Charlottesville Personal Injury Lawyer - dangerous

Aluminum Bat Manufacturer Found Liable For Player’s Death

Greg Webb — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:58:24 GMT

After twelve hours of deliberation, a jury in Lewis and Clark County, Montana recently sided with the parents of former Miles City American Legion baseball pitcher Brandon Patch, who died after being struck in the temple by a batted ball in a 2003 baseball game against the Helena Senators. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., an aluminum bat manufacturer best known for their Louisville Slugger bats, was found liable for Patch’s death because it failed to provide adequate warning as to the dangers of the bat used by a Helena Senators batter. Hillerich & Bradsby Co.’s attorneys argued any other bat would not have hit the ball any differently; in fact, they claimed most bats on the market would have stuck the ball even harder and that Patch’s death was a tragic accident. The Patch family’s attorneys, however, argued Brandon only had 378 milliseconds to respond to the batted ball, whereas most bats on average give 400 milliseconds to respond. The bat manufacturer was ordered to pay $792,000 to Patch’s estate. The funds were allocated to cover the earnings Patch would have made had he lived, and the pain he suffered for four hours after the injury before ultimately dying. Another $58,000 was awarded to Patch’s parents for funeral expenses and their mental grief.

Aluminum bats have faced a lot of scrutiny due to their internal wall structure and because their weight is more evenly distributed than wooden ones, making them easier to swing harder and faster. A third decision made in the suit was that the bat was not defective, therefore making it more dangerous like the Patch family attorneys claimed. The Patch family said the suit was never about the money but was to get adequate warning about the dangers of these bats so something like this will not happen again. They have also started to advocate for the use of wooden bats. Brandon Patch’s baseball team reverted to wooden bats after his death.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Federal Concerns About Electronic Cigarettes Are Growing

Greg Webb — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:17:06 GMT

Because so little is known regarding what is in electronic cigarettes, regulators are growing more and more concerned due to the increase in popularity of the product over the past several years. Preliminary tests carried out by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) show e-cigarettes, which are battery operated tubes that deliver a nicotine vapor instead of burned tobacco smoke, contain some of the dangerous carcinogens that traditional cigarettes do, but at lower levels. The samples also revealed quality-control issues with some of the products, which are marketed the exact same, having wildly variable amounts of nicotine and one of the products even having poison (diethylene glycol) in it; this indicates that regulators do not know enough about how the product is being produced. Due to the study’s findings, the FDA Commissioner has warned consumers to beware.

Since e-cigarettes, or "e-cigs", are being subject to FDA approval as a drug or medical device, they are illegal until they are cleared. Smoking Everywhere, one of the two major importers of e-cigarettes, has since sued the FDA, claiming it should not be regulated like a drug but as a tobacco product. While the company engages in this legal battle, however, its sales representatives at one point claimed the product had been approved and deemed safe by the FDA. An attorney for the company claims this misinformation has since been corrected.

Michael Siegel, a Boston University School of Public Health Professor, says the FDA’s newest consumer warning is misleading because the agency found very low levels of carcinogens in e-cigarettes. Siegel claims these levels were comparable to what is present in nicotine-replacement products, which are currently on the market. He also states the levels of carcinogens in the e-cigarettes are about 1,400 times lower than in Marlboros. The FDA deputy commissioner, however, says it is premature to claim e-cigarettes are safe until regulators know what is in them. If the product is meant to help some Americans stop smoking, it is the manufacturers obligation to present that data to the FDA.

Many anti-smoking advocates are putting pressure on the FDA to officially ban e-cigarettes from the U.S. They claim these and similar products should be taken off the market because the lack of testing to determine the hazardous ingredients in the product would lead to smokers becoming guinea pigs. The public health community is also split over the issue regarding whether to advocate smokers switch to a less harmful product even if they are not completely safe. Though the government has blocked the product from the border, it has not shut down domestic retailers. This means consumers can find the $40 to $100 e-cigarette starter kit in mall kiosks, travel centers and online. So far, the e-cigarettes have also been banned in Canada, Australia, Mexico and Israel.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

FDA Study Identifies Toxins in Electronic Cigarettes

Greg Webb — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 17:42:28 GMT

According to a preliminary analysis by the FDA, electronic cigarettes contain traces of carcinogens and toxins. These findings contradict electronic cigarette manufacturers’ statements that their products are a safe alternative to tobacco. Manufacturers claim that the battery-powered cigarettes contain nothing more than water vapor, nicotine, and propylene glycol, which is used to create artificial smoke. When heated, the liquid produces a vapor that users inhale.

The FDA analyzed 19 varieties of the cartridges that hold the liquid and two types of cigarettes made by NJoy and Smoking Everywhere. It found that several cartridges contained nitrosamines, tobacco-specific compounds known to cause cancer, and one cartridge from Smoking Everywhere contained diethlyene glycol, a common ingredient in antifreeze. Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, the FDA’s principal commissioner, reports concerns because, while the FDA knows what’s in the cigarettes, it doesn’t know how those ingredients affect the body when inhaled through electronic cigarettes.

The Electronic Cigarette Association said in a statement that the FDA’s testing was too narrow to be reliable and that its members only sell and market their product to adults. CEO of NJoy Jack Ledbetter said a third party had tested its products and pronounced them an appropriate alternative to cigarettes, but he did not release those findings. He said experts would review both NJoy’s tests and the FDA’s.

Dr. Sharfstein said that electronic cigarettes are manufactured in China and subject to little quality control, adding that the study found nicotine levels to vary in cartridges who claimed to have a standard amount and found the drug in cartridges who claimed to be nicotine-free.

The FDA has called the cigarettes electronic drug delivery devices, turning away approximately 50 shipments of them at the border. It would not comment on whether it planned to ban electronic cigarettes, but public health officials are worried that the cherry and bubblegum flavors are enticing to children and may be easy for minors to obtain. Smoking Everywhere filed a lawsuit against the FDA in April, claiming that it did not have jurisdiction to bar electronic cigarettes from entering the U.S.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Report Says Children’s Products Contain Dangerous Chemicals

Greg Webb — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 08:00:00 GMT

A March publication from the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics reported finding formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane, a trace contaminant of chemicals used in cosmetic products, in 55 children’s personal-care products. The Environmental Protection Agency lists these chemicals as probable human carcinogens. Seventeen of the products contained both chemicals, including Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Shampoo.

The same month, New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand announced the “Safe Baby Products Act,” which asks the FDA to investigate chemicals used in children’s toiletries. She expressed concerns as a mother because many of the products listed in the report were products that she kept in her bathroom.

The editor of Stats.org, Trevor Butterworth, conveyed reservations about the implications of the report. Butterworth said that people are exposed to similarly low levels of these chemicals every day in food, air, and shower water, and that studies linking them to cancer are based on ingesting or inhaling large quantities of the chemicals in industrial or lab settings.

A statement from Johnson & Johnson said that all of their products meet or exceed requirements in every country in which they are sold.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Congressmen Push To Nullify Supreme Court’s Medical Device Decision

Greg Webb — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 08:00:00 GMT

Some members of Congress are attempting to remove a 2008 Supreme Court decision that stands as a barrier against suing medical device manufacturers. This ruling has barred patients, or their survivors, from suing manufactures of complex medical devices if the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the products sale. Since this ruling, judges from around the country have cited it in dismissing cases against a wide range of manufacturers. For example, situations in which a woman was burned internally by a device that was meant to reduce menstrual bleeding, and numerous patients who claim they were injured by faulty heart implants or joints.

Recently, however, some members of Congress have decided they want to give potential plaintiffs a chance at legal action. Two House Democrats plan to reintroduce legislation that will nullify the Supreme Court Decision. A similar bill introduced in the Senate last year is also expected to be reintroduced. The legislators, as well as patient advocates, say the Supreme Court’s decision has left patients legally powerless against “spotty oversight of products” by the FDA. With the Supreme Court ruling, patients are facing a dangerous situation in which the FDA is incapable of keeping dangerous products off the market and patients cannot sue companies for restitution.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is expected to hold hearings this session to determine whether the FDA’s process for device approval is adequate after numerous claims that it does not have the necessary resources to asses all risks that a device poses once it gets on the market. Opposition to the legislation claims the FDA is the appropriate body to set national safety standards and allowing juries to undermine its decisions will hinder product innovation.

Many believe the Supreme Court’s decision does not reflect the unpredictability of the FDA review process. Recently, for example, when doctors extracted a faulty electronic cable from a patient’s heart, a vessel was punctured causing excessive bleeding. The patient died two days later and a lawsuit against Medtronic, the manufacturer of the faulty device, was thrown out. This cable, called a lead, was never tested in humans before it went on the market and before Medtronic could recall the product, it was implanted in more than 235,000 patients; five of these patients may have died due to the problem.

The Supreme Court is currently deciding whether it should give the same type of legal protections to drug manufacturers in the case of Wyeth v. Levine. Hopefully, the Court will not grant such broad-reaching immunity for drug manufacturers. Drug companies, like all persons and entities in our country, should be held responsible for wrongful conduct, especially when such conduct sacrifices safety in the name of profits.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Dangers of Escalators: Watch Your Step

Greg Webb — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 08:00:00 GMT

Escalators in airports, shopping malls, and metro stations may work properly, but that doesn’t make them safe. In 2007, almost 11,000 people were treated in hospitals for injuries involving escalators, the Consumer Product Safety Commission estimates, carrying about 90 billion riders a year.

Most accidents involve adults falling after tripping, losing their balance, becoming distracted, or misjudging steps. Those resulted in cuts, gashes, and swelling requiring medical treatment. Many blame Croc-type shoes for certain injuries; in May, the CPSC said “popular soft-sided flexible clogs and slides” were involved in all but two of the 77 foot-entrapment incidents they were aware of since 2006. In July, Crocs Inc. said they planned to put escalator safety messages on tags on its shoes.

Some safety advocates, however, say escalators are inherently dangerous and question the blame put on Crocs. “If escalators were designed properly and met all the standards, it wouldn’t matter that they were wearing Crocs,” said Scott Anderson, an engineer who petitioned the CPSC in 1997 to require closing gaps along the sides of escalator stairs. The petition initiated the escalator industry to adopt voluntary standards for reducing the size of the gap and amount of friction along the sides of escalator steps. The measures have become part of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers’ escalator standards, and part of many building codes.

The CPSC denied Anderson’s petition to require design changes to make escalators safer, and they also denied a 1978 petition. After denying Anderson’s petition in 2000, it said the new, voluntary standards would “adequately reduce the risk of sidewall entrapment injury” and that it would monitor their effectiveness. However, to this date the CPSC has not evaluated the standards. CPSC Spokesman Scott Wolfson said CPSC believes recent entrapments are due to the soft-sided Croc-type shoes, and is hopeful public awareness will reduce future injuries.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution examined more than 140 injury reports filed with state regulators by operators of Atlanta escalators from January to August. At least seven reports involved feet becoming trapped in the machinery. All but two involved children wearing Croc-type shoes.

Atlanta airports and MARTA, Atlanta’s metro, have initiated spraying friction-reducing silicone on the sides of escalators to reduce entrapment. Though Georgia enforces building codes requiring reduction in the size of the gap and amount of friction on the sides of escalator steps, only escalators built since 2000 currently have to meet those standards. Escalators built before 2000 don’t have to meet the standards until 2010. And though there are regulations in place for new escalators, state inspectors do not do the gap/friction testing themselves; they rely on escalator owners to test and certify their machines are in compliance.

moving machinery,” said Earl Everett, director of safety engineering at the Georgia Department of Labor (which licenses and inspects escalators), and when on such a piece of machinery, riders should pay attention – according to these authorities.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Studies Show Emergency Rooms Overwhelmed By Uninsured

Greg Webb — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 08:00:00 GMT

A recent report, released by the American College of Emergency Physicians, states the nation’s system of emergency rooms is in serious trouble. More and more unemployed or uninsured Americans are turning to emergency rooms as a last resort becaue emergency rooms are legally obligated to see all patients who enter their doors, regardless of the patient's ability to pay. Doctors warn that the facilities, which are already overburdened, could have even more trouble handling cases of broken bones, heart attacks and other traumas that they deem their core mission. Even before the recession, emergency rooms around the country were reporting dangerously long waits for patients and the frequent need to redirect ambulances to other hospitals. Just two years ago, a government survey found there were about 120 million visits to emergency rooms annually, a third higher than a decade earlier. Even then doctors called emergency rooms overburdened, so a recession will just make conditions worse; hospitals will have to absorb the unpaid medical bills and some are already experiencing a much higher influx of patients without insurance.

escalating number of uninsured and the delays in getting primary care create a crisis. One of the physicians’ major concerns is the potentially long wait by patients requiring a hospital bed. After surveying its members last year, the doctor’s group learned of at least two hundred fatalities related to the practice of “boarding”, in which patients on stretchers line the corridors of the facility until they can be moved into a bed.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb