Children traveling in cars with grandparents are at a much lower risk of being injured in accidents, compared to those traveling with parents.  That finding comes from a study published in the journal Pediatrics, and flies in the face of much that Sherman Oaks car accident lawyers believe about the driving skills of senior motorists.

The study by researchers at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania, involved an analysis of accident data between 2003 and 2007.  The accidents involved close to 218,000 children below the age of fifteen.  In these accidents, 1,302 children were reported injured.

Of these, 161 were traveling in cars driven by their grandparents at the time.  On the other hand, 293 children were being driven by parents.  The injury rate for children was .7% when grandparents were driving, and the injury rate was 1.05% when parents were driving.

This high injury rate when parents are driving remained constant even though parents  seemed to do a better job of restraining children.  Grandparents were more likely to make mistakes when it came to placing children in the right car seat.  However, in spite of these errors, children were still much less likely to be injured when they were traveling with grandparents.

It’s not that hard to understand why children may be safer when they’re traveling with grandparents than parents.  Senior drivers, who are believed to be high-risk motorists, are likely to become cautious when they are traveling with their grandchildren.  Making sure your grandchildren get from point A to point B safe and sound, is a huge responsibility which probably increases the chances of cautious driving.

The researchers believe injury rates when grandparents are driving could possibly be lowered further if these motorists restrain children properly in their car seats.

Zimmer Holdings Inc., maker of the NexGen CR-Flex Porous Femoral Component knee replacement device that is the basis of several product liability lawsuits, has embarked on an initiative to discourage further litigation.  Over the past year, the company has sent cease-and-desist letters to several product liability attorneys who had filed lawsuits against the company in relation to the knee replacement device.  According to Zimmer, these attorneys are giving the company a bad reputation through the information they are posting on their websites.

At least seven product liability attorneys who have filed lawsuits based on injuries allegedly resulting from the Zimmer knee replacement devices, have had defamation lawsuits filed against them over the past year alone.  The lawsuits allege not only defamation, but also trademark infringement.  Four of these attorneys have settled the lawsuits and have issued retractions of their statements.  The remaining cases are still pending.

In 2010, at a meeting of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, researchers presented evidence that the NexGen CR-Flex Porous Femoral Component device has a much higher than average failure rate.  According to the researchers, they analyzed patients who received the knee replacement device, and found that in at least 38% of the patients who received the devices there were signs of device failure, including loosening of the device.

Further, many of the patients who had been implanted with these devices, required revision surgeries.  Researchers said that the results of these studies were serious enough to warrant a recall.

Since then, Zimmer Holdings Inc. has announced recalls of two knee replacement devices, including the Zimmer NexGen Complete Knee Solutions MIS Knee and Zimmer NexGen Complete Knee Solutions Minimally Invasive Surgery Tibial Components, locking screw and stem extensions.  In 2010, the company recalled the Zimmer NexGen Complete Knee Solution LPS femoral component and the Zimmer NexGen Complete Knee Solution LPS Flex Gender femoral component.  The company faces dozens of other lawsuits by Zimmer knee replacement recall lawyers, based on injuries that patients have allegedly suffered through the use of these devices.

A two-year experiment in New York illustrates to Los Angeles car accident lawyers that strong enforcement of distracted driving laws can help lower cell phone and texting while driving, thereby minimizing the risk of accidents involving such behavior.

In New York, the Department of Transportation sponsored a two-year campaign against distracted driving.  The campaign was centered in the cities of Hartford and Syracuse.  The campaign included public awareness programs as well as strong enforcement of the state’s laws against the use of handheld cell phones and texting while driving.

The results are now in, and overwhelmingly support the role of strong enforcement in reducing the risks of distracted driving accidents.  The campaign was based on more successful ones targeting drunk driving and seatbelt violations.  According to the Department of Transportation, public awareness campaigns can only go so far in reducing such practices in the general motorist population.  However, when campaigns include enforcement of laws, and when violations are immediately fined, the incidence of such practices among motorists drops significantly.  That is that what happened in New York.

In Syracuse, hand-held cell phone use and texting while driving dropped by about one-third over the two-year period.  In Hartford, hand-held cell phone use dropped by 57%.  In both cities, 9,500 citations for hand-held cell phone use and texting while driving were handed out during this period of time.  During this period, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration also conducted surveys to determine the impact of public awareness campaigns to make citizens more aware of anti-distracted driving laws.

States like California that already have less than effective laws against the use of handheld cell phones and texting while driving, can learn very important lessons from the New York experiment.



According to a leading medical publication, Medtronic and physicians on its payroll were aware during clinical trials that the use of Infuse bone graft could cause serious side effects, but chose to downplay these effects.  Even more damning, Medtronic paid physicians a significant amount of money during these trials.

The allegations are contained in a report by the Spine Journal, the official publication of the American Spine Society.  According to the Journal, doctors underreported the significant side effects of the use of Infuse during clinical trials.  These side effects include sterility, neurological injuries, and excessive bone formation.  Instead, doctors and physicians asserted that there were few side effects from the use of Infuse.  Los Angeles personal injury lawyers have been aware of these side effects for a while now.

Moreover, the report in the Spine Journal says that doctors were paid millions of dollars in royalties during these studies.  In one large study of Infuse bone graft, one of the physicians received $10 million in royalties.  Those are huge sums of money in compensation even in the medical industry, where such practices are rampant.  According to the Spine Journal researchers, they haven’t seen such excessive compensation paid to doctors in all their years in the industry.

Medtronic currently faces product liability lawsuits from people who suffered serious injuries from the use of the Infuse bone graft product.  Some of the most serious injuries involved swelling in the neck and throat region, some ultimately causing death.  In some instances, patients had excessive bone formation after Infuse was used, and some of these cases were so severe that the patient needed additional surgery in order to remove the bone.

Medtronic is currently under investigation by a congressional committee that is probing the extent of the company’s payments to doctors and physicians and whether it downplayed the complications from the use of the graft.

A San Fernando Valley motorist involved in a motorcycle accident that killed a motorcyclist, has been charged with murder.  According to police, the 56-year-old man was driving a pickup truck, which he turned in front of the motorcyclist.  The motorcyclist was thrown from his vehicle on impact, and sustained serious injuries.  He died a short while later at the hospital.  According to investigations, the motorcyclist had the right-of-way when he was hit by the pickup truck.

Police now believe that the pickup truck driver was impaired at the time of the accident.  Investigators are looking into his background, and he has now been arrested.  He’s facing charges of murder, and has a bail amount of more than $1 million.  The fact that the bail has been set at such a high amount may show that police found something in his background that could incriminate him further.

Many motorcycle accidents in Los Angeles occur every year because of motorist negligence or error.  That is a fact, even though the general tendency is to blame motorcyclists for all accidents.  Motorcyclists have tremendous incentive to drive safely at all times.  They are aware that when they are involved in an accident with a passenger vehicle, they, and not the occupants of the car, are at a high risk of injuries or death.

This summer, drivers in California must make an effort to look out for motorcycles.  They must be especially careful near intersections and look in their blind spots.  A motorcycle is much easier to miss, because of its narrow frame, and for the same reasons, may also seem like it is traveling much faster than it actually is.  Motorcyclists must always wear a helmet while riding to prevent the types of head and brain injuries so often seen by Los Angeles motorcycle accident lawyers.

California’s law banning texting while driving has not had much effect in minimizing this behavior.  In fact, according to the Auto Club of Southern California, the practice of texting while driving in California has actually increased since the ban went into effect,  increasing the risks of accidents.

California’s texting while driving ban was passed in 2008.  California was one of the first states to have a ban on texting while driving for all drivers.  The ban came in response to a growing number of accidents involving drivers distracted by their texting devices while at the wheel.

However, the survey by the Auto Club found that there has been a nearly threefold increase in the number of motorists spotted texting while driving since the ban was passed.  The survey focused on motorists in seven locations in Southern California.   When the ban went into effect in January 2009,  the number of motorists found texting while driving was 1.4%.  Now in 2011, the Auto Club of Southern California has found that the number of motorists texting while driving actually increased to 4.1% in those same seven locations.

One of the biggest problems that Los Angeles car accident attorneys have found with enforcement of the law are the small penalties.  A first-time texting while driving offense in California comes with a mere $20 fine.  A second offense increases the fine to $50.  Combined with other penalties, the cost of a texting while driving citation in California is $140 for a first offense, and about $280 for a second offense.  Additionally, motorists do not get any points on their record after they been found violating texting laws.

It’s not so much that the laws are not effective, as that they have not been given a chance to be effective because of the minimal penalties.  Heavier fines and points on the driving record and other penalties might increase compliance with the law, reducing the car accident risks from such practices.

The Darvocet lawsuits continue to pile up.  The family of a Louisiana woman who suffered a fatal heart attack after prolonged use of the painkiller Darvocet, has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against a number of pharmaceutical companies, including Eli Lilly and Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals.

According to this particular lawsuit, the woman’s death was caused by a heart attack brought on by Darvocet use.  The lawsuit has been filed in a New Orleans court.

The increased risk of cardiac injuries or heart attack from prolonged use of Darvocet and Davon has been at the core of hundreds of lawsuits filed by persons injured by the use of these painkillers.  Darvocet is a painkiller that contains a combination of acetaminophen and propoxyphene.  Darvon, on the other hand contains only propoxyphene.

In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration announced a recall for both Darvon and Darvocet, after studies concluded that both of these painkillers increased the risk of heart attacks. Specifically, the study concluded that the prolonged use of these medications caused a change in electrical cardiac activity, increasing the risk of the person suffering from cardiac arrhythmias.  The person’s risk of other conditions, including myocardial infarction, also was found to increase with Darvocet use.

Both painkillers have since been pulled from the market, but not before possibly thousands or hundreds of thousands of Americans were exposed to their effect.

Cardiac injuries are not the only kind of side effects that California Darvocet recall lawyers associate with Darvocet use.  These painkillers have also been linked to a number other minor side effects, including dizziness, fatigue, nausea, vomiting and constipation.  More serious side effects include anxiety, loss of appetite, severe weight loss, and fatigue.  Darvocet has also been linked to the risks of addiction.

Auto accidents involving teen motorists in California increase dramatically during the summer, by some estimates, that increase is as much as 70%.  In fact, most accidents involving teen drivers occur during the 100 days between the Memorial Day and Labor Day holidays.  According to federal data, between 2005 and 2009, there were an average of 425 teenage accident deaths in the months of June, July and August.  This summer, California car accident lawyers would advise greater parental caution about traffic safety for teen drivers.

During summer, teenagers drive more than during the rest of the year.  In fact, some studies placed the increased driving at about 44% or more.  That not only means more teen drivers on the road, but also more teenage passengers in the car.  Additionally, it also means more numbers of teen drivers at night.

The American Automobile Association has the following tips for parents to reduce the risk of accidents involving their teens:

• Restrict nighttime driving.  Most fatal accidents involving teen drivers in the summer occur between 9:30 PM and midnight.
• Eliminate unnecessary driving.  There are so many teen driver accidents during summer partly because of the increased driving that teen motorists do during these months.
• Keep a limit on the number of teenage passengers that your child has in the car.  Studies show that the risk of an accident increases with the number of passengers that the teen driver has in the car.
• Have a parent-teen driving agreement in place.  This agreement must set down rules for your teen driver, limiting driving privileges in case of violations.

According to estimates, teen drivers constitute close to 3% of the overall motorist population in the country.  However, accident fatalities involving teen drivers comprise 12% of percent of all accident deaths in the country.

A new study shows that noisy operating rooms may increase the risk of surgical site infections.  According to the results of the study, which were published in the July issue of the British Journal of Surgery, surgical site infections were also responsible for longer periods of hospitalization.

The team of Swiss researchers analyzed 35 patients who underwent major surgeries.  The patients were reviewed based on a set of 5 parameters, including demographics, the duration of the surgery and the noise levels in the operating room.

The researchers found that patients who were operated on in rooms with higher noise levels, were at a higher risk of infections.  Six out of the patients developed surgical site infections, and the researchers found in retrospect that the only variable in all of these cases was the noise level in the operating room at the time of the surgery.  The noise levels seemed to be higher for patients with infections.

The researchers are concluding that higher noise levels in an operating room make for a stressful work environment for doctors, nurses and medical care professionals.  This stressful environment increases the risk of errors, contributing to infections.  However, the researchers warn against using the results of the study to confirm that noise levels in operating rooms alone contribute to surgical site infections.

Arizona medical malpractice attorneys find that infections are very often the result of a combination of factors, of which high-noise levels may be just one aspect.  Additionally, the risks of surgical site infections in a noisy work environment may also depend on the kind of surgery and the difficulty of the surgery that is being performed as well as the competency of the health professionals.

Further research is needed to probe the link between high OR noise levels and surgical site infection rates.

An unfair trade practices lawsuit against Oscar Mayer Foods alleges that the company intentionally misled consumers about the fat content of its foods through “krafty” labeling on its packaging.

The lawsuit, which was filed in a Miami federal court and also names Oscar Meyer’s parent company, Kraft Foods, alleges that Oscar Mayer Foods deceived customers to make them believe that the fat content of their products is lower than it actually is.  The defendants did this by positioning the “fat-free” percentage next to the calories per serving.

The lawsuit uses Oscar Mayer Deli Fresh Cajun Seasoned Chicken Breast to make a point.  For instance, when the company mentions that this product is 98% fat free and has 50 calories per serving, it does not mean that the 50 calories per serving are 98% fat free with only 2 calories of fat.  According to the lawsuit, such claims are false and misleading, and the chicken breast actually has 10 times the fat calories per serving.

The lawsuit alleges that Oscar Mayer Foods and Kraft Foods violated unfair trade practices laws.  It seeks class-action status for the suit.  It asks the court to require the companies to stop running such false and misleading advertisements about their products.  It also asks the court to order the companies to reimburse people who bought the products.  Attorney fees and legal costs are also included in the damages claimed.

Kraft Foods has denied any wrongdoing in the lawsuit.  According to the company, it stands behind the information contained in its packaging labels, which have been approved by the Department of Agriculture.

False and deceptive advertising can include untrue or misleading statements about the quality, price or any other aspect of a product.  Such practices are illegal under both federal and state laws.  California class action lawyers fear consumers may be lured into buying a product because of such false statements.  Such practices are not only harmful to the consumer who is under the wrong impression, but also competitors who lose business because of these false claims.