Virginia Beach Personal Injury Lawyer

Caffeinated Foods May Pose New Risks

Jim Lewis — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 17:20:31 GMT

The rise of caffeine-infused foods may pose health risks to consumers, according to the FDA. While caffeine-infused alcoholic drinks recently made headlines for their potential dangers, new foods such as caffeinated waffles and maple syrup, along with a new type of Wrigley gum, has the United States Food and Drug Administration investigating the possible detriments to health the foods may pose.

“When you start putting caffeine in these different products and forms, do we really understand the effects?” says Michael Taylor, an FDA food safety official. “Isn’t it time to pause and exercise some restraint?”

Some companies have already been doing so: a few years ago, MillerCoors LLC announced it would remove the caffeine from its Sparks alcoholic drinks, citing concern for young adults who consumed the beverage. Many other corporations still add the drug to their product lines, however; for instance, Jolt Energy Gum is infused with caffeine. Chewing a pack of the gum, according to the nutrition information, is equivalent to drinking six energy drinks.

Moderate caffeine intake has been suggested to improve mental health, but too much can be detrimental to one’s health; ingesting more than 600mg of caffeine per day can cause such reactions as nervousness, upset stomach and muscle tremors, according to the Mayo Clinic.Because consumers are unfamiliar with many of the novel new caffeinated food products, it is important to determine how much caffeine they contain, whether or not the level is safe, and what risks they may pose to those who purchase them.

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Jim Lewis

NHTSA Continues To Escalate Fight With Chrysler

Richard N. (Rick) Shapiro — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:21:55 GMT

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has fired another shot in the escalating war of words between itself and Chrysler. Only hours ago, the NHTSA said that it would give Chrysler a deadline of June 18^th to formally respond to its request that the automaker recall nearly 3 million Jeep Grand Cherokees and Jeep Liberty SUVs.

The recall request relates to an issue of design that many safety experts believe is responsible for deadly vehicle fires. Jeep Grand Cherokees made between 1993 and 2004 and 2002-2007 Jeep Liberty have the fuel tank located behind the rear axel. Given this location and the height of the SUVs, the tank is especially vulnerable in the event of a rear-impact collision. Consumer safety groups have gathered accident reports linking the design to hundreds of vehicle fires and dozens of deaths.

Chrysler, for its part, says that NHTSA is wrong and that its vehicles fully comply with federal safety standards. It says it has no intention of issuing any recall and has so far refused to even discuss the possibility of issuing a voluntary recall to correct the problem. Experts say that something as small a tiny metal shield attached to the bottom of the car could substantially increase the safety of the tank in the event of a rear-impact collision.

In the NHTSA’s recent press release, the agency said it would decide what step to take next based on Chrysler’s formal response. The agency says it has clear evidence that the design used in the affected Jeep models goes against typical fuel tank design across the auto industry. It also has data which shows Jeeps have higher rates of vehicle fires than other similar SUVs. Moreover, the NHTSA says that Chrysler itself changed the fuel tank placement in more recent model vehicles after becoming aware of the danger presented by rear-impact collisions.

It’s become quite uncommon for car companies to refuse to comply with a recall request these days. Most companies do not want to be seen as choosing to keep dangerous cars on the road. Experts say this case is reminiscent of a similar battle between the government and Ford back in the 1970s over the recall of more than a million Ford Pintos due to similar gas tank location problems. Ultimately the government won that battle and Ford was responsible for fixing the vehicles that had been found to be responsible for 27 deaths. Here, the numbers of people who have died in Jeep vehicle fires is at least twice as great, possibly more depending on whose statistics you believe.

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Richard N. (Rick) Shapiro

Study Concludes Daydreaming Number One Cause of Distracted Driving

Jim Lewis — Sun, 09 Jun 2013 09:58:46 GMT

Statistics from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), a nationwide census of fatal motor vehicle traffic crashes maintained by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), shows that of the 65,000 victims killed in motor vehicle crashes over the past two years, one in ten of those victims died in crashes caused by a distracted driver.

Our Virginia injury law firm has written many articles about accidents that were caused by distracted driving, the most common causes being texting and cell phone use. But a new study has concluded that it’s actually five times more dangerous to daydream while driving than texting or talking on your phone.

The study, conducted by Erie Insurance Group, found that 62 percent of all distracted driving accidents in the U.S. each year that resulted in fatalities were blamed on daydreaming, or being “lost in thought”. In comparison, only twelve percent of those distracted driving accidents were caused by some kind of mobile phone use.

The data from the study was taken from 2010 and 2011. The types of distracted driving were broken down into specific types of distractions based on the categories police classified the cause to be in the accident reports. The top ten were:

Generally distracted or “lost in thought” (daydreaming – 62 percent.
Cell phone use (talking, listening, dialing, texting) – 12 percent.
Outside person, object or event (i.e. rubbernecking) – 7 percent.
Other vehicle occupants – 5 percent.
Using or reaching for device brought into vehicle (i.e. navigational, headphones) – 2 percent.
Eating or drinking – 2 percent.
Adjusting audio or climate controls – 2 percent.
Using devises/control integral to vehicle (i.e. mirrors, seats) – 1 percent.
Moving object in vehicle (pet, insect) – 1 percent.
Smoking related – 1 percent.

The insurance company stresses that although cell phone use was only at twelve percent, it’s still important for drivers to refrain from using the phone while driving. They suggest letting calls go to voicemail or asking callers to call back later. Texting should only be done once pulled over safely off the road.

But the study is also a critical reminder to drivers of all the other factors besides cell phones that can cause distractions which could lead to fatal consequences.

Daydreaming and driving even more dangerous than texting and driving.

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Jim Lewis

Chrysler Challenges NHTSA In Jeep Recall Fight

Randy Appleton — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 10:02:16 GMT

In a surprising turn of events, Chrysler has announced that it will not recall 2.7 million Jeeps despite a government warning letter asking that the automaker recall the potentially dangerous vehicles. Earlier this week the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released a letter sent to Chrysler telling it to recall millions of Jeeps due to the risk of a vehicle fire caused by rear-end collisions.

In its letter, the NHTSA said that it had been investigating the Jeeps since August of 2010 and says the placement of the gas tanks, located behind the rear axle, increases the danger of a vehicle fire. The NHTSA also said that the height of the vehicles means the fuel tank is too high above the road to be protected in the event of a crash.

Chrysler, rather than do as it was told, responded aggressively saying that the NHTSA’s analysis was faulty. The company says it disagrees with the recall request and, as a result, will not honor it. Many in the industry are surprised at the response from Chrysler. Since Toyota’s recent recall debacle, most automakers have erred on the side of caution when it comes to announcing recalls. Car companies are generally eager to avoid being seen as arguing in favor of keeping unsafe cars on the road. Despite this concern, Chrysler and the NHTSA were unable to work out an agreement for the company to issue a voluntary recall. The NHTSA’s decision to publicly call for a recall is a surprising move and speaks to the urgency of the matter. Given Chrysler’s refusal, the NHTSA’s next option is to take the company to court and try to force a recall.

The issue is a serious one. The Center for Auto Safety has said that more than 150 people have died in fires caused by rear-impact accidents in Jeeps. The NHTSA, which uses different figures when compiling its totals, says that there have been at least 44 deaths in 32 rear-end crashes in Jeep Grand Cherokees and seven deaths in Jeep Liberty models.

The government says that the vehicle fire rate in other vehicles with rear-mounted tanks is about half the rate seen in Jeeps. The issue would be a costly one for Chrysler because there is no simple repair to fix the problem. The only thing the company could do is re-engineer the tank and vehicle underbody to move the tank forward where it would be less vulnerable, a task which would be almost impossible in older model cars.

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Randy Appleton

Federal Investigation Shows False Car Accidents Staged for Insurance Payouts

Jim Lewis — Sun, 02 Jun 2013 22:21:46 GMT

A federal investigation recently revealed that a chiropractic’s office in Florida has been staging car accidents in order to collect large amounts of insurance money. The report also revealed that a manager at the clinic was bribing local hospital employees to obtain patient’s data in order to solicit injured individuals’ business.

The case highlights Florida’s personal-injury-protection law (PIP), which mandates insurance companies issue an up-to-$10,000 payout for injury claims, regardless of which party was at fault. According to authorities, the types of clinics that takes advantage of this law often prescribe unnecessary treatment for injured victims, or else bill for procedures and services that never took place.

In the instance above, the employee of the accused clinic would offer participants up to $1500 if they agreed to take part in the staged accidents; the employee himself was paid nearly $150,000 per year for his services, and listed only as “driver” in the company’s records. The clinic took more than $1,500,000 from insurance companies over a twenty-month period; the legitimacy of the claims is in question.

The fraud was revealed from the FBI’s recruiting an informant, who reported back to agents on the clinic’s doings. The FBI itself reports that more than $40,000,000,000 in insurance fraud occurs every year, resulting in anywhere from $400 to $700 in increased premiums for the average United States family.

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Jim Lewis

Maryland Supreme Court Says Commercial Ambulance Company Not Entitled To Good Samaritan Immunity

Mark Favaloro — Fri, 31 May 2013 11:06:00 GMT

The Maryland Supreme Court recently ruled that the state’s Good Samaritan law does not relieve commercial ambulance companies from liability in the event of a medical malpractice lawsuit.

The incident that led to the lawsuit began in 2007, when a minor child was having trouble breathing and was taken to the Easton Memorial Hospital for treatment. Once there, doctors inserted a breathing tube to ensure he received oxygen. However, the hospital was not equipped to handle intubated children and doctors tried to transfer the boy to a pediatric intensive care unit at the nearby University of Maryland Medical System. UMMS then arranged for PHI Air Medical to transport the boy by helicopter to their facility.

A paramedic team including a UMMS pediatric nurse, a PHI flight paramedic, a PHI flight nurse and a paramedic employed by TransCare were all on board the helicopter. The TransCare employee had been invited to ride along as part of an orientation for the company’s contract as a ground ambulance transport company with UMMS.

When the team arrived at Easton Memorial Hospital the TransCare paramedic, Chris Barbour, set up the equipment and placed the boy on the helicopter. Shortly after taking off the child’s heart rate and oxygen levels dropped because the breathing tube had become dislodged. The flight team tried unsuccessfully to find an air mask for the boy until the helicopter landed and the storage area was searched. The boy was later re-intubated and his levels returned to normal for the duration of the trip.

Sadly, the lack of oxygen led to serious brain damage to the young boy who is now blind, deaf and mentally disabled. The boy’s family has since filed suit claiming that TransCare committed medical malpractice because their employee, Barbour, failed to provide the requisite standard of care.

TransCare argued they ought to be immune from the med mal suit given that the state’s Good Samaritan Act specifies that volunteer fire departments, ambulance and rescue squads are all immune from liability for ordinary negligence in emergency situations.

The Maryland Supreme Court rejected this claim, saying that TransCare failed to demonstrate that it functioned like a rescue company. Given this failure, the company was not entitled to statutory immunity. The Court held that only if a commercial ambulance company is able to clearly demonstrate that it functions like a rescue company would it ever be entitled to immunity.

Though most doctors strive to do good for each and every patient, mistakes happen that can leave people seriously injured or even dead. In such tragic cases it’s important that the people or companies responsible be held financially accountable for the damage they did. In this case, it appears the boy’s family will be able to pursue a civil claim for damages against TransCare. Though the money will never truly compensate them for their horrible loss, it helps send an important warning to other companies and, in so doing, hopefully saves lives.

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Mark Favaloro

NSC Study Concludes Crashes Caused by Drivers on Cellphones Under-Reported

Kevin Duffan — Fri, 31 May 2013 09:46:44 GMT

A new study by the National Safety Council (NSC) has concluded that the numbers of motor vehicle crashes involving cellphones are "vastly under-reported" in national statistics on fatal automobile crashes. The group reviewed 180 fatal crashes from 2009 to 2011 where evidence indicated driver cellphone use. They compared their finding to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), the national database of fatal motor vehicle crashes and their causes, to see how the government had classified those same accidents. In 2011, only 52 percent of those crashes were coded in national data as having cell phone use involved. In 2010, it was 35 percent, and in 2009, 8 percent.

Researchers independently confirmed that those crashes were cellphone-related through means such as the driver admitting it, a caller or texter on the other end during the crash reporting cellphone use, a passenger reporting the driver's cellphone use or police finding an unfinished message on the phone at the crash site. Even in fatal crashes where the driver admitted to using a cell phone, the NSC found that in 2011, only half of those were coded in FARS data as involving a cell phone.

The NSC study also found a large range of differences in how states collect and code cellphone-related crashes, which is then all compiled and imputed into FARS. This difference in procedures may be resulting in inaccurate statistics.

For example, Tennessee reported 71 fatal crashes involving cellphones in 2010 and 93 in 2011; New York, which has a much larger population, reported ten such crashes in 2010 and one in 2011.

In 2011, Texas reported 48 fatal crashes involving cellphones; Louisiana reported eight, Arkansas seven, Oklahoma twelve and New Mexico none.

A spokesperson for the NHTSA says the agency is working with states and law enforcement agencies to add more precise categories to police reports.

The NSC estimates, based on risk and prevalence of cell phone use, as reported by research and NHTSA, that 25 percent of all crashes are caused by cell phone use. Jonathan Adkins, deputy executive director of the Governors Highway Safety Association disagrees with that estimate, basing his statement on NHTSA data. “The most recent NHTSA data indicated that 10% of all fatal crashes involve distraction and of those, 1.2 percent are cellphone-related. So, even accounting for underreporting, the 25 percent number doesn't sound plausible,” said Adkins.

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Kevin Duffan

FDA Warns Antibacterial Soap Could Be Dangerous for Consumers

Jim Lewis — Thu, 30 May 2013 14:52:33 GMT

The federal Food and Drug Administration is looking into whether or not antibacterial hand soap may be dangerous. The agency’s ruling will be released later this year to determine if a key ingredient in antibacterial products is harmful to consumers.

That ingredient, triclosan, is present in countless everyday products, has been classified since the late 1970s as “not generally recognized as safe or effective.” However, triclosan continues to be used in many forms, including toothpaste. The trade organization American Cleaning Institute claims that the substance is harmless, and the FDA continues to assert that, at the very least, it is unclear if triclosan offers any added benefits to washing with “normal” hand soap.

Dangerous chemicals are often at the forefront of government regulation and public concern. This month, senators in Washington began looking into more federal regulation for potentially-harmful substances. It is critical that chemicals and products that may harm individuals be subject to proper regulatory oversight in order to ensure public safety.

It is not just chemicals such as triclosan that may carry risks; products such as birth control can also harm consumers if they are untested or unsafely-produced. Whatever the product might be, if individuals are unfamiliar with how it is produced, they should investigate just how it is manufactured, and what goes into it, in order to minimize the risks associated with harmful products and substances.

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Jim Lewis

Intuitive Surgical Issues Urgent Warning Regarding da Vinci Surgical Robot

Kevin Duffan — Mon, 27 May 2013 09:48:22 GMT

A scary message by Intuitive Surgical Inc., the company that makes the da Vinci surgical robot, has doctors on alert after a potential issue with the machine was uncovered.

Last week the company issued an “urgent medical device notification” to surgeons regarding a problem with scissors that come with the robot. Intuitive Surgical said that the scissors have, in some cases, developed “micro-cracks” that can cause heat from the machine to leak and burn a patient’s tissue. The specific tool in question is called an EndoWrist Monopolar Curved Scissor.

The latest news comes on the heels of increased attention for the company regarding worries about the safety of robotic surgery. Procedures performed by the machines have exploded in recent years as hospitals have sought to increase market share and pad their bottom lines by attracting clients using the allure of robotic surgeons.

Despite all the glowing press surrounding the device, the FDA says it will launch an investigation into a series of more than 500 complaints about the da Vinci surgical robot. These include five reports of death. In once case a woman died during a hysterectomy after the robot clipped a blood vessel. In another case, a man died after the da Vinci robot perforated his colon, which led to a terrible infection.

Critics have complained that the robot is no better than a human surgeon and only further increases the already costly hospitalization process. In some cases, glitches have even been reported in the robot, including terrifying case where the machine froze in the middle of surgery while gripping a patient’s intestine.

Though none of this proves that robotic surgery systems should never be used, the reports do raise serious concerns. We can only hope that the FDA does its job and rigorously investigates the use of the da Vinci system to ensure future patients are safe.

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Kevin Duffan

Sandoz Enacts Voluntary Recall of Injectable Products

Jim Lewis — Tue, 21 May 2013 20:11:53 GMT

The drug company Sandoz, a subsidiary of Novartis International AG, is conducting a voluntary recall of two of its injectable products, according to the FDA. The two lots, CL0996 and CJ4948, are made of methotrexate sodium, an antimetabolite and antifolate. Particulate matters were discovered in the products during an inspection.

The company has not yet reported any adverse affects of the drug, but the FDA warns consumers that microembolization may occur due to the particulate matter. The affected drugs were distributed internationally in the United States and Poland.

Dangerous drug recalls are all too common. A hazardous drug product is a particular risk for consumers who may be taking it, due to the fact that they may already be ill and are taking the drug in order to treat their illness. Particularly considering that Sandoz’s drugs are distributed across such a wide area (in this case, multiple countries), it is critical that they act quickly in ensuring that their drugs are taken off the market before consumers suffer any harm.

May 2013 alone has already seen twenty-one recalls of dangerous food and drugs, so it is important for consumers to be up-to-date and aware of the various products that may be dangerous and unfit for consumption. Checking the FDA’s and various consumer protection agency’s lists often ensures that one has knowledge of which products they should not be using or should return to the manufacturer.

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Jim Lewis