Accident and Injury Lawyer Blog

An Oatmeal recall is not something anyone would expect. But here we are. There is an oatmeal recall for some oatmeal products made with instant nonfat dried milk, whey protein, fruit stabilizers, and gums (thickening agents) manufactured by Plainview Milk Products Cooperative. The fear is that these recallled oatmeal products might be contaminated with salmonella.

In addition to Malt-O-Meal Hearty Traditions Maple & Brown Sugar Instant Oatmeal and other brands of instant oatmeal, other recall oatmeal products include some brands of non-fat dried milk powder, other drink mix products, and butter flavored toppings from Kroger. If you have any of these recalled products, get rid of them.

They oatmeal at issue comes in 13.8-ounce boxes with 10 instant oatmeal packets. It was distributed in stores in Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

Our lawyers are not handling oatmeal recall cases. Although obviously it is early, our lawyers do not think a lot of lawsuits are going to come out of this oatmeal recall.

Median jury awards in motor vehicle tort trials dropped to $17,000 in 2005 from $41,000 in 1992. I don't know about you but this underscores to me that auto accident verdicts are not driving car insurance rates.

The picture is different in medical malpractice and product liability lawsuits. Product liability trials had median awards at least five times higher in 2005 than in 1992. Medical malpractice trials median awards more than doubled to $682,000 in 2005 from $280,000 in 1992.

I realize this data is a bit dated - 2005 - but that is how we typically get personal injury statistics... a little dated.

You can find the entire study here.

The Orlando Sentinel (via Overlawyered) has an interesting article taking a detailed look at statistics surrounding theme park lawsuits. This is not your garden variety media article of a legal trend. It has detailed breakdown of the lawsuits filed against theme parks, and through statistics and interviews, sets the game plan of Disney theme parks, and I think to a similar but lesser extent, its brethren when facing a lawsuit: wage elongated war, make discovery brutal for accident lawyers and their clients, and settle the cases you think you might not win - particularly those cases you might prolifically not win.

Nevada's medical malpractice reform in 2004 is leading to another problem: Nevada medical malpractice cases with doctors who are refusing to settle cases. The Nevada Supreme Court in Las Vegas is looking to take matters into their own hands to avoid the backlog of medical malpractice lawsuits: a "settlement marathon."

Two judges will be assigned to conduct 18 malpractice settlement conferences per week on malpractice cases currently pending in Clark County District Court, to try to reduce the 400 pending medical malpractice lawsuits.

In 2005, the doctors’ lobbyist (MEDCHI) outsmarted Maryland malpractice lawyers and won the battle of public opinion as to whether there was a malpractice crisis in Maryland. This led to medical malpractice tort reform, which created separate non-economic damage caps in medical malpractice cases in Maryland.

Maryland malpractice lawyers were not the only malpractice lawyers to get fooled. In 2004, television ads of doctors in Nevada walking out of the state resonated with Nevada voters, leading to a ballot initiative that placed a $350,000 cap on malpractice damages for pain and suffering. Las Vegas malpractice lawyers in particular have noticed that the cap has understandably emboldened doctors’ medical malpractice lawyers, who have refused to settle legitimate malpractice lawsuits because they do not fear the outcome at trial. Moreover, voters now realize that doctors in Nevada are no longer accountable. Accordingly, the Nevada legislature, like the Maryland legislature, is considering a bill to roll back tort reform by eliminating the cap and by increasing the statute of limitations from two years to five. AB495 was introduced only last week by the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

Gook luck to malpractice victims in Nevada and Maryland in getting these bills passed.

The Los Vegas Sun reports that a unanimous Nevada Supreme Court ruled that a Las Vegas woman whose child suffered brain damage allegedly from medical malpractice during the child's birth may continue her malpractice lawsuit against a doctor who delivered her child. The Nevada court found that a 10-year statute of limitations instead of the four-year statute should be applied in cases where a child suffers brain damage or a birth defect.

The San Jose Mercury News has an article on tort reform in Nevada. The story profiles the a man who cannot find a lawyer because of Nevada's cap of $350,000 in pain and suffering (noneconomic) damages in medical malpractice lawsuits in Nevada.

What is almost as bad is Nevada's statute of limitations in medical malpractice cases which has been reduced to 1 year.

The Mercury News points out that the median salaries for general surgeons in this area of the country are $292,000, according to Salary.Com, compared with $235,000 for OB-GYNs and $158,000 for family practitioners. Which indirectly states the obvious: why are we sacrificing justice so doctors can pay less in medical malpractice insurance premiums?

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 federal jury in Nevada last week awarded $60 million to a Las Vegas man who alleged Paul Revere Life Insurance Co. and the Unum Group denied in bad faith his claim for disability benefits.

This is one of those “be careful what you wish for” cases. In a previous trial, a jury awarded Plaintiff $11.6 million but it was overturned on appeal. So the case was tried again and the second jury awards five times what the first jury awarded.

I would love to know what the settlement offer was in this case.

Interesting editorial yesterday in the Las Vegas Review-Journal regarding the Nevada Board of Medical Examiners posting medical malpractice lawsuits filed against Nevada doctors. Apparently, the Nevada Board stopped posting this information about three years ago on it website. No one paid any attention until the recent southern Nevada's endoscopy clinic crisis.

You might think a medical malpractice lawyer would be unequivocal that this information should be made public. I appreciate the argument in this regard. But I do not know that it is necessary to post information about the filing of a lawsuit because some medical malpractice claims are groundless (or course, many medical malpractice defenses are groundless too but that is for a different blog). Of course, medical malpractice lawsuits are public information so anyone can post information about the filing of a lawsuit. The question is whether government agencies should be the conduit of this information.

Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons is demanding that the information be put back up and that three members of the Nevada Board resign because of – surprise! – conflicts of interest. I’m inclined to agree with Governor Gibbons but it is a slippery slope of attaching meaning to the mere filing of a lawsuit.

The San Diego Union-Tribune reported yesterday on a case pending in the Nevada Supreme Court which may have a major impact on the extent to which stadium owners can be held liable when fans are injured during sporting events. Five years ago, plaintiff Kathleen Turner (not the actress) was struck by a foul ball while she was sitting in a mezzanine seating area at Les Vegas’ Cashman Stadium. Turner’s attorney claims that the beer garden area, where fans can not see the baseball game being played on the field below, created a false sense of security for the spectators. Ms. Turner was struck in the face by a foul ball and lost consciousness, suffered a broken nose and had to undergo reconstructive surgery.

Thomas Dillard, the lawyer representing the park’s owner, argues that this case involves an implied assumption of risk. He states that although Ms. Turner could not see the game, she was repeatedly made aware of the risk of stray balls in the stadium. The stadium posts warning signs at the entrance to the park, screens and plexiglass are installed in certain areas to protect fans, every ticket bears a notice of liability, and there are even warnings issued over the park’s public address system. He failed to add that common sense also tells you of the risk of a foul ball when you go to a baseball game.

The Nevada Supreme Court will decide whether or not implied assumption of risk can be applied to Ms. Turner’s case, and in doing so, Nevada may become one of the many states that abide by the “baseball rule.”

The article seems to think the ruling is relevant to whether major league baseball comes to Nevada. I think that overstates the economics of the outcome of this case. This issue of baseball in Nevada involves one thing: gambling.

Generally speaking, fans are presumed to have assumed the risk of getting hit by a baseball at a baseball game. In the Sports Law class that I teach, I argue that the best scenario for a plaintiff's verdict would be if you came to the game and specifically requested a ticket safe from a potential foul ball and you still get hit by one. Like many of my best law school hypotheticals, this has probably never happened and could never be proved even if it did.

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