Orlando Personal Injury Lawyer - Product Liability

Medical Device Product Immunity Gets Another Look

Ed Normand — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 12:20:00 GMT

In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court in Riegel v. Medtronic ruled that a manufacturer could not be held liable if its medical device was defective, even when the device is recalled, as long as the device was approved by the Food and Drug Administration before it hit the market. Medtronic recently issued a recall for malfunctioning pacemakers, the majority of which have been implanted in patients for five years or longer. Last month, the FDA notified affected patients that these defective pacemakers may cause fainting or lightheadedness, and other symptoms associated with an abnormal heart rate. In rare cases, the FDA stated that serious injury or even death could result. More than 21,000 pacemakers have been recalled, and Medtronic is recommending the removal of the affected pacemakers. Under the 2008 Supreme Court decision, Medtronic is protected against liability because the pacemaker was approved by the FDA pre-market.

Congress is now considering legislation entitled The Medical Device Safety Act of 2009, introduced by Henry Waxman (D-CA), Chair of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Chair of the Health Subcommittee. The Act seeks to overturn the 2008 Supreme Court decision, and give consumers the right to hold manufacturers liable through product liability lawsuits filed at the state level. Consumers would be able to seek compensation for pain and suffering, lost wages and medical expenses resulting from injuries caused by a medical device, or caused by inadequate safety warnings. The Act would put the safety of consumers first, and eliminate the broad immunity from liability that medical device manufacturers enjoy. Manufacturers would have an obligation and an incentive to ensure the ongoing safety of their products, and not rest on their laurels after FDA approval.

The Medical Device Safety Act of 2009 has the support of the New England Journal of Medicine, the American Bar Association, and the AARP, among others. Senators Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee, and Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, have introduced a companion bill in the U.S. Senate.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand

Peanut Butter Recalls List of Recalled Products

Ed Normand — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 12:08:00 GMT

We have been asked to provide a list of the products that have been recalled due to the peanut butter Salmonella infection. Sadly, the list is too long to print here but it is available from the CDC. Check the CDC website at: http://www.fda.gov/oc/opacom/hottopics/salmonellatyph.html#products

for a list of the infected peanut butter products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand

Peanut Butter Danger Speads To 491 Infected Persons

Ed Normand — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 08:44:00 GMT

The food poisoning outbreak related to Salmonella keeps getting larger and larger. According to the the United States Center for Disease Control (CDC) there are now 491 reported cases of people infected with the outbreak strain of Salmonella Typhimurium. have been reported from 43 states and Canada. The illness is very broad with reported peanut butter related infections in the elderly and children, and infecting men and women about equally. This is a very serious infection. Already seven deaths are reported to be related to the peanut butter infection. According to the CDC:

Among the persons with confirmed, reported dates available, illnesses began between September 14, 2008 and January 8, 2009. Patients range in age from <1 to 98 years; 48% are female. Among persons with available information, 22% reported being hospitalized. Infection may have contributed to seven deaths.

Some may wonder what the legal remedies are for persons infected from the peanut butter salmonella outbreak. Essentially in Florida product liability laws govern the claims related to food poisoning ingestion from food products. Most product liability claims fall under two legal claims: negligence and strict liability. Negligence claims will require proof that the peanut butter manufacturer, supplier, seller or distributor was breached the appropriate standard of care in the storage, manufacture or transport of the peanut butter that caused the infection from salmonella contained within the peanut butter. Strict liability claims hold everyone in the chain of distribution of the infected peanut butter--manufacturers, suppliers, and even retail sellers of the product (the Walmarts, Publix etc..) for the sale of an unreasonably dangerous product. Because infected peanut butter is unreasonably dangerous and because the exact source of the contaminations are still being evaluated the strict liability product liability claim is essential to these the succesful pursuit of a peanut butter salmonella related injury or death claim.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand

30 Preventable Medical Mistakes

Ed Normand — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:07:00 GMT

30 common but preventable medical mistakes:

1. Prescribing the wrong dosage of medication

2. Prescribing the wrong medication

3. Providing medications not prescribed

4. Prescribing multiple medicines with complications when taken together

5. Wrong site surgery

6. Surgery on the wrong patient

7. Performing wrong procedure on patient

8. Medical devices improperly left in patient’s body

9. Non medical objects left in patient’s body

10. Sexual molestation of patient

11. Voyeurism of patients

12. Physical attacks on patients by other patients

13. Physical attacks on patients by staff

14. Physical attacks on patients by others

15. Injury caused by contaminated medical devices

16. Injury caused by

17. Providing the wrong type blood to a patient

18. Patient suicide while under medical care

19. Patient elopement from the facility

20. Child or incompetent patient discharged to wrong person

21. Child or incompetent patient abducted from facility

22. Injuries from recalled medical devices after known danger is apparent

23. Health care provider imposters providing medical care

24. Patient falls from failure to take apparent fall precautions

25. Bedsores from failure to maintain skin integrity of at risk patients

26. Injuries from the use of patient restraints

27. Injuries from burns in healthcare facility

28. Improper placement of venous line in artery

29. Infection from lack of appropriate sanitary precautions

30. Birth related death or injury in low risk pregnancy

Source: National Quality Forum.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand

What Is The Dollar Value Of Human Life? (Oh Yes It Is Calculated)

Ed Normand — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 21:01:00 GMT

Most of us proclaim that we would never be able to put a value on a human life. That calculation, however, is done all the time with many different results. Now, you may be thinking I am discussing jury verdicts. Indeed, juries are asked to calculate the amount of pain and suffering to be awarded survivors in a wrongful death action. Actually, however, it is our government and corporations that have detailed calculations of the value of a life.

Take, the EPA for example, it now values a human life at 6.9 million dollars. Why does the government do this? It is part of an economic analysis measuring the costs of proposed regulations against the value of the lives it could save. Likewise, corporations will evaluate the cost of safety measures or the increased cost to produce safer products against the potential liability associated with a jury award in a product liability lawsuit. The EPA's value of a human life is actually greater than the awards that most jurors provide for the death of victim in a wrongful death case. So next time you read about a million dollar award in a wrongful death suit remember there is a real economic basis underlying these claims.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand