CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL HANDS DOWN LANDMARK RULING
IN FAVOR OF HOMEOPATHY - BARRETT DEFEATED ONCE AGAIN!
READ FULL TEXT COURT OF APPEALS RULINGS
On April 22, 2003, the California Court of Appeals handed down a far reaching landmark decision in favor of homeopathy and against the National Council Against Health Fraud (Stephen Barrett, M.D.1 was one of the two main self-described "expert" witnesses on the side of NCAHF).
NCAHF [which professes itself to be a "consumer watchdog" against what it calls as health "quackery"] filed a lawsuit on February 16, 2001, as a representative of California Consumers, against King Bio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its president Dr. Frank J. King, Jr., N.D., D.C., a leading manufacturer and distributor of homeopathic products.
The lawsuit accused Dr. King and King Bio of false and misleading advertisement and unfair competition under the California Business & Professions Code. It was the first case of this type to go all the way to trial with respect to homeopathy. In the lawsuit, Barrett and NCAHF challenged homeopathy by proceeding on the theory that there is no scientific basis for the advertised efficacy of King Bio’s products and the King Bio’s products were "drugs."
Dr. King has been an active contributor to the national chiropractic community since 1979. He is the Founder and President of King Bio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a registered homeopathic manufacturing company dedicated to the research, development, promotion and education of the many benefits of homeopathy. Dr. King is also a member of the prestigious Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia Convention of the United States (HPCUS). The HPCUS works directly with the FDA as a governing authority of homeopathy in the United States.
For more information on King Bio and Dr. Frank King, you can refer to www.kingbio.com .
Barrett and NCAHF are outspoken critics of homeopathic medicine calling it "worthless" and unproven. Barrett has recently launched a web site to publicly discredit homeopathy. See www.homeowatch.org . Despite Barrett’s dubious claims against homeopathy, he has no formal training or scientific expertise in the science of homeopathy.
King Bio, like many other homeopathic and supplement companies targeted by NCAHF in similar lawsuits, refused to capitulate to any sort of settlement with Barrett and NCAHF. Instead, Dr. King decided to take the lead and defend his own integrity and that of his company by deciding to "have his day in court" and taking the case to trail.
The trial took place on October, 2001 in Los Angeles, California. The Law Offices of Carlos F. Negrete and Carlos F. Negrete provided support and assistance for the trial.
Under cross-examination of NCAHF’s witnesses at the trial, it was revealed that NCAHF had never tested any of the Dr. King products or even conducted any sort of scientific study. Something which Barrett and NCAHF have steadfastly argued should be performed by all supplement manufacturers and alternative therapists if they are to be recognized by the likes of NCAHF and Barrett.
After NCAHF presented its case with little or no real evidence, Dr. King’s attorneys requested that the court end the case and rule in its favor. The trial court sided with Dr. King and awarded a judgment in favor of King Bio and Dr. King. NCAHF’s case was so weak and lacking of evidence that Dr. King and King Bio did not even have to present it full case in defense before the judge ruled.
Despite the overwhelming defeat at trial, NCAHF decided to challenge the judge’s decision and filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal in California.
During the appeal process, NCAHF’s attorney, Morse Mehrban, was joined by another purported "consumer watchdog" attorney who fights against alternative therapies and supplements, Mark Boling, on behalf of a little known organization called Consumer Justice Center ("CJC"). CJC filed a "friend of the court brief" in support of NCAHF’s appeal.
NCAHF and CJC argued that the trial court was wrong and that existing law should be changed to allow plaintiffs, such as NCAHF, to bring lawsuits with little or no evidence against a targeted company and, thereafter, force the targeted company to defend itself on the basis of an accusation alone. The Court of appeal was not persuaded that such a change in law was appropriate or logical.
The Law Offices of Carlos F. Negrete represented Dr. King and King Bio in the appeal and argued that the trial court correctly found in favor of Dr. King and King Bio and that it was not proper under California law or the United States Constitution that a plaintiff, such as NCAHF, could irresponsibly file a lawsuit without any evidence against a product and its manufacturer. Negrete argued that it would be irresponsible and against free enterprise to allow an individual to file a lawsuit without any evidence of wrongdoing with just a couple of hundred dollars in a filing fee, thereby subjecting a victim defendant to spend as much as hundreds of thousands of dollars in defense costs. All because someone could point their finger at what they did not understand or believe in.
In its Opinion, the Court of Appeals agreed with King and Negrete. Specifically, the Court of Appeals found that NCAHF "presented no evidence that King Bio’s products were not safe and effective, relying instead on a general attack on homeopathy, made by witnesses who had no knowledge of, or experience with, King Bio’s products, and who were found to be biased and unworthy of credibility"
And, in an more remarkable validation, the Court of Appeals ordered that their Opinion be "published" as a precedent setting case in the official reports of the State of California. This is the first opinion of its kind as to homeopathy and the issues raised during the appeal. It will undoubtedly be discussed by many legal scholars and cited in cases to follow in the future.
The Law Offices of Carlos F. Negrete congratulates Dr. Frank King, Jr. for his efforts, dedication and perseverance in defending the advancement homeopathy and alternative therapies and it is proud to have participated in yet another case defending health freedom.
______________________
1. Stephen Barrett, even though he still uses the professional title "Dr.," surrendered his medical license in the early 1990s. He has not practiced medicine since that time. Barrett operates the web site known as www.quackwatch.com , www.homeowatch.org and www.ncahf.com .
For a full text of the Opinion in Word Format or Adobe format, click below.
go to HOME