Amazing, The Things A Man With "End Stage Emphysema" Can Do
James Farkus Cohan, who claims to have end-stage emphysema, has filed at least 161 lawsuits against small businesses, claiming that they've violated his rights under the Americans With Disabilities Act.
LA's ABC 7 reporter Marc Brown caught up with Cohan on a hike with his dogs -- without a wheelchair, walker, or oxygen tank -- and looking pretty sprightly:
via LAObserved
Two words:
Loser Pays
dts-01 at August 29, 2011 7:53 AM
as a genuine cripple, this stuff pisses me off to no end. and this LA dirtbag is not alone, remember this guy from earlier this year:
http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2011/06/hasidic-amputee-sues-dozens-of-businesses-in-probable-disability-scam-123.html
seriously, if I slapped a lawsuit on every business that was not fully compliant with the ADA, there wouldn't be enough hours in the day to take a shit. plus, even the most accessible places have something I could nitpick about. no question about it - these guys make it worse for all of us who have legitimate complaints.
jt at August 29, 2011 8:15 AM
News should print names of attorney involved each time he files.
Dave B at August 29, 2011 8:34 AM
The lawyers should be sueable in cases like this.
Joe at August 29, 2011 8:36 AM
It's infuriating that he can get away with doing this at all. However, the bit that galls me the most is at the end when they say he's filing all these lawsuits almost entirely with taxpayer money. He should be required to return all of the money he's been awarded, all of it, and pay for those lawyers out of his own pocket. He obviously does NOT have end-stage emphysema if he can hike up a mountain on his own.
Sarah at August 29, 2011 11:15 AM
P.S "loser pays" sounds like a nice idea until people start abusing it. Then it stops being justice and starts being a way to hire a $100,000 lawyer solely to have a better chance at winning and sticking the other guy with the bill. I can see a huge corporation doing that since they can eat the cost if they do lose. I can also see an divorced couple doing that solely as a way to try to screw the other side. Also, if a drunk driver or other criminal gets off on a technicality, I do not want the taxpayers to have to pay him for his lawyer.
Sarah at August 29, 2011 11:20 AM
dts-01 wrote:
That translates into "deep pockets win". If I can afford to retain a horde of well-paid, top tier attorneys, anyone who opposes me risks being crushed by a huge award of attorneys' fees. Even if they have a good case, they're going to be discouraged from pursuing it.
Most states allow the court to award attorneys' fees when the court determines a lawsuit to be frivolous. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what ultimately happens to Cohen's cases.
Dave B. wrote:
There's no reason the media couldn't do this-- an attorney's name is part of the public record whenever the attorney files a lawsuit. However, doing so may provide free advertising for attorneys who will work for dishonest clients. There's a substantial number of potential clients who make the rounds among attorneys looking for someone unethical or stupid enough to take a bogus case.
My state requires all complaints to include a sworn statement by the plaintiff verifying the factual allegations in the complaint as true. A plaintiff who signs a verified complaint knowing the facts within to be false can be charged with perjury. If an attorney discovers that a client has knowingly made a false sworn statement, the attorney is required to immediately revise or withdraw the false statements in the complaint, or, if the client refuses, withdraw his or her representation. An attorney who fails to follow those rules is subject to professional sanctions (suspension or revocation of license), plus sanctions by the court (attorneys' fees and costs). Usually there isn't a separate lawsuit against the attorney-- the sanctions are imposed on a motion in the original case.
I can't cite chapter and verse of California law, but my guess is that it is similar, and, as stated in the video, many of Cohen's attorneys dropped the suits when the TV station exposed him.
Dale at August 29, 2011 11:29 AM
I really want someone to push him off that mountain ledge.
Sabrina at August 29, 2011 11:42 AM
Scumbag.
Feebie at August 29, 2011 12:00 PM
I wonder if the lawyers who dropped, presumably after discovering he is a fraud, could sue him.
So, because he doesn't like the fact that a black reporter is asking him questions, he decided to fire back with racial slurs and a suggestion that he's in the slave trade. Classy individual!
I don't advocate violence against anyone, but I certainly understand where Sabrina's coming from.
Patrick at August 29, 2011 12:22 PM
Nobody should be able to sue unless they have been physically injured to the point that they cannot work or live their life.
Being inconvenienced or having your feelings hurt is not justification for a lawsuit.
Fuck the A.D.A. I'm sorry accident or mischance made life tough, but imposing the cost on everybody else is a recipe for abuses like this.
Robert at August 29, 2011 12:52 PM
I wonder if google-bombing James Farkus Cohan with this video would make it harder for him to sue people.
Elle at August 29, 2011 1:29 PM
The guy must have won some sort of lawsuit or got a settlement before. It gets in their blood, and they start coming up with more claims and shop them around to new lawyers, like I was 10 years ago. Beats working! And they get tons of attention while bitching a lot.
No I never took one, but did get bogged down in a contract case brought to me by a former employer, who also had the litigation bug. Mistake.
jeanne at August 29, 2011 1:35 PM
Patrick wrote:
No. It's a professional risk. A careful attorney asks for a minimum retainer before he or she starts working a case; if these lawyers decided to work on contingency, they decided to take the risk that the client was honest and the claim would be successful. Besides, I don't think we want a policy that protects attorneys who don't sufficiently vet their clients.
Dale at August 29, 2011 1:46 PM
Jeanne wrote:
The video said he was a convicted felon. I wouldn't be surprised if he's a sociopath and con man. Over 150 claims seems too brazen for simple greed.
Yeah, I had to bail out of an estate case when I discovered my client had paranoid delusions and she had took money from estate bank accounts in direct violation of a judge's order. Of course, when I insisted she return the money, she threatened to sue me for malpractice.
Dale at August 29, 2011 2:08 PM
I'm with Sabrina. Patrick, you're a nice guy, but I can't get past how much money would be saved, and how much better the world would smell, if this douchenozzle took a fall from the cliff. Simple gravity! So cheap and efficient!
Okay, so anyone want to take a stab at how to make things like disability programs retain their ability to provide for the TRULY disabled, without being abused by deadbeats like this?
My first thought would be that such programs be locally funded and administered.
Pirate Jo at August 29, 2011 5:54 PM
I thought the ADA was a terrible idea when it passed. However, the extent of its badness stuns even me. I figured it would lead to a lot of nuisance actions, but I didn't realize that it would be legalized extortion. As JT pointed out, it is simply impossible to be in full compliance. In fact, I don't think anyone even knows what full compliance would be.
Cousin Dave at August 29, 2011 6:50 PM
The guy hurled racist epithets at the reporter who is black, which further raises his ranking in the pantheon of reprehensible scumbags.
Richard T at August 29, 2011 7:52 PM
I wonder if he's related to the disabled retired NYPD marathon runner?
MarkD at August 30, 2011 6:46 AM
You need to go to the source of this guy's legal standing: the doctors documentation of his disability (no physician signature, no legal standing of disability). While some patients can be good liars and insistent to receive disability, the physician can usually tell when someone is full of crap. All it takes is either a requirement of an independent review by a real Pulmonologist or have the state offer to look over the docs cases (a real threat of having his/her license revoked). Unfortunately, just like the 'Pill Mills' in Florida, there are some scumbag docs who will sign disability forms for a price. Even more unfortunate, the guy has the typical look of a COPD'er and may truly have some degree of the disease (in this case a 'pink puffer') but he is in no way terminal.
Doc Jensen at August 30, 2011 10:01 AM
Two things:
Some young attorneys are finding that their high student loan amounts are introducing a considerable amount of unexpected elasticity into their ethical code.
On the other hand, many jurisdictions will not permit an attorney of record to quit the lawsuit until there's a substitute attorney appointed, and the attorney cannot drop the case without the client's consent. By that time, you just know that you'll be facing an ethics complaint of some kind or another, which will be investigated thoroughly by the bar. An ethics investigation can take up a lot of attorney time responding -- time which you might otherwise use to serve other clients. So it costs the attorney money, even if he wins. Oh, the investigators are paid out of bar dues money, so they have no incentive not to be thorough.
From experience, I can say that the only thing worse than finding that the adverse attorney is a lying turdbucket, is finding out that your client is a lying turdbucket. You're gonna get some on you, no matter what.
Walt at August 30, 2011 5:16 PM
Leave a comment