World
US Congressional Leaders Ask FDA about Coumadin Safety
The move follows a ProPublica analysis showing mistakes involving the drug resulted in injuries and deaths of nursing home residents
 
The bipartisan leadership of the House Energy and Commerce Committee is asking the Food and Drug Administration how it monitors the safety of the popular blood thinner Coumadin, particularly in light of deaths and hospitalizations of nursing home residents taking the drug.
 
The committee’s letter, sent last week, follows a ProPublica report co-published by the Washington Post in July that focused on the harm caused by nursing homes’ failure to manage the drug. 
 
Our analysis of government inspection reports found that, between 2011 and 2014, at least 165 nursing home residents were hospitalized or died after errors involving Coumadin or its generic version, warfarin. In some cases, homes gave residents too much of the drug, which caused internal bleeding. In other cases, they gave residents too little, leading to blood clots and strokes.
 
“While the committee recognizes that FDA has no role in overseeing the safety and health requirements for nursing homes, or the practice of medicine, the problems identified in the ProPublica report have prompted the committee to consider where there are any further actions FDA could take to decrease the incidence and severity of adverse events related to the use of Coumadin and/or warfarin,” the letter said.
 
The letter was signed by committee chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., and ranking member Frank Pallone Jr., D-N.J., as well as Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pa., chairman of the subcommittee on oversight and investigations, and Diana DeGette, D-Colo., the subcommittee’s ranking member.
 
The ProPublica article noted that Coumadin can be a lifesaver when taken as directed and carefully monitored. But when it’s not, it can be dangerous. A 2007 study in The American Journal of Medicine estimated that nursing home residents suffer 34,000 fatal, life-threatening or serious events each year related to the drug.
 
 
Courtesy: ProPublica

User

Late, Later, Late-est
The perils of delay in most judicial systems
 
English is a funny language. The superlative for late, if such a word existed, would mean the newest, most recent. Semantics aside, we take on a matter that excites a lot of passion in court proceedings. The matter of time. How late is late?
 
When Debashis Basu was queried on the one reason why people lose cases, his immediate reply was: ‘Procrastination’. All too true. Yet, most judicial systems, like ours, have an inbuilt long fuse. Though it may not seem right at first glance, it does make more sense in the whole gamut of things.
 
A man had a lease on a flat. He died during the pendency of the lease. His son was appointed heir and went on to defend the proceedings as the legal representative. On 5 April 2012, an order was passed thereby forfeiting the lease and for the estate, now controlled by the son, to pay arrears of rent and service charges. This totalled about Rs22 lakh, but considered reasonable by UK standards. 
 
The son now asked for relief from forfeiture and the next date of hearing was set 22 months away. Just before that fateful day, the two antagonists signalled a truce. They agreed on certain points and signed consent terms.
 
Consent terms, once signed, are etched in stone. Well, almost. Neither party can re-agitate the matter in court. The stage of finality has been reached. The matter is determined. That, however, leaves a grey area. What if one, or both, parties renege on the terms? Would it mean contempt of court? If one looked upon consent terms as a court order, the answer would be a ‘yes’. But consent terms, though they have the stamp of court approval, can hardly be called a judgement. 
In this case, the son could not fulfil the requirements of the terms in time. The other party asked for execution, that is, repossession of the flat. The son, then, hurriedly did as he had been asked to do.
 
You be the judge. On which side would you lean? Son complies, but under threat of eviction. He is late in keeping his promise. He may have delayed matters still further if the sword were not hanging on his head. He paid up, with interest, but under pressure. Did he intend to keep his promise otherwise?
 
The other side contended that the court cannot extend the time period after the consent terms had been accepted by both the parties. They said that there were no special circumstances, no unusual reason. 
 
The court of appeal saw merit in the son’s behaviour. Late, yes. But he did pay up and kept the other parts of the bargain, too. The court also decided that it had jurisdiction in the matter and was competent to decide. It must be noted that the issue was one of a residence. The courts are usually sympathetic to the occupier. After all, it is a matter of a roof over one’s head.
 
Moreover, the son had complied. The courts look at the correction factor. If the error has been rectified, even a bit later than agreed upon, the court declares that it is satisfied with the compliance.
 
The son was lucky, as he was in possession. Now, does that mean that one can delay legal issues? The answer is a categorical ‘No’. Most often, when a legal problem arises, people refuse to take legal advice. They think that the trouble, like the rains, will go away. Unfortunately, it festers. The sore turns into an open wound; goes septic. Gangrene sets in. By then, it’s often too late.
 
Ask people why they resisted going to a lawyer and they will invariably mention the cost involved. But is the cost of not approaching an advocate, till now, any less? In all likelihood, it could be, and often will be, many times more.
 
The old adage, ‘A stitch in time, saves nine’, is most apt in matters legal. Please do not wait. It will prove costly. And one may lose the case.
 

User

Bombay HC asks NSE to pay Rs50 lakh as cost, donation in Moneylife case
While dismissing NSE's notice of motion, the High Court asked the Exchange to pay Rs3 lakh as cost to Sucheta Dalal and Debashis Basu of Moneylife and pay Rs47 lakh as donation to two hospitals within two weeks
 
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday, while dismissing National Stock Exchange (NSE)'s notice of motion, asked the bourse to pay Rs1.5 lakh each to Sucheta Dalal, Managing Editor of Moneylife and Debashis Basu, Editor & Publisher of Moneylife as cost and Rs47 lakh to two trusts, Tata Memorial and Masina Hospital as donation within two weeks.
 
In his order, Justice Gautam S Patel, observed that Courts cannot be treated as playground. "....NSE ignored three messages sent across by Ms Dalal seeking a response before the story was published. This shows that either the NSE was arrogant or there was an element of truth in the allegations, and that NSE had nothing to say," he said. 
 
NSE had filed the case against Moneylife, Ms Dalal and Mr Basu for writing two articles, Blowing the Whistle on Manipulation in NSE and High-frequency Trading Needs a Detailed Probe. The articles apparently made the regulators to swung into action against the increasing influence of algorithm trading or high frequency trading (HFT) ().

User

COMMENTS

saurabh dikshit

1 year ago

Congratulations !!

Anup Kumar Chakravarty

1 year ago

Great. Congratulations.

Sanjeev Dhabre

1 year ago

Congrats!!!

MAHESH VORA

1 year ago

Congratulations to Ms.Suchita Dalal and CA Debasish Basu , on winning the suit at Bombay High Court and especially for Donating the huge sum of Rs.50 lacs for noble cause.

Gandhali Girme

1 year ago

Maam ...congrats to you and your team

Vaibhav Dhoka

1 year ago

Congratulations to duo and team,Truth prevails.

R Choksi

1 year ago

Congratulations to both of you and your team.

Raj K Swamy

1 year ago

Congrats.Great job-keep it up. What penalty did the court impose on the officials who did not answer moneylife queries. Also what action is taken by nse board to ascertain the extent of nexus between HFT and its officials- how will nse ensure a level playing field or will it admit there is no level playing field?

Vaibhav Trivedi

1 year ago

Congratulations!

S A Narayan

1 year ago

Good luck to Sucheta and Debashis.Thankless public service sometimes does get rewarded!

S A Narayan

1 year ago

Good luck to Sucheta and Debashis.Thankless public service sometimes does get rewarded!

manoharlalsharma

1 year ago

Courts cannot be treated as playground. but only in few cases like this and there r crores of cases pending necessarily and peoples dying without JUSTICE loosing there properties to lawyers fee.

Ravindra Shetye

1 year ago

This is a good step forward. However, the money of fine goes out of NSE which is Taxpayers' Money. It has to go out of the salaries of the arrogant officers who brought about this situation. Can someone make an appeal to tis effect in the Court?

Senior Citizen

1 year ago

Why High Court did not take suo moto cognizance of possible criminal acts of NSE management and order criminal probe against the corrupt officials of NSE?

REPLY

NARENDRA NEGANDHI

In Reply to Senior Citizen 1 year ago

fully agree with your view. not only the penalty but criminal action should be taken against these guys.

Vishal Modi

1 year ago

Whew! Thank God!

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)