Many sites that are intended for adults, such as dating sites, come with a disclaimer that states, “You must be at least 18 years or older to use this site.” New Jersey native William F. Saponaro, Jr. was under the impression that warning was true when he logged into his Grindr account to meet available men. Instead Saponaro met up with a 13-year-old boy, had sex with him, and then was arrested for the act. Saponaro ended up being prosecuted for engaging in a sexual act with a minor.

According to the Washington Post, the mix up led him to sue the gay “hook up” app Grindr for negligence on the grounds that it was the ones who set him up with a minor in the first place. Despite Saponaro being 52 years old and presumably capable of discerning someone’s age, he claims that he was operating under the assumption that Grindr’s Terms of Service, which require its users to be at least 18 and older to use it services, were being enforced.

Unfortunately for Mr. Saponaro, the lawsuit was thrown out by a federal judge who determined that Grindr functions as an interactive computer service. As a result, it’s covered by the federal Communications Decency Act and therefore could not be found negligent in this case.

New Jersey Chief U.S. District Court Judge Jerome Simandle stated:

Holding interactive service providers liable for third-party communications would have chilling implications for free speech on the internet.

Even though Saponaro claims he was tricked, he’s hardly the first person to be duped when using an online dating site. MTV has captivated millions of viewers addressing that issue with its hit show “Catfish,” which profiles people all across the country who have had their hearts swindled by online impostors. Even more recently, popular matchmaking app Tinder was used by a team of creative marketers to catfish users at the music, film, and tech festival SXSW.

Robots have taken over @Tinder at #SXSW. http://t.co/bkrOk5w0brpic.twitter.com/VYyiBhEJrv

— Maxim (@MaximMag) March 16, 2015

According to Techcrunch.com, a company promoting the movie “Ex Machina” created the fake account, Ava, using a photo of the star of the movie. Ava’s profile was run by chatbots–computer programs designed to simulate intelligent conversations. These scripted robots sent her matches to an Instagram page (which has since been deleted) for the movie, revealing the whole thing was a sham.

Cases like these are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to examples of online impersonation. They should come as no surprise when our current digital landscape makes lying about your age, name, or even what you look like far too easy. For that reason users should be more cautious when looking for love online, because as seen in the case of Mr. Saponaro, you are solely responsible for verifying someone is who they say they are .

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Grindr Found Not Liable For Man’s Sexual Encounter With Minor appeared first on Law Street.

The workers’ compensation system around the nation has been complicated for decades. Particularly in California, a measure from the early 2000s is now coming to light as more and more women are trying to get workers’ compensation. There’s a battle raging over whether or not there’s an inherent gender bias in the handling of workers’ compensation claims in California; the concern is that women who try to get workers’ compensation are “penalized” for gender-related conditions like pregnancies and menopause. Read on to learn about the gender bias in worker compensations claims in California, what’s being done, and a look at the discussions happening in other states.

What is workers’ compensation?

Workers’ compensation is a form of insurance provided in the workplace that can consist of wage replacements and medical benefits for employees who were injured while working. Usually by accepting these funds, employees acknowledge that they will not sue their employers for negligence. Workers who are permanently disabled while on the job receive compensation from insurers based on a calculation of the level of disability and what portion of the injury is linked to their jobs. Insurers may also weigh the worker’s previous health conditions or prior injuries. In California specifically, the process is overseen by the Division of Workers’ Compensation which:

Monitors the administration of workers’ compensation claims, and provides administrative and judicial services to assist in resolving disputes that arise in connection with claims for workers’ compensation benefits.

DWC’s mission is to minimize the adverse impact of work-related injuries on California employees and employers.

State of Workers’ Compensation

If you were to look at the statistics, it looks like fewer and fewer people nationwide are getting hurt at work, though that isn’t exactly the case.

A report came out recently about how the system is reporting very low numbers. The real reason? Changing the circumstances for what qualifies as a workplace injury, and the simple dissolution of programs that pay for such accidents. According to the Washington Post, the number of people injured at work is probably twice what is reported because people fear losing their jobs. Or people, like those in the construction industry, are misclassified as independent contractors.

The Washington Post recently discussed the national state of workers’ compensation problems, saying:

Since 2003, the investigation found, 33 states have weakened their workers’ compensation regulations, scaling back the procedures that will be covered and the duration for which benefits are offered. In addition, while businesses often push for reforms on the grounds that workers’ compensation costs are out of control, data shows that premiums are lower than they’ve been at any point since the early 1990s.

California’s Belabored Workers’ Compensation Program

Workers’ compensation programs have received complaints that they are inherently flawed throughout the United States. Lately the debate has been particularly focused in California. Complaints come from the fact that outside medical reviewers look at the cases and after brief exams or only by reading the medical records can deny recommended treatments or rule that injuries aren’t work-related.

Reform Under Governor Schwarenegger 

Some problems with the California system can be traced back to a bill that reformed the program, which was signed in 2004 by then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. It changed what types of injuries qualified under the program, how long certain employees would receive coverage after being injured, and required the injured employees to choose from a specific pool of independent doctors. At the time, Schwarzenegger said:

This bill completes a process that brought together Republicans and Democrats, business and labor, and all the affected parties to produce billions of dollars in savings, protect workers, and root out fraud and waste in the system. No longer will workers’ compensation be the poison of our economy. Our message to the rest of the country and the world is that California is open for business. We are making our state once again a powerful, job-creating machine.

At that time, California employers were paying the highest workers’ comp rates in the nation: $6.33 for every $100 in payroll, compared to a national average of $2.46.

Although the bill was supposed to save Californians money, there were some problems with it. The new bill made it more difficult for workers to get in to see doctors and left them waiting for months without any answers to their problems.

Reform Under Governor Brown 

In 2012, Governor Jerry Brown put some of the power back in the hands of the state, deciding that disputes should be handled by independent medical reviewers whose decisions cannot be overturned. The law was a bit quirky, as this didn’t just apply to the new cases, but also retroactively to past requests, and it impacted everything from already-scheduled doctor’s visits to prescription refills. In some cases, treatments were stopped in the middle with little more than an official notice.

This new system also has problems, however, as in recent years reviewers have denied treatment in up to 91 percent of the cases. People who were receiving treatment for years suddenly found themselves left out in the cold, and many had to return to work to continue to pay for the medication they needed.

Christine Baker, who oversees workers’ compensation in California, has stated that the reform is “speeding up the decision making process” and taking the aid away from people who are using it for prescription abuse.

Many of the judges, including John C. Gutierrez, a workers’ comp jurist since the 1980s, are some of the biggest adversaries of the law. According to Gutierrez, “the only interest that’s being protected here is industry and I feel that their financial influence has had an impact on how this legislation came out.” He went on to say that he felt like workers “are losing their voice.”

This is a problem in the state regardless of gender, but when it comes to comparing women and men, there is an even bigger problem looming.

Gender Bias in Workers’ Comp Rulings

California Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez introduced a bill (AB305) on March 4, 2015 that aims to eliminate the gender bias in workers’ compensation rulings.

This comes after a Bay Area woman who suffers from Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, which damages the nerves in the hands and often limits movement, was denied workers’ compensation for a strange reason: she was postmenopausal, which meant that she was predisposed to nerve damage. 

The woman enacted the help of attorney Sue Borg who says that she sees many cases where a woman who is injured on the job and files a claim for compensation is “penalized” for things like pregnancies and menopause. “It seems like it should be obvious that we shouldn’t see this, but it happens in insidious ways all the time,” Borg said.

Gonzalez aims to ensure that being female does not constitute a preexisting condition, and hopes to stop the reduction of compensation for female workers based on pregnancies, breast cancer, menopause, osteoporosis, and sexual harassment. All of this discrimination is happening, even though there are laws against gender discrimination in the workplace.

Breast Cancer

One of the biggest problems facing women seeking workers’ compensation is breast cancer. There have been numerous reports of how breast cancer is treated among firefighters and police officers. According to the Corporate Counsel:

Gutierrez reports that the bill’s supporters claim gender bias in workers’ compensation is a big issue, and one that is “especially evident in the way breast cancer is treated among firefighters and police officers.” For instance, female police officers who have to undergo double mastectomies for breast cancer linked to hazardous materials on the job are considered 0 to 5 percent disabled, Gutierrez reports, whereas a male officer with prostate cancer is considered 16 percent disabled and would be paid for the injury.

One such case involves a San Francisco firefighter who was denied permanent disability after having to undergo a double mastectomy, as well as an Orange County hotel housekeeper who was injured on the job but only received two percent payment on her claim–despite doctors putting her disability level at 100 percent–due to prior conditions “related to childbirth, obesity, age and naturally occurring events.”

Pregnancy

Pregnancy has always been a fairly controversial issue when it comes to the workplace, but many women are now being denied workers’ compensation due to it, or facing claims that it is the “cause” of the problem. Things like back pain, muscle strain, and injuries caused by fatigue have all been attributed to pregnancy and not the workplace. “I’ve had a child, and if now being a mother is a pre-existing condition in California, I find that unacceptable,” said Christine Pelosi, chair of the California Democratic Party’s women’s caucus.

State Fires Back

The claims were immediately disparaged by the Workers’ Compensation Action Network, which said that payment decisions were never a result of discrimination. According to the Sacramento Business Journal: “A spokesman from Industrial Relations could not immediately produce data on gender-related bias or discrimination, but the agency will look into the matter and respond with its findings.”

Conclusion

The nation, and particularly California, has a lot of work to do in the coming months to try to look at reports and see if there is a problem. If there is, it could mean an inundation of old cases that may be able to be retried, meaning companies could owe a lot of money to women all over the state.

Surely California is only the beginning and more and more states, as well as the federal government, will have to look at their workers’ compensation laws and see if there are problems lurking in them. In the end, the people who don’t get covered by workers’ compensation won’t always work through their pain; many will end up on government subsidies, which means that the tax payers will have to cover the costs.

Resources

Primary

Department of Industrial Relations: Division of Worker’s Compensation California

Department of Industrial Relations: A Guidebook for Injured Workers

Additional

Corporate Counsel: Charges of Gender Bias in Workers’ Compensation

NPR: Injured Workers Suffer as ‘Reforms’ Limit Workers’ Compensation Benefits

Heartland Institute: Schwarzenegger Signs Workers Comp Reform

The New York Times: A Racy Silicon Valley Lawsuit and More Subtle Questions About Sex Discrimination

SF Gate: Gender Bias Rampant in Workers’ Comp Cases, Women’s Groups Charge

ProPublica: The Demolition of Workers’ Comp

NPR: As Workers’ Comp Varies From State to State, Workers Pay the Price

Property Casualty 360: California Workers’ Comp Bill Passes Legislature; Insurer Groups Cautious

BradBlog: Schwarzenegger’s Workers’ Comp ‘Reform’ Killed My Client

“

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California Workers’ Compensation: A Flawed System? appeared first on Law Street.

The Ebola outbreak, which at first seemed like a distant fear, has become a reality in the United States, especially for the family of Thomas Eric Duncan. Duncan was the first individual to have died from Ebola on American soil. In the aftermath of his death, there has been speculation as to whether Duncan’s family will pursue a liability lawsuit against the hospital that treated Duncan. However, under Texas Law, it would be very difficult for Duncan’s family to succeed with any claims against the Hospital.

The Facts

On September 25, 2014 Thomas Eric Duncan went to Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital where he was treated for a fever, abdominal pains, and vomiting–all symptoms of Ebola. Duncan was not tested for Ebola, and in fact, he was sent home with pain relievers and antibiotics. He was diagnosed with Ebola after returning to the hospital when his symptoms worsened. On October 8, 2014, Duncan died.

The Law

In 2003, Texas passed a tort reform that gave an extra layer of protection against civil liability lawsuits for Emergency Room doctors and nurses. Under this reform, plaintiffs must demonstrate “willful and wonton” conduct in order to prove negligence. This is one of the highest legal burdens to prove in the country.

This standard requires that the individual’s conduct creates “an extreme risk of danger” and that the individual has “actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved and chooses to proceed in conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others.” Relating to this situation, to successfully prove negligence, Duncan’s family must show that the ER doctors not only created an extreme risk of danger, but that they actually knew about the danger, and continued to act in a manner that demonstrated their indifference toward Duncan. An important aspect of this question would be to determine what exactly the doctors and nurses knew about Duncan’s condition during his first visit.

Even if liability were proven, the tort reform established a $250,000 cap for non-economic damages in a healthcare lawsuit. So even if Duncan’s family were able to prove willful and wonton negligence, they would most likely be limited to $250,000 in damages.

The Reality

The harsh reality is that Duncan’s family probably has a slim chance at succeeding in a lawsuit against the hospital. On one hand, the 2003 tort reform has been a major success. It has caused medical malpractice claims to decrease by nearly two thirds between 2003 and 2011. On the other hand it begs the question, “at what cost?”

Melissa Klafter

Melissa Klafter has a JD from St. John’s University School of Law and plans to pursue a career in Personal Injury Law. You can find her binge-watching her favorite TV shows, rooting for the Wisconsin Badgers, and playing with her kitty, Phoebe. Contact Melissa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Slim Chance of Legal Recourse for Family of First American Ebola Death appeared first on Law Street.

Model Mayhem is an online modeling site used by aspiring models to network, find jobs, and share photographs. It was just ruled that a lawsuit against it and its parent company, Internet Brands, Inc, will be allowed to move forward, after a young woman, Jane Doe, sued the site for negligence.

Jane Doe had been using Model Mayhem for its intended purpose — networking — when she was contacted to travel to Florida for an “audition.” There she met Lavont Flanders Jr. and Emerson Callum who drugged her, raped her, filmed the attack, and put it online, marketing it as “pornography.” Their plan was intrinsically tied to the ability to be able to use Model Mayhem to contact the aspiring models.

Flanders and Callum have since been convicted for their horrendous crimes in Florida court. Both of Miami, they stood trial in 2012. They were each found guilty of a hefty 12 consecutive life sentences for sex trafficking. Five of the victims were involved in Flanders and Callums’ trials, but it’s not clear whether the Jane Doe from the current suit was one of them.

According to Jane Doe’s suit, the site knew about Flander and Callums’ actions since 2010, but failed to disclose or provide any kind of warning to its users. The parent company, Internet Brands Inc, had sued the developers of Model Mayhem for failing to disclose that Flanders and Callums’ actions may lead to civil suits, something Internet Brands, Inc. claims should have been told to them when they purchased Model Mayhem in 2008.

What’s disturbing about that first suit is that Jane Doe was apprehended, sexually assaulted, and filmed in 2011. Which means that the website where her assailants found her knew that there was potential for something like this to happen for months before she was ever contacted. That’s not just terrifying — it’s certainly grounds for Jane Doe to argue negligence. And in the civil suit she filed against Internet Brands, Inc., that’s exactly what she argued.

She filed the suit originally in California, and the suit was dismissed under the Communications Decency Act, which was passed in the late 90s in an attempt to regulate the spread of internet-based pornography. On the most basic level, it attempts to make sure that children don’t see explicit content on the internet by regulating the ways in which sites are allowed to disseminate that kind of content. More relevantly to this case though, is Section 230, which states,

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

In lay terms, what that essentially means is that you can’t be sued if someone uses your website to, for example, distribute pornography.

This was the law that the original court used to overturn Jane Doe’s case. However, in an appeals ruling released this week, the decision was overturned. Judge Richard Clifton, of the Ninth Circuit, decided that Section 230 did not apply. He was part of a three-judge appellate court that decided the case can proceed. Clifton wrote that Jane Doe’s case isn’t barred under the act because,

Jane Doe’s claim is different, however. She does not seek to hold Internet Brands liable as a ‘publisher or speaker’ of content posted on the Model Mayhem website, or for Internet Brands’ failure to remove content posted on the website. Flanders and Callum are not alleged to have posted anything themselves.

The case will move forward, and with good reason. What Internet Brands Inc, did was reprehensible, and Jane Doe paid the price for its mistake. The company deserves to be held accountable, and this case is certain to make waves as it is indeed allowed to move forward.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Chris Jagers via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Case Against Online Modeling Site Involved in Rape to Move Forward appeared first on Law Street.