Category: In The News

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch recently reported on a lawsuit filed by our firm concerning the sale and marketing of concentrated 7-hydroxymitragynine, commonly known as 7-OH. The lawsuit alleges that a Missouri consumer became dependent on a 7-OH product after purchasing it for pain relief without being adequately warned about its addictive nature or the risk of opioid-like withdrawal. What Is 7-OH? 7-OH is short for 7-hydroxymitragynine, an alkaloid associated with kratom. Concentrated 7-OH products are sold in forms such as tablets, capsules, and liquid shots and are sometimes promoted for pain relief, energy, or mood enhancement. The petition alleges that the product at issue was marketed and sold without adequately disclosing the risk of addiction, dependence, and withdrawal. Allegations in the Lawsuit According to the petition, the plaintiff initially purchased 7-OH after it was recommended for tooth pain and increased energy. The lawsuit alleges that his use escalated rapidly, eventually resulting in substantial daily spending, depletion of his savings, an inability to work, and the need for addiction treatment. The petition further alleges that the plaintiff suffered physical, psychological, and financial harm associated with his dependency. Missouri Consumer-Protection Claims The lawsuit asserts claims under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, including allegations of misrepresentation, deception, and the concealment or omission of material information concerning the product’s addictive properties and withdrawal risks. The case raises broader consumer-protection questions about how highly concentrated 7-OH products are marketed, what warnings accompany them, and whether consumers are given sufficient information to make an informed purchasing decision. Related Coverage and Court Filing Read the St. Louis Post-Dispatch article Read the redacted Plaintiff’s Petition (PDF) The petition contains allegations that have not yet been proven in court. The defendant denies or may deny liability. Every case is different, and prior matters do not guarantee a particular result in any other case.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch recently reported on a lawsuit filed by our firm involving the alleged wrongful arrest, detention, and extradition of a man who was mistaken for another person with the same first and last name. A Case of Mistaken Identity According to the petition, our client had never been to St. Louis and had no connection to the drug and firearm offenses underlying the criminal charges. The charges arose from the conduct of a different person who shared his first and last name. The lawsuit alleges that identifying information belonging to our client was nevertheless used in charging documents associated with the other individual’s arrest. A warrant was later issued in our client’s name. Arrest, Detention, and Extradition The petition alleges that our client was stopped in Texas in October 2024 and arrested on the Missouri warrant. Although he repeatedly explained that the authorities had the wrong person, he remained incarcerated and was eventually transported in handcuffs from Texas to St. Louis. According to the lawsuit, the mistake was confirmed after the matter reached a newly assigned prosecuting attorney. The criminal charges were dismissed, but only after our client had spent 18 days in custody and lost contracted employment. Why the Case Matters Errors in criminal charging documents can have severe consequences. This case raises important questions concerning the verification of identifying information and accountability when an innocent person is arrested and detained because of an alleged mistaken identity. Related Coverage and Court Filing Read the St. Louis Post-Dispatch article Read the redacted Plaintiff’s Petition (PDF) The petition contains allegations that have not yet been proven in court. The defendant denies or may deny liability. Every case is different, and prior matters do not guarantee a particular result in any other case.

Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) Estate sales are often conducted after the death of a loved one, during a divorce, or when someone is downsizing. Consumers place significant trust in estate sale companies, expecting them to inventory valuable belongings, sell them for fair market value, maintain accurate records, and promptly remit the proceeds. Unfortunately, complaints involving estate sale fraud and mismanagement are not uncommon. Allegations may involve missing property, inaccurate accountings, undisclosed sales, failure to remit proceeds, or disposal of valuable items without the owner’s knowledge. Our firm represented a Missouri consumer who alleged that she became the victim of this type of misconduct. The case was tried before a St. Louis City jury, which returned a verdict in favor of our client. Background of the Estate Sale Dispute According to the lawsuit, our client hired an estate sale company to liquidate the contents of her home while she was going through a divorce. The company allegedly represented that the sale would generate approximately $60,000 in proceeds and agreed to provide complete sales records and payment after the sale. Instead, our client alleged that only minimal proceeds were ever paid, despite repeated assurances that additional sales would occur. She further alleged that requests for an inventory and accounting were refused and that many of her belongings were ultimately discarded without her permission. The lawsuit asserted claims for breach of contract, conversion, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. The allegations included that the defendants misrepresented how the estate sale would be conducted, failed to provide promised sales records, failed to remit proceeds, and concealed the disposition of the client’s property. Jury Verdict Under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act After a jury trial in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, the jury found in favor of our client on her Missouri Merchandising Practices Act claim. The jury awarded: $33,000 in actual damages and $45,000 in punitive damage. Because the case was submitted under the MMPA, Missouri also allowed for an award of attorneys’ fees to be paid by the defense. Common Warning Signs of Estate Sale Fraud Most estate sale companies operate honestly and professionally. However, an estate sale arrangement can create an opportunity for abuse because the owner often gives a company possession and control of an entire household of personal property. Potential warning signs of estate sale fraud or misconduct may include: How Estate Sale Fraud Can Occur Estate sale disputes may arise when a liquidator fails to maintain accurate records, combines property from multiple clients, conducts private or undisclosed sales, undervalues items, retains proceeds, or disposes of property without permission. These problems can be especially difficult to uncover when the owner is dealing with a death, divorce, move, or other stressful life event and is unable to personally supervise the sale. For that reason, consumers should consider requiring a written agreement that addresses inventory procedures, commissions, expenses, payment deadlines, unsold property, and the records that will be provided after the sale. Protecting Consumers Under the MMPA The Missouri Merchandising Practices Act protects consumers from deceptive and unfair business practices involving goods and services. Depending on the circumstances, conduct involving false promises, misrepresentations, concealment, or unfair practices may support a claim under the MMPA. Available remedies may include actual damages, attorney’s fees, and, in appropriate cases, punitive damages. Although every case depends on its own facts, this verdict demonstrates that businesses entrusted with a consumer’s property can be held accountable when they fail to honor that trust. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome in any future case. Every case is different and must be evaluated on its own facts.

Who is at fault for a crash can be obvious. Similarly, figuring out what injuries have resulted from a crash seems like it should be simple. However, no matter how clear things might be, there is no guarantee any insurance company is going to treat you fairly if you are involved in a crash. C.L and M.H. discovered this reality after a drunk driver hit them and caused injuries, tens of thousands in medical bills, and financial loss from time away from work. At around 3:30 p.m. on April 30, 2021, our clients – C.L. and M.H. – were stopped at a red light facing south on southbound Mid-Rivers Mall Drive with their daughter, restrained in a car seat in the back of their Chrysler 300. They had just finished lunch at a Bar-B-Q restaurant and were headed home. Mark Thiele was driving a GMC K3500 northbound on Mid-Rivers Mall Drive at the IS-70 overpass in St. Charles County, Missouri. He crossed several lanes into southbound Mid-Rivers Mall Drive, struck a curb, and ran over an electrical crosswalk signal. After knocking the pole down, Mr. Thiele accelerated northbound into southbound traffic and hit our clients’ vehicle and one other. Mr. Thiele fled the scene and was eventually captured and arrested. He was visibly intoxicated by the time he was found. He was charged with DWI and fleeing the scene. M.H. sustained a comminuted (i.e., meaning reduced to multiple particles) tibia fracture, a fibula fracture, and an ankle fracture. She underwent emergency Open Reduction Internal Fixation surgery that day. C.L. sustained a shoulder injury and was eventually diagnosed with a labral tear in the shoulder that required surgery. The Insurance Companies Responses Mr. Thiele was insured by State Farm. Once the victims hired us, one of our first steps was to contact State Farm and request a copy of Mr. Thiele’s insurance policy. In response, State Farm provided a policy showing a $250,000 per person/$500,000 per occurrence limit. This would mean that Mr. Thiele was covered for up to $500,000 that could be divided amongst all claimants and that no claimant could receive more than $250,000. We requested more insurance information from State Farm. Although they had initially provided a $250,000/$500,000 policy, further investigation revealed there was an extra “umbrella” policy that added $1 million in coverage to the case. We contacted our clients’ insurance carriers to set up claims for medical payments coverage and for underinsured motorist coverage. One of the underinsured carriers initially denied the claim, blaming our clients for the crash (despite the fact they were stopped at a red light). We pushed back and pointed out what would seem to be obvious to any reasonable person, and the insurer agreed, reversing its liability decision. At this point, with liability being agreed to and coverage being disclosed, we attempted to negotiate a settlement. During settlement discussions, Mr. Thiele passed away for reasons unrelated to the crash, leading to failed negotiations. The Lawsuit We filed suit against a Defendant Ad Litem, which is someone appointed by the court to stand in the shoes of the person at fault for the crash. We litigated the case for about two years, requiring us to spend time and money on about a dozen depositions, to respond to numerous motions to dismiss various claims and subtle attempts to delay trial. We did not receive a settlement offer until the week before trial. We settled the claims of C.L. for $150,000. However, the offer to M.H. was only $300,000, which was about half of what we believed the case was worth. Despite making a counter-offer to settle for $700,000, State Farm insisted on sticking to $300,000. The Trial The case proceeded to trial. State Farm admitted fault but not that Mr. Thiele was intoxicated. It also admitted M.H. had suffered a broken leg but disputed the extent of her injuries. State Farm wanted to talk about the fact the amount needed to satisfy M.H.’s medical bills was only about $20,000. Insurance companies love to talk about medical bills, particularly in conservative venues like St. Charles County because they think jurors will feel like they are giving the plaintiff a great deal by forcing the defense to pay for medical bills. The reality, however, is that a judgment for $50,000-$75,000 (which is what State Farm told the jury to award) would not have put much of any money in M.H.’s pocket at all, particularly after all she was put through with the lawsuit. Knowing these numbers did not in any way reflect the extent of M.H.’s injuries, we withdrew the claim for medical bills and successfully moved to exclude any reference to them. That, however, did not stop the defense. State Farm went so far as to hire an “independent” medical doctor to review all of M.H.’s records and offer an “expert” opinion about the extent of her injuries. The spine surgeon expert testified M.H.’s leg was basically back to normal, despite the fact it has a metal rod in the bone and despite her complaints of ongoing pain. The jury disregarded the “expert” testimony and awarded M.H. $750,000. The court assessed taxable court costs and interest as well. There was no basis for appeal, and the judgment was paid shortly thereafter. In addition to the more than $900,000 recovered from State Farm, Kevin Etzkorn Law was also able to recover the limits of our clients’ medical payments coverage. Hurt in an Accident? Call Kevin Etzkorn Law Whenever you are in a car accident, you should contact a lawyer. You ultimately may not need to hire one, but you should at least get a free consultation before you try to resolve the claim on your own. The unfortunate reality is that most insurance companies aren’t going to make a reasonable settlement offer unless you have a lawyer. And even if you have a lawyer, litigation or even a trial might be the only way to get fair compensation. While C.L. and M.H. were fortunate,… Continue reading Wrong-Way Driver Case Results in $750,000 Verdict

A national investigative report examined allegations that incarcerated individuals across the country were denied or delayed access to curative Hepatitis C treatment despite the availability of highly effective medications. The article explores the medical, legal, and policy issues surrounding healthcare in correctional facilities. Read the full investigation.