Accident and Injury Lawyer Blog

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has announced a few recent recalled children's products.

Approximately 2,300 sets of Children's Henley Pima Cotton Pajamas, imported by Bella Bliss of Lexington, Kentucky have been recalled, as the pajamas fail to meet the federal flammability standards for children's sleepwear, and as such, pose a burn hazard for children. The pajamas, a two-piece, cotton sleepwear set, came in white, blue, pink or red, with "Bella Bliss" written on the neck tag. They were sold in the Bella Bliss catalog and website, as well as specialty clothing retailers and online stores from January 2008 to June 2011 for about $48 to $58.

Next on the recall are Keds Girls' Shoes, which are being recalled due to laceration hazard. Manufactured in China, approximately 45,000 Keds"Know It All" girls' shoes are being recalled as the metal stars on the back of the shoes have been known to loosen and cause cuts and scratches. The maker has received 27 reports of cuts and scratches. The affected shoes are black and pink with white trim and a pink loop on the heel. "KEDS" appears on the tongue and heel of the shoe. The style number, printed on the underside of the tongue, is KY40098A. The shoes were sold in girls' sizes 12 to 5 and were sold at various department stores and online retailers from June through October 2011, and retailed for approximately $23.

Next recall for the holiday season, Kidgets Animal Sock Top Slippers are being recalled due to a choking hazard. The recalled children's slippers have brown or tan dog faces, yellow duck faces and tan lion faces. Approximately 160,000 slippers have been recalled as the animal's eyes can detach, posing a choking hazard. The name "Kidgets" and the size appear inside the slippers on the soles, and "FD9619108020690611" is printed inside the slippers on the side. The affected slippers were sold exclusively at Family Dollar stores nationwide from September 2011 through October 2011. Family Dollar has received one report of the eyes detaching from the slippers, though no injuries have been reported.

And last, for today anyway, Build-A-Bear Workshop has recalled their Teddy Bear Swimwear Set as it may pose a strangulation hazard. Approximately 19,720 units in the United States and 1,100 units in Canada have been recalled as Build-A-Bear received one report of an incident in which a 3-year-old girl pulled the inner tube over her head and had difficulty removing it. The set, sold at Build-A-Bear Workshop stores nationwide and online from April 2011 to August 2011, has a Fruit Tutu Bikini for teddy bears, and includes an inner tube. The inner tube is 9" in diameter and is pink with white and yellow flowers printed on it. The model number of the swimwear set is 017220 and is located on the price sticker on the "Build-A-Bear" cardboard tag.

Being a parent myself, I understand that we can't be everywhere and see everything, but at some point, we have to hold ourselves accountable for something. Otherwise, every toy, every piece of clothing, every everything is going to be recalled at some point. While maybe not every set of pajamas is going to ignite, given enough time, every stuffed animal is going to lose an eye and pose a strangulation hazard. Recalls should just remind us to pay a little more attention and be a little more cautious of the potential hazards out there. Kids are kids, let them have their toys - just keep a closer eye on them.

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.

Approximately 5,400 jackets have been recalled by the Boy Scouts of America, as they pose a strangulation or entrapment hazard to children.

The recall affects Cub Scout Wind Tech jackets that were sold at Boy Scouts of America retail outlets, nationwide and online, from November 2009 through July 2011. The jackets have retractable cords with toggles at the hood and neck area, and at the waist. It has been determined that the retractable cords and toggles can pose a strangulation or entrapment hazard to children.

This recall is for the blue Cub Scout Wind Tech jackets that are nylon with a polyester lining, long-sleeve, and a full zipper front. They have a Cub Scout wolf head emblem embroidered on the upper left chest. The SKU numbers on the affected product are: 73291, 73292, and 73293, and are printed on the hangtag that is attached to the jacket when it was sold.

While no incidents of injury have been reported, guidelines were issued in February 1996 by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), which were incorporated into an industry voluntary standard in 1997, to help prevent children from strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist drawstrings in upper garments, such as jackets and sweatshirts.

Consumers are being instructed to remove the cords from these jackets to eliminate the hazard, or return the jacket to Boy Scouts of America for a full refund.

Landshire of St. Louis, Missouri has initiated a voluntary recall of 1,751 cases of the Nike All-American sandwich, as it has the potential to be contaminated with Listeria Monocytogenes. The sandwiches were at retail supermarkets, nationwide. The recall was found as a result of routine sampling, taken by the North Carolina Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services (NCAGR).

The Nike All-American sandwich subject to the recall is the Landshire Nike All-American, a pre-packaged, individually wrapped sandwich. The sandwich weight is 7.25ounces (206grams), with the UPC code: 0 9748801741 5, and a lot number of: 11 237 6. The lot number is printed in black ink on the side or back of the package.

No illness have been reported with this recall, and no other Landshire products are affected by this recall. Consumers who have purchased the Nike All-American are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.

• More Listeria Concerns - This Time It's Spinach
• Lettuce Recalls: More Salmonella
• Salmonella
• Masago (Capelin Roe): Concerns with Listeria
• Spinach, Spinach, and More Spinach - Recall linked to Listeria

Last week the lettuce recall was due to Listeria, this week we have moved on to Salmonella concerns.

Taylor Farms Retail Inc. has issued a precautionary recall of 3,265 cases of various salad blends, as a random test of packaged spinach showed the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella.

The bagged salad products subject to the recall include:

• Fresh Selections Hearts of Romaine 10 oz. bag 0-11110-91044-8 TFRS277B07OOKR5L Best By 10-18-11
• Fresh Selections Leafy Romaine 10 oz. bag 0-11110-91046-2 TFRS277B07OOKR5H Best By 10-18-11
• Fresh Selections Field of Greens 10 oz. bag 0-11110-91042-4 TFRS277B07OOKR5F Best By 10-18-11
• Fresh Selections Romaine Blend 10 oz. bag 0-11110-91038-7 TFRS277B07OOKR5N Best By 10-18-11
• HEB Spring Mix 5 oz. bag 0-41220-19752-1 TFRS277B07 Best By 10-20-11
• Marketside Fresh Spinach 10oz bag 6-81131-32946-0 TFRS277A07 Guaranteed Delicious By 10-21-11
• Marketside Caesar Salad Kit 14.6 oz. bag 6-81131-38744-6 TFRS277B07 Guaranteed Delicious By 10-19-11
• Marketside Asian Salad Kit 15 oz. bag 6-81131-53211-2 TFRS277B07 Guaranteed Delicious By 10-19-11
• Marketside Southwest Salad Kit 15oz bag 6-81131-38747-7 TFRS277B07 Guaranteed Delicious By 10-19-11
• Marketside Premium Romaine 9 oz. bag 6-81131-38753-8 TFRS277B07 Guaranteed Delicious By 10-19-11
• Marketside Premium Romaine Family 18 oz. bag 6-81131-38807-8TFRS277B07 Guaranteed Delicious By 10-19-11
• Taylor Farms Field Greens 8 oz. bag 0-30223-04036-1 TFRS277B07 Best If Used By 10-20-11

The products were distributed in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington and Puerto Rico and sold in various retail supermarkets.

No other products or code dates are affected by this recall, and there have been no reported illnesses attributed to the recalled items.

• Lettuce Recall: Listeria Concerns

A wrongful death lawsuit has been brought by the survivors of three people killed in a car accident. The wrinkle in this case is that they have brought a suit against the city of Charlotte and Crescent Resources, accusing them of negligence for not installing a traffic light where the high-speed crash along N.C. 49 occurred two years ago.

Why bring in the governement entities? The families' lost loved ones were not the cause of the accident: the accident was caused by two guys who were racing. The answer in these cases is always the same: inadequate insurance.

The suit claims Charlotte and Crescent Resources, the developer of a community along the highway in southwest Mecklenburg County, created a dangerous intersection and failed to install a traffic light.

These are very tough cases, they really are, although sometimes it becomes painfully obvious that the governement screwed up (here is one example). The one big problem plaintiffs have with a jury: there are already well defined bad guys, two guys driving 100 miles an hour that have been charged with murder.

These are North Carolina medical malpractice statistics of interest. Unless otherwise indicated, the statistics are from 1998-2009.

• There are an average of 566 medical malpractice lawsuits filed in North Carolina each year, or one-quarter of one percent of the lawsuits filed in North Carolina. For those who think malpractice lawsuits are increasing in number: there were 496 malpractice lawsuits in 2009, the last year studied.
• ƒ Said another way, from 1998 through 2009, the number of all civil case filings in North Carolina
  averaged 228,037 per year. The medical malpractice filings accounted for 0.25%
  of all civil cases.
• Okay, but North Carolina juries award a ton of money when the plaintiff wins a medical malpractice lawsuit. No, not really. In the 54 malpractice cases in which the plaintiff won at trial and received money damages, the median jury award was $320,000. Underscoring the point, 10 of these malpractice verdicts were below $10,000. Not exactly runaway juries.
• Doctors are fleeing North Carolina? Not quite. Between 1998 and 2008 (the last year for which statistics were available), the total population in North Carolina grew by 18.3%, while the physician population increased by 29.1%. Maybe not every doctor has gone to Texas yet.
• 4% of medical malpractice lawsuits go to verdict. Plaintiffs win 22.33% of the time. If you consider cases with multiple defendants, 86% of doctors prevail at trial.

The North Carolina Medical Board has launched a website to help patients determine whether doctors who have been found liable for medical malpractice for more than $25,000 or have been convicted of a felony.

I wrote about about this issue last year.

You can find the website here.

And, yes, absolutely, the same should be done for personal injury lawyers in North Carolina and elsewhere around the country.

The Baltimore Injury Lawyer Blog has a post on a Maryland Daily Record article looking at how President-Elect Barack Obama might change the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals which includes Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.

I've spend far more time thinking about how President Obama will change the country than his impact on lawyers or even my own clients. But President Obama is going to nominate judges that I am going to stand before and argue. While I do think President Bush has nominated a lot of good judges, this fact makes me a little happier to be a lawyer today. I'm not saying every plaintiffs' lawyer is going to have a better shot at success in front of judges nominated by Obama. I just think they are likely to be fair and reasonable judges.

AIG will pay $18 million to settle a lawsuit filed by a man who suffered a serious brain injury after he was struck by a truck in the parking lot of an apartment complex. The settlement nullifies a $75 million judgment reached in a North Carolina superior court after an AIG subsidiary declined to defend the case. Why they declined to defend the case is anyone's guess but it certainly was a screw-up that probably increased the value of this case.

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)

The North Carolina Medical Board voted on Wednesday to modify its grand proposal for posting medical malpractice settlement data online according to the Triangle Business Journal reports.
Now, the North Carolina medical board will post only malpractice settlements of more than $25,000 and will post verdicts only since 2007.

I have more of a problem with the latter change than the former. Doctors in North Carolina protest that many medical malpractice settlements of more than $25,000 are "nuisance cases" and could give health care consumers the false impression that they were settled because of substandard care.

I don't entirely agree because some doctors only deal with smaller injury issues but it is still something a patient is going to want to know about a doctor. Moreover, smart medical malpractice insurance companies don't settle nuisance cases. All of that said, there are reasonable arguments in response to my "reasonable medical malpractice insurers shouldn't settle claims that are not strong" argument.

With respect the latter change, I can't see the point if the end game is disclosure.

So personal injury lawyers in North Carolina and elsewhere are not accused of being hypocrites, we should push for state local bar associations to provide the same information to the public about lawyers.

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.

At June meeting, the North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers, following the lead of many state trial lawyers' associations and the American Association of Justice, changed their name to the North Carolina Advocates for Justice.

North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers looked at the 5,401 med-mal cases were filed in North Carolina from 1998 through 2006 and complied a few statistics. The median jury award in medical malpractice cases was $301,300. The largest medical malpractice award was $8.1 million.

Looking at personal injury cases in North Carolina generally, Jury Verdict Research estimates the median award in North Carolina is $10,000. Personal injury plaintiff receive damages in 61% of cases that are tried (national average is 53%).

The average jury verdict in medical malpractice cases in North Carolina is relatively low. I do not have the national median for medical malpractice cases in front of me but the average - as opposed to the median which makes a difference - is over $1 million. The national median for personal injury cases generally is $38,179 which means that North Carolina and the nationwide plaintiff recovery probability, the number of plaintiff verdicts to total verdicts, is 53 percent.

The median personal injury award in North Carolina is low but a part of that is due to antiquated jurisdictional limits in North Carolina. Civil jurisdiction for district court, which does involves a judge instead of a jury - is proper for cases involving amounts in controversy of $10,000 or less. Many states have jurisdictional amounts that are five times North Carolina's $10,000 maximum. This leads to more jury trial in small cases thereby decreasing the overall average.

With respect to North Carolina malpractice cases, I think that John Edwards record notwithstanding, it has been a tough history for medical malpractice lawyers and their clients in North Carolina. One old study I saw found that North Carolina medical malapractice plaintffs win 11% of the cases that went to trial.

Another study I read looked at eighteen jury verdicts from North Carolina. In each case, the medical malpractice insurance company obtained expert evaluations on the question of liability. The study divided the reviews into three categories: (1) probable liability, (2) uncertain liability (when experts disagreed), and (3) unlikely liability. The study found that plaintiffs won 10% of the trials in which the doctor's care had been considered good, 17% of the cases where the experts were uncertain, and 50% of the trials where the experts thought there was liability.

I wonder about the experience/quality of the medical malpractice lawyers who lost the cases where there appeared to be liability because quality malpractice lawyers can make a huge difference not just at trial but in discovery. But the take home message is clear: medical malpractice cases are tough anywhere but particuarly in North Carolina.