Wednesday, January 31, 2018

Apple under DOJ, SEC investigation for iPhone slowdown disclosure


 

Reuters (1/30, Vengattil, Nellis, Lynch, Bellon) reports that Bloomberg has revealed that the SEC and DOJ will investigate if Apple Inc violated securities laws over its late disclosure of older model iPhones slowdowns due to declining batteries. The chairman of a US Senate committee “overseeing business issues” has asked Apple to answer questions regarding its disclosure. USA Today (1/30, Graham, 8.23M) reports on “battery gate” and the government’s desire to know if Apple violated securities law by not disclosing slowdowns to customers. Lawyers have proposed a class-action suit against the company. Apple is appeasing customers by offering new iOS software “that will allow consumers to check on the status of their batteries and turn off the battery-slowdown feature in older phones.”
        The Washington Post (1/31, Tsukayama, 11.19M) reports that “many consumers have criticized the firm for not being more forthcoming. Apple apologized in December for slowing down iPhones without openly informing customers of the change.” The company “faces several lawsuits over the software, and government officials in Italy, France and South Korea have opened investigations into the issue.”
        The Wall Street Journal (1/30, Viswanatha, Mickle, Michaels, Subscription Publication, 6.45M) reports on Apple’s dual legal probes and its slight decline in stock prices. Apple’s offer of cheaper replacement batteries has not appeased the government or consumers. Apple’s stock was down 4 percent due its recent revelations with weaker Q1 results also expected due to less demand than expected for the iPhone X.
        Bloomberg News (1/30, Schoenberg, Robinson, Gurman, 3.31M) reports that the “investigators are concerned that the company may have misled investors about the performance of older phones.” The investigation “is in early stages...and it’s too soon to conclude any enforcement will follow.”
        CNN Money (1/30, Fiegerman, Scannell, 3.59M) also reports on the investigation.

Monday, January 29, 2018

Laverne's Law

Thankfully, Lavern’s Law will be enacted.  It extends the statute of limitations for medical, dental or podiatric malpractice related to the failure to diagnose cancer.

The bill named after Lavern Wilkenson corrects a serious several decade injustice and made New York one of only two states that fails to legally protect certain victims of malpractice.  The law will begun the time to sue until the victim knows or reasonably should know when an error or harm has occurred.  The current law has denied potential justice to people such as Lavern who could not have known until after their time to sue had expired.

This had been opposed by hospitals, doctors and other big business interests.

Friday, January 19, 2018

The Wall Street Journal: Millions Bought Insurance to Cover Retirement Health Costs. Now They Face an Awful Choice

Millions Bought Insurance to Cover Retirement Health Costs. Now They Face an Awful Choice

The Wall Street Journal

Long-term-care insurance was supposed to help pay for nursing homes, assisted living and personal aides. Now, though, the industry is in financial turmoil, causing misery for many of the 7.3 million people who own a long-term-care policy. Read the full story

Shared from Apple News

Tuesday, January 9, 2018

Self Driving Cars

Robot Car Technology Challenges Law and Insurance
Levels ChartEngineers rank vehicle automation from zero to five. Click chart to expand.

Where We Are Today

Most cars now already feature some form of self-driving technology, from cruise control – first developed in the 1950s – to electronic stability introduced in the mid-1990s to recent innovations like automatic braking, lane departure alerts and self-parking. The latest technologies, like Autopilot from Tesla and Drive Pilot from Mercedes-Benz, automatically steer, adjust speed and brake. Instead of relying on eyes, ears and a brain for control, autonomous vehicles depend on data from cameras, radar and LIDAR – high tech sensors that detect light – all fed into an on-board computer.
Since we share the road with both old and new vehicles, all with a mix of technologies, the Society of Automative Engineers created a six level ranking system. Level Zero, One and Two vehicles still require human drivers to monitor the driving environment. Levels Three, Four and Five vehicles put the computer in charge of monitoring the driving environment. Only Level Three vehicles, like the Tesla, are commercially available today. But traditional manufacturers, along with new players like Google and Uber, are testing fully-autonomous Level Five vehicles and predict they will be available to the public in the early 2020s.

What Autonomous Vehicles Mean to You

Tesla Model STesla has rejected responsibility for crashes even when its Autopilot system is engaged.
The most encouraging prediction from the transition to driverless cars is a dramatic reduction in auto accidents. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), more than 37,000 people died in an auto accident in 2016 and millions more were injured. NHTSA estimates that 94 percent of crashes are caused by human error. A self-driving car that is never tired, distracted or impaired could dramatically reduce accidents, saving 30,000 lives or more each year.
The reality, however, is that Americans will still suffer injuries and deaths from auto crashes as self-driving technology is perfected. No technology is full-proof, especially when it involves the highly complex sensors and artificial intelligence central to self-driving cars. We’ve also learned the hard way that auto makers deny responsibility or cover up manufacturing defects to protect profits. And even if Level Five automation is available to the public in 2020, it will be another 15 to 20 years before all vehicles on the road have the latest self-driving technologies.

Operators Still Blamed for Crashes

In a collision involving autonomous vehicles, the question of liability is murky at best. Is the operator at fault, the manufacturer, the software designer? Unfortunately the trend has been to blame the operator, with manufacturers suggesting that humans should be ready to take over when self-driving systems hand over the controls. Research shows, however, that humans are not well adapted to re-engage with complex tasks, like driving in an emergency situation, once their attention has been allowed to wander.
As more and more vehicles become completely driverless, it makes less and less sense to hold their “human operators” liable. Instead, we see strict liability as the best solution where manufacturers take full responsibility for crashes when the robot system is driving. This same principle already applies to common carriers like bus companies, airlines or train operators, where passengers are completely dependent on the carrier for their safety. Auto insurance as we know it today would be eliminated under this scenario because who needs an insurance policy if they’re not driving!

In the Meantime ...

Self-driving technologies and eventually fully-autonomous cars will likely be a reality sooner than later. Consider these tips along the way:
  1. Do your research: Cars that already have automated safety technology, such as back-up cameras or automatic braking, are already on the road today. Before you purchase a new car, review safety ratings for both the mechanical and the computer-driven technologies already on board.
     
  2. Stay vigilant: Just as you would if you were driving a  car with no automated features, keep your attention on the road. It’s tempting to believe that once self-driving cars are introduced, you can relax your focus. Don’t exclusively rely on automated features to keep you safe.
     
  3. Support accountability: There are laws currently being written about liability and safety when it comes to driverless cars. Support the laws and lawmakers that insist on strict liability for autonomous vehicle manufacturers.

Sunday, January 7, 2018

Infection Lapses Rampant in Nursing Homes but Punishment Is Rare

By Jordan Rau:

Basic steps to prevent infections — such as washing hands, isolating contagious patients and keeping ill nurses and aides from coming to work — are routinely ignored in the nation's nursing homes, endangering residents and spreading hazardous germs.
A Kaiser Health News analysis of four years of federal inspection records shows 74 percent of nursing homes have been cited for lapses in infection control — more than for any other type of health violation. In California, health inspectors have cited all but 133 of the state's 1,251 homes.

Although repeat citations are common, disciplinary action such as fines is rare: Nationwide, only one of 75 homes found deficient in those four years has received a high-level citation that can result in a financial penalty, the analysis found.
"The facilities are getting the message that they don't have to do anything," said Michael Connors of California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, a nonprofit in San Francisco. "They're giving them low-level warnings year after year after year and the facilities have learned to ignore them."

Read the article in its entirety at https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/890697?nlid=119921_4622&src=WNL_mdplsnews_180105_mscpedit_nurs&spon=24&impID=1527133&faf=1