— Posts About Burton Craige

Patterson Harkavy files brief with the United States Supreme Court on behalf of the victims of Camp Lejeune’s water contamination

Last week, Patterson Harkavy filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court in support of the rights of individuals injured by exposure to hazardous waste.  Attorneys Burton Craige, Narendra Ghosh, and Paul Smith were responsible for the brief, with Attorney Ed Bell from South Carolina appearing as co-counsel.

The amicus brief addresses one of the nation’s largest environmental disasters, occurring on Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune near Jacksonville, North Carolina.  For decades, Camp Lejeune’s drinking water was contaminated with multiple known human carcinogens.  Although the military had reason to know of the contamination, it did nothing to address the problem until the 1980s.   Once the government finally began closing contaminated wells in 1985, it concealed the scope of the contamination for many more years.  The contamination resulted in illnesses and disorders which have devastated countless lives.

Patterson Harkavy represented five of these individuals before the Supreme Court.  Our clients include some of the highest profile advocates for Camp Lejeune’s victims, including Jerry Ensminger, a former Marine whose deceased daughter Janey is the namesake for federal legislation providing medical benefits to many of the contamination’s victims; Mike Partain, a male breast cancer survivor who has identified an ever-expanding cluster of other male breast cancer victims with similar exposure to Camp Lejeune’s water; and Tom Townsend, a former Marine who lost his infant son to Camp Lejeune’s water, and who has worked with Ensminger to uncover the extent of the base’s contamination and the full scope of the government’s efforts to suppress evidence of its malfeasance.

Patterson Harkavy’s brief was filed in CTS v. Waldburger.  At issue is a 1986 amendment to the Superfund Act.  The amendment was enacted to ensure that individuals injured as a result of their exposure to hazardous waste can bring suit when they discover their injury and its cause, even if their claims would otherwise be barred by state statutes of limitation.  The defendant in Waldburger is seeking to shield itself from legal liability under a provision in North Carolina’s statutes of limitation that prevents many legal claims from being brought more than ten years after the occurrence of the act causing an injury.  Defendant argues that since North Carolina’s provision has been judicially labeled a “statute of repose” instead of an ordinary statute of limitation, the 1986 amendment does not affect it in any way.

Many of those injured by Camp Lejeune’s water developed cancer decades after being exposed to the base’s carcinogenic water.  A ruling in favor of the defendant in Waldburger could therefore prevent these individuals from bringing any legal claims against the military.  The United States government supports the defendant’s position, and has made nearly identical arguments in a separate case in an attempt to avoid liability for its misconduct at Camp Lejeune.

Patterson Harkavy’s brief can be accessed here.  It discusses the scope of the Camp Lejeune disaster and describes how the Supreme Court’s ruling could affect countless military families that were recklessly exposed to hazardous chemicals.

The story of the Camp Lejeune contamination, its effects, and the efforts to uncover the government’s malfeasance has been told in the award-winning film “Semper Fi: Always Faithful,” and in the recently published book “A Trust Betrayed: The Untold Story of Camp Lejeune and the Poisoning of Generations of Marines and Their Families.”  Additional information can be found on the website “The Few, The Proud, The Forgotten.”

Categories: News of the Firm Tags: , , , , , , ,

Voucher victory as Court of Appeals permits preliminary injunction to remain in place

Advocates for private school vouchers suffered another defeat today, as the North Carolina Court of Appeals left in place Judge Hobgood’s order enjoining the state’s private school voucher scheme.

The North Carolina General Assembly enacted the scheme in 2013.  If implemented, it would divert money from North Carolina’s public schools to subsidize private school students’ tuition.  Together with attorneys from the Justice Center, Patterson Harkavy attorneys Burton Craige and Narendra Ghosh represent twenty five plaintiffs who claim the scheme violates various provisions of the North Carolina Constitution.  On February 28, Superior Court Judge Robert Hobgood agreed, finding that it likely violated the requirement that money allocated for public education be used “exclusively” for free public schools.  He therefore issued a preliminary injunction preventing the state from taking any steps to implement the program.

On March 18, proponents of private school vouchers asked the North Carolina Court of Appeals to delay the implementation of Judge Hobgood’s injunction until an appeal could be heard.  Today’s order denies that petition.  The favorable ruling is the first time an appellate court has addressed any issue in this litigation.

The brief order from the Court of Appeals can be found here.

Categories: Judicial Decisions, News of the Firm, Results Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Burton and Narendra move for summary judgment in lawsuit challenging the elimination of teacher tenure

Burton and Narendra, together with co-counsel Ann McColl of the North Carolina Association of Educators, yesterday moved for summary judgment in their lawsuit challenging North Carolina’s elimination of teacher tenure.

Since 1971, North Carolina’s teachers who earned “career status” have benefited from two basic employments protections: first, the assurance that they could be dismissed or demoted only for one of several statutorily enumerated causes, and second, the right to a hearing in which they could contest the grounds offered for a dismissal or demotion.  In 2013, the North Carolina General Assembly passed legislation purporting to eliminate career status.  The legislation would strip career status protections from teachers who had previously earned them, and would deny probationary teachers the ability to qualify for career status.

Patterson Harkavy represents the North Carolina Association of Educators and six individual plaintiffs.  They allege that the repeal violates the United States Constitution’s Contracts Clause and the North Carolina Constitution’s Law of the Land Clause by impermissibly denying teachers their contractual employments rights.

Categories: General News, News of the Firm Tags: , , , , , , ,

Judge Hobgood issues written order enjoining voucher scheme

Judge Hobgood issued an order yesterday afternoon putting into effect his prior ruling enjoining North Carolina’s private school voucher scheme.

Patterson Harkavy’s Burton Craige, attorney for the plaintiffs, explained, “Judge Hobgood enforced the plain language of the North Carolina Constitution.  Public funds for education must be used ‘exclusively’ for establishing and maintaining a uniform system of free public schools. Judge Hobgood recognizes that ‘exclusively’ means exclusively.”

Judge Hobgood’s order likewise found that the specific manner in which the voucher scheme was financed violated the North Carolina Constitution.  The voucher scheme would have diverted $10 million from public schools to private schools, and would have required local school districts to return already allotted public funds to the state in order to fund private school students’ tuition.

Alice Hart, lead plaintiff, commented, “The 25 plaintiffs are gratified by today’s decision. It would have been a terrible mistake to divert public funds to private schools when we urgently need to devote our attention to all of our children in our public schools, raise the pay for our teachers and provide more resources to our classrooms.”

The order prevents the State from taking any further steps to implement the program, stating that “Defendants are ENJOINED until further order of this Court from implementing the challenged legislation, including the acceptance of additional voucher applications, the processing of voucher applications, the selection of voucher recipients, and the expenditure or disbursement of any public funds in furtherance of the challenged legislation.”

Click here for the full text of Judge Hobgood’s opinion.  Click here for an article by the North Carolina Association of Educators further discussing the order.

Categories: Judicial Decisions, News of the Firm, Results Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Judge Hobgood rules in favor of Patterson Harkavy’s clients, halting private school voucher scheme

At a hearing today in downtown Raleigh, Superior Court Judge Robert Hobgood enjoined the State from implementing its private school voucher scheme.  If not for Judge Hobgood’s landmark ruling the scheme would have taken millions of dollars from North Carolina’s public schools in order to pay private school students’ tuition.  Private schools receiving taxpayer funds would not have been required to meet any educational standards, would not have been subject to any public accountability, and would not have been prohibited from discriminating against students on the basis of disability, gender, or religion.

Patterson Harkavy attorneys Burton Craige and Narendra Ghosh, working with attorneys from the North Carolina Justice Center and the North Carolina Association of Educators, represent the case’s 25 plaintiffs.  They have alleged that the voucher scheme violates various provisions of the North Carolina Constitution.  The State School Board Association, together with more than half of North Carolina’s local school boards, is also challenging the constitutionality of the scheme.

Burton and Narendra have argued that the Voucher Legislation provides taxpayer funds for public education to private schools, in violation of Article IX, Section 6 of the North Carolina Constitution, which requires that those funds be “used exclusively for establishing and maintaining a uniform system of free public schools.”   Plaintiffs also claim that providing taxpayer funds to private schools with no standards or accountability does not accomplish a public purpose, in violation of Article V, section 2.

On Monday, Judge Hobgood denied the State’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims.  Today, in issuing his injunction, Judge Hobgood found that that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits and that they would suffer irreparable harm if the State was permitted to continue implementing the program.

Burton’s arguments from Monday’s hearing can be found here; his arguments from today’s hearing can be found here.  The historic victory has been covered by news outlets across the state, including the Raleigh News & Observer, the Greensboro News & Record, the Charlotte Observer.

Categories: Judicial Decisions, News of the Firm, Results Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Patterson Harkavy Challenges Constitutionality of Legislation Stripping Teachers of their Employment Rights

Burton Craige and Narendra Ghosh filed suit yesterday against the State of North Carolina, challenging a recently-enacted law eliminating employment protections for experienced public school teachers.  Burton and Narendra represent the North Carolina Association of Educators and six individual teachers in the suit.

For over forty years, North Carolina public school teachers have been able to earn “career status” after successful completion of a four-year probationary period and a favorable vote by a teacher’s school board.  A teacher with career status can only be demoted or dismissed for good cause, and had the right to a hearing in which he or she could contest a dismissal or demotion decision.  All of North Carolina’s neighboring states provide teachers a comparable system of basic employment protections. Read more…

Categories: News of the Firm Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Patterson Harkavy Files Suit Challenging Constitutionality of Private School Voucher Scheme

Burton Craige and Narendra Ghosh filed suit this morning in Wake County Superior Court challenging the school voucher law passed by the General Assembly last session.  Representing a diverse group of twenty-five plaintiffs from across North Carolina, Burton and Narendra allege that the voucher scheme violates the North Carolina Constitution.  The lawsuit is sponsored by the North Carolina Association of Educators and the North Carolina Justice Center.

The voucher scheme will divert millions of dollars from North Carolina public schools to privates schools.  Private schools receiving such funds are subject to almost no restrictions or obligations.  They can be operated by inexperienced and unaccredited institutions, can hire unqualified and unsafe teachers and employees, can teach using haphazard and unproven methods, can fail to improve student knowledge and performance in any measurable way, and can discriminate in admission and treatment of students on the basis of religion, socioeconomic status, or physical or mental disability. Read more…

Categories: News of the Firm Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Recent Wrongful Conviction Settlements Total Over $12,000,000

Patterson Harkavy attorneys Burton Craige and Narendra Ghosh, with co-counsel Spencer Parris and Chris Olson, recently obtained settlements totaling more than $12,000,000 for two men who were imprisoned for crimes they did not commit.

In 1992, Greg Taylor was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.  After Taylor served 17 years in prison, his lawyers found SBI lab notes contradicting the official SBI lab report that blood linked Taylor to the victim.  Presented with the new evidence in 2009, the North Carolina Innocence Commission exonerated Taylor and ordered his release.

Representing Greg Taylor, Burton and Narendra filed a civil rights suit against Duane Deaver, who wrote the misleading lab report in Taylor’s case, and four other SBI officials. The Defendants were represented by seven lawyers from the Attorney General’s Office.  The litigation confirmed that the SBI had a long-standing practice of producing reports that omitted the negative results of confirmatory serology testing.  The failure to disclose this exculpatory evidence violated Taylor’s constitutional rights and resulted in his conviction. After three years of litigation, the case settled in September 2013 for $4,625,000.

For more information about the case, see the complaint, Burton Craige’s presentation at mediation, and newspaper coverage of the settlement.

In 1989 Dwayne Dail, age 20, was convicted of the rape of a 12-year old girl in Goldsboro, and sentenced to life imprisonment.  The conviction was based on the victim’s misidentification of the rapist.  DNA testing became available in the mid-1990s.  In 1995, Dail’s family members raised the necessary funds and requested that the crime scene evidence be subjected to DNA testing. The City Attorney and the Goldsboro Police Department (GPD) told them – inaccurately — that all the evidence had been destroyed.  On multiple occasions over the next 12 years, family members and staff from the North Carolina Center for Actual Innocence (NCCAI) repeated the request for the evidence.  Each time they were told that all the evidence had been destroyed.  In 2007, Chris Mumma and Sharon Stellato from NCCAI made one final request to the GPD.  An employee found an envelope containing evidence from the case, including the victim’s nightgown.  DNA testing of semen on the nightgown matched William Neal, currently in prison for other crimes.  Dail was exonerated and released after 18 years in prison.

Representing Dwayne Dail, Burton and Narendra filed suit against the City of Goldsboro, including claims for civil rights violations, negligence and obstruction of justice. The case presented complex, novel issues of constitutional law, reflected in Judge Terence Boyle’s order denying the City’s motion to dismiss.  After extensive discovery, Judge Boyle ruled that Dail had produced evidence sufficient to support his claims.  After three years of litigation, including three mediated settlement conferences, the case settled in November 2013 for $7,520,000.  For more information about the case, see the complaint, Burton Craige’s presentation at mediation, and news coverage of the settlement.

Categories: News of the Firm, Results Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Win for Burton and Narendra: Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of District Attorney Tracey Cline

The North Carolina Court of Appeals has affirmed a trial court order removing Durham District Attorney Tracey Cline from her office.  In re Cline, __ N.C. App. ___, 749 S.E.2d 91 (2013).  Patterson Harkavy attorney Burton Craige acted as court appointed counsel responding to Cline’s appeal of her dismissal.

The controversy has its roots in late 2011, when Cline began making numerous false and outrageous accusations against Durham Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson, Jr. in public pleadings.  Cline’s behavior lead attorney Kerstin Sutton to petition for Cline’s removal under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-66, which establishes a number of grounds on which a district attorney can be removed from office.  Sutton was appointed to present evidence against Cline at a hearing before Superior Court Judge Robert Hobgood.  On March 2, 2012, Judge Hobgood found that Cline had engaged in conduct “prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the office into disrepute” under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-66(6), and removed her from office.  Cline appealed.

The court appointed Burton Craige to manage the response to Cline’s appeal.  Burton worked with Sutton and Patterson Harkavy attorney Narendra Ghosh to defend Judge Hobgood’s removal order.  On October 1, a unanimous panel of the North Carolina Court of Appeals published an opinion affirming Judge Hobgood’s order removing Cline from her office.

The News and Observer has engaged in extensive coverage of the controversy, including an investigative series entitled “Twisted Truth: a Prosecutor Under Attack.”  More recent articles explore Burton’s role as court appointed independent counsel and discuss Monday’s Court of Appeals decision.

Categories: Judicial Decisions, Results Tags: , , , , , , ,

Burton and Narendra Secure Court of Appeals Win in Medical Malpractice Discovery Dispute

In Hammond v. Saini, __ N.C. App. ___, 748 S.E.2d 585 (2013), the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Patterson Harkavy’s client, Plaintiff Judy Hammond.  Ms. Hammond suffered severe injuries from an operating room fire while undergoing surgery to remove a possible basal cell carcinoma from her face.  In her subsequent medical malpractice suit, the Defendants refused to produce certain documents addressing the fire and notes made by the hospital’s risk manager following the fire.  The trial court rejected the Defendants’ argument that these items were privileged and granted Ms. Hammond’s motion to compel discovery.  Burton Craige and Narendra Ghosh represented Ms. Hammond on Defendants’ appeal of that decision.

On September 3, a Court of Appeals panel published a unanimous opinion in favor of Ms. Hammond, affirming the order compelling production of the Defendants’ reports, and remanding the issue of whether the risk manager’s notes were protected by the Work Product Doctrine to the trial court.  For more information, read Burton and Narendra’s brief to the Court of Appeals.

 

Categories: Judicial Decisions, Results Tags: , , , , , , , , ,