HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06251996 - D8 D - F
4
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Victor J. Westman
DATE: June 19, 1996
SUBJECT: Possible Litigation Against Tobacco Companies for Health Care Expenses
incurred by County in the Provision of Health Care to Indigents with
Illnesses Related to Tobacco Use
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
DETERMINE whether to join with other counties in the litigation
(U. S .D. C. No. 96-2090) recently filed by the City and County of San
Francisco against the tobacco companies for the recovery of health
care costs incurred by San Francisco for the care and treatment of
indigent patients for smoking-related maladies and whether to
employ, on a contingency fee basis, the law firm of Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, as retained by the City and County
of San Francisco, to similarly represent the interests of Contra
Costa County in the litigation.
BACKGROUND
On June 6, 1996, the City and County of San Francisco filed a
lawsuit in federal court (United States District Court) against six
(6) tobacco companies, the Council for Tobacco Research, and The
Tobacco Institute . San Francisco' s complaint alleges nine counts
against the tobacco companies . The counts include violations of
the federal RICO statute as well as fraud, unjust enrichment, and
other state law claims . San Francisco' s lawsuit alleges that the
tobacco industry conspired to mislead the public by falsely denying
that cigarettes are addictive, that the industry manipulates
nicotine levels in cigarettes and that smoking injures health.
San Francisco is asking the court to order the defendants to
disclose their research on addiction and health, fund corrective
public education and smoking cessation programs, and cease
targeting minors in their advertising. San Francisco also seeks
reimbursement for expenditures made for medical assistance rendered
due to the use of tobacco by San Francisco residents, as well as
health insurance for its employees .
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE (S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON June 25, 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
x_ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Vickie Dawes ATTESTED June 25, 1996
cc: County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
CAO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Health Services Dept . AND CO T ADMI ISTRATOR
BY , DEPUTY
J ((l(I
The City and County of San Francisco has invited all California
counties to join this litigation. In order to make the litigation
affordable, San Francisco has engaged outside counsel who will bear
all litigation costs and only receive payment for costs and
attorneys fees out of any recovery obtained by judgment or
settlement . San Francisco has retained the law firm of Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, which also represents the states of
Massachusetts and Louisiana in similar litigation against the
tobacco companies . The San Francisco City Attorney' s Office is
actively participating in overseeing this litigation and serving as
co-counsel . This office is confident that Louise Renne, the
elected City Attorney of the City and County of San Francisco, will
provide thorough and careful oversight of this litigation. If
Contra Costa County determines to join this litigation, this office
will provide oversight to protect the County' s interests in it .
Pursuant to their contract with Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein, San Francisco must develop evidence of its costs related
to smoking and bear the costs of that development . Further, San
Francisco has reserved the right to add additional law firms if
that becomes necessary due to the complexity of this litigation.
We are informed by the City and County of San Francisco that the
Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County voted to join this
litigation. Also, we understand that other counties are, or will
be, considering whether to join with San Francisco' s litigation. On
June 11, 1996, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted to
sue the tobacco industry to recoup the costs incurred by treating
tobacco-related illnesses in county health facilities . It is not
clear whether Los Angeles will be joining the San Francisco
litigation or file an action on its own.
Bd0rd:a:\tobacco2.1it
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on June 25, 1996 by the following vote :
AYES: SUPERVISORS ROGERS, BISHOP, DeSAULNIER, TORLAKSON and SMITH
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
SUBJECT: Litigation Authority: CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
and THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. PHILIP MORRIS, INC. ,
et al . , United States District Court No . 96-2090
County Counsel having submitted a report to the Board of
Supervisors and the Health Services Department having provided
their comments to the Board;
Now, therefore, it is by the Board ORDERED that :
1 . Contra Costa County is AUTHORIZED to join the -above-
referenced litigation (USDC No. 96-2090) recently filed by the
City and County of San Francisco against the tobacco companies
for the recovery of health care costs incurred by the County for
the care and treatment of indigent patients for smoking-related
maladies; and
2 . Contra Costa County is AUTHORIZED to employ the law firm
of LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, on the same contingency
fee terms as the City and County of San Francisco; and
3 . County Counsel is AUTHORIZED to execute all documents
necessary to join said litigation and to retain said law firm.
I hereby certify that this is a true
and correct copy of an action taken
and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date
shown.
Attested: June 25, 1996
PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors and
County Admi 'strator
By:
Deputy
VLD: ld
Orig. Dept: County Counsel (Vickie Dawes)
cc: Health Services Department
County Administrator
BdOrd:a:\tobacco.ord