Fw: POST- From Kathi Post to Saline and the silicone newsgroup

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message ----- From: Kathynye@...

Kathynye@...

Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 5:54 AM

Subject: POST- From Kathi Post to Saline and the silicone newsgroup

Subj: Post to Saline and the silicone newsgroup Date: 6/24/02 11:47:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: pureheart@... (Kathi) Jane: whatever you are reading on pearsonandpearson.com is a summary of the Plan. The "goodies" and the Annex A of course, are not there and they are crucial. Wasn't it one of Charlotte Mahlum's attorneys who used to say, "The devil is in the details."??? Annex A, which is available on tortcomm.org, lays out the specifics re identification of implants, requirements for the grid, requirements for rupture and criteria that will disqualify submissions. It seems our attorneys should have at least provided us with this when it came out. . . after the Plan and probably after the vote (I'm speculating and being sarcastic) How is a woman supposed to know about Annex A? How is she supposed to get it? What if she doesn't have a computer? In the Plan booklet itself, it says in the Preliminary Statement that the claims will be paid according to a procedure "modeled" after the RSP (Revised Settlement Program). I do not know what the RSP did and therefore do not know how to compare them. The significant thing here is a) the RSP was not for Dow Corning breast implants and I cannot find any reference to Annex A in the Plan booklet. Shame on us for not looking at it before we voted; shame on our attorneys for allowing us to vote without seeing it. But, it does present a very good reason why one wishes to change her vote now. As I read it, one can only specify a desire to change her vote and why--it will still be up to the court as to whether one can. I don't believe that saying one didn't understand the Plan is going to fly--be more specific. You either didn't know about Annex A and you don't have Annex A and you don't know what's in Annex A, and/or the new findings influence your decision, and/or your attorney voted for you, or you didn't know you could vote. To say you didn't understand the Plan or that it was going to be ratcheted down is probably not going to carry any weight--it's written there and if you voted "yes" you voted for it. Judge Hood is not going to let emotion make her decision; attorneys argue with their power of the language and they present facts. As we don't understand the legal language or it's definitions our letters have to state some facts, as noted above. . . .that the above changes your mind as the amounts will not cover 1) needed surgery 2) future surgery 3) loss of productivity 4) future worry and anguish 5) hospitalization, 6)etc. Annex A sets out all the disease criteria--it is extremely stringent, down to which kind of doctor has to supply which kind of proof. There are three levels of disabilty for different diseases. First, one must meet all the specified disease criteria, then the level. Level A requires that claimant is unable to do any or just a few of normal activites. Level B requires that the claimant experience severe pain or an inability to do certain activities. Level C requires that pain be regular or recurring. If one no longer has pain, or has recuperated from something,and that is documented by a physician, it's a disqualification. Even those who were going to claim just rupture or going to take the Expedited Release may wish to reconsider in light of the NIH discoveries of cancers and fibromyalgia; and the FDA material on their site. Are you aware that even though the IOM's report was interpreted as implants are "safe" much information was not available for them to evaluate? And, they said so. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In the criteria for Lupus, the abnormal ANA is disqualified if the claimant was taking any drugs know to be associated with drug-induced Lupus. I know that HRT applies; I suggest that birth control pills apply, but I'm not certain and there are many others. It's hidden in the little print at the bottom of the page; this is going to wipe out a bunch in one swoop. In total, the disease criteria and all that is required sucks--it is designed to disqualify. Those who do qualify will be few. The Plan says that when disease criteria is not met, the Expedited Payment will be offered. . . $2000. Coincidentally, this is the amount the average settling claimant received in the well-known Dalkon Shield IUD case in 1984. These were women who became sterile or had stillbirths--there were hundreds of thousands--and the IUD was not taken off the market and women who still wore them were not warned. They caused inflammation to start--they were made of silicone. And probably if I checked further, I'd find some of the same legal representation. Add this to your anger: go to www.dowcorning.com and see " Announcement--Welcome to the new Dow Corning-- We have spent the past five years transforming--investing more than $100 million in a global information technology platform, expanding our e-commerce services, and redesigning business processes." (Not said: and we are going to pay for this with the money we save in our reorganizational bankruptcy) It is standard procedure for these expensive litigations to take years--it is well-known and written that the interest earned in those years helps pay the claims. I don't know that a new option would have one wait any longer than one is going to wait on this Plan. Because courts may be crowded, it may take some time, but the rewards would be much greater. If this appeal is won, and procedures rearranged, Dow will very likely send an attorney around to settle cases as it's quicker, less expensive and creates less publicity. This is what Bristol Meyers did with those who wouldn't go into the Revised Settlement Program. The Statute of Limitation is a major issue in any lawsuit--whether it's in the Litigation Facility or a regular courtroom. When you first visit an attorney with a potential suit, the first thing he does is establish your dates/Statute of Limitations. A BI case in Georgia was lost on just this in 1999 (I can't believe this wasn't checked) It is the first thing a Defendant attorney will check and attempt to undermine. If you don't meet the time frame, you don't have a case. While you may qualify to sue Dow Chemical by the state in which you filed suit, or were implanted, you still need to check what the Statute of Limitations are in that state--your attorney will know. If you are adept, you can usually find out through your state government's website. What we don't know is whether we will be held to statutes if cut loose to sue Dow Chemical--big grey area and probably should resolve it quickly. The whole global settlement/class action thing that started back in the early 90s was by Sybil Goldrich of Command Trust Network. If I remember, there were a number of women, including Sybil, who were past the California Statute deadline when the FDA removed silicone breast implants from the market. It was started with the thought that there were many women who did not yet know about implants and would also be past their Statute deadlines. These Statutes can really vary. There are thousands of voters in this Plan--get to as many as you can and tell them of the opportunity to write to Judge Hood--we just may make some history--we may not only help ourselves but also past, present and future victims, as the chemical world keeps expanding and the medical field keeps changing. Maybe that is what this has all been about. It is said that God works in mysterious ways. If you run across a way to get public, do it. It would be great if this whole issue became public again--it is by far a dead issue (according to a doc I know, it is simmering beneath the surface of public knowledge) I found this recently. . .In this and like communities, public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed. Consequently, he who moulds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions---Abraham Lincoln Bonnie Bojohns@...