Blog / Legal News and Product Recalls

Ray Rice, Ferguson, and ISIS: The Power of Video

The last few days have been dominated by discussion of the NFL and former Baltimore Raven Ray Rice's domestic assault on his fiancée in an Atlantic City elevator. A month ago, when Rice received a two-game suspension for his actions, Geoff Brown thought the NFL could do better. A few others also felt the suspension was too trivial for a world-class athlete who had apparently knocked a woman out cold. But the NFL and its "Commissioner" Roger Goodell defendedthe suspension at the time, while some tried to shift blame to the victim. After a short burst of coverage in early August, the story blew over, the NFL instituted a new policy, and fans expected Rice back on the field for week three. Then the video from inside the elevator surfaced and all hell breaks loose. The Ravens cut Rice outright, the NFL suspended him indefinitely and NFL owners pop up on ESPN to predict that Rice will never play in the NFL again. Many TV commentators took the NFL to task for waiting for the video to emerge, frequently asking the rhetorical question: "What did you think happened in that elevator Janay Palmer was dragged out of?" Suddenly neither the suspension, nor the new policy came close to what people wanted, which was for Rice to be jailed immediately. But the people calling for him to be jailed now (not back before the video came out) were the same people asking the NFL "What did you think happened in that elevator?" Turns out that while it makes absolutely no difference to a person who gets knocked out whether it happens to be on video or not, it makes all the difference in the world to us. Hearing that Ray Rice knocked his fiancée out in that elevator bothered some people - "six games would have been better than two games" - but no one said he should never be allowed to work in the NFL again. But seeing Ray Rice throw those punches set our televisions on fire and took a sports story into the national news. Also about a month ago, in Ferguson Missouri, a police officer shot an 18-year-old named Michael Brown six times, killing him. While conceding that Brown carried no weapon at the time he was shot, the Ferguson police department has suggested that Brown attacked the officer, who then acted in self-defense (no police report has yet been released). In the midst of protests in the streets of Ferguson, video again came into play. A surveillance film of Brown appearing to shove a store clerk and steal cigars was released by the police department about a week after the shooting. At the time this video was released, sentiment was running heavily against the police officer who shot Brown. But the video changed the conversation completely. As yet, no video of the shooting itself has come to light. Described in print as an "unarmed teenager," Brown looked like a victim of clearly excessive force or even racism - the police department was in trouble. But seen on the tape, Brown looks huge, over six-three, and menacing to the store clerk. The video was released to change the conversation from "why would a police officer shoot an unarmed teen" to "look at this huge, dangerous man conducting a 'strong-arm robbery.'" The police claimed at the time the video was released that they had received so many request for the store video that they had to release it, a claim that later proved false. But that hardly matters now. The video had done its job and soon fundraisers were being held for the police officer's legal defense. There are plenty of articles to read on who is right and who is wrong in Ferguson. Investigations continue and evidence and reports are being gathered. The police officer is entitled to the presumption of innocence, just as Brown would be, if he were alive. But for many, the video of Mike Brown they saw with their own eyes answers all the questions they have about the situation, and there may be nothing that changes those minds. Which brings us to the last, and most important video in the news. In the last few weeks, a group calling itself "ISIS" released two videos of journalists being beheaded after reading coerced "confessions." The executioner in the video then taunted the United States in general and President Obama personally, grandiosely promising the defeat of America, the rise of a world-wide "Islamic" government under ISIS leadership, and more executions if America takes military action against ISIS. If you don't know what ISIS actually is, you should. ISIS is some thousands of "fighters" that have armed themselves with machine guns, trucks and grenade launchers left over from the wars in Iraq and Syria. They have "reportedly" captured some pieces of serious military hardware, including some tanks, Humvees, and allegedly a few helicopters that they are probably unable to deploy, lacking pilots and the ability to maintain aircraft. ISIS has no economy, no manufacturing, no resource-extraction capabilities, no meaningful allies, no navy or air force and no plausible path to obtaining any of these things. While reports vary, ISIS has been credibly reported to have fewer than 10,000 men, lightly armed. In June 2014, The Economist reported that "ISIS may have up to 6,000 fighters in Iraq and 3,000-5,000 in Syria, including perhaps 3,000 foreigners . . ." ISIS is often said to control an area "the size of Pennsylvania," in order to make them seem important, however, they are nowhere near Pennsylvania. All of ISIS' personnel are in northern Iraq and Eastern Syria, surrounded by their enemies in Syria, Turkey, Jordan, Iraq itself and the Kurdish section of northern Iraq, every one of which has an actual military. For comparison purposes, before the 1991 Iraq war, Iraq itself had nearly a million active-duty soldiers. It had over 5,000 tanks and men trained to operate them. Thousands of artillery pieces and hundreds of aircraft were fielded by Iraq at the time and while they proved no match for coalition forces in the 1991 war, they had sustained a major war against neighboring Iran for eight years in the 1980s. To give a present day example, Iran currently has half a million trained soldiers with real equipment they know how to use, an air force, a navy, ballistic missiles, an economy, allies, a nuclear program and a nation of over 75,000,000 people. The point being, ISIS is nothing. But man, do they know how to do PR. Through the power of video, a tiny collection of thugs with Kalashnikovs and pickup trucks without friends in the world or so much as a ride out of the desert they "occupy," under a flag they made up just this year, is about to start a war with the United States of America. Just last week our counterterrorism czar, Matthew Olson, told us that "there's no credible information" that ISIS is planning an attack on America and " no indication at this point of a cell of foreign fighters operating in the United States." Never mind; we've seen the videos. A U.S. Senator actually cited ISIS' claim that it would "fly its black flag over the White House" as a credible threat. President Obama addressed the nation Wednesday night to discuss a plan to "deal with" a trivial enemy that is in a position to do absolutely nothing. But what about two murdered American journalists? Nearly 4,500 US servicemen and women were killed in the Iraq war. Some of them were captured and tortured to death and even beheaded. But these soldiers are only statistics to us now, while the beheading videos, created for the purpose of starting a war, are fresh in our mind, and having their intended effect. A crush of nightly news reports about this rag-tag band of incompetents has elevated them above nation-states with nuclear weapons trained on us, so here we go. After eight years and thousands of deaths on our side, hundreds of thousands of deaths on the other side, and with nothing more that could plausibly be accomplished by our presence, the Iraq war ended in December of 2011. Some people there, and some people here, miss it so much they can't wait to start it up again. But they needed some compelling video to get it started.
Posted in:

Related Posts

Hospital sign pointing to the Emergency Room and Main Entrance outside a medical building

$3.77 Million in Medical Malpractice Case Against Wheeling Doctor and PA

WHEELING, WV / PITTSBURGH, PA — An Ohio County, West Virginia jury has returned a $3.77 Million verdict in a medical malpractice case against a doctor and a physician’s assistant at WVU Medicine Wheeling Hospital. Following a four-day trial, the jury found both Dr. Barry Mitchell and Physician’s Assistant Michelle Porembka negligent in their medical care of 64 year old Julie Daley when she presented with abdominal complaints at the Wheeling Hospital emergency room in June 2022. As a result of the medical care providers’ failure to timely and properly treat her condition, Daley ultimately sustained a perforated colon along with necrosis which ultimately lead to her needing to have a permanent colostomy. The jury found that the conduct of both Mitchell and Poermbka fell below the standard of care for medical care providers in their field and that their negligence proximately caused injuries and damages to Mrs. Daley.  Daley was represented at trial by Geoff Brown and Tyler Smith of the Wheeling law firm of Bordas & Bordas. Following the verdict, Smith commented, “We are pleased that the jury recognized that this should not have happened to Julie Daley and that they compensated her for the life-long effects that she will have as a result of the negligence of the medical providers.” Mark Robinson and David Givens of Flaherty, Sensabaugh, and Bonasso represented the medical providers at trial.  Circuit Court Judge Jason Cuomo presided over the case. Brown stated “Our practice is based upon fighting for justice for people who have been injured or wronged by others.  Helping others is at the root of everything that we do and we are glad that we were able to help Julie and her family obtain a measure of justice through this case and this result.” About Bordas & Bordas Founded in 1985, Bordas & Bordas Attorneys PLLC has earned a reputation as one of the region’s premier personal injury and plaintiff litigation law firms. With offices in Wheeling and Moundsville, West Virginia; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and St. Clairsville, Ohio, the firm represents clients in cases involving automobile and trucking accidents, medical malpractice, workplace injuries, nursing home negligence, product liability, wrongful death, insurance bad faith, and more. The firm operates on a contingency fee basis (clients pay only if there is a recovery) and offers free initial consultations. Rooted in its core values of experience, family, community, and results, Bordas & Bordas continues to stand as a trusted advocate for individuals and families across the Ohio Valley and beyond. Visit www.bordaslaw.com for more information.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court Analyzes the Federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act in Denying Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

The Pennsylvania Superior Court Analyzes the Federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act in Denying Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

The Pennsylvania Superior Court Analyzes the Federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act in Denying Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings In Boyle v. Meyer, 2025 PA Super 198 (September 9, 2025), the Pennsylvania Superior Court denied a physical therapy company’s motion for judgment on the pleadings based on the immunity provisions contained in the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act). Background of the Case Plaintiff Boyle required physical therapy following open-heart surgery. To minimize the risk of contracting COVID-19, he arranged for OSPTA Home Care to provide in-home services. On November 8, 2020, physical therapist Meyer arrived without gloves, a face shield, or a proper mask — only wearing a thin, disposable surgical mask. Meyer also shook Boyle’s hand without gloves, did not wash her hands before treatment, and performed therapy as usual. Days later, OSPTA informed Boyle that Meyer had tested positive for COVID-19. Boyle soon developed symptoms, was hospitalized for ten days, and continued to suffer complications five months later. Boyle sued OSPTA and Meyer, alleging: Meyer was negligent in failing to wear proper personal protective equipment (PPE). Meyer exposed him to unreasonable risk and performed therapy despite known exposure. OSPTA failed to properly train and supervise Meyer and implement safeguards to prevent the virus’s spread. Defendants’ Motion and PREP Act Defense In response, Defendants admitted Meyer was not wearing gloves or a face shield but stated she wore a surgical mask and used hand sanitizer earlier in the day. They argued they were immune from liability under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 247d-6d, 247d-6e. Defendants asserted that they met all four requirements for immunity: Public health emergency – The COVID-19 pandemic triggered PREP Act protections. Covered persons – They qualified as both “program planners” and “qualified persons” under the Act. Covered countermeasure – Meyer’s “thin, disposable surgical mask” was a device authorized for emergency use by the FDA. Causal relationship – Meyer’s use of the mask had a causal connection to Boyle’s COVID-19 claim. The trial court denied their motion for judgment on the pleadings. Superior Court’s Analysis On appeal, the Superior Court found several factual disputes that prevented judgment for the Defendants. Specifically: It was unclear whether Meyer’s surgical mask qualified as a “covered countermeasure.” The pleadings did not conclusively establish that the Defendants were “covered persons.” Even if both were true, PREP Act immunity applies only to the use or administration of a covered countermeasure — not to its non-use. Citing Hampton v. California, 83 F.4th 754 (9th Cir. 2023), the Court noted that the PREP Act shields defendants from claims related to administering a covered measure, but not from claims alleging failure to administer one. Because Boyle’s complaint focused on the failure to use proper PPE, inadequate screening, and lack of training, his claims fell outside the scope of federal immunity. Conclusion The Superior Court concluded that the PREP Act did not preempt Boyle’s state-law negligence claims, affirming the trial court’s denial of the motion for judgment on the pleadings. The full opinion in Boyle v. Meyer, 2025 PA Super 198 (September 9, 2025), is available on the Pennsylvania Judiciary website. To learn more about legal issues surrounding immunity and negligence in Pennsylvania courts, visit our post on how the PA Superior Court reviews evidentiary challenges in medical cases.

Lead Risk Prompts Nationwide Recall of Ground Cinnamon

Lead Risk Prompts Nationwide Recall of Ground Cinnamon

Lead Risk Prompts Nationwide Recall of Ground Cinnamon The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a nationwide recall of 12 ground cinnamon brands after testing revealed elevated levels of lead. Roughly 21,690 units were sold through retailers like Dollar Tree and Save-A-Lot before being pulled from shelves. Consumers are urged to immediately throw away any affected products and avoid purchasing them until further notice. See the official FDA recall notice. Why This Recall Matters Although no injuries have been reported yet, the FDA warns that prolonged consumption of contaminated cinnamon can cause lead accumulation in the body. Children are especially at risk, since lead exposure can impact neurological development. Cinnamon is often used in foods like cereals, baked goods, and snack mixes — staples in many households with kids. This makes the recall a major public health concern for families nationwide, including those in West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. FDA’s Broader Effort This recall is part of a larger FDA initiative to monitor imported spices more closely. Several cinnamon brands have been flagged in prior alerts, and surveillance is ongoing. For example: The FDA recently added Asli brand ground cinnamon to the list of affected products after new testing revealed unsafe lead levels. Additional products may be named as investigations continue. See the expanded FDA alert. What You Should Do If you purchased ground cinnamon recently: Check your spice cabinet against the recall list. Dispose of any recalled products immediately. Do not repurchase affected brands until the FDA clears them. If you suspect your child or another family member has been exposed, consult a healthcare provider for guidance. For ongoing updates, visit the FDA’s cinnamon recall page. Protecting Consumers This recall is a reminder that product safety issues extend beyond toys, appliances, and vehicles — even everyday food staples can carry risks. Families in WV, OH, and PA should stay informed about recalls and understand their rights if a defective or dangerous product causes harm. At Bordas & Bordas, our attorneys help consumers hold corporations accountable when safety takes a backseat to profit.