Accident and Injury Lawyer Blog

Johnson & Johnson has announced the recall of Aveeno Baby Calming Comfort Lotion. The recall only affects one lot that was shipped only to a few states.

The recall was initiated as a precautionary measure after testing indicated that the lot exceeded the specifications for common bacteria. Extensive testing has been performed since by an independent lab, and has not shown that specifications were exceeded; however, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies initiated the recall out of an abundance of caution.

The only affected lot is lot number: 0161LK with a UPC Code of: 38137-0036456. The recalled product was shipped to Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee and Texas.

Dogs are people too. Pretty much. For many of us.

So we report here on Proctor & Gamble Company has retrieved a single production lot of dry dog food as aflatoxin levels, above the acceptable limit, have been detected. This product has already been retrieved from store shelves.

Aflatoxin is a naturally occurring by-product from the growth of Aspergillus flavus and can be harmful to pets if consumed in significant quantities. Pets who have consumed this product and exhibit symptoms of illness including sluggishness or lethargy combined with a reluctance to eat, vomiting, yellowish tint to the eyes or gums, or diarrhea should be seen by a veterinarian.

The affected dog food is as follows:

• Product Name: Iams ProActive Health Smart Puppy dry dog food with Use By/Expiration Dates of February 5 or February 6, 2013
• Version: 7.0 lb bag; Code Date: 12784177I6; UPC Code: 1901402305
• Version: 8.0 lb bag; Code Date: 12794177D2 and 12794177D3; UPC Code: 1901410208
• Version: 17.5 lb bag; Code Date: 12794177K1 and 12794177K2; UPC Code: 1901401848

The affected product lot was distributed to a limited number of retailers located in the eastern United States: Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Maine, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Virginia. These retailers have already removed this product from store shelves.

While no health effects related to this product have been reported, P&G retrieved this product from the shelves as a precautionary measure. Consumers who purchased the affected dog food should stop using it, discard it, and contact Iams a replacement voucher.

No other dry dog food, dry cat food, dog or cat canned food, biscuits/treats or supplements are affected by this announcement.

Dogs matter. I'm glad Proctor is doing the right thing by making sure our animals are safe.

Mars Food has recalled two date codes of Uncles Ben's Whole Grain White Rice Garden Vegetable, due to an undeclared milk allergen. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The recall, affecting ONLY the Whole Grain White Rice Garden Vegetable, affects the 4.7 oz. (133 g) boxes with the following:

• UPC code of 54800 40778
• Best before: 08/12
• Code dates: 133BA4RP06 and 133BB4RP06

An ingredient supplier improperly included an undeclared milk ingredient in the seasoning mix used for this product. As such, consumers with milk allergies are advised not to eat the product, and consumers should return the product to the store where it was purchased for a full refund.

This product was distributed through retail stores in Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Vermont and Wisconsin.

Mars Food US has not received any reports of illness or other consumer complaints related to this matter. No other flavors of Uncle Ben's Whole Grain White Rice or any other Uncle Ben's products are affected.

An Alabama jury awarded $1.5 million to a man shocked by low-hanging power lines. The Plaintiff, was paving a road in Alabama when his vehicle struck Black Warrior Electric power lines, sending 7,600 volts of electricity through his right arm.

Suffice to say, that is a lot of electricity, although voltage alone is cause for injury, it is the voltage multiplied by the current. Obviously, his insulation in the vehicle would be important. Still, it has to impact a jury to learn that the guy got shocked by an amount of voltage that is substantially less than the voltage given in the electric chair (about 2000 volts).

Plaintiff's successfully argued at trial that this accident would not have happened if the power company had complied with national codes require that power lines that carry that amount of voltage be placed a certain height above the ground. The jury apparently agreed.

Every year thousands of people are killed or seriously injured because of faulty or defective electrical wiring. Usually, it is just like the facts of this case: a worker on the job that comes into contact with excessive power. Power lines and exposed electrical sources cause too many needless deaths and injuries, injuries that could be avoided if people took public and workplace safety more seriously.

• Electrocution Lawsuits: Lawsuit Overview
• Maryland Burn Injury Lawyer: Causes & Average Verdicts

Kroger Co., the nation's largest grocery store operator, is recalling a specific lot of "Extreme Moose Tracks" ice cream sold in 10 states, as it may contain peanuts not mentioned on the label.

The recall involves only their 16-ounce pints of the product, ones that list a sell-by date of June 18, 2012, and contain the UPC code 11110 52909.

The ice cream was sold at Kroger stores in Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, South Carolina and Tennessee, as well as the company's Jay C, Food 4 Less, Owen's, Pay Less and Scott's stores in Illinois and Indiana. Kroger says shoppers should return the product to supermarkets for a refund or replacement. If 1% of the people who bought the ice cream do this, I would be shocked. It is like a "can I help?" when you know the person you are asking is going to say no. Still, the offer is the right thing to do, of course. (If they didn't, I would be complaining about that, too, so I realize they can't win. Then again, don't put peanuts in your product without telling us and you won't be in the situation in the first place.)

Last month, an E. coli outbreak prompted a ground beef recall by Tyson Fresh Meats, which involved certain Kroger-brand ground beef.

In the eyes of 90% of my office, Starbucks can do no wrong. I need to forward this post to all of the Starbucks lovers.

Starbucks has expanded its previous recall of boxed sandwich products. Why the recall? Well, for one thing, the U.S. Department of Agriculture requested it. That's a good reason. It would probably be best if Starbucks could figure out when to recall their food without the feds telling them to do so.

More specifically, on July 19, 2011, Starbucks learned that one of its suppliers was recalling approximately 200 pounds of ingredients for ready-to-eat chicken wraps and plates delivered to Starbucks retail stores in Georgia and Alabama due to a fear of Listeria contamination. Listeria is a type of food poisoning that can cause, among less severe symptoms, headaches, but it can also cause meningitis, convulsions, and death.

This initial recall was for Starbucks Chipotle Chicken Wraps Bistro Box and the Starbucks Chicken & Hummus Bistro Box. Now, the recall includes the Starbucks Salami and Cheese Bistro Box and the Starbucks Chicken Lettuce Wraps Bistro Box. The affected products were only sold in Alabama and Georgia.

A jury in Alabama has awarded a whopping $40 million to the family of a 16-year-old girl who died driving a Kia. Tragically, the girl's seat belt came off in a car accident and she was ejected from the car, causing her death. Plaintiffs' lawsuit successfully contended that Kia knew for years that the car had defective seat belts. Kia stepped up and issued a recall for their 1995-1998 lines with defective seat belts, but did not extend the recall to cars from their 1999-2000 lines.

Jury Verdict Research conducted a study of Alabama jury trials and found that the average personal injury verdict was $309,062. As always, the high verdicts stretch the average, including a $12,000,000 verdict. The median compensatory award for personal injury trials in Alabama is $25,771. Plaintiff's win - winning defined as recovering some money damages - 47 percent of cases that go to trial in Alabama. Putting those numbers in context, the national median is $40,000 and the nationwide plaintiff recovery probability is 48 percent. The study is based on award data from 2003 through 2009.

• What is the value of my case?
• Alabama malpractice verdicts (average malpractice awards)
• Sample demand letter to insurance company

Because our lawyers handle cases in different jurisdictions, I have a keen interest in average verdicts and settlements in different states. The dynamics of every state is different.

I found this data from the Alabama Jury Verdict Reporter providing average malpractice verdict data in Alabama for 2005:

So, essentially, the average medical malpractice lawsuit in Alabama that went to trial was $449,474 overall with plaintiff's winning 30.3% of trials. In trials won by Plaintiff, the average verdict was $1,484,309. (In case this is not clear, the former statistic includes in the average malpractice cases that were lost.

It is very interesting to learn that wrongful death medical malpractice plaintiffs prevailed in only 13.6% of cases and living (presumably unless they died of an unrelated cause before trial) medical malpractice plaintiffs won 44.7% of their cases. But medical malpractice lawyers in Alabama deciding whether to take on a case should note that the average plaintiff's verdict in wrongful death malpractice cases in Alabama is $4,536,111.

Plaintiffs who filed Seroquel lawsuits finally got some good – albeit expected – news. Seroquel’s manufacturer will not be able to bar medical testimony on general causation of the link between Seroquel and weight gain and diabetes, a federal judge ruled.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers’ expert on Seroquel, the chairwoman of the epidemiology department at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, is expected to opine that Seroquel causes metabolic changes which can lead to diabetes without weight gain.

Honestly, I cannot imagine a scenario where general causation would be an issue. There really is not much legitimate dispute. The challenge that Plaintiffs’ Seroquel lawyers have had in the lawsuits that have gone forward is specific causation, whether diabetes was caused in the Plaintiff, as opposed to the general principle that Seroquel can cause diabetes.

As American Law Litigation Daily pointed out on Monday, Delaware Superior Court Judge Joseph Slights was pretty discouraging about the future of the Seroquel lawsuits in his recent opinion. The judge pointed out that in every Seroquel lawsuit, plaintiffs’ experts have been bounced on Daubert grounds. But you have to look at the facts of those specific cases (here and here). While plaintiffs’ Seroquel lawyers might have thought these were good cases to push forward, it is pretty clear that these were bad cases on the facts (it could have evolved that way in a way unknown to plaintiffs’ Seroquel lawyers.)

There are still 13,000 Seroquel lawsuits out there. There is a long way to go.

My two volume treatise Insurance Settlements is now available from James Publishing. The book discusses how to position a lawyer's car accident, truck accident, medical malpractice or product liability case to the best possible settlement at every step along the way (until the state's high court affirms the judgment).

Click on the James Publishing link. If you have any comments on the book, please email me at ronmiller@millerandzois.com under the subject "Insurance Settlements Comments."

Dennis Sherer had a good article on Tuesday in the Times Daily about Alabama Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb concern that the lawyers representing the poor in Alabama receive provide quality legal representation. Justice Cobb would like the state of Alabama to fund an oversight committee to ensure the legal interests of poor defendants and state taxpayers.

Tennessee does what is clear a dumb thing: lawyers receive $40 per hour for work on indigent cases outside of court and $60 for work inside the court. (This is mostly in criminal cases. The paradigm of accident and malpractice cases does not require clients to pay fees before a recovery.) Lawyers obviously cannot run a law practice on this so the lawyers are allowed to bill the state for their overhead. Not a bad idea in utopia but an awful idea in the real world. Justice Cobb wants to change this system. I hope she can.

Our lawyers are reviewing Byetta claims after the FDA announced this week that the diabetes drug has been linked to severe pancreatic problems in dozens of patients. On Monday, the FDA warned patients taking Byetta to discontinue use if they develop symptoms of the disorder. Further the FDA said that doctor prescribing Byetta should consider other prescription options for patients with a history of pancreas problems.

Since Byetta was introduced into the United States in 2005, more than 700,000 patients have used the Byetta.

Our lawyers are now exploring potential Byetta lawsuits. If you would like to discuss your case with a Byetta lawyer, call 800-553-8082 or click here for a free consulation/case evaluation (or even to answer any question you may have). For more information on Byetta and the concerns with Byetta, click here.

Last week, Digitek manufacturer Actavis Totowa recalled over 65 different drugs made at their New Jersey manufacturing plant. The list of recalled drugs (in some form or another) includes such generic drugs as Bellamine, Buspirone, Carisoprodol, Oxycodone Meperidine, and Rifampin. This strengthens the conclusion that the New Jersey plant that made these drugs may be the cause of irregularities in Actavis medications.

In April 2008, Actavis recalled Digitek, a drug prescribed to treat heart failure and irregular heartbeat because it was discovered that Digitek tablets appeared to have double the thickness – and likely double the active ingredient – listed on the label. When Digitek is given in abnormally high doses it can lead to digitalis toxicity which, paradoxically, worsens the problems Digitek is intended to treat, causing nausea or lower blood pressure and other side effects from the Digitek overdose that can lead to the increased risk of stroke or a heart attack.

If you would like to speak to a Digitek recall lawyer about a potential Digitek lawsuit, call 1-800-553-8000. For more information on the Digitek overdose recall or a free consultation on your potential Digitek case, click here.

Zimmer's Durom Cup hip implants are likely to be the subject of a good number of lawsuits from patients with the Zimmer implants. But they will not be the only ones. Apparently, Zimmer’s own shareholders may agree that Zimmer left its hip implant on the market way too long. Last week, shareholders of Zimmer stock filed a class action in Indiana. Interestingly, the lawsuit seeks damages for shareholders who purchased stock between January 28, 2008 and July 21, 2008. This tells our Zimmer hip implant recall lawyers that these shareholders believe that Zimmer knew or should have known and issued a recall on or before January 28, 2008.

If your Zimmer Durom hip resurfacing cup was defective, call our Zimmer hip implant lawyers at 1-800-553-8082 or click here for a free consultation.

More information on the Zimmer Hip Implant Recall
History of the Zimmer Durom Cup Hip Implant Recall
More information on the Zimmer hip implant recall lawsuits

Jury Verdict Research(r) study reports that rotator cuff injuries reached a 7-year high in 2006 with a compensatory award median of $72,667. This is almost 50% higher than previous reported settlements and verdicts in rotator cuff injury cases.

Our lawyers have never understood while the national data in these cases was so low. Washington D.C. rotator cuff injuries have averaged well over $100,000 for rotator cuff settlements and verdicts so we have never understood why the national average was as low as it has been. In any event, for whatever reason, rotator cuff verdicts are on the rise.

Our lawyers handle rotator cuff injury cases throughout the United States. Our lawyers have handled scores of rotator cuff injuries in car and truck accidents, typically in side collision or "T-bone" accidents. Our lawyers believe that insurance companies do not give fair value in most rotator cuff injury cases and our lawyers will fight to get you the financial compensation you deserve. Call a rotator cuff lawyer to protect you at 800-553-8082 or click here for a free consultation and case evaulation.

Related Posts

What Is the Value of Your Personal Injury Claim? (how the value of rotator cuff and other person injury settlements are calculated)

Sample Demand Letter (sample letter demanding settlement in a personal injury case)

Handling Your Claim Without a Lawyer (tips and pratfalls)

Lawyers representing Digitek overdose victims have filed nine lawsuits in New Jersey against Actavis Totowa LLL and its parent company Actavis Group, alleging a manufacturing defect in Digitek, namely that some Digitek tablets have contained twice the active ingredient of the drug. Digitek recall lawsuits have also been filed in West Virginia and California.

Our Digitek recall lawyers are reviewing these Digitek overdose cases in all 50 states expecting that a consolidated class action lawsuit will be appropriate (as opposed to this scatting of individual cases). If you want to discuss your case with one of our Digitek lawyers call us at 800-553-8082 for a free consultation or click here for a free Internet consultation.

The Alabama Supreme Court has decided three medical malpractice cases in the last few months: Giles v. Brookwood Health Services, Weber v. Freeman, and Panayiotou v. Johnson. All three were decided in favor of the defendant doctor. All three take the decision as to who was at fault for the plaintiffs’ injuries/death out of the hands of the jury. I thought the Alabama medical malpractice lawyers in all three cases made quality arguments that the cases should go to a jury.

Giles was a complicated case involving three defendants. What I found frustrating about the opinion is that the court essentially told the Plaintiff’s expert that “you really say what you think you said” about the standard of care. Why take this kind of medical malpractice case out of a jury's hands?

Weber involved a nice Alabama rule to allow medical malpractice lawyers to name fictional defendants when the lawyer does not know who the real defendants are. Alabama Rule 9(h), Ala. R. Civ. P., provides:

"When a party is ignorant of the name of an opposing party and so alleges in the party's pleading, the opposing party may be designated by any name, and when that party's true name is discovered, the process and all pleadings and proceedings in the action may be amended by substituting the true name."

Great rule. So the question in the case hinged on whether Plaintiff’s medical malpractice lawyer was “ignorant" of the identity of two of the defendants.

The Plaintiff’s lawyer argued that the substitution should be permitted, because she says when she filed her original complaint, she was unaware of the hospitals’ protocol requiring radiologists to notify emergency-room personnel if they discovered a life-threatening condition in a patient who had left the emergency room. But the court said the lawyers were not "ignorant" of a relationship that gave rise to a duty and that they knew that the identity of the health care providers. Accordingly, given the facts of this case, there was a reasonable, good-faith basis for counsel to have named the doctor in the original complaint and the lawyer’s failure to do so fatally bars the medical malpractice claim.

That’s cutting it real thin, particularly when the Alabama court went in a different direction one year before in Ex parte Bowman which arguably was factually similar. These lawyers did the right thing not suing everyone in sight and this is the thanks that they get.

In Panayiotou, the Alabama court overruled the Mobile Circuit Court in finding that a doctor did not have the necessary subspecialty to offer expert opinions. This is an awful ruling for two reasons. First, as the dissent points out, the plaintiff’s expert had experience similar to or greater than the defendant doctor. Doesn’t this count for something? Even more unfairly, the Alabama court is clearly making new Alabama law. Fine. But is it fair to spring a new rule on the Plaintiff in this case? Wouldn’t justice remand to the trial court with instructions to allow Plaintiff’s lawyer to find a new expert who meets this new standard?

Alabama, famously called a “judicial hellhole,” has taken a lot of heat by tort reform advocates Are these judges, elected by the voters, responding to this pressure and the pressure from campaign contributors who support insurance companies? Who knows? But I can tell you I think they made unjust calls in all three of these cases.

An Alabama jury on Tuesday ordered drug companies GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis to pay a combined $114 million in damages for their involvement in a Medicaid price fixing scheme. Lawyers for the state of Alabama claimed these drug manufacturers charged higher prices to Medicaid than those offered to other companies. In other words, they were trying to rip off the government. (If true, they would not be the first.)

Alabama has been out on the forefront of policing drug companies on this issue. Alabama has accused 70 drug companies with Medicaid drug pricing fraud. In the trial with AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals in February, a jury awarded $115 million (later reduced to $160 million).

In the public relations battles between drug companies and injury victims, one thing often gets left out: these drug companies are getting called to the mat for their reckless pursuit of profits by more than just drug injury lawyers.

Welcome to our blog covering injury law and policy throughout the United States.