Accident and Injury Lawyer Blog

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.

The J.M. Smucker Company has announced a limited recall on 16 oz. Smucker’s Natural Peanut Butter Chunky, as it has been determined that it may be contaminated with Salmonella. Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.

The affected Peanut Butter is packaged in 16oz jars, and is marked as follows:

• UPC: 5150001701 (located on the side of the jar's label below the bar code)
• Production Codes: 1307004 and 1308004
• Best-If-Used-By dates: August 3, 2012 and August 4, 2012
• Chunky product only (not creamy)
• Impacted product would have been purchased between November 8 - 17, 2011

This product was distributed in: Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.

No other products of The J.M. Smucker Company are affected by this recall.

A Delaware County jury awarded $5 million to a woman in a cancer misdiagnosis lawsuit. Tragically, the Plaintiff's face was disfigured after multiple surgeries for cancer. The crux of her malpractice claim was that her dermatologist should have properly diagnosed the possibility of cancer at an earlier stage. There was apparently a year long delay between when the cancer should have been diagnosed and when it was diagnosed by another doctor.

The jury came back 10-2 which is odd for any malpractice lawyer who is used to the unanimous verdicts.

A spokesperson from AstraZeneca tells us that plaintiffs’ lawyers have voluntarily dismissed two Seroquel lawsuits set for November trials in Delaware. AstraZeneca has a gloating statement:

With this announcement, the initial seven cases prepared for trial in federal and state courts have been thrown out by judges or abandoned by the plaintiffs’ attorneys themselves. We have said from day one that the heart of these cases are unproven claims that Seroquel caused diabetes in the individual plaintiffs. That continues to hold true as we see that plaintiffs’ lawyers have placed a huge burden on valuable court and public resources, bringing claims that they are repeatedly unable to prove.

Why did these Seroquel lawsuits get dismissed? I think plaintiffs' Seroquel lawyers know that the worst Seroquel cases are not going to make it to a jury. Clearly, AstraZeneca and this author apparently think this is the death knell for Seroquel cases. On the other hand, I don't think they will be telling shareholders to expect these cases are not going to cost AstraZeneca 10 figures. I'll still bet the Plaintiffs are going to win some of these cases and there is going to be a global settlement. But there is no question: the plaintiffs need to get these Seroquel cases to a jury.

A Seroquel lawsuit that was set to go to trial before the next Seroquel MDL trial was dismissed yesterday by a Delaware state court judge. The move was not unexpected. The judge had previously excluded medical expert testimony linking diabetes and Seroquel. Without an expert, a product liability lawyer cannot pursue a Seroquel verdict.The irony of it all is that no one seriously questions that Seroquel can cause diabetes. But I believe the problem here is the same as the problem in the Florida Seroquel MDL case that was set for trial: the expert - in this case an endocrinologist - could not sufficiently rule out alternative causes for the diabetes. It did not help that AstraZeneca's lawyers were able to state in their motion for summary judgment that "until recently, her diet consisted of slurpies and donuts, fish and fries from McDonald's, Burger King and '(a) lot of Chinese food.'" Not exactly the best "Seroquel caused my diabetes" case.

The Plaintiff in this case had the type of lawsuit Seroquel lawyers prefer: diabetes from off-label use of Seroquel for insomnia.

"The plaintiffs want to try these cases in the press," said Mike Kelly, a Wilmington attorney with the law firm McCarter & English who represents AstraZeneca in the Delaware cases. "But what is happening in the courts tells it all ... So far, the plaintiffs can't get a case to trial."

Continue reading "Seroquel Lawsuit: Another Loss, This Time in Delaware" »

A doctor won a defense verdict in a failure to diagnose prostate cancer case in Delaware, according to Personal Injury Verdict Reviews. Plaintiff's malpractice case was essentially that he developed prostate cancer and his doctor failed to properly and timely diagnose and treat the Plaintiff's condition.

As is often the case, the defendant doctor fought the malpractice claim arguing that the real problem was that plaintiff did not follow-up as instructed. Not most but some juries in medical malpractice case look - consciously on subconsciously - for ways to blame splaintiffs for their own injuries. Patients who file medical malpractice claims leave themselves exposed if they do not follow their doctor's instructions to the letter.

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."

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.

A tort reform group has named Delaware the #1 state in terms of legal climate in the country for the 5th consecutive year. Survey respondents assigned each state a grade for of 12 different factors affecting the states' tort liability system. Delaware ranked at the very top for a host of categories: stringent venue requirements, treatment of class action cases, punitive damages, timeliness of summary judgment, discovery, judge's impartiality (read: anti-plaintiff), and judge's competence, and overall treatment of tort claims. The last category is actually "tort and contract cases" although they don't really care about how contract cases are treated. This is just code for pretending this is not all about tort reform. Delaware did drop to 13th on jury predictability, and a 10th on jury fairness.

I don't think history shows that Delaware juries are unreasonable. But many Delaware laws both directly and indirectly discourage tort lawsuits. One of my favorite Delaware laws involves lawyer's fees in medical malpractice cases. Delaware does not place a limit on the damages a claimant may recover. But it caps plaintiffs' medical malpractice lawyers' fees at 35 percent of the first $100,000 in damages, 25 percent of the next $100,000, and 10 percent of any remaining award.

This law is great for those medical malpractice victims where they are able to find a lawyer to represent them. But many lawyers do not take medical malpractice cases in Delaware simply because of the decreased fees. It is not unlike Delaware passing a law raising minimum wage to $20 an hour. Some people would really fare well but others would lose their job. With this medical malpractice law, people lose the opportunity to bring just claims.

Moreover, the limit on fees decreases the overall quality of Delaware medical malpractice lawyers. Conversely, because the possible damage awards are unchanged and the exposure is there, negligent doctors and their insurance companies can find the best malpractice trial lawyers to provide their defense, leaving a playing field between doctors and victims that is far from level.

Most jurisdictions leave the the judge's discretion whether to admit photographs from a car accident for the purpose of demonstrating the extend of the injuries of the occupants of the car. In Davis v. Maute, 770 A.2d. 36 (Del. 2001), the Supreme Court of Delaware took a minority view, holding that a party in a car accident may not directly argue that the seriousness of the injuries from an auto accident correlates to the extent of the damage to the cars, unless there is testimony from an expert witness that makes a correlation.

Accordingly, lawyers in Delaware may not argue by implication what the lawyer could not argue indirectly and attempt to suggest that the lack of property damage reflects the minor injuries.

This is great for Delaware plaintiffs' lawyers in car accident cases who have minor property damage and claim injuries. Still, our lawyers prefer the majority rule because if you have a serious injury/serious impact case, you want to get the pictures to the jury to show the severity of the injuries and the Davis v. Maute holding can backfire on plaintiffs.

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