Kucinich Settles Olive Pit Lawsuit

[larsonstdoc]

http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/01/28/dennis-kucinich-settles-olive-pit-laws


While we await the Egyptian Speaker of Parliament, who is apparently about to make an important statement about the government, I wanted to put a quick capper on this story about Dennis Kucinich and his dental issues. The announcement that he was suing a Congressional cafeteria because he bit into an olive pit sparked a good deal of derision, but apparently not by the cafeteria or its lawyers, because according to Kucinich they settled out of court for damages.

The parties have exchanged information and after some investigation and discussion have resolved the matter for an amount all parties believe reflects the actual out-of-pocket expenses related to this incident. The terms of the settlement are confidential; however, I feel that the defendants have responded fairly and reasonably. I don’t want to have to make another dental visit for a very long time, and will be making no further comment on this matter.

In Kucinich’s statement, he talks about the two-year ordeal to fix his teeth after biting into the olive pit, which the cafeteria claimed was removed. His tooth split in half upon impact with the pit, and because the tooth anchored the upper bridgework, several teeth became infected. This caused a lot of pain and the need for deep medical treatment. Eventually the tooth was removed, the bridgework reconfigured, and six other teeth replaced as well. None of Kucinich’s dental insurance covered this type of injury.

Justin Elliott talked to a consumer lawyer who said that he would have won the lawsuit:

“Everybody is getting caught up on the pit — ‘Oh, it was some little thing.’ Take the word ‘pit’ out and put in ‘sharp piece of metal.’ Nobody would have a problem with suing over that. They’re trying to make this about something trivial. A pit in an olive is the same thing as biting into a rock,” Dolan says. (One of his clients lost three teeth after biting down on a rock in a salad. Another was burned by cleaning acid in a bottle of water.) [...]

“If he’s got the label that says ‘pitted olives,’ and they weren’t pitted, that’s called an express warranty. They told him the sandwich had no pits. He didn’t get what he bought, and it harmed him,” Dolan says. “The other area is strict products liability. There is something wrong with the product. He didn’t cause it. He had no reason to assume it was in the product. And he got injured.”

It seems to me this casual jibe at Kucinich and the olive pit reflects a broader bias against consumer protection lawsuits. There’s apparently a movie at Sundance this year called “Hot Coffee” which chronicles the familiar story of the lady who won a large settlement from McDonald’s suing after coffee spilled in her lap. As this interview with Democracy Now explains, in reality the woman was physically scarred by the event, and McDonald’s was negligent by keeping their coffee indescribably hot to preserve it. It’s part of a larger story of how corporations degrade the civil justice system by mocking legitimate grievances, and the Kucinich incident fit neatly into that.

[larsonstdoc]

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/12/30/kucinich-could-lose-seat-after-ohio-redistricting/

Kucinich has gotten his teeth back but he may have lost his SEAT.


Kucinich Could Lose Seat After Ohio Redistricting

  
Dennis Kucinich sent out a fairly frantic email to supporters, warning that his Congressional district could be eliminated for the 2012 election after a round of redistricting in Ohio.

Due to the new census figures, Ohio will lose two seats in Congress. The Ohio Legislature (Republican) will redraw the map with 16 instead of 18 districts for the 2012 Election. Speculation nationally, and more importantly, in Ohio is that my district may be eliminated, absorbed into parts of other districts. Keep in mind, given the early Ohio primary, the filing deadline could be only a year away [...]

I will not wait until a new Ohio map is produced to begin this crucial discussion of the consequences of congressional redistricting. I will not wait until the Ohio Legislature produces a new map to start thinking of the options. The question will not be: Who is my opponent? The question will be: Where is my district? Seriously.

We are going to have to prepare for a different kind of election, possibly in a different place because my district may be eliminated. We are going to have to organize in a different way, now. The question will remain: Where?

He seeks advice from supporters, and he’ll probably need some. As Kucinich notes, Ohio will lose two districts in 2012. Republicans just won the Governor’s race and the legislature in 2010, and will therefore have unfettered control over redistricting. The three-member panel that will draw the new maps consists of the Governor, Secretary of State and the state auditor, all of whom are Republicans.

Right now, Republicans outnumber Democrats in the Congressional delegation 13-5 (after flipping 5 seats in 2010), and many of those new members will need job security with a new map that maximizes their support. It’s just a fact that Cleveland, where Kucinich represents, has lost a lot of population and probably can no longer support two Congressional districts. Kucinich could run in the one Cleveland seat, but he would have to defeat Rep. Marcia Fudge, an African-American whose constituents are majority black.

That’s assuming that there will be one centralized Cleveland seat. There could just as easily be a split of Cleveland into multiple seats extending into the suburbs, to dilute the Democratic strength of Cuyahoga County. It would be anyone’s guess where Kucinich would run, in that instance.

[sharpsteve]

Dennis Kucinich: Regarding Settlement of Dental Injury Law Suit
Friday, 28 January 2011

Though I would prefer to focus your attention on my work dealing with the profoundly important issues that face our nation, such as job creation, getting the economy back on track, and ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - -it seems that some are more interested in discussing my personal dental issues.  Given the degree of public interest you should know some details:

This injury required nearly two years, three dental surgeries, and a substantial amount of money to rectify.

The legal action you have heard about was filed due to the severity, expense and duration of the dental injury, the complications which followed and which still persist.  I wanted to resolve this matter without filing a lawsuit.  The events below involved numerous dental visits, more than are detailed in this summary.   The dental injury set in motion a chain of dental and medical events.

When I bit into the olive pit, (unbeknown to me at the time), upon impact the tooth split in half,  vertically through the crown and the tooth, below the level of the bone.  Externally there was no evidence of a break.  This was not about aesthetics.  The internal structure of the tooth was rendered nonrestorable.  Although the pain was excruciating, I shook it off and  I went right back to work.   

This tooth is a key tooth which anchored my upper bridgework .  The injured tooth and the bone above it became infected.   I took a course of antibiotics for the infection, had an adverse reaction to the antibiotics which caused me to have an intestinal obstruction and emergency medical intervention.

Later, my dentist referred me to a specialist who informed me that the damaged tooth had to be removed.  A third dentist removed the tooth and I was fitted for a temporary partial.  I waited for the bone to heal. An implant was placed, but it failed. Many months later still a second implant succeeded.   My bridgework had to be completely reconfigured, a new partial was designed,  so this injury did not affect only one tooth, but rather involved six (6) replacement teeth as well.     A new crown with a new precision attachment was engineered and put in place.  To clarify, no dental expenses  were covered by any health plan, nor did I have dental insurance that covered the injury,  which, until it was resolved, affected my ability to chew food properly.

The clamor for information about this incident requires that I provide at least this much information.  I would have liked to provide such details sooner but did not want it said that I was trying the case in the media.  So that is why I declined any interviews about the matter. The parties have exchanged information and after some investigation and discussion have resolved the matter for an amount all parties believe reflects the actual out-of-pocket expenses related to this incident.  The terms of the settlement are confidential; however, I feel that the defendants have responded fairly and reasonably. I don't want to have to make another dental visit for a very long time, and will be making no further comment on this matter.

http://www.kucinich.us/index.php