Elder abuse is reaching an all-time high across the nation. Adult Protective Services received more than 60,000 reports of different types of elder abuse in 2018—a sharp increase from the 48,000 reports they received in 2017. The Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) believes this sharp increase is caused by the number of baby boomers now retiring. However, these numbers are likely an underestimation as only 1 in 24 cases of elder abuse are reported. Globally, the number of reported elder abuse cases is projected to increase due to rapidly aging populations of many countries whose needs may not be fully met due to resource constraints.
Elder abuse is defined as a single or repeated act, or lack of appropriate action, occurring within any relationship where there is an expectation of trust, which causes harm or distress to an older person.2Adult abuse can come in many forms including neglect, financial exploitation, or physical and emotional abuse.
Financial exploitation is the most common type of adult abuse. In 2017, DSHS conducted over 10,000 investigations related to financial exploitation, nearly double the number of investigations conducted in 2012. It now accounts for more than 25 percent of all inquiries. Signs of financial abuse include adding additional names on bank signature cards; unauthorized withdrawal of funds using an ATM card; abrupt changes in a will or other financial document; unexplained disappearance of funds or valuable possessions; bills unpaid despite having sufficient funds; forging a signature on financial transactions or for the titles of possessions; sudden appearance of previously uninvolved relatives claiming rights to a vulnerable adult’s possessions; or unexplained sudden transfer of assets to a family member or someone outside the family.
Signs of physical and emotional abuse include suspicious or unexplained bruises, sores or weight loss; a sudden change in personality; neglect of hygiene, clothing, home, medicine or food; personal belongings going missing; verbal aggression; no longer attending social functions or regular activities, and losing contact with family and friends.
If you or a loved one are a victim of elder abuse, contact Forester Haynie at www.foresthaynie.com or give us a call at 214-210-2100.
As more lawsuits claiming a link between Roundup and cancer move forward, a new study claims the main ingredient found in the weed killer, glyphosate, is showing up in organic beer and wine.
While unwanted weeds and vegetation sprout underneath his grapevines, Livermore grape grower and winemaker Aaron Taylor notices that the soil remains brown and bare on the neighboring properties. Taylor explains that this is because weed killers have an effect that are neither temporary nor seasonal. In fact, popular herbicides, such as Roundup, can linger in soil for months—even years—after being applied. One can only help but wonder what the long-term effect is on our ecosystem and on us.
Roundup’s active ingredient is glyphosate, a chemical that many experts believe causes cancer and other illnesses in humans. Although the Environmental Protection Agency does not classify glyphosate as carcinogenic, the World Health Organization does. Yet, since Monsanto first brought it to market in the 1970s, U.S. farmers have been using glyphosate more and more. In the U.S., farmers use more than 250 million pounds of poison each year. Just in 2017, California’s wine industry alone applied about 300,000 pounds of glyphosate-based herbicides.
So, how can glyphosate not contaminate our food—or more importantly, our wine—supply? Unfortunately, research has shown that glyphosate can linger in almost every corner of our environment, including our food, soil, water, and urine. To make matters worse, a study released early this year found glyphosate in 19 of 20 beer and wine samples tested, including some made from organically farmed ingredients. Sutter Home Merlot had the highest level of glyphosate of all 20 brands, at 51 parts per billion (ppb). Beringer Estates Moscato and Barefoot Cabernet Sauvignon had slightly smaller quantities of the chemical. Corona, Miller Lite and Budweiser had between 25 and 30 ppb of glyphosate. while Guinness and Heineken contained about 20 ppb. Beverages from Stella Artois and Sam Adams also had trace amounts of the chemical.
If you or a loved one developed lymphoma after using or being exposed to Roundup weed killer, contact Forester Haynie at www.foresthaynie.com or give us a call at 214-210-2100.
Forester Haynie and Shellist | Lazarz | Slobin recently filed an FLSA collective and class action lawsuit against Universal Protection Service, a/k/a Allied Universal Security Services on behalf of security guards that work or have worked for Allied Universal. Allied Universal is a security and facility services company that provides security personnel to a variety of locations across the country.
The lawsuit alleges that Allied Universal’s security guard employees are or were hourly-paid, non-exempt employees, who worked at Allied Universal’s customers’ sites providing security services including patrolling, monitoring, and reporting suspicious activity. The lawsuit states that these security guards frequently earned either minimum wage or slightly more than minimum wage and often had to work over forty hours a week and thus were eligible to receive overtime wages.
The complaint alleges that Allied Universal’s policies with regard to these security guards violated the FLSA and state law. According to our clients and the lawsuit, Allied Universal allegedly often requires its security guard employees to perform uncompensated work “off-the-clock” before and after their scheduled shifts in violation of the FLSA. The complaint also alleges that these security guards are not allowed to take their meal and rest breaks as required by Colorado and California state law.
If you have ever been a security guard employee of Allied Universal, and would like to assist our firms’ investigation into Allied Universal, or want more information about the case, then please fill out the form below to speak with one of our attorneys.
Rappers Waka Flocka Flame and Safaree Samuels took to Instagram to show displeasure at several food brands earlier last month. Waka Flocka Flame shared an image denouncing popular brands such as Corn Flakes, Honey Nut Cheerios, Frosted Flakes, Raisin Bran, Ritz Crackers, and Doritos products alongside a picture of Dewayne Johnson who received a $289 million jury award in a case against Monsanto. To see Flame’s post, click here.
The rapper denounced the companies because they contain Glyphosate. Glyphosate is the same active ingredient found in RoundUp products owned by Monsanto, which has been alleged to cause cancer formations such as Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma. When Dewayne Johnson was diagnosed with cancer and sued Monsanto, the jury awarded Dewayne with the $200+ verdict. However, the judge presiding in the case reduced the amount to $78 million.
Dewayne Johnson worked as a groundskeeper and was regularly exposed to Glyphosate as a part of his job. He would frequently use another Monsanto product, Ranger Pro, which is the non-brand name version of RoundUp and contains concentrated levels of Glyphosate in order to kill weeds. Dewayne Johnson was 42 when developed a strange rash and was subsequently diagnosed with non-Hodgkins Lymphoma.
Unfortunately, Glyphosate has been found in the popular food brands that rapper Waka Flocka Flame posted about in dangerous amounts, according to The Sun. Prolonged exposure to the chemical, especially in concentrated amounts, can lead to non-Hodgkins Lymphoma or other types of cancer.
The team at Forester Haynie is currently evaluating and filing cases against Monsanto on behalf of people who have been diagnosed with cancer because of the prolonged exposure to their products. If you or a loved one have been diagnosed with any form of cancer due to the exposure to RoundUp products call the team at Forester Haynie today.
To read The Sun’s full article, click here.
While they’re busily fighting a climate-related investor fraud case in New York, ExxonMobil is now facing a similar lawsuit brought by the Massachusetts Attorney General for hiding its early knowledge of climate change from the public and misleading investors about the future financial impact of global warming. The Massachusetts Attorney General began its investigations into Exxon after news reports from 2015 claimed that Exxon’s scientists determined that fossil fuel combustion needed to be reduced to mitigate the impact of climate change. Yet, despite this shocking determination, the oil giant disregarded these findings.
Fast forward four years, and the most recent lawsuit alleges that in addition to fraud and deception, Exxon has also contributed to decades of delay in market recognition of the climate dangers of fossil fuel products and the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The complaint accuses Exxon of using deceptive advertising to mislead Massachusetts consumers about the central role Exxon’s fossil fuel products play in causing climate change. The oil company is also accused of falsely advertising the company as a leader in clean energy research and climate action when it is in fact among the largest corporate contributors to global warming.
The notorious oil giant has a lengthy history of deceiving Massachusetts consumers and investors about the catastrophic impacts of burning fossil fuels—its primary product—and the significant risks of climate change. In the New York lawsuit against Exxon, the state accused Exxon of falsely telling investors it had properly evaluated the impact of future climate regulations on its business, thus defrauding investors out of up to $1.6 billion. Exxon is also accused of falsely portraying itself as a leader in cutting-edge clean energy research and climate action, while in reality the company continues to step up its fossil fuel production and spend only less than 1 percent of its revenues on developing clean energy.
Exxon also falsely claimed that its “green” gasoline products are better for the environment. This pattern of deception potentially wronged every driver who filled their tank at an ExxonMobil gas station and every investor who took the company’s assurances in good faith. Massachusetts AG states that, “Contrary to its shareholder representations and deceptive advertising and marketing, Exxon’s products are a leading cause of climate change, not a solution… Our goal here is simple—to stop Exxon from engaging in this deception and penalize the company for this misconduct.”