In this "mail bag" episode of I Strenuously Object, your host attorney Bill Rogel discusses topics suggested by our listeners, including the legal claims that gymnasts might have in the case of appeals and changes to the bronze medal in women's floor exercise at the Olympics.
He also talks about a class action suit against Boar's Head regarding contaminated lunch meat. Bill shares his thoughts on the worst case he was ever asked to pursue and (in his opinion) the worst TV and movie lawyers of all time.
Mike Pulcinella (00:00.588)
Please rise, court is now in session. I strenuously object. A legal podcast brought to you by the Pittsburgh law firm of Flaherty Farto is now in session. All those seeking information about the law and legal matters affecting the people of Pittsburgh and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, half -baked opinions and a dose of self -indulgence are invited to attend and participate. I want the truth! You can't handle the truth! The defense strenuously objects. You would!
Call the first witness. Welcome to I Strenuously Object. This is Bill Rogel, partner in the law firm Flaherty, Fardo, Rogel and Amick, and I am flying, well, approximately solo today. Noah's not here. None of my other partners in the firm are here. Producer Mike is here, of course, and will be helping us out. I'm here. Let's try to move right on into the nuts and bolts here today. Not bore you with any details or small talk. Always a fan.
Always a fan of farming out content to that end. It's time for a mailbag episode You've got mail we're cutting some corners on the mailbag episode by which I mean Two of these questions come from actual bonafide listeners and two of them are just coming from producer Mike but in any case Hope to get you some some kind of quick hit answers on a couple legal questions and Yeah with no further ado Mike. What do we got? So our first question is this given the problems?
appeals and changes to the bronze medal in women's floor exercise. What legal claims might the gymnasts have? Law of an Olympics question. Already missed them. It's only been a couple days. The kerfuffle over the bronze medal has been especially problematic. Now look, I watched those performances. No one wants to hear my assessment of the merits of the respective gymnasts and how they performed, right?
But seeing one person listed as the bronze medalist having that change, right? The Romanian initially got it and then Jordan Childs, it was changed and she was awarded the bronze medal and she was able to stand up on the medal stand already just emotionally awful for everyone involved to have to go through that change. And then days later to have it switch back and have an appeals process decide apparently that the US coaches filed their appeal or whatever the language is for.
Mike Pulcinella (02:24.173)
for Jordan Childs' score a matter of seconds too late, gave the bronze medal back to a Romanian gymnast. There's apparently evidence that shows it was submitted on time, but no one wanted to consider that evidence because the process was closed. Like, it's a complete debacle. I just, I feel bad for everyone involved that everyone's wind feels tainted. Nobody feels completely satisfied with, you know, whoever ostensibly has the medal at any given moment. From a legal perspective, here's the thing.
No one has a right to a bronze medal, right? If the judges make mistakes, that's part of the game. If the bureaucrats who are involved in overseeing the process decide to give the bronze medal to someone rather than someone else for whatever reason they choose, the kind of default proposition here would be they can give the medal to who they want and you have no rights, no claims. But when you're talking about organizations like the IOC and the Gymnastics Federation and everything else,
There's a lot of policies and procedures and rules and regulations. I don't know what they are. I haven't researched them. I don't claim to be an expert in them. But what's interesting is how that totally changes the field of play here. You may not have in the abstract a right to a medal of any color or variety and any of the financial rewards that may or may not come with it from your own Federation. But when there's an established procedure,
When there are written policies, when there's an appeals process that has to be followed, when there's specific scoring rules, everything that gets formalized and put in place before you participate in the competition theoretically gives you a right to enforce those procedures. It's created rights that a gymnast wouldn't otherwise have. In the abstract, Jordan -Kyle has no right to a bronze medal, whether she was the third best, fourth best, fifth best gymnast, whatever. But she has a right to have the procedures appropriately followed.
and have those procedures be used to adjudicate her claims and rights. Now, I don't know what those underlying documents about appeals and arbitration and so on say, but if those were violated, then she has a claim. Now, where's that claim brought? I don't know. I think that most of those organizations are subject to jurisdiction in the US, but the events didn't happen in the US. So there's some really complicated choice of law stuff that will be governed by what's in those agreements.
Mike Pulcinella (04:48.397)
where the event took place, who the various actors were involved. It would be pretty complicated issue to figure out where the right place to bring a claim is, even once you decide there is an appropriate claim. On just kind of a selfish perspective in the spirit of, you know, athletic competition and sportsmanship, I don't want to see a world where there's court cases and two years from now we're switching the metal around again. You know, let the facts speak for themselves. We know.
how the various gymnasts performed. I don't think that getting formal recognition in terms of either a medal you can kind of hold and keep at home or in a record book is more important than the public awareness of everything that went on anyway. So I'm hoping that that's not pursued, but we live in a litigious world. Not that I'm not a personal beneficiary of our litigious world from time to time, it is my profession. But I'm hoping in this one, we won't see that avenue being pursued.
But there's definitely, definitely possible claims if they did not follow to the T all of the procedures that are required. The only other thing I'll add to that is sometimes these procedures involve and include and have specific wording where you waive rights to trial, rights to bring suit, there's a covenant not to sue in there. It's possible that part of the rules and regulations you would theoretically be trying to enforce also are provisions that stop you from enforcing those things in court.
And if that's true, then you're kind of back to square one where you'd be pretty unlikely to be able to successfully process a claim. But stepping away from your role and your character in this podcast as an attorney, what was your personal opinion about what happened and what should have happened and how that should have been resolved? Do you have a strong opinion on that? Yeah, look, I don't follow gymnastics well enough. It sounds like a little bit of appeal right after a performance and score revision is a relatively common process. And what made it particularly unlucky here is
child's went last. And so instead of it getting fixed two minutes after one gymnast competed in a way that everyone else had notice of it was kind of sprung on everyone at the last minute and it created this emotional roller coaster for everyone involved. The Romanian gymnast who didn't get the bronze medal apparently got docked points for stepping out of bounds when it looked like video showed that she didn't do it. Watching it
Mike Pulcinella (07:10.377)
as I did and admittedly through the bias eyes of the announcers and everyone else. I thought her performance was probably the one that was going to get the medal as opposed to the two who've been fighting over it. But I'm an American. I watched the Olympics relatively jingoistically. I'm rooting for our people to get medals. And I was certainly happy with the outcome at the time of the medal stand. I just felt bad that it came with the emotional toll that it did. All right. Well,
Moving on to our next question, this one comes from listener Adam and he says, I've seen that there is a class action suit against boar's head regarding contaminated lunch meat. What are your thoughts on that? We've seen this big recall, right? And I'm, hoping though, I haven't verified it at the grocery store that other lunch meats now become cheaper for a short period of time. Everyone's nervous about them. Let me be the beneficiary of this. Look, it's Listeria is very dangerous.
particularly older people, pregnant women. There are real problems here and there are people who've died, right? I don't wanna make light of that while I talk about trying to save a buck 50 on my turkey breast or whatever. The class action is interesting. Look, if you're someone who ate actual contaminated with Listeria lunch meat and got sick.
and got really sick, right? The people who died or the people who had significant illnesses. Those people have cases all day. It doesn't even matter if the factory was or wasn't negligent, Lunch meat or food is gonna be treated like any other product put into the stream of commerce. It's a strict liability standard. If you sent me a product that is unsafe to be used, in this case, eaten in the ordinary way it's to be used, then you're gonna be liable for the damages that caused, right? If I ate lunch meat that was
actually contaminated and if I got significantly sick, I've got a claim. I've got a cause of action. It's going to sound in strict liability. You may not have to have a whole lot of fighting with Boar's head over whatever their quality control measures were. I'm not sure if there are other actors involved. The way the news came out, there may be a couple different people who had similarly contaminated lunch meat at the same time. I don't know. I don't understand the underlying manufacturing process. This class action that Adam asks about, the one I saw anyway, there's a class action that was filed in New York.
Mike Pulcinella (09:30.923)
where the class, the people they're bringing the case on behalf of are not the people who got sick, but are the people who bought the lunch meat and either threw it away or whatever. And the allegation is that they suffered damages, right? That if you bought the lunch meat and then you had to throw it away, you suffered economic harm. Now there was a recall, but how was the recall word? The recall said, they told you you should throw it away or you can take it back to the store for a refund. All I want is a refund.
Refund? Refund? Are you crazy? Well, how many people are actually going to take it back to the store for a refund, right? And I suspect they know that, that they're not going to refund 100 % of the monies that are received as a result of this dangerous product that went out there. And that is a little bit unfortunate, but ultimately, you know, I am not optimistic about what I've seen about this particular class action suit. So...
The class action suit, as I understand it, is essentially making a food labeling claim, right? It's saying, did not, it may as well be saying, you didn't list Listeria as one of your ingredients. Not that it was intended to be one of the ingredients or whatever, but then you've seen, you'll get allergy warnings or other things that come on your commercial food packaging. Some vegetables in bags say, please wash before using, that kind of thing. That's kind of a warning that there might be some contamination.
And so the claim, at least under some kind of New York state law about food labeling, but also trying to expand the class nationally, seems to be that some kind of warning about the risk of Listeria or the presence of Listeria should have been put on the packaging label. And if it wasn't put on the packaging label, that's essentially a deceptive practice, right? The person who buys that is now buying food that has not been labeled appropriately and they're entitled to statutory damages.
and they get to claim that they're damaged basically because, the value of my, I spent $5 a pound when the value of pound for my contaminated, know, liverwurst was actually 75 cents a pound because who would pay more than that for a diseased liverwurst, right? I understand to some extent that claim, but the problem really falls apart in to bring this class action, at least if you're using a kind of strict liability standard.
Mike Pulcinella (11:57.781)
you have to demonstrate that your product was defective and that you were injured. Well, if you didn't get really sick, how do you know that your specific lunch meat was diseased and contaminated versus simply was at risk of disease or contamination? If it wasn't actually contaminated, then I don't think you have a defective product. The people who got sick can prove that theirs was contaminated. But everyone else...
They were offered a refund. You can take it back and get your actual money back. So in that sense, you're not economically harmed without some physical injury. In any case, I don't think that the economic harm will suffice as an injury to bring a strict liability claim. So the way I think this works out is you could, guess, have a class action for people who got mildly sick because those people would be able to say, hey, you know, I may not be sick enough to pursue this claim individually as a plaintiff.
you know, but I did get a little bit sick, which means I consumed and was injured to some extent by contaminated meat. But I don't think there's a good class action for people who purchased potentially contaminated meat. And I think in the end, that's what this class action is trying to put together, is a class of people who suffered economic harm because the meat they purchased may have been contaminated. Well, for what it's worth.
At least anyone who has in the last, 15, 20 years been or known someone pregnant knows that there's always a risk of contamination with lunch meat. That's why the doctors are warning pregnant women not to eat lunch meat in the first place, right? It's for the risk of hysteria. So I, you know, I think you're really straining if all you've got is a potentially contaminated product instead of an actually dangerous defective product. So let me get this straight. People, you don't think that you should be able to be a part of a class action suit if
in this specific case, you bought the lunch meat, you ate it, you were perfectly fine, you're not gonna get a refund, but there was the possibility of contamination. In other words, can you be a part of a class action lawsuit in which there was only the threat or the possibility of some kind of harm that never happened to you? Yeah, and I mean, look, you never say never in this business. Someone has filed a complaint and it'll get litigated and...
Mike Pulcinella (14:10.707)
Boardshead doesn't want the bad publicity, so they may be able to offer something in addition to the refunds they've already offered. Not that it's going to make a big difference in the lives of any of the actual class members, but when you put them all together, it becomes a significant legal claim with significant legal fees and effects on the manufacturer and so on. But no, ultimately, I would analogize it to calls I get all the time where people were almost injured. And I've had calls like that on
you know, hey, I went to, you know, a fast food restaurant and there was hair in my food and I saw it and I went and returned it. But I suffered like emotional distress in the moment of no, no, no, no. Look, you saw it. You didn't eat the hair. It's one thing if you ate it. Right. If someone runs a red light but doesn't hit you, there's basically no case there.
They didn't actually hit you with their car. You can't go suing people because they might have injured you. And I think this falls into a similar category. Absolutely. All right, moving on. So this is a question that I've had for you. I love those sort of like best and worst kind of questions. So what is the worst case that you can ethically talk about? Hopefully it's far enough in the past, or you can hide the details of which. What is the worst case someone tried to hire you to pursue?
Or that you did have to pursue. That's an interesting question. Well, there wouldn't have been any I would have to pursue, right? I can say no to any case that comes in the door, any person who talks to me and wants my help. There's no one I'm obligated to help. There are cases where you undertake to help someone and then stuff changes. You learn new things down the road. I've had some of those that I don't want to talk about in this context, but suffice it to say sometimes you get cases where
someone lends a friend money and wants to receive it or, you know, something like that. And it sounds like a relatively straightforward case. Sometimes they can even show you a written agreement or document, right? That says, look, they said they were going to repay me and they didn't. And then you file suit and then you get a counterclaim and the counterclaim alleges all sorts of other stuff about this friendship or the circumstances of the payment or whatever that go way beyond what kind of case you thought you were taking. And that can be difficult.
Mike Pulcinella (16:26.133)
Right. Because you've entered an appearance on behalf of this person. If you're going to withdraw as counsel, now you need leave of court or a new attorney to take the case one or the other. and that's happened, not never, but it's, it that's unpleasant and is a thing you try to deal with in advance. You just try to be thorough when someone brings you a case to figure out, you know, what aren't they telling you? What POS anytime you sue someone, there's a risk that they find a way to sue you back. and.
you should talk about and think about that before you start a lawsuit. Like if I start this fire, where is it going to burn to? To give you a specific example that's way back in the past, and I'm going to fudge it and cheat a little bit because this was actually brought to me while I was in law school. I couldn't have actually taken the case. Gotcha. But a friend of the family wanted to sue the Pittsburgh Pirates and Major League Baseball to stop.
and or to then seek compensation for the trade of Aramis Ramirez. I am perfectly happy to hear and give credence to a whole lot of criticisms of Pirate's ownership and management over the years, trading away good players, you know, for just to save money and ostensibly for prospects waiting for a future that never comes. Boy, that
That hits a little differently now than it did a couple of weeks ago, given how the team's been playing down the stretch here on what looked like a good season. But teams trade players all the time. That happens. Teams can trade players for a variety of reasons, which isn't necessarily simply, hey, I'm getting rid of this player because I think this other person coming back is better right now, today, and will make us win more games this week or this month, right?
Everyone knows that different teams have different kinds of competition horizons. I guess you could talk me into if I'm a season ticket holder or something, right? And have a vested interest. And the team is like actively throwing games that maybe I'm not getting what I bargained for. Maybe even that's a stretch, but certainly with a transaction that, you know, with a kind of relatively standard issue baseball trade, such as it was.
Mike Pulcinella (18:41.133)
There is just no basis for that kind of claim and and and and that's what I reported Suing the Pirates in baseball to get Aramis Ramirez back. That's that's the worst case someone ever tried to run by me Would the players themselves have a case if they were? Violating his contract or something like that would someone be able to sue in that situation not a fan obviously But someone that is actually a part of the situation. Well Mike your if is doing a lot of legwork there
If they violate the contract, sure, you can sue them for violating the contract, right? Baseball's unionized. There's a collective bargaining agreement. Again, we're now talking about extensive documents that I've never reviewed. But I promise between the individual baseball players contracts and the collective bargaining agreement, generally, the league has addressed the fact that players can be traded, which means they're not violating your contract by trading you. Well, as always, the podcast.
moves into pop culture territory as we've just done with the baseball story. So let's finish off our last question. I went with another sort of pop culture question for you. Who in your estimation is the worst TV or movie lawyer? That's a boy. There's a lot of those two out there. My arm, you may have to you may have to define what you consider worst, what you think is worse about them.
I think that will be clear immediately. Okay. My first inclination is Charlie Kelly's uncle on It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. I he's an uncle or a cousin. The lawyer with like the weird thing about his small hands and who goes in there and just does some awful negotiating. He's really, really, really bad. But to me, the winner here hands down, among the properties I'm familiar with in this regard anyway, is like Dax Shepard's character, Frito.
in the movie Idiocracy. Yes. Yeah, I remember. Defending defending Luke Wilson's main character, not sure or Joe, depending on whose naming device you choose to use for. Right. But I mean, he goes into court to defend him and literally turns on him and starts asking the court to charge him with other things, too. Right. I object that this guy also broke my apartment. Yeah.
Mike Pulcinella (21:07.605)
I object that he's not gonna have any money to pay me after he pays back all the money he stole from the hospital. Don't say I stole, you're my lawyer. And I object, I object that he interrupted me while I watching Ow My Ball. That is not okay. But of course the theme of that movie is that everyone is incompetent in the future because of... Right, he may not be the worst lawyer in that universe. It's possible that there are others who are even worse.
literally turning on your client in court and trying to get him prosecuted and not putting on a defense saying he's guilty. As as I as I believe Joe in the in the movie is telling the court, well, I'm pretty sure we've got grounds for a mistrial here. And then they just laughed at it. But but yeah, I think I think that's the worst. I think one of the things that we're all appalled at is how much of videocracy is
been coming true in the current times. And I hope that's not one of the things that ends up coming true. Well, I will stand firm in trying to at least slow our devolution into that world. The machines are going to take over lawyers before idiots like Frito do. Absolutely. Absolutely. AI is on its way. But that's a whole other episode. That's right. We talked about it before. We'll talk about it again. But but yeah, I mean.
It doesn't take much knowledge of the law to know that trying to get your own client who you're defending convicted is not good. Well, thank you for joining us. That should do it for this episode of I Strenuously Object. Thank you again to our listeners for contributing some free content via our Mailing It In segment.
Please subscribe, review the podcast, tell your friends to check us out. If you have questions of your own that you'd to see us answer in the future on one of these mailing it in segments or any feedback for, I'm gonna say for the podcast, not for me personally, I don't want that. But email us at iobjct at pghfirm .com.
Mike Pulcinella (23:08.557)
We're on Instagram at I Stringlessly Object Podcast. And if you have any questions or legal needs at all, visit Flaherty Farta's website, that's at pghfirm .com. Until next time, some parting advice. I'm being told that Average Joe's does not have enough players and will be forfeiting the championship match. It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for him.