My Twitter Feed

March 28, 2024

Headlines:

No Time for Tuckerman -

Thursday, August 3, 2023

The Quitter Returns! -

Monday, March 21, 2022

Putting the goober in gubernatorial -

Friday, January 28, 2022

Congressman Dennis Kucinich Sues Over Olive Pit.

If there’s one thing we appreciate here at Mudflats Central, it’s a good olive. Whether it’s in a martini, or a bowl, in a spread, or a garnish, the olive (in our opinion) has the culinary ability to heal many sorrows. But, that being said, like all good things… when they go bad, they go very bad.

The humble olive is now at the center of a lawsuit in the halls of our nation’s Capitol… well, in the cafeteria, anyway. Our beloved olive has now been dubbed “dangerous” by none other than Congressman Dennis Kucinich. Kucinich, who is doomed to his last term in congress thanks to the Republican redistricting plans that are assured to wipe out his district, has filed a lawsuit.

Seems he purchased a sandwich wrap which contained not only the olive in question, but its pit.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I love Dennis Kucinich’s politics as much as the next guy, and I don’t like thinking about him or anyone else being in “significant pain” or losing enjoyment. BUT as any conoisseur of the olive knows, every bottle of American olives contains the ominous warning, “May contain pit fragments.” At least the ones in my pantry do. And this is the pitfall (I’m sorry. I had to.) of eating food that does not come in a package.

Congressman Kucinich and his olive may be destined to be the McDonald’s coffee analogy of our age. Will we now get little paper wrappers around our veggie wraps? “WARNING! Olives contain pits.”  One thing’s for sure,  the congressman has added a line to his legacy that will undoubtedly haunt him, and we’ll be hearing olive jokes for a loooong time.

Kucinich Lawsuit

Comments

comments

Comments
25 Responses to “Congressman Dennis Kucinich Sues Over Olive Pit.”
  1. LaniN says:

    How many bugs are allowed in your pasta? Reading the FDA’s Food Defect Action Levels
    After a congressman sues over an olive pit, we find the FDA’s limits for junk in our own food. Brace yourself

    http://www.salon.com/food/food_safety/?story=/food/francis_lam/2011/01/27/fda_food_defect_action_levels

    Bon appetite! And don’t expect any sympathy for e coli or jaw bone infections or other problems.

  2. beth says:

    The case has been settled. Good on him for going after just [as in ‘fair’] compensation for injuries sustained — his doing so makes it ‘easier’ for the rest of us to seek just compensation should any of us find ourselves in the same -or similar- situation. I, for one, applaud him. beth.

    Dennis Kucinich Settles Olive-Pit-In-Sandwich Lawsuit: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/28/dennis-kucinich-olive-pit-lawsuit_n_815687.html#comments

  3. LaniN says:

    Thanks, Shari. The ridicule of Kucinich is part of the attack on our rights to sue for redress. We need to think twice when these “news stories” appear. If you want to walk through the dark side, here’s how Roll Call treated the incident, including suggestions that cafeteria workers spit in his food. http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_73/-202867-1.html

  4. Shari says:

    PLEASE DON’T BE SO FLIPPANT ABOUT SOMEONE’S CONDITION. THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS FROM KUCINICH:
    Regarding Settlement of Dental Injury Law Suit

    Dear Friend,

    Though I would prefer to focus your attention on my work dealing with the profoundly
    important issues that face our nation, such as job creation, getting the economy
    back on track, and ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – it seems that some are
    more interested in discussing my personal dental issues. Given the degree of public
    interest you should know some details:

    This injury required nearly two years, three dental surgeries, and a substantial
    amount of money to rectify.

    The legal action you have heard about was filed due to the severity, expense and
    duration of the dental injury, the complications which followed and which still
    persist. I wanted to resolve this matter without filing a lawsuit. The events below
    involved numerous dental visits, more than are detailed in this summary.The dental
    injury set in motion a chain of dental and medical events.

    When I bit into the olive pit, (unbeknown to me at the time), upon impact the tooth
    split in half, vertically through the crown and the tooth, below the level of the
    bone. Externally there was no evidence of a break. This was not about aesthetics.
    The internal structure of the tooth was rendered nonrestorable.Although the pain was
    excruciating, I shook it off and I went right back to work.

    This tooth is a key tooth which anchored my upper bridgework. The injured tooth and
    the bone above it became infected. I took a course of antibiotics for the infection,
    had an adverse reaction to the antibiotics which caused me to have an intestinal
    obstruction and emergency medical intervention.

    Later, my dentist referred me to a specialist who informed me that the damaged tooth
    had to be removed. A third dentist removed the tooth and I was fitted for a
    temporary partial. I waited for the bone to heal. An implant was placed, but it
    failed. Many months later still a second implant succeeded. My bridgework had to be
    completely reconfigured, a new partial was designed, so this injury did not affect
    only one tooth, but rather involved six (6) replacement teeth as well. A new crown
    with a new precision attachment was engineered and put in place. To clarify, no
    dental expenses were covered by any health plan, nor did I have dental insurance
    that covered the injury, which, until it was resolved, affected my ability to chew
    food properly.

    The clamor for information about this incident requires that I provide at least this
    much information. I would have liked to provide such details sooner but did not want
    it said that I was trying the case in the media. So that is why I declined any
    interviews about the matter.The parties have exchanged information and after some
    investigation and discussion have resolved the matter for an amount all parties
    believe reflects the actual out-of-pocket expenses related to this incident. The
    terms of the settlement are confidential; however, I feel that the defendants have
    responded fairly and reasonably. I don’t want to have to make another dental visit
    for a very long time, and will be making no further comment on this matter.

    Thank you very much.
    Dennis

  5. LaniN says:

    AKM, now that you know the truth about the horrific burn truth about the MCD’s incidents, please consider changing your post. The victims of the burn incidents deserve better.

  6. LaniN says:

    There is a lot of boilerplate language in complaints, required to get into court. It is old fashioned legalese. I suspect that is what determined the amount of the claim. I also suspect there is more to the situation than just the stories ridiculing the congressman. So let’s not rush to judgment.

  7. Thank you, clark! On behalf of my husband I had to post this on the McDonalds lawsuit. He gets positively insane when folks try to insist that it was “frivolous.” (Yeah, that word pisses me off…)

    “The McDonald’s coffee lawsuit was about a woman who received 3rd degree burns over much of the lower half of her body because McDonalds served their coffee at a beyond-dangerous 190 degrees. At that temperature, liquid can cause 3rd degree burns in a matter of seconds so poor Mrs. Liebeck (the plaintiff) didn’t stand a chance. McDonalds lost this suit because they were well aware of the too-hot temperatures as they had already settled OVER 700 CLAIMS from other burn victims for a total of OVER $500,000.00. A McDonalds quality assurance manager testified that “the coffee was not fit for consumption” as served (185 degrees, give-or-take 5 degrees) because it would cause scalding burns.”

    You can read it all here:

    http://www.jtexconsumerlaw.com/V11N1/Coffee.pdf

    • clark says:

      even more interesting is all the ripple effect [obviously]… the way the corporotocracy used the public sentiment — the belief the coffee suit was indicative of out of control jury awards and baseless suits — to force people into arbitration and limit corporate liability on almost all aspects of our lives. all of which was well illustrated by amy goodman [link in reply #7 above]. too bad we got taken for a ride on that one, eh.

    • LaniN says:

      Thank you for posting that link. That poor woman, who suffered severe injuries, won huge punitive damages in part because McD’s ridiculed and villified her, trying to hide the fact that it KNEW it was serving dangerously hot coffee. Decades later, she continues to be ridiculed by corporate interests in an effort to reduce our right to sue for negligence. The same ridicule is happening to victims of medical malpractice in a very successful campaign to limit our right to sue for medical error compensation.

  8. Cassie Jeep says:

    But…but…but…doesn’t he enjoy COMPLETE dental coverage through his government sponsored health care?

    • beth says:

      Depends on the specific plan(s). Our dental coverage (govt) has annual deductibles and limits; go over those limits and all that’s ‘over’ is 100% out of pocket…and no “carry over” from year to year, either — within the fiscal year, use it or lose it. And tooth extraction(s) can’t be covered under the medical plan, if it has to do with teeth, gums, and [general] mouth, it has to be under the dental plan. My bank account is much the lighter for the rules and regs re: our govt dental plan. beth.

    • Dagian says:

      But if he took advantage of the $5000 flexible spending option, he would at least have been reimbursed if he spent $5000 (probably more) getting it fixed. It also lowers his taxable income (including his salary for social security benefits–but he’s too well-heeled to notice anymore).

  9. Riverwoman says:

    His loss can’t be that bad. He has excellent health and dental insurance.

  10. DF says:

    Yep, olives are on our menu most of the time, especially at “5 oclock anywhere”! But, here in the SW you have one more food item in which to take caution — that being the tamale! Now, I have always loved tamales but, while we were in Alaska, we got quite benign tamales at Mexico in Alaska and such places. Here, you take your dental work and your tamales seriously. The non-pitted ones are routinely added to the mexican style tamales! Ouch, if you don’t look first!

  11. clark says:

    take a listen to yesterday’s ‘democracy now’ and then see if you still think the mc donald’s coffee suit was frivoulous:
    http://www.democracynow.org/2011/1/25/do_you_know_the_full_story

    • beth says:

      Much as I hate to admit it, I, too, bought into the story that went around…even tsk-tsking her, myself, for bringing such a frivoulous law suit and tsk-tsking harder! the whack-o jury for giving her such an outrageous award! Little did I know… beth.

      –I’ve Fb-ed it. In hopes of redemption for not getting the full skinny in the first place and for all the times I joined in in speaking ill of her and/or did not speaking up for her? b.

  12. leenie17 says:

    Her’s another Slimy Politician Filing Stupid Lawsuits story:

    In January of 2008 (this is a significant detail) NY State Senator Jim Alesi decided to explore a house that was under construction. The house was empty and the front door was locked, but he managed to find an unlocked door leading to the basement. The staircase to the main floor was not yet in place, so he climbed a ladder to see upstairs. He fell off the ladder and broke his leg.

    The house had already been sold and both the contractor and homeowners decided not to file criminal trespassing charges. He never contacted them or thanked them for their decision.

    Remember that important detail I mentioned? On the DAY THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RAN OUT on possible trespassing charges, he filed a civil suit against the contractor and the homeowners!

    Outraged public opinion, and substantial pressure from the local Republican committee, finally convinced him to drop the lawsuit yesterday.

  13. vj says:

    Seems he broke a tooth on it. Maybe he even lost the tooth and has to have a false one forever. I’d be ticked if that happened to me.

    A dentist once accidentally partially-removed a tooth of mine (so far that it couldn’t ever grow back in place), but because it was a little crooked I had to have another three teeth removed so I could have a denture. When I realized that the only thing that would have made me feel better would be to get him in his own chair and pull out four perfectly good teeth of his, I declined to sue and let go of my bitterness.

    Teeth are irreplaceable, and I sympathize with Mr Kucinich.

  14. Valley_Independent says:

    Aren’t frivolous lawsuits and unreasonable awards why members of Congress are clamoring for tort reform? Sometimes things just happen, and there is nobody at fault. Sue-happy people drive up the costs for all of us and should be ashamed of themselves.

  15. slipstream says:

    Well, this is the pits.

  16. Evelyn says:

    I suspect a higher motive – did KBR make that sandwich?

  17. Bob Benner says:

    It’s because of morons like this they have to put warnings on jars/bags of peanuts saying “Warning…This product may contain peanuts”. He will lose. If there was a steel bolt in his sandwich he would have a case. But not an olive pit in a sandwich containing olives.

    • Tallahassee Lassie says:

      You can’t spell “olive” without “evil” – I’m just sayin’ . . .

    • beth says:

      I have a feeling the bags/cans of peanuts carrying the “This may contain peanuts” is for a damned good reason. If I’m not mistaken, since there are folks who are, literally, deathly allergic to peanuts (and some even to peanut dust!), any product containing them needs to carry a warning. Yeah, it sounds absolutely absurd! for a bag/can of peanuts to carry a warning that it contains peanuts — I mean, well, DUH! How dumb do you have to be to not know a bag of peanuts has peanuts in it?

      But think of it this way: At what point do you no longer have to include the warning? If the product is more than 90% peanuts? If it’s more than 80% peanuts? If it has “peanut” in the name of it? Seems to me, if you start granting ‘exceptions’ for peanut warning labels, you’re going to end up right back where you started – selling products containing peanuts w/o warning labels. ANY product containing peanuts should be so labeled.The only ‘legit’ exception I can think of for “peanuts” is for those styrofoam packaging thingies that cling to everything…I agree that those don’t need a “may contain peanuts” warning but should have a “not for consumption” label on them — after all, they are called “peanuts” and as everyone knows, peanuts are for eating… beth.

      • Dagian says:

        I developed a peanut allergy around this time last year. It was my first food allergy. It was…horrible. Swelling, flushing, gasping, vomiting, explosive diarrhea. I should’ve gone to the ER.

        At 42.

        I now have a label-reading fetish to rival the most paranoid and epi-pens stashed in my home, my office, etc.

        I’m sorry the guy suffered (broken teeth?), but even pitted dates or pitted prunes may occasionally have one that escaped getting pitted.

        *shakes head*

        But regarding Stella & McDonald’s–that coffee was so hot it melted her labia. Gentlemen, this is the equivalent of the glans.