Blog

The Idaho Supreme Court has determined that the statute that relates to the license suspension provision is valid, regardless of when your order was entered.  Wheller v. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, ____ Idaho _____ (April 8, 2009).  The Petitioner argued that his orders were entered prior to the enactment of the statutue that allowed license suspensions, and thus the State could not suspend his license.  The Court found that because the matter was civil in nature, there was no ex post facto law application.  The challenge to this statute failed.  The warning is that parents that fail to pay their child support can have license(s) (including hunting) suspended.

 

Muriel M. Burke

The FDA advisory committee recently voted to pull popular pain killers Darvon and Darvocet from the market because of lack of effectiveness and potentially deadly side effects such as addiction, suicide and heart problems.   If you are taking these drugs you should discuss any continued use with your physician.  

 

If you have been injured by any of these drugs, James, Vernon & Weeks P.A. is currently investigating injury claims against the manufacturers of these drugs and would be happy to review your case.

In a recent Idaho Supreme Court case, the court affirmed a trial courts determination that relocation of the children to California with the mother and an award of sole physical custody of the children to the mother was appropriate.  Danti v. Danti, _____ Idaho _____ (2009 Opinion No. 39, March 5, 2009).  The court described the standard that trial courts use to determine when an award of sole physical custody is appropriate and when granting a party the right to relocate out of the State of Idaho.

Tremendous news for consumers.   By a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its landmark decision relating to state law failure-to-warn claims in pharmaceutical product liability cases and held that such claims are not preempted by federal law. Wyeth v. Levine, No. 06-1249 (slip op., 03/04/09).    This decision will provide financial incentive for drugmakers to think twice before rushing untested and potentially dangerous drugs to our pharmacies.  

Below are some comments across the nation regarding this victory for consumers. 

 

Wyeth decision seen as victory for consumers.

In an op-ed Houston Chronicle (3/7) Thomas McGarity, a professor of law at The University of Texas at Austin, wrote, "The Supreme Court last week ended an acrimonious battle between large pharmaceutical companies and patients injured by inadequately labeled prescription drugs." The ruling "is also a rare win for consumers in the broader 'pre-emption war' that has been raging in Congress and the courts over whether federal regulatory agencies should trump local juries." Now the "war continues in other areas where federal agencies regulate potentially dangerous products, set standards for airline, railroad and motor carrier safety, and attempt to protect consumers from unscrupulous banks and credit reporting agencies." However, "the Supreme Court's well-reasoned opinion should make federal bureaucracies think twice before concluding that they are the only game in town."

        The Insurance Journal /AP(3/9) reports, "A Supreme Court ruling this week that federal approval of a drug is no protection from lawsuits in state courts could make drugmakers more cautious about safety issues and may lead them to halt development of some medicines and even pull others off the market."

        Justice Thomas' concurrence in Wyeth seen as liberal. The Los Angeles Times (3/9, Savage) reports, "The Supreme Court opinion that drew the most praise last week from a proudly 'progressive' constitutional law group was written by perhaps the court's staunchest conservative, Justice Clarence Thomas." He would "have gone further than the court's liberals in a decision that allowed injured patients to sue drug makers" according to the "24-page concurrence" where "he said the court should have declared that judges have no authority to void state consumer-protection laws based on 'agency musings' from Washington."

The Idaho Supreme Court has recently upheld a trial court's determination that order child support to be lowered to $0 during the pendency and sixty (60) days thereafter, and that either party should then move to modify the child support award.  MacKowiak v. Harris, _____ Idaho _____, (2009 Opinion 34, March 5, 2009). The appealing party in that case argued that the custodial parent it should not be her responsibility to move to modify child support after her exhusband was released from prision and that the child support should automatically revert to the prior child support. The court determined that even though the incarcerated party had not requested in his motion the relief that the child support should be modified at the end of the abatement period, it was the judge's descretion to determine the relief.  

The IRS has provided the following important notice for all custodial and non-custodial parents that have decrees/orders entered after the 2008 year.  Please note this is a change from previous policy:

 

Beginning with 2009 tax returns, the noncustodial parent will no longer be able to attach pages from the decree or agreement instead of Form 8332 if the decree or agreement was made after 2008.  The noncustodial parent will have to attach Form 8332 or a similar statement signed by the custodial parent and whose only purpose is to release a claim to exemption. You can find the Form 8332 at the following website http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8332.pdf