Man Says Eminem Sucker-Punched Him
Recent Cases
Eminem sucker-punched a man as he used the urinal in a Detroit nightclub, the man claims in Oakland County Court. Miad Jarbou demands more than $100,000 from the rapper, whose real name is Marshall Mathers.
Jarbou says he was using a urinal at Cheetah's "exotic dancing bar" in the early morning hours of July 13, 2006, when Mathers entered, with a large bodyguard, who stood at the door. Jarbou says a friend who accompanied him to the club entered the john and said, "Hey Eminem, what's up man?"
The complaint continues: "The individual who had accompanied Mathers into the restroom, who was still standing at the door, spoke words to Jarbou's friend to the effect, 'Shut the fuck up man! Don't say another word!'
"Jarbou, still standing at the urinal, spoke words to the effect, 'Hey man, my friend ain't starting trouble, it's just cool to see Eminem.'
"Mathers then stepped back from the urinal and without warning or provocation, as Jarbou continued to urinate, drove his fist in a violent punching manner into the side of Jarbou's face, knocking him to the ground. ...
"The conduct of Defendant as described herein, in 'sucker punching' in a vicious, violent and completely unprovoked manner, the Plaintiff as he was in the extremely vulnerable position of standing at a public urinal and urinating, is the very definition of extreme and outrageous conduct."
Jarbou is represented by Leon Weiss of West Bloomfield.
Related listings
-
Man Says Social Security Guards Beat Him
Recent Cases 07/11/2008Private contract guards hired by the Social Security Administration assaulted a man, fracturing his hand, and maliciously prosecuted him because he clipped his fingernails while waiting in the Social Security office, the man claims in Federal Court. ...
-
Forced Sterilization Is Persecution, Court Says
Recent Cases 07/10/2008A Chinese citizen should not be returned to her homeland due to the high probability that she would be forcibly sterilized, the 7th Circuit ruled. Xiu Zhen Lin, the mother of three, protested a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals that she ha...
-
Anthrax settlement may moot contempt case
Recent Cases 07/01/2008The US Department of Justice announced Friday that it has settled a lawsuit brought by former US Army germ-warfare researcher Dr. Steven Hatfill, a development that may moot a landmark contempt case against former USA Today reporter Toni Locy now awa...
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.