Magnet Toy Class Action Settlement
Headline Legal News
On December 15, 2011, the Honorable Susan D. Wigenton, U.S.D.J., granted final approval of a class action settlement in the lawsuit Chris Doering, et al. v. MEGA Brands, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 2:08-CV-1750 (SDW) (MCA). Defendants MEGA Brands, Inc., et al. agreed to settle legal claims surrounding certain Magnet Toy products, many of which were subject to recalls instituted by MEGA Brands in cooperation with the Consumer Products Safety Commission ("C.P.S.C."). Plaintiffs in the lawsuit alleged that certain "Magnet Toys" (as defined in the parties' agreement to settle the action) contained defective magnets, and sought a refund of all monies paid. This lawsuit did not allege any personal injury claims. Defendants have denied any and all liability. However, the parties have agreed to settle the matter to avoid the expense and resources that would be needed for further litigation.
The Settlement covers over 10 million MEGA Brands Magnet Toys, including the Magnetix family of toys, as well as Mag-Warriors, Magnaworld, Magna-Bugs, Magna-Wheels, Magna-Saurs, and Magna-Bones, among others. A complete list of the "Magnet Toys" covered by the proposed Settlement as well as pictures of those toys is available for consumers to at www.megabrandssettlement.com.
Related listings
-
Miss. high court takes ex-gov pardons case
Headline Legal News 02/03/2012The Mississippi Supreme Court said Wednesday it will take up the legal challenge to the pardons ex-Gov. Haley Barbour gave out in his last days in office. State Attorney General Jim Hood, a Democrat, wants to invalidate dozens of the 198 pardons that...
-
HIV-positive man who sued Atlanta gets new hearing
Headline Legal News 02/02/2012A federal appeals court on Wednesday granted a new hearing to a 40-year-old man who claimed the Atlanta Police Department rejected his job application because he has HIV. The ruling was a victory for gay rights advocates and the health groups who had...
-
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action
Headline Legal News 01/30/2012Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Walter Energy, Inc. between April 20, ...
Workers’ Compensation Subrogation of Administrative Fees and Costs
When a worker covered by workers’ compensation makes a claim against a third party, the workers’ compensation insurance retains the right to subrogate against any recovery from that third party for all benefits paid to or on behalf of a claimant injured at work. When subrogating for more than basic medical and indemnity benefits, the Texas workers’ compensation subrogation statute provides that “the net amount recovered by a claimant in a third‑party action shall be used to reimburse the carrier for benefits, including medical benefits that have been paid for the compensable injury.” TX Labor Code § 417.002.
In fact, all 50 states provide for similar subrogation. However, none of them precisely outlines which payments or costs paid by a compensation carrier constitute “compensation” and can be recovered. The result is industry-wide confusion and an ongoing debate and argument with claimants’ attorneys over what can and can’t be included in a carrier’s lien for recovery purposes.
In addition to medical expenses, death benefits, funeral costs and/or indemnity benefits for lost wages and loss of earning capacity resulting from a compensable injury, workers’ compensation insurance carriers also expend considerable dollars for case management costs, medical bill audit fees, rehabilitation benefits, nurse case worker fees, and other similar fees. They also incur other expenses in conjunction with the handling and adjusting of workers’ compensation claims. Workers’ compensation carriers typically assert, of course, that, they are entitled to reimbursement for such expenditures when it recovers its workers’ compensation lien. Injured workers and their attorneys disagree.