Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Murder Mystery: Who Killed Yale Student Suzanne Jovin? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (1064)	2/14/2002 4:37:52 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Respond to of 1397

Re: 2/13/02 - AP: Doctor Gets $4.2M in Defamation Suit Doctor Gets $4.2M in Defamation Suit Wed Feb 13, 4:13 AM ET By GREG SUKIENNIK, Associated Press Writer BOSTON (AP) - A doctor who said she was libeled by a story about the death of a Boston Globe health columnist has won a $4.2 million judgment against the newspaper, a former reporter, the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and a former administrator. Tuesday's jury finding came in a libel and defamation lawsuit filed by Dr. Lois Ayash, who claimed she had been scapegoated for the death of Betsy Lehman, who died of an overdose of experimental cancer drugs. Ayash alleged she was libeled by a 1995 Globe story that said she had countersigned an erroneous medical order that resulted in Lehman's death. The article described her as "leader of the team" of doctors at Dana-Farber responsible for Lehman's care. The Globe published a correction saying Ayash had not countersigned the order, but it stood by its claim that she was the head of the treatment team that was using the experimental chemotherapy regimen. A judge last year issued a default judgment in favor of Ayash after the Globe and reporter Richard Knox refused to reveal confidential sources. So the only question for the jury with regard to the Globe and the reporter was how much they would have to pay in damages. The Circuit Court jury, after deliberating into a third day, agreed with most of Ayash's claims and assessed penalties against all four defendants, who also included Dana-Farber's former chief of staff, David M. Livingston. Globe Publisher Richard H. Gilman and Knox, who now works for National Public Radio, remain steadfast in their refusal to identify the sources and said they plan to appeal. "The protection of sources is a cornerstone of our ability to report news and, as we have in the past, we will continue to defend that privilege," Gilman said. Dana-Farber spokesman Steven R. Singer said the institute disagrees with the jury's decision and will review its legal options. Ayash and her lawyer, did not immediately return a call for comment. Ayash designed and ran the experimental breast cancer treatment in which Lehman and another female patient were enrolled. Another doctor accidentally ordered the overdoses, which were not discovered for 10 weeks. Following an investigation, the hospital reprimanded Ayash for not finding the overdoses sooner. A year later, she was laid off. For the emotional distress, the jurors ordered the Globe to pay $1.4 million to Ayash, who now works at the University of Michigan Medical Center in Ann Arbor, and Dana-Farber to pay more than $1 million. Jurors said Knox owed Ayash $360,000 for emotional distress and $60,000 in lost wages and injury to her reputation. The Globe also was ordered to pay $240,000 for lost pay and damaged reputation, while Dana-Farber was ordered to pay $180,000. Separately, the jury ordered Livingston to pay $720,000 for emotional distress and $120,000 for lost pay and injury to her reputation. In punitive damages, the jury ordered $5,000 to be paid by Dana-Farber. The jury did not agree with Ayash's allegation that the hospital and Livingston defamed her by suggesting that she covered up the overdoses. The jurors did find, however, that Dana-Farber breached her contract, violated her privacy and retaliated against her after she sued. It also found Livingston intentionally interfered with Ayash's job at Dana-Farber. Lehman's husband, Robert Distel, sued the hospital and several doctors, nurses, and pharmacists for malpractice, and won a $2.4 million settlement in 1995. He did not immediately return a call for comment. story.news.yahoo.com

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (1064)	2/20/2002 9:49:25 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1397

Re: 2/20/02 - New Haven Register: Cop's lack of credibility is troubling Opinions FORUM Cop's lack of credibility is troubling David R. Cameron February 20, 2002 As if it were not bad enough that the New Haven police still have not solved the mystery of who killed Suzanne Jovin after more than three years, now it appears the head of detectives may have given testimony under oath to the state's Freedom of Information Commission that was inaccurate and is contradicted by a document in the police records. The allegedly inaccurate testimony was given by Lt. Bryan Norwood, the head of the investigative services unit, at a commission hearing in April. Last Wednesday, the commission voted unanimously to order the New Haven police to release substantial portions of the records. In so doing, it accepted the recommendations of one of its members who, acting as a hearing officer, reviewed the entire case file — almost 5,000 pages — submitted after the April hearing. The vote is surprising in light of the fact the investigation is ongoing. That the commission acted as it did must be attributed largely to the finding of the commissioner who reviewed the records: "It is further found that the testimony of the respondent's sole witness with respect to whether the requested records had been disclosed to certain third parties is not accurate. In camera document IC-III, pages 2501 and 2502, clearly contradicts such testimony. Consequently, the commission finds the testimony of such witness not credible." Norwood was the sole witness representing Police Chief Melvin Wearing, who was not present at the April hearing. Much of the questioning of Norwood concerned whether the records had been made available to Andrew Rosenzweig, a retired New York homicide investigator hired by Yale in late 2000, or any other member of the public. At several points, Norwood denied the New Haven police had made the records available to Rosenzweig or any member of the public. The hearing did not establish whether the records had in fact been made available to Rosenzweig. It is conceivable the records were made available to Rosenzweig via the state's attorney's office, which is exempt from the public records law. Indeed, Norwood acknowledged that the records had been given to the state's attorney's office. Providing access through that office might have allowed the police, who are not exempt from FOI, to claim they had not made the records public to anyone, thereby avoiding creation of a right of access under FOI for all. Now, it turns out the New Haven police may have made the records available to Rosenzweig after all. The two-page document that allegedly contradicts Norwood's testimony is a letter from the New Haven police to the chief of the New York Police Department requesting assistance in the investigation. The letter mentions that former members of the New York police had requested cooperation in being allowed to review the Jovin records and discuss the investigation with New Haven police, and that they "have been granted full and complete cooperation." It is possible Norwood was either not aware of the letter or, if he was, did not believe it accurately described the extent and nature of the cooperation granted to the former members of the New York police. It is possible the "full and complete cooperation" described in the letter did not in fact include permission from the New Haven police to review its records. However, it is possible his testimony was knowingly inaccurate — that the cooperation granted did include permission to review the Jovin records, that the permission was granted by the New Haven police as well as or instead of by the state's attorney's office, and that he knew that to be the case. The allegation about Norwood's testimony is deeply troubling. Police officers are frequently required to give sworn testimony as part of their job and much depends on the truthfulness of their testimony. The allegation may be untrue. But if the allegation is true that would be a most serious matter. If the public trust is to be maintained, the commission should forward without delay the transcript of the April hearing, the commissioner's report, and the two-page letter referred to in the commissioner's report to the chief state's attorney's office and the Criminal Justice Commission. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- David R. Cameron is a professor of political science at Yale University and a member of the New Haven Civilian Review Board. Readers may write him in care of the Register, 40 Sargent Drive, New Haven 06511. ©New Haven Register 2002 newhavenregister.com