Accident and Injury Lawyer Blog

Ready Pac Foods is recalling a total of 5,379 cases of bagged salad products containing Romaine lettuce, as it has been determined that they may be contaminated with E. coli (E.coli O157:H7).

All bags are marked with the "Best if Used By" date of November 18. The following items have been recalled:

• 10oz. Ready Pac Caesar Romaine 0-77745-00202-6
• 9.25oz Ready Pac Santa Fe Caesar Complete Salad 0-77745-21404-7
• 10oz. Ready Pac Classic Caesar Complete Salad 0-77745-20566-3
• 10oz. Ready Pac Bella Romaine 0-77745-21407-8
• 10oz. Dining In Classic Caesar Salad Kit 0-11225-02530-3
• 10oz. Raley’s Caesar Romaine 0-46567-71642-8
• 10oz. Trader Joe’s Romaine Salad 0013-2145
• 16oz. Trader Joe’s Very American Salad 0020-7225
• 10oz. Safeway Farms Caesar Romaine 0-21130-98350-6
• 9oz. Safeway Farms Hearts of Romaine 0-21130-98358-2
• 10oz. Safeway Farms Complete Caesar Supreme 0-21130-33677-7
• 10.25oz Safeway Farms Complete Southwestern Ranch 0-21130-33679-1

The recall extends only to the listed products with this Use-by Date and sold in the following states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming. No other Ready Pac Foods, Inc. products are included in the recall.

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.

United Natural Foods (UNFI) is recalling selected types of FoodMatch, Inc. Divina Stuffed Olives, as they have the potential to be contaminated with Clostridium botulinum, a bacterium which can cause life-threatening illness or death. These items have been recalled due to a lack of temperature control during the distribution process. UNFI inadvertently subjected the recall items to temperature ranges above those directed by the manufacturer.

The following products have been recalled:

• DIVINA 4 OZ OLIVES,FETA CHEESE STUFFED (blue and yellow label) UPC 63172352780
• DIVINA 4 OZ OLIVES,BLUE CHEESE STUFFED (blue label) UPC 63172352790

Divina Olives Stuffed with Feta Cheese were distributed to the Safeway stores identified below:

• #0583 1606 N Ave, Spearfish, South Dakota
• #1577 6520 S Academy Road, Colorado Springs, Colorado
• # 1615 3325 28th Street, Boulder, Colorado
• # 1644 7655 Mclaughlin Rd, Falcon, Colorado
• # 2761 1165 Main St, Lander, Wyoming
• # 2792 27152 Main St, Conifer, Colorado
• # 2910 1632 Hover Road, Longmont, Colorado
• # 0853 7625 Old Georgetown Road, Bethesda, Maryland
• # 0942 12 West Washington St, Middleburg, Virginia
• # 1283 8646 Richmond Highway, Alexandria, Virginia
• # 1606 9596 Old Keene Mill Rd, Burke, Virginia
• # 1668 5510 Norbeck Road, Rockville, Maryland
• # 1956 14939 Shady Grove Road, Rockville, Maryland
• # 2650 43150 Broadlands Plaza, Ashburn, Virginia
• # 4002 5727 Burke Center, Burke, Virginia
• # 4205 415 14th Street SE, Washington, D.C.

Date codes Best Used By: 11 JAN 2012 and Best Used By: 1 FEB 2012 sold at other retail outlets have not been affected because the products were not exposed to a lack of refrigeration controls.

Divina Olives Stuffed with Blue Cheese were distributed to the following states: Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Arizona, Nevada, South Dakota, Colorado, Wyoming, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington DC through the following retail stores:

• Genuardis
• Carrs
• Safeway
• Pavilion
• Vons

Best Used By: 11 JAN 2012, Best Used By: 15 DEC 2011, Best Used By: 30 DEC 2011, Best Used By: 1 FEB 2012

These date codes sold at other retail outlets have not been affected because the products were not exposed to a lack of refrigeration controls.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

• Recall on Stuffed Bio Gaudiano Brand Organic Olives

Blackman Industries will recall all PrimeTime brand 2 ct. and 5 ct. Premium Pig Ears and all KC Beefhide brand 20 ct. Premium Pig Ears because they have the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella.

Why do you care? It is just animals, right. Well, setting aside the fact that asking this question would make you a jerk, Salmonella can affect not only animals eating these pig ears, but there is also humans handling anything containing these pig ears or anything containing Salmonella.

These pig ears were sold in Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska and South Dakota. The FDA breaks it down for you here.

There is a recall of more than 10,000 pounds of Lean Cuisine spaghetti and meat balls. I don't think this will be a federal case but the Lean Cuisines are reportedly studded with bits of hard plastic. The recall follows complaints from consumers in Minnesota, South Dakota and Wisconsin. Assuming these pieces are not large, you would not think this will be a huge problem.

These Lean Cuisines have the number "P-7991" and the case code "0298595519P," with a "best before" date of November, 2011. These Lean Cuisine spaghetti and meatballs entrees were packaged on October 25, 2010, and shipped to distributors and retail stores east of the Rocky Mountains.

A South Dakota woman filed a lawsuit against two mining companies and Johnson and Johnson last week, alleging the companies have been failing for decades to warn consumers of the association of talcum powder and ovarian cancer.

Plaintiff's lawsuit alleges that talc particles cause tumors in human ovaries. Plaintiff used talc-based body powder each day for over 30 year and contracted ovarian cancer in 2006.

I suspect the thrust of the lawsuit is that the National Toxicology Program found in 1993 that cosmetic grade talc caused tumors in animal subjects. The FDA has taken no action and cosmetic grade talc remains unregulated by the federal government.

Do I think that the Plaintiff will be able to show that her ovarian cancer was caused by talc at trial? I have no idea but I suspect not. Would I have liked to know about this National Toxicology Program finding before I wrote this post this morning? Obviously, yes.

On the Legal Blog Watch, Robert J. Ambrogi gives us another example of how the Internet is intruding on jury trials. The South Dakota Supreme Court found that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in declaring a mistrial in a seat belt defect wrongful death case because of a juror's Google searches.

You can read the entire South Dakota Supreme Court opinion here.

• Jurors and Facebook (PA trial)
• Jurors and Twitter
• The Faculty Lounge (more on Twitter and jurors)
• Twitter Marketing (Overlawyered post on one lawyer's effort to market his law practice via Twitter)

On the Legal Blog Watch, Robert J. Ambrogi gives us another example of how the Internet is intruding on jury trials. The South Dakota Supreme Court found that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in declaring a mistrial in a seat belt defect wrongful death case because of a juror's Google searches.

You can read the entire South Dakota Supreme Court opinion here.

• Jurors and Facebook (PA trial)
• Jurors and Twitter
• The Faculty Lounge (more on Twitter and jurors)
• Twitter Marketing (Overlawyered post on one lawyer's effort to market his law practice via Twitter)

The South Dakota Supreme Court has upheld South Dakota Circuit Judge Jon Erickson’s decision to grant a new trial in a medical malpractice lawsuit against a Huron doctor. The medical malpractice lawsuit arose out of complications from gall bladder surgery in 2001. The jury instruction stated:

A doctor is not necessarily negligent because the physician errs in judgment or because efforts prove unsuccessful.

The physician is negligent if the error in judgment or lack of success is due to a failure to perform any of the duties defined in these instructions.

This instruction is clearly not South Dakota law and, while the South Dakota Supreme Court says there are medical malpractice cases where this instruction is appropriate in "certain limited circumstances" the court does not explain what those circumstances might be. I can't imagine what they are. But Judge Erickson gave the instruction. The jury last year found that the doctor was not negligent.

I don't know how the change of heart came about but, to his credit, Judge Erickson acknowledged the error and ordered a new trial. The doctor's malpractice lawyer appealed, arguing that is was an abuse of discretion to grant a new trial. Specifically, the defendant's lawyer relied on Veith v. O'Brien where the court found that the plaintiff did not prove that this "error in judgment" instruction "in all probability" had an impact on the jury's verdict.

The South Dakota Supreme Court agreed with Judge Erickson that the instruction was inappropriate and found that it was not an abuse of discretion to find that the instruction prejudiced the Plaintiff's case. Interesting, the court stated in a footnote that "concededly, there may be little to distinguish our holding in Veith." I just thought this was a remarkable candid admission from the South Dakota Supreme Court.

The decision was unanimous and I think it is hard to argue with the result because every medical malpractice plaintiff has the right to have a jury consider what the malpractice law actually is. That said, I feel for the doctor who received a verdict and now must go through the entire process all over again. Finding for the plaintiff is the lesser injustice but it is intellectually dishonest to think that the jury in this case likely would have found medical malpractice but for this incorrect jury instruction.

You can read the entire opinion here.

Last week in Baddou v. Hall, the South Dakota Supreme Court either enunciated new law or affirmed existing law (depending upon your perspective) on whether South Dakota has a presumption of negligence in Rapid City rear-end car accident case. The court’s answer: it does not.

This is bad law, in my opinion, because it makes South Dakota car accident lawyer prove a negative. Rear-end car accidents rarely happen in the absence of negligence and the defendant is the one in the best position to know the nuance of the negligence. It is basically a technicality generating law.

I disagree with the Plaintiff that a rear end accident should be negligence per se. Instead, the better law, applied in many states such as Florida, Maryland, and Colorado, is that there is a rebuttable presumption of negligence in rear end accident cases.

The South Dakota court also affirmed in dicta the notion that the “mere fact an accident happened creates no inference that it was caused by someone’s negligence” in South Dakota. This instruction has fallen out of favor in many jurisdictions but, apparently, not in Bismarck.

Another aspect of South Dakota law that I don’t like is that they are more liberal in allowing police reports in evidence than most other states. Jurors are confused when they do not see the police report but they are even more confused when they do and tend to delegate their decision making power to the police officer instead of using their own judgment. I actually think this rule generally helps plaintiffs’ car accident lawyers. But not always and I don’t think the admission of the police report is fair.

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.

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