Defective Products

June 1, 2009

Prevent Boston Pool and Spa Drowning Accidents by Installing New Drains and Implementing the Proper Safety Measures, Says CPSC

The Consumer Product Safety Commission reports that nearly 300 kids 4 ages 4 and under are killed in pool and spa accidents a year, while some 3,000 others are injured. More than 50% of the child victims are under 3 years of age. 80% of fatal drowning accidents involving child victims occur in spas and pools in private residences.

With summer approaching, these disturbing figures are an important reminder of why pool and spa owners and operators need to make sure that kids are properly supervised in the pool area and that fencing is placed around the pool or spa to prevent children from getting into the water when no one is around. It’s also time for the owners and managers of public pools and spas to replace their pool drain cover with the newer, safer drain cover mandated under the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act.

This new law requires all public pools and spas to be fitted with the anti-entrapment drain cover and when applicable, the anti-entrapment system. According to the CPSC, 11 people were killed and 69 others were injured in spa and pool entrapment accidents. The new drain covers are supposed to prevent the drain from attaching to a person’s body part or bathing suit, causing the suction to hold the victim under water until he or she drowns. Kids are especially susceptible to becoming the victim of pool entrapment accidents.

Drowning also continues to be a huge problem affecting kids, with children younger than 14 making up more than one in four deadly drownings. Victims that do survive near-drowning accidents will sometimes sustain traumatic brain injuries that could impair them for life.

If your child is injured or killed in a spa or pool on someone else’s premise, you may have grounds for filing a Boston premises liability complaintor a Massachusetts products liability lawsuit, including:

• Improper supervision • Lifeguard failure • Defective pool drain • Inadequate fencing around pool • Lack of emergency/rescue equipment • Wrongful death

CPSC Announces New Report on Child Drownings and Near-drownings in Pools and Spas

Related Web Resources:
Read the 2009 Report , CPSC (PDF)

Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act (PDF)

Pool Safety
Continue reading

May 7, 2009

Preventing Boston Car Accidents: IIHS Says The Bigger and Heavier the Motor Vehicle, the Greater the Safety Protection Provided

by Altman & Altman

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety recently announced the results of three front-to-front crash tests it conducted. A microcar or minicar and a midsize model from the same auto maker were used for each test. IIHS president Adrian Lund says that while there are undoubtedly benefits to buying the smaller cars, including the facts that they cost less and don’t use up as much gas, these latest tests show that people may be sacrificing occupant safety for financial savings.

The IIHS tested 2009 models against each other: The Honda Fit against the Honda Accord, the Mercedes C against the Smart Fortwo, and The Toyota Camry against the Yaris. During all three tests the laws of physics won out. While the smaller cars did well in IIHS frontal offset barrier tests, they performed poorly against the larger cars-which aren’t even considered large cars compared to luxury-sized cars, pickup trucks, SUV’s, and passenger vans.

In all three tests, the bigger and heavier autos performed better in terms of occupant safety. The dummies in the smaller, lighter autos tended to be at a disadvantage. The larger, heavier vehicle ended up pushing into the smaller, lighter auto, which means that if there had been people riding in the smaller cars, they would have experienced more force upon impact than if they had been occupants in the larger autos. The greater the force, the greater the risk of injury or death, which means the chances of injury goes up when someone rides in a microcar or a minicar.

This is confirmed by auto accident statistics, which reports that the fatality rate for occupants of minicars in multiple vehicle collisions in 2007 was nearly two times that of the fatality rate for people in very big cars. It also helps for occupants of larger cars that the larger size and weight of the vehicle will likely deform or move any object it hits.

It is important that auto manufacturers make cars that are safely designed and manufactured to minimize/prevent injuries or deaths. A car maker can be held liable for Massachusetts products liability or wrongful death if their defectively designed vehicle or a defective auto part within the motor vehicle causes personal injury or wrongful death.

New crash tests demonstrate the influence of vehicle size and weight on safety in crashes; results are relevant to fuel economy policies, Insurance Institute for Highway Information, April 14, 2009

Related Web Resources:
Car Size and Weight are Crucial (PDF)

NHTSA
Continue reading

March 5, 2009

US Supreme Court Upholds $6.7 Drug Litigation Verdict Against Wyeth and Rejects Plea that Federal Approval of Phenergan Pre-Empts Personal Injury Lawsuits

by Altman & Altman

The US Supreme Court has upheld a $6.7 million civil awarded to a woman whose arm had to be amputated after receiving a botched injection of Phenergan, an anti-nausea medication. The woman, Diana Levine, was injured in April 2000 when she went to a local clinic for treatment of a migraine.

The clinic administered the drug, also known as promethazine, to her using an IV-push, which allows for a greater volume of medication to enter her body at a faster pace. Although the needle was supposed to go straight into her vein, it accidentally struck her artery and Levine developed gangrene.

Doctors had to amputate her hand and forearm, which put an end to Levin’s career as a guitarist and a pianist. Not only did she lose a main source of financial livelihood but she began to accrue expensive medical bills. Levine sued Wyeth, accusing the pharmaceutical company of insufficient product labeling. She contended that the drug maker did not provide enough warning about the potential dangers of using the drug.

February 26, 2009

Restoring to Injured Patients the Right to Sue Medical Device Makers

by Altman & Altman

One year after the US Supreme Court ruled that medical device makers cannot be sued for personal injury, products liability, or wrongful death if the Food and Drug Administration had previously approved the device, US lawmakers are taking steps to give back to defective medical device victims and their families the right to sue for damages. In the US Senate, Senators Patrick Leahy and Ted Kennedy intend to reintroduce a bill that they presented last year, while in the US House, Representatives Frank Pallone and Henry Waxman say they will introduce their own bill.

In the US Supreme Court case, Charles Riegel, who was injured during angioplasty surgery when a balloon catheter burst as it was being inserted in his body, had sued medical device maker Medtronic for products liability. His case, Riegel v. Medtronic, went all the way to the US Supreme Court, and in 2008, the Court affirmed a ruling by a lower court to throw out the lawsuit.

Following the Supreme Court decision, hundreds of people who were injured by defective medical devices are finding that they may have no legal recourse to recover damages. Earlier this month, the Wisconsin Supreme Court said that a man who had to have his Medtronic defibrillator removed because it could fail was not allowed to sue the medical device maker for products liability. Other plaintiffs whose defective medical device lawsuits have been thrown out include a man who says he was hurt by a prostate treatment device and a woman who sustained burn injuries from a device she was using to decrease menstrual bleeding.

Now, two cardiac specialists are warning that Medtronic’s Sprint fidelis lead, an electrical cable that allows a defibrillator to connect to a patient’s heart, may be failing in patients at a faster rate than what was previously thought and that this rate could increase as time goes by. Over 235,000 people were administered the medical device prior to a product recall and many of these patients are still using them. The problem with the Medtronic device is that it may fail to deliver a necessary, life-saving shock to a patient’s heart or unnecessarily send these jolts to the patient. Findings from this newest study will be published on the medical journal Web site Heart Rhythm next week.

Study Finds More Failure of Heart Device, New York Times, February 23, 2009
Effort Underway to Overturn Medical Device Lawsuit Ban, NewsInferno.com, February 20, 2009
Related Web Resources:
Estate of Riegel v Medtronic, Cornell University Law School
Medtronic
Continue reading

February 24, 2009

82-Year-Old Boston Woman Dies in MBTA Escalator Accident

by Altman & Altman

In Boston, an 82-year-old woman was pronounced dead today at Massachusetts General Hospital after falling on an escalator at the MBTA’s State Street Station. Her clothing reportedly got caught in the escalator.

According to Boston EMS spokesperson Jennifer Mehigan, a “cardiac incident” and the “escalator accident” were both factors in the elderly Boston woman’s death. As of early this afternoon, it was still unclear whether the cardiac incident occurred before or as a result of the escalator accident. Meantime, the Suffolk district attorney’s office, MBTA Transit Police, and the Massachusetts Department of Public Safety are trying to determine what caused the incident.

This is not the first accident involving an MBTA escalator. Four years ago, a 34-year-old East Boston man died at the Porter Square station when his sweatshirt hood got caught in an opening in the machinery of the escalator. The movement of the escalator caused the opening of his sweatshirt to wrap more tightly around his neck.

In 1995, a 3-year-old Cambridge boy sustained a severe gash to his leg on an MBTA escalator. In 1996, a Beacon Hill man had have his arm amputated after his coat got stuck in the State Street Station escalator.

According to the Executive Office of Public Safety, the escalator involved in today’s deadly accident underwent its last inspection last May and no problems were detected at the time. There have been no reports since then of problems with the escalator.

Escalator Accident Facts
• Thousands of people a year are treated in US emergency rooms because of escalator accidents.
• Examples of potential hazards that can lead to elevator accidents include missing teeth at the top of the escalator and screws coming out of an escalator’s side.
• Common kinds of escalator accidents include fall accidents and entrapment accidents.
• Among the elderly, slip and fall accidents and trip and fall accident are the most common kinds of injury accidents to occur on an escalator.
• Young children is another group that is at high risk of getting hurt on an escalator.

There are many reasons why escalator accidents occur. Defective or malfunctioning escalators is just one reason that escalator accidents happen.

Woman dies in MBTA escalator accident, Boston.com, February 24, 2009
Rate Of Escalator Injuries To Older Adults Has Doubled, Science Daily, March 14, 2008
Related Web Resources:
Danger On The Escalator, CBS News, February 17, 2005
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
Continue reading

February 12, 2009

State Trooper Files Massachusetts Personal Injury Lawsuit Against Taser Manufacturer

by Altman & Altman

In the US District Court in Worcester, a state trooper is suing Taser International, the makers of the Taser stun gun, for $1 million. James Foley, a Grafton resident, says that when the weapon was used on him during a law enforcement seminar on Tasers, the electric currents that went through his body bent a surgical screw that was in his leg. Foley contends that because of exposure to the Taser, he experienced severe pain and suffering, loss of wages, and a diminished earning capacity.

According to Foley’s Massachusetts personal injury lawsuit:

At the Taser X-26 seminar in 2006, attendees were offered the opportunity to have the stun gun used on them so that they could understand how the weapon affects the human body. Foley says he told a Taser employee that he had surgical hardware in his left femur and the worker said use of the device on him would not impact the hardware or cause injury.

February 10, 2009

Some 48 Massachusetts Residents Affected by Salmonella Illness that Has Spurred Mass Peanut Product Recall

by Altman & Altman

Public health officials in Massachusetts say 48 residents have been afflicted by the same strain of Salmonella that has made over 600 people in the United States sick. The Salmonella Typhimurium originated from a peanut plant in Georgia that is owned by the Peanut Corporation of America.

Those affected in Massachusetts include a 1-year-old and a 91-year-old. There are also 13 reported cases of salmonella in Middlesex County, 4 in Bristol County, 3 in Barnstable County, 6 in Essex County, 4 in Norfolk County, 9 in Hampden County, 1 in Suffolk County, 4 in Plymouth County, and 4 in Worcester County. Fortunately, no one in the state has died from the illness.

Elsewhere in the United States, however, several fatalities are being linked to this particular strain of salmonella, which is being spread because numerous food items contain the tainted peanut products. The family of one woman is suing PCA for her wrongful death. Their lawsuit contends that the 72-year-old died because she ate Salmonella-tainted peanut butter while she was staying at a nursing home. The peanut butter was made at the company’s contaminated Georgia plant.

Meantime, hundreds of companies that are clients of PCA are recalling their products beause of concerns that they may be contaminated with Salmonella Typhimurium. More than 1,700 food products are being pulled off store shelves in an effort to keep consumers from getting sick.

On Friday, the Food and Drug Administration said that PCA had knowingly shipped out some products that had tested positive for Salmonella and that contrary to previous claims by the company that it only shipped out products after follow up tests came back negative, this was in fact only the case for some of the products that were sent out.

Late last month, the US Justice Department announced a criminal probe to determine if any charges need to be filed.

Products Liability
If you or someone you love got sick because you purchased or were served and ate a contaminated or spoiled food products, you may have grounds to file a products liability lawsuit against a negligent food manufacturer or distributor. You also may be entitled to file a Massachusetts personal injury lawsuit against a party that served you the food.

48 in state stricken with salmonella illness, Boston.com, February 10, 2009
FDA: Peanut plant knew product was tainted with salmonella, CNN, February 6, 2009
Related Web Resources:
Recall of Peanut-Containing Products: Salmonella Typhimurium, FDA, February 11, 2009
Peanut Corporation of America
Continue reading

January 29, 2009

Toyota Issues International Recall of 1.3 Million Motor Vehicles

by Altman & Altman

Toyota is recalling 1.3 million motor vehicles over concerns that a foam pad located close to the seat belt could catch fire during an auto crash. Included in the automaker’s recall are 134,000 Yaris subcompacts (2006 and 2007 models) that were sold in the United States.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is working with Toyota to recall the cars, which come with front passenger seat belt and driver seat belt pretensioners that retract the belts so that the occupants’ forward momentum is absorbed during a serious frontal impact.

Toyota is concerned that during serious, frontal crashes, the mechanism that is supposed to tighten the seat belt could release a gas that might cause a foam pad used for insulating sound to catch fire. So far, there are no reports of any incidents stemming from the defect in the United States.

Auto defects or defective auto parts can lead to serious injuries and deaths. Auto manufacturers are supposed to make sure their vehicles are safe for use. While defects can occur during the production or shipping of a motor vehicle, there are auto parts that are defective because there are flaws in their design.

If you or someone you love was injured in a Massachusetts motor vehicle accident because the vehicle you were riding in was defective or malfunctioned, you may have grounds for an automobile products liability lawsuit.

Common auto defects that have resulted in personal injury lawsuits:

• Defective seat belts • Rollover accidents • Defective air bags • Faulty engines • Defective tires • Brake defects
Toyota Announces Safety Recall on Select Vehicles, PR Newswire, January 28, 2009
Global Recall by Toyota; Affects 1.35 Million Cars, Huliq.com, January 28, 2009

Related Web Resources:
NHTSA

Toyota
Continue reading

January 13, 2009

Stork Craft and CPSC announce product recall of over 500,000 cribs due to suffocation and entrapment hazards

by Altman & Altman

The US Consumer Product Safety Commission and Stork Craft Manufacturing are announcing the recall of some 535,000 Stork Craft Baby Cribs. They are telling consumers to stop using the cribs right away. Stork Craft will provide crib owners with a free replacement kit.

The recall is being issued because the metal support brackets that are designed to support the crib’s mattress board and mattress could crack and break, causing the mattress to collapse and a hazardous gap to appear between the crib rails and the mattress.

The CPSC says that so far there have been 10 reported incidents in which at least one support bracket broke. In one case, a toddler sustained bruises to his forehead. In another incident, a child got trapped in the gap but, fortunately, did not get hurt. The Stork Craft Baby Cribs were made and sold between May 2000 and January 2009 at online and major retailers, including Walmart and Kmart.

This is the second crib recall of 2009. On January 6, the CPSC announced that Jardine Enterprises was recalling about 56,450 Jardine Cribs because the wood slats could break, creating a gap that could lead to strangulation and entrapment injuries, including death. The CPSC has received at least 19 reports involving incidents where Jardine crib slats broke. There have been no reports of injuries.

Defective Cribs
Crib manufacturers can be held liable for products liability or wrongful death if a crib the company designed and distributed has defects that contributed to an infant or toddler sustaining injuries or dying.

Examples of crib defects include:
• Faulty mattress design • Crib slats that are too widely spaced • Poorly designed crib corners

Crib accidents can lead to serious injuries include fall accidents, entrapment accidents, and strangulation accidents.

Stork Craft Recalls More Than 500,000 Cribs; Mattress Support Bracket Failures Create Risk of Entrapment and Suffocation, CPSC.gov, January 13, 2009
More than 500,000 cribs recalled, CNN Money, January 13, 2009
Jardine Expands Recall of Cribs Sold by Babies”R”Us; Cribs Pose Entrapment and Strangulation Hazards, CPSC.gov, January 6, 2009
Related Web Resource:
Crib Safety Tips, CPSC Continue reading

December 29, 2008

Movie Star Dennis Quaid and his Wife Agree to $750,000 Medical Malpractice Settlement from Cedars-Sinai for Twins’ Accidental Heparin Overdose

by Altman & Altman

Dennis and Kimberly Quaid have reached a $750,000 medical malpractice settlement agreement with the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center for the medication error that nearly killed their twin infants last year.

Zoe Grace and Thomas Boone Quaid were accidentally administered 1,000 times the recommended dose of heparin, a blood thinner. The medication mistake caused the newborn babies to bleed uncontrollably and placed their health in critical condition. Hospital officials have acknowledged that lapses in safety contributed to the twins’ heparin overdose.

Dennis and Kimberly have a drug litigation lawsuit pending against Baxter Healthcare Corp. The Quaids contend that the design and labeling of the drug caused the medication mistake. They are accusing Baxter Healthcare Corp. of products liability.