MM: Remembering Fatal Fire, Whistleblower Gives to CSD, and ATL Neighborhood Names

centennial-olympic-park-proposal-3-600

  • Fatal Avondale fire remembered one year later [AJC]
  • Decatur woman who won whistleblower lawsuit gives thousands to CSD [Decaturish]
  • Slideshow of proposed $46 million makeover for Centennial Olympic Park [ABC]
  • Cracking the code on Atlanta’s film signs [WABE]
  • Child Holding Potato – Poem Selected by Natasha Trethewey [NYT]
  • How Atlanta’s neighborhoods got their names [Mental Floss]

Olympic Park rendering courtesy of Coxe Curry & Associates/Georgia World Congress Center Authority

10 thoughts on “MM: Remembering Fatal Fire, Whistleblower Gives to CSD, and ATL Neighborhood Names”


  2. I really appreciate the generosity of Meredith McCoyd. Sounds like her whistle blowing suit also did a lot to protect the aging.

    1. The headline about the suit is inaccurate. Ms. McCoyd was not the plaintiff and did not “win” the suit. She was instead the whistleblower who alerted the government to the off-label marketing. The government then brought suit and the case settled.

      1. Aha. Well, I’m glad that her whistleblowing has resulted in protection of the aged and huge donations to CSD!

      2. Thank you for pointing this out. Like everything else in the public realm, we get the journalism we deserve. When those reporting don’t hold themselves to reasonable standards of accuracy and clarity, it’s up to us to demand it.

        1. From my notes:

          http://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/litigation/b/litigation-blog/archive/2012/05/08/abbott-to-pay-1-5-billion-in-civil-criminal-penalties-for-depakote-off-label-promotion.aspx

          “Meredith McCoyd, a qui tam relator who filed the first of four whistle-blower lawsuits against Abbott, will receive $84 million from the federal share as statutory payment for bringing a whistle-blower lawsuit.”

          McCoyd is listed as a plaintiff in the actual lawsuit

          http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2014/12/22/omnicare-abbott_laboratories_us_complaint.pdf

          The Dictionary Definition of Plaintiff: “A person who brings a case against another in a court of law.”

          As far as this line, “Like everything else in the public realm, we get the journalism we deserve. When those reporting don’t hold themselves to reasonable standards of accuracy and clarity, it’s up to us to demand it. When those reporting don’t hold themselves to reasonable standards of accuracy and clarity, it’s up to us to demand it.”

          I work very hard to ensure the accuracy of my articles and check my facts before publication.

          I admire your bravery behind a fake name and a keyboard.

          1. Dan, the government intervened in the private lawsuits and became the plaintiff in interest. It controlled the case, not Ms. McCoyd. That’s how qui tam actions work. As part of the settlement, the private actions were resolved as well such that the relators could not bring the same claims again after the settlement. That’s SOP but does not mean Ms. McCoyd was the plaintiff in the sense that term is commonly understood. And note that the case did settle; no one “won” it. This is a strange area of the law so I can understand why you wrote the story the way you did. I offered my post to clarify what really happened.

            1. That’s fine. I understand there are nuances a layman like myself won’t appreciate. I was just offended by SmallTownGal’s comments about the “journalism we deserve.”

          2. As a gadfly commentator with no journalistic pretensions, and consistent with the guiding principles and policies of this website, I’m under no obligation to use my real name. Readers and fellow commentators are welcome to disagree, disapprove, endorse, mock or completely ignore anything I have to say. Bravery doesn’t enter into it and in fact, the use of anonymous avatars can–and should IMO–serve to keep the focus on a topic and remove personal animus from the equation.

            I think the headline was carelessly worded and I indulged in a bit of hyperbole about it. I honestly didn’t expect that you would take it personally, and I’ll bear it in mind the next time.

      3. If I’m reading all this correctly, no matter who sued who and when, Meredith was instrumental in a process that ended up protecting the elderly. She has also donated a huge sum of money to CSD that she could have just kept to herself. These are great outcomes.

        1. We can quibble about legal semantics, but I’d sure feel like a winner if the outcome of a court case allowed me to donate money at those levels.

Comments are closed.