Arizona Injury Lawyer & Attorney : Koplow & Patane Law Firm : Insurance Bad Faith, Personal Injury, Auto Accidents : Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe, Arizona

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Supreme Court is currently reviewing a case called Wyeth vs. Levine to determine whether or not individuals can sue for drugs that  cause them serious side effects.  The Court has agreed to decide whether a musician who lost her arm after receiving an anti-nausea drug via an off-label injection method may recover under Vermont tort law despite FDA approval of the drug's label.  Individuals have commonly brought claims in the past, claiming that the drug companies failed to warn them of the possible side effects, and that the drugs themselves have design defects.

The case, Wyeth v. Levine, No. 06-1249, arose when Diana Levine went to the hospital suffering from nausea associated with a migraine headache. Physicians initially gave her Phenergan, a drug manufactured by Wyeth, by injecting it into her muscles. When her nausea persisted, they gave her the drug using the so-called "IV push" method, involving injection of the drug into her vein. They bypassed administration via an IV drip. The drug made contact with her arteries, leading to gangrene and forcing doctors to amputate her arm.           

However, the Wyeth v. Levine case could limit liability against drug the drug manufacturers in these types of cases.  The argument for the drug companies is that drugs are preempted because experts at the FDA sanctioned the product and its label for safety. Because federal law supersedes state law, the ruling would affect lawsuits filed in all 50 states.

Of course, the Plaintiff's argument is just the opposite, in that not all of the side effects people are experiencing were disclosed in the warning.  Furthermore, a decision to limit the liability of pharmeceutical companies could leave individuals with claims against the corporate giants without any recourse. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Consumeraffairs.com recently wrote:

Parents traveling with young children face more challenges than they used to. When they rent a car, for example, they also have to rent a child safety seat. They depend on the car rental agency to offer a safe and reliable seat, but shouldn't just assume they'll get one, as consumer Debbie Dubrow discovered.

Dubrow, her husband and two small children flew from Seattle to San Diego in December, renting a car and two child safety seats from Advantage Rent A Car. The seats, she says, had obvious problems.

"Some seats were obviously missing parts. Some were obviously very old," she told ConsumerAffairs.com. "We installed two of the better looking seats thinking that they were okay only to find that they were not working.

"One was missing the top part of the harness that would secure the child in a crash, the other had a seatbelt that wouldn't tighten enough to secure our child. It took us quite some time to find working seats to install," she said. "The seats were also filthy, with huge black marks on some and dirt or crumbs on others."

Dubrow says that when she complained to the rental car manager, he offered to refund the money for the seats, but otherwise offered no help. It wasn't just a matter of poor customer service, she says, it was a violation of the law.

"In California, there are clear laws regarding child safety seat rental. These old, non-working seats were not only unsafe, they were also against the law," Dubrow said.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

CNN is reporting that an Ohio distributor is recalling about six million Chinese-made tire valve stems after discovering that some of them were improperly made and may increase the risk of accidents.  The CNN story reports:

Tech International, the part's Johnstown, Ohio-based distributor, estimates that just 8,600 of roughly 6 million of those valves are defective.  The valve is a replacement snap-in tire valve -- Model No. TR413 -- manufactured between July and November 2006.

It was imported by Tech International from manufacturer Shanghai Baolong Industries Co. in Shanghai, China, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.  According to the recall, the rubber part of the valve may crack after being in use for about six months, causing a gradual loss of tire pressure.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Tami Abdollah of the Los Angeles Times has reported that an environmental organization found high concentrations of dangerous chemicals in shower curtains sold at major stores.  The article states:

Vinyl shower curtains sold at major retailers across the country emit toxic chemicals that have been linked to serious health problems, according to a report released Thursday by a national environmental organization.

The curtains contained high concentrations of chemicals that are linked to liver damage as well as damage to the central nervous, respiratory and reproductive systems, said researchers for the Virginia-based Center for Health, Environment & Justice.

The organization commissioned the study about two years ago to determine what caused that "new shower curtain smell" familiar to many consumers.  "This smell can make you feel sick, give you a headache, make you feel nauseous or [cause] other health effects," said Michael Schade, a coauthor of the report.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Patrick O'Grady of the Phoenix Business Journal has reported that Taser International Inc. was deemed partially responsible for the 2005 death of a Northern California man, resulting in a damage award of more than $6.2 million.  The verdict is the first case lost by the Scottsdale-based company.  His article states:

The jury in the U.S. District Court case found Taser 15 percent responsible in the death of Robert C. Heston, while Heston himself was 85 percent responsible.

Heston was struck three times by Salinas, Calif., police officers using a Taser stun gun, and the lawsuit argued that the shocks combined with the fact he was intoxicated with methamphetamine caused his death.

Taser officials said they were disappointed with the outcome and may file an appeal or a motion for a new trial.

The company's stock had dropped about 12 percent since its close Friday before the announcement. It closed at $6.90 on Friday and rested at $6.03 per share by Tuesday morning.