether you are in New York, Los Angeles, Honolulu, Seattle, Miami, or parts between, please visit the Brandi Law Firm Macy’s Lawsuit website or contact the Brandi Law Firm Consumer Fraud Attorneys.
Watch Your Head! Post-Concussive Syndrome and You
Posted in General Interest on December 21, 2011
By Mylene Reuvekamp
With the recent injury to quarterback Colt McCoy, there has been a lot of discussion about concussions. Most people assume that a concussion or post-concussive syndrome can’t occur unless there has been a loss of consciousness. In fact, this is not the case and generally no physical swelling or bleeding are seen on scans. A concussion occurs when the head either accelerates rapidly and then is stopped or spun rapidly. Both of these mechanisms can be seen even in seemingly minor automobile accidents.
The severity of the injury has been scientifically shown to have no association with the risk of post-concussion injury. Symptoms usually occur within 7-10 days of the accident and include such things as headache, fatigue, dizziness, emotional changes such as irritability or anxiety, insomnia, loss of concentration and memory, or noise and light sensitivity. Many people ignore these symptoms thinking that they are related to whiplash or a neck injury and not to a concussion. There is no single way to diagnose a post-concussion injury. Your doctor may order a CT scan to determine that there is no visual change in the brain.
If the symptoms persist, neuropsychological testing may be performed to determine the deficits present. In most cases, post-concussion syndrome resolves within a matter of months. It can continue, however, indefinitely in which case cognitive therapy to focus on memory deficits and attention skills may be helpful.
If you are in a car accident and have these symptoms after a few days, seek medical attention immediately for evaluation of post-concussion syndrome. Our attorneys at the Brandi Law Firm have extensive experience handling injury cases involving concussions and post-concussive syndrome. Contact us for a free consultation if you believe you have been injured and suffered a concussion or post-concussive syndrome.
Are the Kids’ Pajamas Safe?
Posted in General Interest on December 16, 2011
By Thomas J. Brandi
For a number of years, we have often read of children being badly burned in house fires where their pajamas actually made the fire’s effects worse due to issues of flammability. As a result, consumer advocates fought very hard to toughened standards and remove the market unsafe pajamas, greatly reducing the serious injuries from flammable material in children’s pajamas. (See 16 CFR PARTS 1615 and 1616 of the Flammable Fabrics Act; Children’s Sleepwear)
The standards require that children’s sleep wear must be flame resistant and self extinguish if flame from a candle, match, lighter, or similar item causes them to catch fire and covers children sizes from 9 months to Size 14.
However, this fight continues and vigilance is necessary. Thanks to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) another unsafe product placing children at risk has been was recalled (http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12053.html)
On December 8, 2011 The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission in cooperation with Bliss Collection LLC dba Bella Bliss of Lexington, Ky. recalled children’s pajamas because “The pajamas fail to meet the federal flammability standards for children’s sleepwear posing a risk of burn injury to children.” The pajamas were sold on line and at specialty retailers from January 2008 through June 2011 and were made in Peru.
Look in the drawer in the kid’s room to see if they have Children’s Henley Pima Cotton Pajamas. The pajamas are a two-piece, cotton sleepwear set sold in sizes 2 to 12 and come in white, blue, pink or red. “Bella Bliss” is written on the neck tag. If you find them in the drawer, in the wash, or under the bed, you should return them to the retailer for a refund, exchange, or store credit.
Earlier this year, Fashionviews recalled 4000 pairs of P.Jamas sleepwear made in Peru and Bolivia. The CPSC cited evidence that they failed to meet standards for flammability, which could be a hazard to children wearing the clothing. The sleepwear included in the recall are nightgowns, as well as two-piece shirts/pant sets in sizes XS-XL. A label on the sleepwear prints the brand-name “P.Jamas” in blue lettering, which is sewn into the back of the garments. The sleepwear is made of 100% cotton and comes in pastel colors in stripes and other patterns. They were distributed to boutique shops we well as on the company’s website between 2006 and 2010.
The Brandi Law Firm has represented numerous families suffering burn injuries and unsafe products. For more information, contact Thomas J. Brandi at www.brandilaw.com.
Fake Rubies, Fake Diamonds, Macy’s and You
Posted in Macy's Fake Gem Lawsuit on December 8, 2011
As we approach Christmas, many people will stroll though Macy’s stores and pass by the beautifully displayed gemstones. Sitting under glass with lots of reflecting light you will find rubies, diamonds, sapphires and other prized stones. Stuck way out of the way in some stores is a little card that tells you that what you see is not really the real thing.
In some stores you may see a card that tells you the “diamonds may be…treated.”, or that “this ruby has been heavily treated using a high refractive index lead glass to fill fractures and cavities…”
What does this mean?
That you are not buying a natural product but likely paying for the real thing.
Stated another way, what you may be buying is not a natural ruby but a composite filled with lead glass or a diamond that has been treated. Be careful, ask if it is the real thing and make sure you don’t pay a price based on the item being the real thing — no matter how steep the discount or “how good the deal”.
This year in San Francisco Superior Court there were two cases against Macy’s dealing with this issue (SF Superior Court Nos CGC-09-495171 and CGC-10-495868). At their heart the cases dealt with allegations that Macy’s knowingly sold:
- Rubies that were composites or filled with glass or lead filled glass;
- Stones were being passed as untreated “green amethyst” when in fact this stone is in reality Praseolite (a heated form of quartz) while only purple amethyst is in fact real amethyst, natural and therefore of a much higher value;
- Sapphires were fracture filled with glass;
- Black sapphires were being passed off as “black diamonds”;
- Many diamonds were enhanced by laser drilling or filling of surface cavities and fractures with a hardened substance;
- Diamonds were irradiated or heated to induce color and then represented to be natural black diamonds.
On two separate occasions on each coast of our country television crews have gone into Macy’s and found significant instances where Macy’s was not quite telling the whole truth about their jewelry. The first was Good Morning America. (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/ConsumerNews/rubies-real-deal/story?id=8988951).
As the Good Moring America piece points out “to the naked eye, there’s no difference, but examined under a microscope, gas bubbles that form as the glass cools can be seen in the composite rubies. Experts say composite rubies are fragile, and that they’re only worth a fraction of the value of natural rubies.” The crew from Good Morning America bought four ruby rings and brought them to a gemologist Christopher Smith for testing. All were supposed to be real rubies. The result;
“We identified the presence of lead within the glass, which is conclusive proof of this material,” Smith said. The three rings in question were from three different Macy’s stores in the New York area.
The second neutral inspection was from Channel 5 KPIX in San Francisco who aired a program showing the same thing in Macy’s Stores in the Bay Area on Super Bowl Sunday 2011.
If you purchased fine jewelry, rubies, diamonds, sapphires or other gemstones from Macy’s anywhere in the US since 2006, you may have a claim. To find out more about these issues, whether you are in New York, Los Angeles, Honolulu, Seattle, Miami, or parts between, please visit the Brandi Law Firm Macy’s Lawsuit website or contact the Brandi Law Firm Consumer Fraud Attorneys.
We are representing a group of people who bought what they were told were the real things, natural rubies, diamonds, etc., paid real prices, only to later learn their jewelry was not real and worth only a fraction of their purchase price.
