LETTERS : Did Case Unveil New Legal Gimmick?

In "Computer Venture Plagues Northrop" (Dec. 28), I was disturbed by a motion filed in Northrop's behalf for the removal of the arbitrator in the case (Northrop lost a $18.3-million judgment) on the grounds that the arbitrator used a drug to treat epilepsy.

Aside from the obvious affront to people with epilepsy, is this going to become a new legal gimmick used to ferret out the health status of presiding judges/arbitrators/referees and then imply all sorts of terribly negative attributes? My advice to all of you who are in a position to render decisions such as the one against Northrop--be on your guard--don't take a Rolaid, because it won't spell relief, it will spell D-I-S-A-S-T-E-R!


Copyright © 2019, Los Angeles Times
EDITION: California | U.S. & World