• Personal Injury, Vehicle Accident Injury

    Posted on May 17th, 2010

    Written by Attorney Blogger

    Motorcycle Safety Inspection Checklist

    Motorcycle safety often depends on other motorists and the riding skills and experience of the motorcyclist. However, motorcycle accidents can also be traced to malfunctioning of the vehicle. It’s important for motorcyclists to have more than a working knowledge of how their vehicle works, and to be able to look for and identify any problem areas that may need fixing.

    The Motorcycle Safety Foundation has a sample inspection checklist that should be handy to motorcyclists. The checklist contains all the items that need to be in working condition for you to ride safely.

    • Before you begin riding, check the tread depth of the tires. Look for signs of wear and tear. Look for sharp objects that may have become embedded into tires. Check the tire pressure.
    • Inspect your motorcycle wheels. Look for cracks in the cast and seals, and fix any bent, broken or missing spokes
    • Inspect your motorcycle brakes.
    • Inspect the C control hoses and look for cracks, cuts, leaks and bulges.
    • Look for frayed cables.
    • Check that the throttle is moving freely, and does not rev when the handlebar is turned.
    • Check for any cracks on the headlamp. Check the reflector as well as the mounting and adjustment system of the headlamp. Check if the other lamps are in working condition. There should be no cracks, and lamps should be cleaned. The brake lamp should activate upon front brake or rear brake application.
    • Check if the mirrors are cleaned. Check if the turn signals are flashing properly.
    • Check your oil levels. Look for leaks of engine oil, hypoid  oil and hydraulic fluid

    Very often, Las Vegas personal injury lawyers come across accidents involving new and inexperienced motorcyclists. It’s the reason why we would advise against simply going out, purchasing a motorcycle, and riding away. Take time for a motorcycle training course, which will include awareness of the motorcycle’s mechanical functioning. You should be able to tell when a motorcycle isn’t stable enough to ride, because a mechanical failure could be disastrous.

    Ultimately, it’s important to remember that passengers in a car could be safe from injuries caused by a mechanical malfunction of the vehicle, but there is no such safety cushion for a motorcyclist.

    

    • Share/Bookmark
  • Drug Injury, Personal Injury

    Posted on May 16th, 2010

    Written by Aviation Lawyer

    Drug Companies Pay Settlements For Deceptive Marketing

    Nobody likes to admit it, but at some point, everyone has been suckered by a product that they’ve seen on television that promises to do this or that. Once we get it home, however, we discover that this miracle product is actually a total dud. We toss it in the trash and chalk it up to another example of “buyer beware.” When it comes to prescription drugs, though, false promises can be extremely hazardous. Two pharmaceutical giants, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca, settled two separate lawsuits last month. Both lawsuits involve false claims, illegal marketing and unapproved uses of two highly-profitable and extremely popular medications.

    Johnson & Johnson paid out $81 million to settle a case that claimed it marketed the epilepsy drug Topamax for unapproved psychiatric uses. Topamax was thrust into the legal system after a Virginia psychiatrist filed a whistle blower lawsuit that assisted the Justice Department in making its case. His lawsuit claimed that the company promoted Topamax for unapproved treatments for alcohol dependence to weight loss and that Johnson & Johnson gave doctors financial kickbacks. J&J pleaded guilty to a single criminal charge. Six million of the settlement will pay a criminal fine, while the rest of the money will resolve civil claims that the company’s marketing of the drug led government health programs to pay for Topamax for unapproved uses.

    AstraZeneca’s false marketing came with a steeper price tag: $520 million. The drug giant had marketed its anti-psychotic medication Seroquel for uses that the Food and Drug Administration had not approved. The suit alleged that AstraZeneca had encouraged doctors to prescribe Seroquel for a myriad of unapproved uses, from post-traumatic stress disorder to anger management. Like the J&J suit, the government claimed the company sweetened the deal for doctors by handing over money to prescribe the drug. AztraZeneca, however, has denied the allegations and agreed to pay the $520 million settlement.

    Both Seroquel and Topamax also have faced class action suits from patients who claim the drugs didn’t deliver what they promised.

    • Share/Bookmark
  • Personal Injury

    Posted on May 12th, 2010

    Written by Aviation Lawyer

    Survivor of 2008 Plane Crash Files Lawsuit

    The horrors of a plane crash seemingly got worse for Jacalyn Brown of New Jersey when she survived and was left wondering if she would ever be rescued. Brown had boarded a small Cessna 337A on May 17, 2008, ordered by her employer Geo-Marine Inc. Aboard the plane were two scientists, Stephen Claussen and Juan Carlos Salinas, as well as the pilot, John Ambroult. Even though Geo-Marine Inc. was warned that the plane was unsafe and outdated, the company insisted the three use the Sessna on a routine surveying trip. Plagued by mechanical issues and weather problems from the start, the flight eventually took off but soon crashed into the woods in Eagleswood, N.J. Everyone on the plane died except for Jacalyn Brown and Juan Carlos Salinas. The two were badly injured and waited for hours to be rescued. Now Brown is suing the estate of the pilot, the company that hired him and the state troopers in charge of the search that she claims worsened her injuries.

    Ambroult, according to the lawsuit, ignored mechanical problems with the aircraft and negligently flown when he shouldn’t have. Salinas testified in an investigation with the NTSB that he witnessed the propellers of the plane stopping while in mid-flight. According to reports, Ambroult never used his radio to make distress calls and relied on the passengers to help him operate the airplane. The lawsuit also targets the company that hired Ambroult because they knowingly put their customers’ lives in the hands of an aircraft and pilot that were both dangerous.

    Brown claims that state troopers, while searching the heavily-wooded area, did not conduct the search for a sufficient time to save herself and Salinas from further injury. State troopers, on the other hand, maintain that they did a proper search in an area that is heavily forested. She is seeking to cover medical costs as well as compensation for her physical and mental pain and suffering.

    • Share/Bookmark
  • Personal Injury

    Posted on May 7th, 2010

    Written by Attorney Blogger

    IIHS Urges NHTSA to Mandate Antilock Brakes on Motorcycles

    The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has urged the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to mandate that all motorcycles come with antilock brakes that prevent the risk of an accident. According to the IIHS, motorcycles that have antilock brakes are less likely to skid and crash when the motorcyclist applies the brakes, than motorcycles that do not come with antilock brakes.

    To California motorcycle accident lawyers, it comes as no surprise that the IIHS has made such a request to the federal agency. Last month, the IIHS released the results of a study, which indicated that motorcycles that came equipped with antilock braking systems had a risk of being involved in an accident that was 38 percent lower than motorcycles that did not come with these features. According to the IIHS, it found it hard to get motorcycle manufacturers to make these systems mandatory on all bikes, and therefore, decided to appeal to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

    However, support for the proposal from the motorcycling community has not exactly been gushing. The Motorcycle Industry Council told the New York Times that the group did not have enough evidence to indicate that the benefits from having antilock braking systems on motorcycles, were sufficient to mandate that these be required on all motorcycles.

    Antilock brakes may not make as much of a difference when you’re driving a car, but on a motorcycle, the situation can be vastly different. Motorcycle braking systems are much more complex, and harder to use. If you brake too slowly, you risk crashing into the vehicle or object that you’re trying to avoid. If you brake too fast, you run the risk of skidding, or even worse, flipping over. Either of these situations can lead to serious injuries or fatalities for the motorcyclist.

    The IIHS does have support from independent researchers elsewhere in the country. According to researchers at the National Crash Analysis Center at George Washington University, antilock brakes would make motorcycles safer.

    Given the speed with which the NHTSA reacts to recommendations that would keep Americans safe, California motorcycle accident attorneys won’t expect to see antilock brakes as mandatory equipment on motorcycles for at least the next few years.

    • Share/Bookmark
  • Personal Injury

    Posted on May 6th, 2010

    Written by Aviation Lawyer

    Tires Named as Cause of DJ AM/Travis Barker Airplane Crash

    The South Carolina plane crash that killed four people and seriously injured Blink 182 drummer Travis Barker and DJ Adam “DJ AM” Goldstein was found to be caused by under-inflated tires by a federal investigation last week.

    The Learjet crash that happened nearly 18 months ago has been the subject of several class action lawsuits, including one settled for $20 million by the Estate of Adam Goldstein in January. The jet’s pilot and copilot as well as Barker’s bodyguard, Charles Still, and assistant, Chris Baker, were all killed in the crash that occurred in September 2008 in Columbia, South Carolina.

    According to the National Travel and Safety Board, the combination of poorly inflated tires, an overlooked design flaw in the Learjet 60, as well as the pilot’s decision to cancel takeoff after it was too late proved to be the cause of the plane crash. All four tires on the plane, the report found, exploded almost simultaneously causing bits of shredded tire to fly up into the hydraulic system and cause the brakes to fail. The tires in question were said to have been checked by the charter company three weeks prior to the accident even though investigators maintain that the improperly cared for tires should have been replaced after eight days.

    NTSB investigators noted that operators of small charter flights are often unaware of how rapidly tires on small planes deflate and that the inflation levels are not checked regularly. Learjet and the Federal Flight Administration were also both blamed by the NTSB for not taking aggressive action to repair a design flaw in the rear thrust reversers on the model of the jet involved in the crash. The same Learjet flaws were also cited in a 2001 plane crash in Alabama.

    Tire inflation issues have become a growing concern for the NTSB. Last week, the organization addressed a September 2009 Learjet accident that was caused largely in part by unchecked tire pressure.

    • Share/Bookmark
  • Personal Injury

    Posted on April 27th, 2010

    Written by Aviation Lawyer

    Gardasil Kills Teenage Girl According to Lawsuit

    The heated debates surround FDA-approved human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines like Gardasil have swirled around the drugs since they hit the market in 2006. HPV is a leading cause of cervical cancer. Still, many have claimed the vaccines are unnecessary, harmful and may cause injury or death. Nevertheless, HPV vaccines were heavily promoted and publicized by drug companies in a series of aggressive television commercials and magazine advertisements. Sales of Gardasil reached a whopping $1.4 billion worldwide in 2008, thanks largely in part to Merck’s 1 Less campaign that urges adolescent girls to protect themselves from HPV. The company convinced consumers that vaccination against HPV was the responsible and smart way to protect young women against this growing problem. Yet the safety of Gardasil remains in question, leaving many parents of young girls frightened and confused by the product’s claims and side effects.

    This week, a lawsuit filed in the U.S. Federal Court of Claims alleges that Gardasil caused the death of a 16-year-old girl.  It has not been determined whether the negligence of the pharmaceutical company caused the girls death.  According to official court documents, two days after receiving her final Gardasil shot, the teenage girl collapsed in seizures while walking through a parking lot. Although she was rushed to the hospital, she died just a few moments later. The collapse and sudden death of an otherwise healthy young woman, say lawyers, just two days after receiving Gardasil is a compelling case against the Merck-produced drug. The suit is pending in the vaccine injury compensation program with the U.S. Federal Court of Claims in Washington D.C.

    Concerns about Gardasil’s safety surfaced in late 2008, when 12,424 incidents of injuries related to Gardasil were reported in the national Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. Another report by Judicial Watch alleges that Gardasil was not properly tested and furthermore may not even protect users from HPV.

    Past lawsuits involving Gardasil claim the drug was responsible for blood clots, seizures, and paralysis.

    • Share/Bookmark
  • Personal Injury

    Posted on April 27th, 2010

    Written by Aviation Lawyer

    Toxic Fumes Are Excess Baggage In American Airlines Lawsuit

    The aromas that get trapped in an airplane flying 20,000 feet in the air are a standard issue frequent fliers have come to expect when traveling. Passenger body odor, excessive perfumes and odd-smelling food souvenirs are the kind of smelly stuff travelers grin and bear when flying. Toxic fumes, however, are another thing all together. Exposure to toxic fumes created by commercial airplanes can cause memory loss, headaches, vomiting and visual impairment. In July of 2009, Terry Williams filed a product liability lawsuit against Boeing and McDonnell Douglas claiming that a “fume event” which occurred on an American Airlines plane caused him migraines and other health issues. Williams, a flight attendant for more than 15 years, was told by doctors that she had inhaled toxic fumes and the lack of filters aboard the plane left her unprotected from the deadly odor. Throughout the years, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has been plagued with increasing complaints of toxic fume exposure aboard commercial flights.

    Last month, a similar lawsuit was filed by a woman who claims that fumes aboard an American Airlines flight actually caused her to have stroke. Vida Chenier claims that while she was a passenger abroad American Airlines Flight 2073 from Chicago’s O’Hare airport to San Juan, Puerto Rico, on March 26, 2008, toxic fumes contaminated the cabin through the plane’s ventilation system. Chenier experienced oxygen deprivation while aboard the plane and she developed a chronic cough and painful headache. Three days later, Chenier’s health worsened, according to the lawsuit, and she began coughing up blood. Finally, on April 4, 2008, Vida Chenier suffered a near-fatal stroke. The lawsuit alleges that American Airlines failed to protect its passengers against the toxic fumes by not installing toxic fume sensor equipment on the aircraft.

    She is seeking $50,000 in damages to cover medical expenses. While no trial date has been set, American Airlines has remained silent during allegations of unwelcome toxic fumes aboard any of their planes.

    • Share/Bookmark
  • Personal Injury

    Posted on April 21st, 2010

    Written by Attorney Blogger

    Bill To Impose Stricter Penalties on Reckless Driving Fails to Pass

    wreckless driving attorneyEvery year, approximately 40,000 people are killed in automobile accidents across the country, including California. This year those numbers dropped to their lowest level in decades with a fatality count of over 30,000 deaths. However, automobile accidents continue to be one of the biggest causes of death for Americans. Many of these accidents are caused by persons who were driving negligently. Yet, lawmakers don’t seem to consider this kind of negligence strong enough to be punished criminally.

    A bill that would have imposed stronger penalties on reckless drivers has been stalled. It’s an example of the kind of lax attitude that allows reckless motorists to get away with their actions with barely a slap on the wrist. Assembly Bill 1951 was introduced by San Francisco Assemblymember Tom Ammiano. The bill strengthens penalties for dangerous driving. It also provides district attorneys greater discretionary powers to pursue traffic cases.

    Under Assembly Bill 1951, district attorneys would have the power to charge unsafe driving either with an infraction or misdemeanor in case of bodily or great bodily injury. District attorneys could seek prison imprisonment in a county jail for a minimum of five days and a maximum of 90 days, or a fine of a minimum of $145 and a maximum of $1,000. District attorneys could also impose both fines and prison time as punishment. Currently, California’s laws allow penalties of $70 in fines for bodily injury and $95 if it causes great bodily injury.

    Unfortunately, the bill did not make it out of committee. The biggest opposition, surprisingly enough, came from the California District Attorneys Association. Obviously, supporters of the bill including California personal injury lawyers are disappointed. Representatives for Assemblyman Ammiano say that it was lack of lobbying efforts that caused the bill to be stalled in the committee. They believe that the bill has a lot of support from individual district attorneys. .

    The fact is that, very often, drivers who willfully engage in unsafe operation of their vehicles and cause injuries to others, are let off with a light punishment. If airline crashes were killing approximately 40,000 Americans every year, we wouldn’t be sitting by, allowing pilots and airline companies and to get away with it. Then why this casual attitude toward motorist safety?

    • Share/Bookmark
  • Aviation Law

    Posted on April 20th, 2010

    Written by Aviation Lawyer

    Victims’ Families Sue Estate of Pilot with Poor Vision

    In local newspapers around the country, unfortunate stories of older people with physical impairments who continue to operate a car and subsequently cause fatal accidents periodically wind up on the front page. More often than not, it is later revealed in most of these cases that the driver should not have been driving at all. Accidental deaths, injuries and property damages are just a few the nightmares that can occur when an older person no longer able to drive sits behind the wheel of the car. So imagine the horror of losing your loved ones in an airplane crash caused mainly by the 86-year-old pilots’ deteriorating vision. Several families experienced this unthinkable tragedy in June 2008 in northern Ohio.

    The pilot, Gene Damschroder, was hosting a pancake breakfast at the airport to benefit the local Lions’ Club and taking people up for airplane rides after that event. Mr. Damschroder was a highly experienced pilot who had flown since he was twenty years old. Killed in the crash were Mr. Damschroder, Bill Ansted, 62, and Allison Ansted, 23; Danielle Gerwin, 31, and Emily Gerwin, 4, and Matt Clearman, 25.

    The National Transportation Safety Board issued a report last week which stated the pilot of the airplane, Gene Damschroder Sr., was to blame for the accident. Damschroder had been warned by his eye doctor not to drive as the man had been in treatment for macular generation for two years. Macular degeneration is a condition that usually affects older adults and results in the loss of the ability to recognize faces, read or drive. Despite this dangerous disorder, the pilot denied having vision problems when he received his airman certificate in 2007. The NTSB noted the Federal Aviation Administration now has revoked the certificate of the medical examiner who approved Damschroder’s paperwork after the doctor had reported that there were no problems with his vision.

    While the NTSB could not prove that Damschroder’s eyesight alone was the cause of the plane crash, investigators concluded that he used poor judgment in continuing to fly the plane; those who witnessed the accident said the aircraft was flying at a low altitude and banking before it crashed. Furthermore, the report said that based on medical knowledge of his condition, Damschroder would have had difficulty seeing readings on the cockpit instruments as well as objects on the ground. The World War II seaplane pilot also had been involved in a traffic accident just 10 days prior to the crash, according to the NTSB. Damschroder had told a state trooper that glaring sun in his eyes kept him from noticing an oncoming vehicle as he was making a turn into the airport.

    Families of the victims have filed a lawsuit against the the estate of Damschroder, while the pilot’s son has admitted that his father’s declining vision and reflexes may have been the main reason for the crash.

    • Share/Bookmark
  • Drug Injury, Wrongful Death

    Posted on April 15th, 2010

    Written by Injury Law Blogger

    Neurontin-related Wrongful Death Lawsuit Settled

    Neurontin, an antiseizure drug manufactured by New York-based pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, is yet another highly prescribed medication with deadly side effects. Approved in 1994 by the Food and Drug Administration to help sufferers of epilepsy with pain and partial seizure prevention, Neurontin has been found to increase suicidal thoughts and actions among patients who use the medication. In fact, the FDA found a startling 80 percent rise in suicidal thoughts and behaviors in data from nearly two hundred studies conducted by the agency.  These studies show Neurontin to be a harmful drug to a certain percentage of the population.

    Last July, the first lawsuit against Pfizer went to trial. There are roughly 1200 other cases pending involving Neurontin. The most recent was brought to trial last week in a federal court in Boston, Mass., but both parties reached an agreement before the trial had ended.

    Pfizer Inc. also announced that a settlement in a wrongful-death lawsuit was reached for an undisclosed amount on Monday. Linda Shearer, the plaintiff in the lawsuit, claimed her husband Hartley Shearer was prescribed Neurontin to control the effects of his paralysis and that his use of the drug caused him to commit suicide in 2002. The lawsuit also alleged that Pfizer promoted the use of Neurontin even though it was not approved by U.S. regulators and that Pfizer also knew of the suicide risks linked to the product but failed to warn consumers. While the exact details of the settlement are unknown, sources close to the case estimate the final number at no less than $400,000.

    This settlement is another setback for Neurontin, a product with a history of legal woes and high-priced lawsuits. Last month, a federal jury found Pfizer guilty of violating an antiracketeering law by marketing Neurontin for off-label uses and awarded damages of $47 million, which is to be automatically tripled under the law. Pfizer said that it plans on filing an appeal and is currently pursuing a postmotion trial. The company also shelled out $430 million to settle a governmental investigation after pleading guilty to a criminal charge linked to the promotion of Neurontin.

    • Share/Bookmark
  • Older Posts Yeah! There are more posts, check them out.

    Newer Posts Yeah! There are more posts, check them out.