James W. Lovett - General Counsel
Total Compensation: $ —
James W. Lovett, 44, has been Covance's Corporate Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary since February 2003. From December 2001 to February 2003, Mr. Lovett was Corporate Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of Covance. From 1997 to 2001, Mr. Lovett was with FMC Corporation in positions of increasing responsibility and, prior to that, was a partner in the law firm of McDermott, Will & Emery.
Joseph Herring
Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer
1.888.COVANCE (+1.888.268.2623)
this is not a public blog, just a place hwere i can leave myself notes. nothing to see here folks, move along.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Friday, August 07, 2009
to do
life stuff
haircut X
find studies
state fair
mail $145 to gibson county w sase X
CLE's.
car: pic a part NA
get cash for rochester, cash check at bank saturday. didn't.
put house up for sale.
- flock realty - they didnt call back
- j everhart - they didnt call back
constitutent services - city council people
find out about special assessment. X
get title insurance copy from seller wilmoth. NA
get copies of ticket/charges against me - didnt.
law stuff
what is the current status of wv 2b?
write to (joe sanders?) re martin shaffer joe sandler
write to clarkburg city council re shaffer situation
boone county
marion county -
follow up on discovery, request for list of provisional ballots
summons on linda proffitt
find counsel
naacp
aclu
lawrence reuben
sign case
make better list
any other open cases?
223 temple problem. demand letter. file notice of ownership/lein.
mail letter to covance dr.
re recent email re problems at covance
Reply to all
Forward
Reply by chat
Filter messages like this
Print
Add to Contacts list
Delete this message
Report phishing
Report not phishing
Show original
Show in fixed width font
Show in variable width font
Message text garbled?
Why is this spam/nonspam?
Reply
|
Robbin Stewart
to RandallStoltz
show details May 14
Reply
Follow up message
Can you let me know if you received this? Otherwise I need to print it out and send it certified mail.
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Robbin Stewart wrote:
Dr. Randall Stoltz,
Research Director
Covance Evansville
RandallStoltz@westpharma.com
My name is Robbin Stewart. I have been a research subject at Covance
for the past two years. Recently I've been effectively banned from
further studies, after I attempted to rely on the written rule that any
roommate can ask that the TV be turned off. I believe that this ban
was a breach of contract and a violation of informed consent.
I am writing to you so that you will know of the problem, and so that
you can either fix it, or choose to side with Covance against me.
I might have been right or might have been wrong in thinking that there
was a written rule I could rely on to have a quiet area so that I
could work and read and sleep.
But even if I was wrong, and there really is no such rule, it is
unethical and a violation of informed consent to ban me from studies
simply for asking that such a rule be enforced, when the written rules
that every participant signed and agreed to stated that there was such
a rule.
Informed consent is the most basic ethical principle governing drug
studies, and was instituted in response to the Tuskegee Experiments
and the experiments conducted by Dr. Menengele.
If subjects can be banned for pointing out when the rules aren't
followed, this is coersion and duress, rather than informed consent
and voluntary participation.
Facts:
I participated in a study at Covance Evansville in December 2008.
It was my 4th study there since 2007. Iv'e also done a study at
Madison, and had hoped to do studies in Florida as well.
I signed a consent agreement which included a rider labeled "RULES".
RULES was in all caps, large type, and bold print.
I reasonably believed that these were rules. I might or might not have
been wrong about that - I have been told that the rules are only
“guidelines” and not actually rules.
One of the rules stated that
the bedroom is a quiet area. “If one of the roommates requests that the
Television. be turned off, subjects must comply.”
My 2 roommates kept the television on all the time, except between
about 2 and 6 am. Usually they chose violent police shows.
On the third or fourth day of the study, I requested that the
Television be turned off, since I wanted to have some peace and quiet to
work and read and sleep.
They refused. One of them went to a nurse, who said that there wasn't
any such rule and they could keep the television on.
I asked to speak to the study coordinator to find out what the policy
was. At first Nancy agreed with me that there was such a rule, and went
in to explain it to my roommates. I do not know what was said between
them, but when she came out, she denied that there was any such rule,
and allowed them to keep the television on.
Thereafter I mostly stayed out of the room, and tried to find any
somewhat quieter place to read. I wasn't able to get any work done
that week.
The next day, when we discussed it again, Nancy told me that I would
be excluded from further studies.
I dropped my request for a quiet area, and asked to be kept in studies.
Doing studies is my primary source of income, and Covance is my main study site.
I have averaged $8,000 a year from Covance for the past two years, and
desire to continue. Covance volunteers make as much as $20,000/yr.
Without that income, I can't pay my rent, so I'll be moving out of my
apartment next month.
The situation was left unclear when I finished the study in December.
In January I was kept out of screening for a study in Evansville and was
told that there is an 8 day restriction on my participation in
studies. This effectively prevents me from doing studies there. All of
my previous studies have been over 8 days. There aren't any current
less-than-8-day studies. Because of the 30 day washout, it's
uneconomical to do a less-than 8 day study. Later in January I was
prevented from screening for a $3,000 AIDS medication study in
Madison, and found out for the first time that I am banned system wide
and not just in Evansville. Later in January I was prevented from
screening for a $5,000 study of periods of less than 8 days -
effectively I have been totally banned.
Although my main reason for doing studies is to earn a living, I also
value participating in AIDS research, in memory of my friend Phil who
died of AIDS.
I have spoken to the study doctor, Dr. Stewart, who ratified the
decision to exclude me from studies. In going through channels to try
to resolve this, I have spoken to "Mary", not further identified, but
seems to be an administrator in Evansville, who has told me that the
notes in my file would be changed to no longer a show a ban, but just
a recommendation that I not be used in studies of more than 8 days.
However, in talking to recruiters at Madison, they say there has been
no change to the notes, and Mary has not reponded to my request that
she call me, for over a week.
Claims:
The informed consent documents including the document labeled "RULES",
are important for two reasons. First, they are a contract. Contracts
have explicit and implied terms. The explicit term is that the
bedrooms are a quiet area and roommates "must" turn off the television
when requested.
Under Indiana law, every contract has a implied term of a duty of good faith.
Covance violated its contract with me when they refused to let me turn
off the television, or have some other quiet area.
More importantly, it violated the duty of good faith when it banned me
for simply requesting that the rules be followed.
Second:
Covance violated the principle of informed consent when it retaliated
against me for asking that a rule be followed.
Covance obtained my consent by, among other things, offering a rule
that ensured I would have a quiet place so I could get work done during
the study and be able to read and sleep.
Based on that consent agreement, I took experimental medication.
However, the consent agreement was a fraud, and there wasn't actually a
quiet place available. When I exposed the fraud by asking whether
there really was such a rule as claimed in the rules document, I was
retaliated against by being threatened with being banned from future
studies.
For a medical research company, Covance, and its doctor, Dr. Stewart, and
its employees, Nancy and Mary, to violate informed consent is a very
serious ethical breach.
It is also legally actionable as battery by deception under Indiana code.
Currently, I have been continuing to try to address the problem internally by
going through channels at Covance. I will continue up the chain of
command at Covance until the matter is resolved or cannot be resolved
internally, before turning to any
outside authorities.
What I am looking for is complete reinstatement as a Covance medical
research subject; an agreement that I won't be excluded from studies
for any non-medical reason.
Less importantly, it would helpful to know, going forward, if there
are any other "rules" that aren't really rules, and whether or not
there will be any designated quiet area for Evansville research
subjects.
Sincerely,
Robbin Stewart
gtbear@gmail.com.
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Robbin Stewart wrote:
> Dr. Stoltz,
> this is just a quick test to see if this is a working email. If it doesn't
> bounce, I'll write further.
> - Robbin Stewart.
>
life stuff
haircut X
find studies
state fair
mail $145 to gibson county w sase X
CLE's.
car: pic a part NA
get cash for rochester, cash check at bank saturday. didn't.
put house up for sale.
- flock realty - they didnt call back
- j everhart - they didnt call back
constitutent services - city council people
find out about special assessment. X
get title insurance copy from seller wilmoth. NA
get copies of ticket/charges against me - didnt.
law stuff
what is the current status of wv 2b?
write to (joe sanders?) re martin shaffer joe sandler
write to clarkburg city council re shaffer situation
boone county
marion county -
follow up on discovery, request for list of provisional ballots
summons on linda proffitt
find counsel
naacp
aclu
lawrence reuben
sign case
make better list
any other open cases?
223 temple problem. demand letter. file notice of ownership/lein.
mail letter to covance dr.
re recent email re problems at covance
Reply to all
Forward
Reply by chat
Filter messages like this
Add to Contacts list
Delete this message
Report phishing
Report not phishing
Show original
Show in fixed width font
Show in variable width font
Message text garbled?
Why is this spam/nonspam?
Reply
|
Robbin Stewart
to RandallStoltz
show details May 14
Reply
Follow up message
Can you let me know if you received this? Otherwise I need to print it out and send it certified mail.
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Robbin Stewart
Dr. Randall Stoltz,
Research Director
Covance Evansville
RandallStoltz@westpharma.com
My name is Robbin Stewart. I have been a research subject at Covance
for the past two years. Recently I've been effectively banned from
further studies, after I attempted to rely on the written rule that any
roommate can ask that the TV be turned off. I believe that this ban
was a breach of contract and a violation of informed consent.
I am writing to you so that you will know of the problem, and so that
you can either fix it, or choose to side with Covance against me.
I might have been right or might have been wrong in thinking that there
was a written rule I could rely on to have a quiet area so that I
could work and read and sleep.
But even if I was wrong, and there really is no such rule, it is
unethical and a violation of informed consent to ban me from studies
simply for asking that such a rule be enforced, when the written rules
that every participant signed and agreed to stated that there was such
a rule.
Informed consent is the most basic ethical principle governing drug
studies, and was instituted in response to the Tuskegee Experiments
and the experiments conducted by Dr. Menengele.
If subjects can be banned for pointing out when the rules aren't
followed, this is coersion and duress, rather than informed consent
and voluntary participation.
Facts:
I participated in a study at Covance Evansville in December 2008.
It was my 4th study there since 2007. Iv'e also done a study at
Madison, and had hoped to do studies in Florida as well.
I signed a consent agreement which included a rider labeled "RULES".
RULES was in all caps, large type, and bold print.
I reasonably believed that these were rules. I might or might not have
been wrong about that - I have been told that the rules are only
“guidelines” and not actually rules.
One of the rules stated that
the bedroom is a quiet area. “If one of the roommates requests that the
Television. be turned off, subjects must comply.”
My 2 roommates kept the television on all the time, except between
about 2 and 6 am. Usually they chose violent police shows.
On the third or fourth day of the study, I requested that the
Television be turned off, since I wanted to have some peace and quiet to
work and read and sleep.
They refused. One of them went to a nurse, who said that there wasn't
any such rule and they could keep the television on.
I asked to speak to the study coordinator to find out what the policy
was. At first Nancy agreed with me that there was such a rule, and went
in to explain it to my roommates. I do not know what was said between
them, but when she came out, she denied that there was any such rule,
and allowed them to keep the television on.
Thereafter I mostly stayed out of the room, and tried to find any
somewhat quieter place to read. I wasn't able to get any work done
that week.
The next day, when we discussed it again, Nancy told me that I would
be excluded from further studies.
I dropped my request for a quiet area, and asked to be kept in studies.
Doing studies is my primary source of income, and Covance is my main study site.
I have averaged $8,000 a year from Covance for the past two years, and
desire to continue. Covance volunteers make as much as $20,000/yr.
Without that income, I can't pay my rent, so I'll be moving out of my
apartment next month.
The situation was left unclear when I finished the study in December.
In January I was kept out of screening for a study in Evansville and was
told that there is an 8 day restriction on my participation in
studies. This effectively prevents me from doing studies there. All of
my previous studies have been over 8 days. There aren't any current
less-than-8-day studies. Because of the 30 day washout, it's
uneconomical to do a less-than 8 day study. Later in January I was
prevented from screening for a $3,000 AIDS medication study in
Madison, and found out for the first time that I am banned system wide
and not just in Evansville. Later in January I was prevented from
screening for a $5,000 study of periods of less than 8 days -
effectively I have been totally banned.
Although my main reason for doing studies is to earn a living, I also
value participating in AIDS research, in memory of my friend Phil who
died of AIDS.
I have spoken to the study doctor, Dr. Stewart, who ratified the
decision to exclude me from studies. In going through channels to try
to resolve this, I have spoken to "Mary", not further identified, but
seems to be an administrator in Evansville, who has told me that the
notes in my file would be changed to no longer a show a ban, but just
a recommendation that I not be used in studies of more than 8 days.
However, in talking to recruiters at Madison, they say there has been
no change to the notes, and Mary has not reponded to my request that
she call me, for over a week.
Claims:
The informed consent documents including the document labeled "RULES",
are important for two reasons. First, they are a contract. Contracts
have explicit and implied terms. The explicit term is that the
bedrooms are a quiet area and roommates "must" turn off the television
when requested.
Under Indiana law, every contract has a implied term of a duty of good faith.
Covance violated its contract with me when they refused to let me turn
off the television, or have some other quiet area.
More importantly, it violated the duty of good faith when it banned me
for simply requesting that the rules be followed.
Second:
Covance violated the principle of informed consent when it retaliated
against me for asking that a rule be followed.
Covance obtained my consent by, among other things, offering a rule
that ensured I would have a quiet place so I could get work done during
the study and be able to read and sleep.
Based on that consent agreement, I took experimental medication.
However, the consent agreement was a fraud, and there wasn't actually a
quiet place available. When I exposed the fraud by asking whether
there really was such a rule as claimed in the rules document, I was
retaliated against by being threatened with being banned from future
studies.
For a medical research company, Covance, and its doctor, Dr. Stewart, and
its employees, Nancy and Mary, to violate informed consent is a very
serious ethical breach.
It is also legally actionable as battery by deception under Indiana code.
Currently, I have been continuing to try to address the problem internally by
going through channels at Covance. I will continue up the chain of
command at Covance until the matter is resolved or cannot be resolved
internally, before turning to any
outside authorities.
What I am looking for is complete reinstatement as a Covance medical
research subject; an agreement that I won't be excluded from studies
for any non-medical reason.
Less importantly, it would helpful to know, going forward, if there
are any other "rules" that aren't really rules, and whether or not
there will be any designated quiet area for Evansville research
subjects.
Sincerely,
Robbin Stewart
gtbear@gmail.com.
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Robbin Stewart
> Dr. Stoltz,
> this is just a quick test to see if this is a working email. If it doesn't
> bounce, I'll write further.
> - Robbin Stewart.
>
Saturday, August 01, 2009
IC 9-24-19-2
Class A misdemeanor; commission within ten years of prior similar infraction
Sec. 2. A person who operates a motor vehicle upon a highway when the person knows that the person's driving privilege, license, or permit is suspended or revoked, when less than ten (10) years have elapsed between:
(1) the date a judgment was entered against the person for a prior unrelated violation of section 1 of this chapter, this section, IC 9-1-4-52 (repealed July 1, 1991), or IC 9-24-18-5(a) (repealed July 1, 2000); and
(2) the date the violation described in subdivision (1) was committed;
commits a Class A misdemeanor.
As added by P.L.32-2000, SEC.1.
IC 9-24-19-8
Rebuttable presumption of knowledge of suspension
Sec. 8. Service by the bureau of motor vehicles of a notice of an order or an order suspending or revoking a person's driving privileges by mailing the notice or order by first class mail to the defendant under this chapter at the last address shown for the defendant in the records of the bureau of motor vehicles establishes a rebuttable presumption that the defendant knows that the person's driving privileges are suspended.
As added by P.L.32-2000, SEC.1.
Class A misdemeanor; commission within ten years of prior similar infraction
Sec. 2. A person who operates a motor vehicle upon a highway when the person knows that the person's driving privilege, license, or permit is suspended or revoked, when less than ten (10) years have elapsed between:
(1) the date a judgment was entered against the person for a prior unrelated violation of section 1 of this chapter, this section, IC 9-1-4-52 (repealed July 1, 1991), or IC 9-24-18-5(a) (repealed July 1, 2000); and
(2) the date the violation described in subdivision (1) was committed;
commits a Class A misdemeanor.
As added by P.L.32-2000, SEC.1.
IC 9-24-19-8
Rebuttable presumption of knowledge of suspension
Sec. 8. Service by the bureau of motor vehicles of a notice of an order or an order suspending or revoking a person's driving privileges by mailing the notice or order by first class mail to the defendant under this chapter at the last address shown for the defendant in the records of the bureau of motor vehicles establishes a rebuttable presumption that the defendant knows that the person's driving privileges are suspended.
As added by P.L.32-2000, SEC.1.
today was friday, the last day of the week to get anything done.
wrote out a list, 10 items, did one of them.
went to post office, bank, other bank,
did laundry made soup washed windows weeded garden.
bought a tommy hilfiger black wool suit $20.
paid jake $60 for ut.
rochester $20 more.
didn't go to a milton friedman lecture.
got drunk again.
to do:
make copies of uncle bob's thing.
write my own.
write the court boone county
write the sheriff boone county
pay the gibson county ticket
get lciense back
buy lawyers weekly
take cle classes
do motion for facts and law re wrongful dismissal of state suit.
that one's relatively easy, but too late.
make copies of w v brief, mail copies.
go thru list, write in marker post on wall.
pushups parkhurst.
wrote out a list, 10 items, did one of them.
went to post office, bank, other bank,
did laundry made soup washed windows weeded garden.
bought a tommy hilfiger black wool suit $20.
paid jake $60 for ut.
rochester $20 more.
didn't go to a milton friedman lecture.
got drunk again.
to do:
make copies of uncle bob's thing.
write my own.
write the court boone county
write the sheriff boone county
pay the gibson county ticket
get lciense back
buy lawyers weekly
take cle classes
do motion for facts and law re wrongful dismissal of state suit.
that one's relatively easy, but too late.
make copies of w v brief, mail copies.
go thru list, write in marker post on wall.
pushups parkhurst.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)