|
|
NEWS
RECALLS
COMPLAINT FORM
SCAM ALERTS
RESOURCES
Small Claims Guide Class Actions Lemon Laws FAQ Newsletters |
| Automotive Education Employment Electronics Family Finance Health Homeowners Pets Shopping Travel |
|
|
![]() |
Court Orders Guidant To Release DocumentsJudge Grants Public Citizen Motion to Unseal Pricing Data |
|||||
|
October 25, 2006
The sealed summary judgment records were from the recently settled Cardiac Pacemakers v. Aspen II Holding Co., in which two subsidiaries of Guidant that produce and sell controversial cardiac rhythm management devices sued the health care consulting company Aspen Health Care Metrics for publishing information about the prices of Guidant's pacemakers. Guidant had defended the filing of the papers supporting summary judgment under seal but provided no documentation of a need for secrecy. Paul Alan Levy, an attorney for Public Citizen, argued before Judge Donovan Frank of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota that the information was highly important to the public interest and should be unsealed. Frank ruled Tuesday that Guidant must release all of the summary judgment briefs and most of the supporting affidavits, while allowing most of the supporting exhibits to remain sealed for reasons that he did not sufficiently explain. In its motion, Public Citizen asserted that Guidant's efforts to suppress publication of its products' prices hinders efforts at maintaining price transparency and threatens to foster the artificial elevation of prices, possibly limiting public access to affordable health care. Guidant's attempts to keep court records secret also deny other hospitals, purchasing organizations and health care industry actors who are subject to Guidant's lawsuit threats access to vital information to better prepare their own defense. "This is a partial win for health care consumers over corporate secrecy," said Levy. "Unfortunately, although Judge Frank has ordered the release of a significant amount of material, the methods he has used -- extensive in chambers review without requiring Guidant to make a public showing of evidence of its need for confidentiality -- sets a poor precedent for future cases. An appeal may be necessary to ensure that future cases are handled correctly." Report Your Experience
|
|
||||
Advertisement
|
|
Custom Search
|
||||
|
AUTOMOTIVE Dealers Manufacturers Service Extended Warranties Lemon Laws Recalls Tires Transporters FAMILY Aging Children, Parenting Recalls Dating Education Entertainment Pets Weddings |
FINANCE Annuities Banks Credit Cards Debt Collection Debt Counseling Insurance Investing Loans Mortgages Payday Loans Student Loans Tax Prep HEALTH Doctors Drugs, Pharmacies Health Clubs Hearing Care Hospitals Nursing Homes Nutrition, Diets Vision Care Weight Loss |
HOMEOWNERS & RENTERS Appliances Cookware Furniture Home Improvements Lawn & Garden Movers Pools & Spas Realtors, Rental Agents Recalls Utilities ELECTRONICS Cable TV/DBS Cameras Cell Phones Computers Home Electronics Internet Access Local Phone Service Long Distance VoIP |
SHOPPING In-Home Online Retail Stores Sporting Goods Supermarkets Telemarketers TRAVEL Airlines Bus Lines Car Rental Cruises Hotels Travel Agents Trains RESOURCES Class Actions Complaint Form Small Claims Guide Lemon Laws |
CONSUMER NEWS Latest News Automotive Telecom Financial Health Homeowners Scams Seniors Travel More ... RECALLS Automotive Children's Products Drugs Food Household Products Sporting Goods ABOUT US FAQ Privacy Policy Advertise With Us Newsroom Syndication Terms of Use |
Terms of Use Your use of this site constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use
Copyright © 2003-2009 ConsumerAffairs.com Inc. All Rights Reserved. The contents of this site may not be republished, reprinted, rewritten or recirculated without written permission. |
|