Charlottesville Personal Injury Lawyer

Inflatable In-Ground Pool Slides Recalled Due to Death and Injuries

Greg Webb — Tue, 15 May 2012 08:00:00 GMT

Late last week, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Toys R Us Inc., recalled approximately 21,000 Banzai inflatable in-ground pool water slides due to the death of a young Colorado woman which occurred in Andover, Massachusetts. In addition to the young woman’s death, two more people have suffered severe injuries, including a 24-year old Springfield, Missouri, man who is now a quadriplegic due to use of the slide and an Allentown, Pennsylvania, woman who suffered a neck fracture using the slide.

The hazard to this particular water slide is that during use the slide can deflate allowing the person sliding to become injured by hitting the ground beneath the slide. Owners of this slide should also note that this slide is unstable and can fall over in both still and windy weather conditions. According to the CPSC, “this product carries inadequate warnings and instructions.”[1]

The Banzai slides were manufactured in China by Manley Toys Ltd. and were designed to be used with in-ground pools. The slides were sold by Toys R Us and Walmart stores throughout the country from January 2005 through June 2009 and cost approximately $250.

The barcode number 2675315734 and model number 15734 of the recalled slides appear on the slide’s packaging but not on the slide itself. The vinyl slides have a blue base, yellow sliding mat and a blue arch going over the top of the slide where a water hose can be attached to spray water down the slide. “Banzai Splash” is printed in a blue, orange and white logo in the shape of a wave on the sides of the slide.

Consumers have been advised by the CPSC to stop using the Banzai in-ground pool slides immediately and to return them to Toys R Us or Walmart for a full refund. Consumers are permitted to cut out the two safety warning notices from the slide’s material and simply return that portion.

For more information on returning the recalled water slides, consumers may call Walmart at 1(800) 925-6278 between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's website at www.walmartstores.com. If purchased from Toys R Us, consumers should call 1(800) 869-7787 between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. ET Monday through Saturday and between 10 a.m. and 7 p.m. Sunday, or visit the firm's website at www.toysrus.com

To view photos of the recalled Banzai water slides, please visit the CPSC website at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12174.html

[1] “Reported Death, Severe Neck Injuries Prompt Recall of Banzai Inflatable Pool Slides Sold By Walmart and Toys R Us”, May 10, 2012, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, D.C. http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12174.html

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

92,000 Trampolines Recalled Due to Injuries

Greg Webb — Mon, 14 May 2012 08:30:00 GMT

As a child, I always wanted a trampoline. Now, I do not want my kids on one. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), in cooperation with Sportspower Ltd. of Hong Kong, China, has recalled approximately 92,000 Sportspower BouncePro 14’ Trampolines.

The trampolines were sold at Walmart from February 2009 through February 2012 and have been recalled due to 17 reports of incidents, with injuries, resulting from the trampoline’s net breaking and children falling through the break in the net. The company and the CPSC are aware of 11 injuries including back and neck injuries, broken bones and contusions. The trampolines retailed for approximately $275, were manufactured in China by Sportspower Ltd., and imported to the US for sale at Walmart exclusively.

The trampolines involved in this recall have brown mesh netting. The UPC codes 68706404210 and 68706404244 are printed on the box. "Sportspower BouncePro 14" and "TR-14-63-A" are also printed on a plate on a leg of the trampoline’s frame. These particular trampolines also have brown netting approximately 6 feet high off the ground, surrounding the perimeter of the trampoline. Theoretically, the netting was designed to contain individuals (kids!) bouncing on the trampoline.

The CPSC is advising consumers to stop allowing children (and, presumably, anyone) to use the trampolines and contact Sportspower to arrange to receive some replacement black netting… Consumers may contact the company by calling their hotline toll-free at 1(888)-965-0565 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's website at http://www.sportspowerltd.net/recall-bouncepro-14ft.html, or by sending an e-mail to Sportspower at customerservice@sportspowerltd.net

But, if this trampoline were in my yard, I would call the manufacturer and request a shipping ticket. Either the latter, or a trip to the landfill would be in order for this Walmart exclusive.

To view a photo of this trampoline, please visit the CPSC website at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12172.html

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Abbott Labs and Depakote: The $1.5 Billion Settlement

Greg Webb — Mon, 14 May 2012 08:15:00 GMT

This past week, according to the Associated Press, the agreement was announced by Illinois-based Abbott Laboratories to pay $1.5 billion in criminal fines, civil settlements and forfeiture. Abbott pled guilty to promoting the anti-seizure medication, Depakote, for uses which had not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The Washington Post article by N.C. Aizenman of May 7, 2012, announced the settlement as $1.6 billion.[1] According to Aizenman, this is “the second-largest in a string of multimillion-dollar payouts in recent years.” (Pfizer’s $2.3 billion settlement in 2009 is so far, the largest.)[2] Whatever the dollar amount beyond a billion, Deputy Attorney General James Cole noted that this settlement represented efforts by the U.S. Government “to hold accountable those who commit fraud.”[3] Abbott said they’re pleased the matter is resolved.

The company’s strategy, according to the Associated Press’ syndicated column of May 8, 2012, in The Daily News Record, was at fault; and it was a top-down strategy involving high-level executives who sanctioned and promoted the aggressive marketing of Depakote for uses for which it had not been approved, including to treat schizophrenia, agitated dementia and autism.

Abbott admitted having trained its sales force to sell Depakote to treat dementia, to sedate patients in nursing home settings, because the drug did not come under the umbrella of federal regulations which would have prevented “the use of unnecessary medications”[4] in nursing homes. While a physician can prescribe a drug generally designated for a different purpose, a company cannot market a drug for a purpose for which it has not been approved by the FDA.

Whistleblowers brought Abbott’s practices to the attention of federal investigators. Abbott Labs says, “It takes its responsibility to patients and health care providers seriously.”[5] It is our opinion, at that price tag it should do so.

[1] Abbott Labs Agrees To Pay $1.6 Billion Over Illegal Marketing of Depakote, Aizenman, N.C., The Washington Post, May 7, 2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/abbott-laboratories-agrees-to-16-billion-settlement-over-marketing-of-depakote/2012/05/07/gIQAh5098T_story.htm

[2] Op.Cit.

[3] “Abbott Labs Agrees To Pay $1.5 Billion Settlement”, Associated Press, May 8, 2012, The Daily News Record, Harrisonburg, Va.

[4] Op. Cit.

[5] Ibid.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Does the FDA Know Your Medical Device ID?

Greg Webb — Mon, 14 May 2012 08:00:00 GMT

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) tracks prescription drugs using a medicine’s unique code. Some devices that are implanted in patients have identification numbers also, such as heart pacemakers, for instance. And that is very good, because if a particular pacemaker type or model number is found to be defective, such as one type of Guidant pacemaker in the recent past, there may be a news release and accompanying recall notice identifying the model number. Thus, the patient with the defective device can request his or her device be replaced. But some devices do not have part or model numbers per se, the FDA is unable to track how many of which devices are implanted in patients to-date.

In addition, according to Lena Groeger’s May 8 article on MNBC.com, one regulatory law expert William Vodra, a member of the Institute of Medicine panel that published a report on medical device safety [1], says there is little direct communication between physicians and surgeons who implant devices and the manufacturers. Physicians and surgeons either don’t have the time or the inclination to contact the manufacturers of the devices they implant.

It gets down to the nitty-gritty, however, when a physician or surgeon becomes aware of potential harm which may have been done to a patient due to the implantation of a particular device! And then the blame game begins, manufacturers may blame suppliers and vice versa, recall notices are issued, companies are purchased, products are removed from the shelves, new products are manufactured by new companies replacing the defective ones and… obfuscation is the problem. What happened to Guidant following the disclosure of defective pacemakers is a fair example. Guidant no longer exists.

The FDA reminds us that “every medical device carries a potential risk,” and “the vast majority of devices perform well and improve patient health.”[2] But we cannot forget that there have been many implanted devices which do not improve a patient’s health, but have ruined it. Some argue that it isn’t the device, but the surgery. Whatever the case, in this era of technology wonders, we should be able to track devices which are implanted, from intra-ocular implants to hip joints—and document those that work and those that are deleterious to the host.

It has been “more than five years since Congress ordered the FDA to devise a post-market surveillance system to track the safety of all medical projects,”[3] but it has not done this for medical devices—because it does not have the data. While the FDA acknowledges that an identification system for devices is needed and it has a Congressional mandate to produce one, the unique device identification (UDI) system does not yet exist. And we wonder why? As more instances of device failure, such as the Riata defibrillator lead controversy, continue to occur, perhaps the FDA will find a way to implement a tracking system, which may prevent more harm to recipients.

[1] “How Does the FDA Monitor Your Medical Implants? It Doesn’t, Really”, Groeger, Lean, ProPublica, MSNBC.com, May 8, 2012. http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/03/11524103-how-does-the-fda-monitor-your-medical-implants-it-doesnt-really

[2] Op.Cit.

[3] Ibid.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

DMAA—What is it and why hasn’t it been banned in the U.S.?

Greg Webb — Thu, 10 May 2012 08:00:00 GMT

DMAA, known as dimethylamylamine, and also as methylhexanamine, has been around for quite awhile. In 1944, it was used in nasal inhalant to open up stuffy sinuses by the Eli Lilly drug company. That particular patent ran out a long time ago. But, at least since 2006, DMAA began to find its way into dietary supplements advertised to build muscle, enhance performance or to help people lose weight, including the dreaded belly fat.

According to Denise Mann, in an article of May 7, 2012, for WebMD Health News, “It is an ingredient in about 200 brand-name supplements including Code Red, Hemo Rage Black, Hydroxystim, Jack3D, Napalm, and Nitric Blast.” In February 2012, an article in The New York Times by Peter Lattman and Natasha Singer, revealed that this wonder compound was thought to have been a possible factor in the death of two U.S. soldiers who had used the compound during routine vigorous exercise,[1] as trace amounts of the compound were found in each of their systems following fatal cardiac events.

DMAA is a vasoconstrictor. It narrows blood vessels resulting in increased blood pressure, with the "benefits" being that it may provide a brief energy burst and short-term, increased concentration. Those who use it, however, may also experience chest pains, shortness of breath, tightening of the chest, rapid heart rate and even heart attack. According to Mann, “The FDA has received 42 adverse event reports about products containing DMAA. Canada has already banned DMAA from all supplements.”[2] Pieter Cohen, MD, an internist at Cambridge Health Alliance and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, was quoted in Mann’s article about DMAA: “It’s more potent than ephedra and ephedra has already been removed from the market.”[3] Cohen added, “There have been reports of death, stroke, and heart failure among people taking DMAA.”[4]

So what is the FDA doing? Presently, rather than using their recall authority, they are requesting information from the manufacturers of supplements containing DMAA substantiating that DMAA is safe. Safe? The industry’s Council for Responsible Nutrition in D.C. which apparently represents dietary supplement manufacturers, says “The jury is still out on whether DMAA is safe or not!”

It seems as if the FDA, despite what appears to be strong evidence of dangerous and potentially fatal side-effects, is dragging its feet, operating under a presumption that DMAA is safe. If DMAA is more potent that ephedra, what is holding the FDA back?

[1] “Army Studies Workout Supplements After Two Deaths”, Lattman, Peter and Singer, Natasha, The New York Times, February 2, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/business/army-studies-workout-supplements-after-2-deaths.html

[2] “Is Workout Supplement Ingredient DMAA Safe?”, Mann, Denise, WebMD Health News, May 7, 2012, http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-and-supplements/news/20120507/workout-supplement-ingredient-dmaa-safe

[3] Op. Cit.

[4] Ibid.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Chinese Grass and Hedge Trimmers To Avoid

Greg Webb — Wed, 09 May 2012 08:15:00 GMT

Now that we are well into the gardening, mowing and trimming season, here’s a recall that may draw your attention. Husqvarna Machinery Manufacturing Inc. of Shanghai, China, is recalling 19,500 Grass Trimmers and 6,500 Hedge Trimmers because fuel can leak from these trimmers due to a problem with a rubber spacer in the fuel line. Leaking fuel can create a fire and burn hazard, of course. As of April 4, Husqvarna had received seven reports of fuel leaking from these tools but no reports of injuries yet.

The recalled trimmers in question are the Husqvarna Grass Trimmer Model 122C with serial numbers that range from 2011 17 00001 to 2011 52 99999 and the Husqvarna Hedge Trimmers are Models 122HD60 and 122HD45 with serial numbers that range from 2011 17 00001 to 2011 52 99999. In both cases, the name “Husqvarna” and the model number are written on the top of the tool, with serial numbers on the black plate on the tool.

These trimmers were sold by Lowe’s, Sears and Husqvarna dealers throughout the country from May 2011 through January 2012 for from $150 to $320. Consumers should stop using the trimmers immediately and return them to the place where they were purchased for a free repair. This is a potential safety defect. Husqvarna may be called toll-free at (877) 257-6921 from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's website at www.husqvarna.com, or e-mail recalls@husqvarna.com

To view photos of the recalled grass and hedge trimmers, please visit the CPSC website at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12141.html

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Toxic Gardening Tools: Legitimate Problem?

Greg Webb — Wed, 09 May 2012 08:00:00 GMT

Gardening season has arrived, and avid gardeners are already tilling the soil, sowing seeds and watering plants. Yet a new caution on the horizon has gardeners wondering about more than the effects of fertilizers and bug sprays. The level of toxicity of their garden tools - which may contain substances such as cadmium, lead or other toxic substances that people should not touch without wearing gloves - has far-reaching ramifications for gardening safety.

The website HealthyStuff.org published some results of a recent study by the Ann Arbor-based Ecology Center in an article, May 3, 2012: “High amounts of lead, phthalates and the toxic chemical BPA were all found in the water of a new hose after sitting outside in the sun for just a few days…”[1] Not a happy thought for gardeners. How did these chemicals get there in the first place? What are the effects on the gardener, the garden environment and the produce? Do we just toss our tools in the garbage or what is one to do? Research director Jeff Gearhart of the Ecology Center, noted, “Even if you are an organic gardener, doing everything you can to avoid pesticides and fertilizers, you still may be introducing hazardous substances into your soil by using these products.”

Gearhart noted that 90 different hoses, 53 types of gardening gloves, many tools and a variety of kneeling pads were tested by the Ecology Center. Their research scientists detected some chemicals shown to interfere with the human body’s endocrine system that may impair learning, possibly cause birth defects and cause other health issues. CNN, picking up on the gardening tool-related health issue, said researchers found significant levels of one or more toxic chemicals including lead, phthalates and bisphenol A or BPA[2], and concerns exist about the chemicals present which may affect liver toxicity in humans.

The Ecology Center has issued a guide which can be found by checking the HealthyStuff.org website and has made some recommendations to gardeners to help reduce the risk of using gardening products that may be questionable. Here are a few:

Don’t use garden tools that are vinyl or coated with vinyl;
Don’t store a hose in the sun as heat increases the risk of toxins leeching from the garden hose;
Don’t use hoses made with polyvinyl chloride (PVC) if you are watering garden plants or your pets (or children) drink from the hose! Use a hose that is certified for drinking water;
Run the water in the hose for a few minutes before watering plants; and
Always wash your hands before or after touching gardening tools!

Most of us have been using gardening tools similar to many of these for years, perhaps decades. Have they caused us any harm? Who knows, but at least we can make informed choices when purchasing our next garden hose or pair of gloves.

[1] “New Study Finds Lead, Cadmium, BPA, Phthalates and Hazardous Flame Retardants in Gardening Products”, May 3, 2012, HealthyStuff.org http://www.healthystuff.org/

[2] “Study: Toxic Chemicals Found in Garden Tools”, CNN, May 3, 2012,

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

FDA’s Proposed "Safe-Use" Designation A Cause for Concern?

Greg Webb — Wed, 09 May 2012 07:45:00 GMT

By 2014, if the Affordable Care Act survives its Constitutional test, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may have the ability to apply a “safe-use” designation for some medicines, essentially making those meds available over-the-counter. Pharmacists would be able to dispense some medications to Americans who previously did not have health insurance, without prescriptions. This situation already exists in Arkansas in the case of certain medications where pharmacists are able to issue medications without prescription by a physician.

May 7, 2012, was the deadline for the public and interested parties to submit comments on a Notice that appeared in the Federal Register in February 2012. The FDA has yet to propose specific regulations that would create the “safe use” over-the-counter drug classification, however. The American Medical Association (AMA) and other medical societies are extremely concerned that the safe-use designation may constitute the erosion of physician authority in the area of prescribing medications for patients.

To date there have only been two types of medications available to patients, those prescribed by a physician and the over-the-counter medicines available without a prescription with which a patient is believed to be able to safely treat themselves. The safe-use designation would create a third type of medicines and might require a patient to perform some kind of requirements (i.e., blood test) or could mean that a pharmacist might be required to verify whether a patient had a certain condition requiring the medicine before the medicine could be dispensed. The pharmacist would then be required to decide whether the patient had any contraindications or risk factors that would prevent them from taking the particular “safe-use” medication.

Representatives of the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (ACAAI) have gone on record objecting to the proposed new safe-use class of medications. Roland Goertz, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), stated that the safe-use designation where pharmacists dispensed medications without a patient having to see a doctor first, “could seriously compromise the physician's ability to coordinate the care of multiple problems of many patients.”[1]

Health insurers reportedly have tentatively "approved" of the measure. Without proper safeguards, there is some concern that patients may obtain drugs that they may not need. The insurers also would have to determine how to cover drugs that fell into this category. Additionally, the health insurers were in favor of "expanding access" to helpful medications.

Because pharmacists are more easily accessible than physicians who require appointments for frequently costly office visits, the FDA believes that the “safe-use” designation may benefit many Americans who presently go untreated with legitimate medical needs. Doubtless the collection of comments and the promulgation of a new regulation on safe-use medicines by FDA (requiring additional debate) will cause more lines to be drawn in the sand of looming health issues. Is this the wave of the future for certain medications? Much of it makes sense, and ultimately would save money by preventing potentially unnecessary doctors' visits. What are the unintended consequences?

___________________

[1] “Pharmacists Dispensing without Rx is Scary Say Medical Societies”, Lowes, Robert, MedScape, May 2, 2012, http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/763179

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Counterfeit Medicine Still Crossing US Borders

Greg Webb — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:15:00 GMT

In late February 2012, the news media jumped on the discovery that fake copies of the cancer medicine Avastin were “circulating” in the U.S. The source of the fakes was determined to originate in “poor countries with lax regulations” according to an Associated Press article of February 28, 2012.[1] Because medicines and their ingredients continue to be manufactured overseas more cheaply than in the U.S., the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other government agencies are concerned that more fake drugs will make their way to the U.S. and place patients at risk. The news of the fake Avastin spurred cancer physicians, hospitals and clinics immediately to check their records.

Not only Avastin, but other widely used drugs, including Viagra, Lipitor and Alli, have been targets for manufacture of fakes. Connie Jung, FDA’s associate director of the Office of Drug Security, said in February that the FDA was aware that counterfeits are continuing to try and make their way onto the U.S. supply chain. A more recent CNN report, March 15, 2012, noted that the fake version of Avastin had been purchased by 19 hospitals and medical centers.

FDA’s Administrator Margaret Hamburg in a March 15 CNN interview claimed that it’s difficult for health care providers to know whether the drugs they are administering are fakes “because some of the fakes are very, very good.”[2] She said the investigation into the counterfeit medicines is ongoing and the situation served as “a wake-up call” that the FDA needed to work with the patient community and law enforcement to ensure that the US’ drug supply remains safe. Hamburg indicated she hoped legislation currently before Congress would pass to make it easier for FDA “to really track drugs in the system, and enable us to quickly pull inadequate drugs”.[3] Testimony before Congress as far back as 2005 by then-Acting Associate Commissioner FDA, Randall Lutter, stated, “U.S. law defines counterfeit drugs as those sold under a product name without proper authorization, where the identity of the source of the drug is knowingly and intentionally mislabeled in a way that suggests that it is the authentic approved product.”[4] The term “counterfeit” can apply to several categories of drugs, including brand name drugs, generics, and bulk ingredients.

There is concern that the ongoing shortage of many drugs, including cancer drugs, may give counterfeit suppliers a greater incentive to try to move bogus drugs into the country. Hamburg hopes the legislation before Congress will give FDA and law enforcement the power to seize fakes upon their attempted entry into the US and enable the FDA to work with law enforcement in other countries to track the sources of counterfeit drugs. In mid-March, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed S. 1886, the Counterfeit Drug Penalty Enhancement Act, which increases penalties for trafficking counterfeit drugs. If passed in the House, the law will aim at violators who knowingly manufacture, sell, or traffic counterfeit medicines in the United States. The status as of March 28, Subcommittee hearings had been held in the U.S. House of Representatives on a House version of the bill, H.R. 3668.

This bill needs to be enacted and enforced.

[1] “Invasion Of The Fakes: Big Bucks May Be Drawing Counterfeit Medicines Into U.S.,” Associated Press, The Daily News Record, February 16, 2012, p. A10.

[2] FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg Talks Counterfeit Drugs, CNN Interview by Caleb Hellerman, March 15, 2012, CNN.com, http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/15/health/margaret-hamburg-fda-medication-labels/index.html

[3] Op. Cit.

[4] Statement of Randall W. Lutter, Ph.D., Acting Associate Commissioner of Policy and Planning, Before Congress, November 1, 2005, Food and Drug Administration, Washington, D.C. http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/testimony/ucm112670.htm

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

CPSC and Nan Far Woodworking Company Recall 16,700 Drop-Side Cribs

Greg Webb — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:00:00 GMT

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and the Nan Far Woodworking Co., Ltd. of Taiwan, have recalled 16,700 drop-side cribs due to safety hazards to children, including possible entrapment and suffocation. According to the CPSC, “The cribs' drop sides can malfunction, detach or otherwise fail, causing part of the drop side to fall out of position, creating a space into which an infant or toddler can roll and become wedged or entrapped, which can lead to strangulation or suffocation.” The CPSC and the companies involved are aware of five incidents when the drop sides malfunctioned or became detached from the crib and at least one report of a child experiencing injuries due to the drop side’s malfunction. When drop sides detach, children can also fall from the crib.

The drop-side cribs involved are known as the Rockland Furniture brand drop-side cribs. The cribs were imported from Taiwan and sold exclusively by J.C. Penney throughout the U.S. from 2005 to 2008 at prices ranging from $150 to $400.

In order to identify the recalled cribs, consumers can locate the brand name “Rockland Furniture” and the model number on a label on the headboard panel. The drop-side cribs are made from wood and use plastic hardware to attach the drop side. The particular models involved in this recall are:

343-8124 Nightingale Spindle Drop-Side Crib

343-8280 Cottage Standard Drop-Side Crib Version 1

343-8271 Cottage Standard Drop-Side Crib Version 2

343-9105 Drop-Side Crib and Changer

343-8191 Renew Standard Drop-Side Crib

343-8192 Renew Convertible Drop-Side Crib

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using these drop-side cribs and provide an alternate safer sleeping arrangement for their child. (The CPSC suggests “a bassinet, play yard or toddler bed, depending on the age of the child.”) Consumers may contact the company to obtain a free repair kit to immobilize the drop side. Nan Far Woodworking Company can be reached by calling 1(877) 967-5770 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Pacific Time, Monday through Friday, or by visiting the firm's website at: www.rocklandimmobilizationkit.com

The CPSC also warns parents not to use a crib with any missing, loose or broken parts. Crib hardware should be tightened periodically as required to keep the crib sturdy. If parents use a drop-side crib for their child, they should make sure the drop side and any other moving part operate properly. All sides and corners of the crib should be checked for any parts which could separate and create a gap, thus entrapping a child.

Consumers may view photos of these recalled cribs by visiting the CPSC website:

http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PREREL/prhtml12/12148.html

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb