Ohio Personal Injury Lawyer Robert W. Kerpsack Co., L.P.A. Columbus, Ohio
September 29th, 2010
In 1935, T.E. Lawrence, AKA Lawrence of Arabia, died in a motorcycle accident, helping to establish the motorcycle as the dangerous vehicle of rebels for the 20th century and beyond. Jimi Heselden is no Lawrence of Arabia, and it is unlikely that the Segway will have the cultural cachet in the 21st century that the motorcycle did in the 20th, but the vehicles are similarly dangerous.
In data released shortly after Heselden’s fatal accident, a Washington, D.C. doctor revealed that a significant number of Segway accidents resulted in serious injuries. In fact, the admission rate for Segway accidents was much higher for Segway accidents than for auto-pedestrian accidents. Furthermore, over the period of the study, the injury rates were increasing dramatically: 5 in 2005, eight in 2007, and 25 in 2008. The types of injuries suffered by Segway riders mimics those suffered by motorcycle riders: facial trauma, head injuries, and broken bones, including collarbones, ribs, and wrist and ankle bones. Therefore, safety experts recommend using the same safety gear as when riding a motorcycle, preferably a helmet.
Although there are only tens of thousands of Segways worldwide, and their adoption in many places is limited by regulations on motorized vehicle use, they do have the potential to cause serious injuries. But do they have the potential to be cool? Up to this point the Segway has been a rolling gag, called on whenever anyone needed to look extra lame. It was called on to help “Weird Al” Yankovic complete his “White & Nerdy” persona for the video, continuing an entertainment tradition that runs from Arrested Development to Despicable Me. The possibility that the vehicle can overcome this humorous association seems slim. After all, the vehicle has been too heavily adopted by authority figures (Paul Blart: Mall Cop, anyone?) to ever seem counter-cultural and cool. The only way it can happen, I think, is for this death and reports of injuries to scare away the nerdy clientele that shies away from risk. The company will have to fail and the vehicle drop from the scene for a while. Segway will have to die in its current form before it can be reborn as the new, cool, radical mode of transport.
If you have been hurt in a Segway or other motor vehicle accident, the personal injury lawyers of Robert W. Kerpsack, CO. LPA can help. Please contact us today for a free case evaluation.
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
September 27th, 2010
In a report released early last month, the Society of Actuaries (SOA) attempted the complicated task of estimating the number and cost of medical errors. Being actuaries (professionals who perform mathematical analysis of data to determine risks that help insurance companies determine rates and write policies), they focused only on relatively concrete data–actual claims made by doctors for billing purposes–and extrapolated from that data to determine the cost of medical errors.
In looking at the data, the SOA found that there were at least 6.3 million medical injuries in the United States in 2008. Approximately seven percent of hospital admissions resulted in some type of medical injury. Overall, nearly a quarter of all medical injuries (1.5 million) were caused by a medical error. The overall total economic cost of medical injuries was estimated to be $19.5 billion. 87% of the cost they could verify was from increased treatment cost, with the other 13% coming from lost work, disability, and patient death. Errors were estimated to result in at least 2500 wrongful deaths in 2008.
The study also identifies the most common errors associated with medical injury, and state that 55% of the total cost of errors was due to only five common errors:
- Pressure ulcers (bedsores)
- Postoperative infections
- Mechanical complications of devices, implants, or grafts
- Post-laminectomy syndrome (ongoing pain following back surgeries to relieve nerve compression)
- Hemorrhages complicating a procedure
The actuaries recognize several limits to their study:
- Because it only utilizes coded medical claims, the study underreports many types of injury, most notably death that occurs outside the care setting
- Uncoded errors are not included
- Disability that lasts more than one year after injury was not included
- Pain and suffering could not be measured
- Legal costs were not included
So the actual costs of verifiable medical errors is likely much higher than the current estimates.
If you have been hurt as a result of a doctor’s error, you may be eligible for compensation for your injuries. The medical malpractice lawyers of Robert W. Kerpsack, CO. LPA may be able to help you. Please contact us today for a free initial consultation.
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
September 21st, 2010
After a 14-year fight, a jury awarded more than $23 million to a family poisoned by misapplication of a then-legal indoor pesticide. The lawsuit was filed in 1996, two years after the family moved into an apartment building in New Albany, Indiana. Several months after the family moved in, the two children, aged 5 months and 3 years, were hospitalized for seizures. The family moved from the apartment when their lease expired, and the Indiana State Chemist’s office tested the apartment, finding pesticide residues. During the family’s time at the apartment complex, the complex fired its professional pest control service and began using its own personnel to apply pesticides. The jury found that misapplication of pesticide caused toxic exposure leading to serious health problems for the children. The three-year old, now 20, is severely developmentally disabled. According to her mother, “she can’t dress herself, undress herself, brush her teeth, brush her hair, shower herself–basically everything but feeding has to be done by somebody else.” The 5-month old, now 17, is academically and socially delayed.
This lawsuit should give pause to people advocating the use of propoxur against bed bugs in Ohio. Although bed bugs seem to be resistant to many pesticides, propoxur is very effective at killing them. Propoxur, like the pesticide used in the Indiana case–Creal-O, used to be legal for indoor use, but has since been banned from “use on residential use sites, including schools, day care facilities, motels, hotels, and other indoor locations where children may be present.” This action followed hundreds of reported incidents of toxic exposure to children. In the short term toxic exposure causes children to pass out. Long-term, children may suffer neurological damage.
Now, though, the Ohio Department of Agriculture is looking for an exemption to use propoxur indoors to target the bed bug epidemic. The problem with propoxur is that EPA formulas show that the levels of the chemical needed to control bed bugs would also pose serious risk to children. Furthermore, it is unlikely to work for long. As with other pesticides, bed bugs would likely develop a resistance within a short time, while the families and children who suffered propoxur poisoning would have to live with the consequences for a lifetime.
However, the EPA ban is not stopping some people from misusing pesticides. Pest control services, businesses, and individuals desperate to control bed bug infestations have been found to be using pesticides in unapproved ways.
If you or your family has suffered as a result of toxic or inappropriate use of pesticides, the Ohio personal injury lawyers of Robert W. Kerpsack, CO, LPA can help. Please contact us for a free initial case evaluation.
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
September 13th, 2010
For months now, we have been talking about the dangers of Avandia, the controversial type 2 diabetes drug made by GlaxoSmithKline. Now, it seems that the main alternative to the drug, Actos, may be an equally dangerous drug. In the August 2010 issue of Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, the official journal of the American Heart Association, a large comparison of the two drugs showed essentially equal risk of cardiovascular problems and all-cause mortality, in contrast to a number of important studies showing Avandia resulted in a higher risk of heart attacks and other negative effects.
The newest study was conducted by HealthCore, Inc, a division of Blue Cross and Blue Shield that mines the insurer’s clients for data in the service of pharmaceutical companies, government agencies, and other insurers. It took data from a population of about 36,000 people who began treatment with Actos (pioglitazone) or Avandia (rosiglitazone) from 2001 to 2005. Patients were matched with two similar controls to check for confounding variables. The study found that patients taking Actos were just as likely as those taking Avandia to suffer heart attack, heart failure, or death. Patients taking the drugs for less than a year were excluded, and the average time of following patients was 1.6 years.
So does this study mean that Actos has the same risk as Avandia? Maybe, but there are several reasons why I doubt it:
- This study’s results are far from clear. The 95% confidence interval (the interval within which the actual number should be 95% likely to fall) is really large (0.24, almost a quarter of the reported 1.03 relative risk). It is so large that it significantly overlaps the large FDA study linked to above that shows a very clear risk.
- This is another study showing “no conclusive relative risk.” This is suspiciously like the same old story GSK has been telling us for years. We’ve already talked about ways in which the RECORD study may have been manipulated to conceal Avandia’s risk with confusion. With a few tantalizing hints that Avandia’s risks are greater, and none saying they are less, it seems unlikely that the risks are the same.
- GSK researched this question already. In 1999 GSK wanted to find out if its drug was safer for the heart than Actos. The results of that study were ordered concealed by GSK management. If this data showed that Avandia and Actos had the same level of risk, it would have been brought out this study in 2007 when it was losing market share, instead of complaining that the main reason Avandia seemed more dangerous was that no-one was researching Actos. Instead, it seems that GSK officials, at least, were convinced that Avandia had a higher risk and worked systematically to conceal that risk.
It is also worth noting that this class of drugs (thiazolidinediones, or TZDs) is potentially dangerous for relatively little gain. In fact, the first drug in the class was withdrawn after only three years on the market because it led to sometimes fatal liver damage. Whether Actos actually has the same level of risk as Avandia is still up in the air, but what is certain is that GSK has worked hard to conceal the level of risk posed by Avandia.
If you or a loved one has suffered a serious injury related to Actos, Avandia, or another dangerous drug, the pharmaceutical injury lawyers of Robert W. Kerpsack, CO, LPA may be able to help you. Please call or email us today for a free initial consultation.
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
September 7th, 2010
In the evening hours of September 1, an SUV slammed into the rear end of an Amish family’s buggy, injuring seven members of the family. The car accident occurred in Geauga Coutny. The mother, who was eight months pregnant, died after delivering the boy she carried. The child is in fair condition and is expected to recover, but he and his six siblings will now face life without a mother.
The driver of the SUV, a Jeep Cherokee, was cited for following too close and operating a vehicle under the influence (OVI). A spokesman for the Ohio State Highway Patrol says the crash is still under investigation, and more charges are likely.
Fatal car crashes with Amish buggies are unfortunately common in Ohio. Last year, three children were killed in an accident in Holmes County, when a pickup truck struck a buggy from behind, and in 2008, a 7-year-old was killed in Ashtabula County, and his three siblings injured and in critical condition when a van driver ran a stop sign and hit their buggy broadside.
If you have been hurt or lost a loved one in a vehicle accident, the personal injury lawyers of Robert W. Kerpsack, CO, LPA may be able to help you. To learn more, please call or email us today for a free initial consultation.
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
September 2nd, 2010
Last week, Johnson & Johnson’s subsidiary DePuy Orthopaedics announced an international recall of all ASR-brand hip replacements. This move comes after two years of reports from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other regulatory agencies that the hip replacement had a higher-than-expected rate of failures. The recall also came after the company had already decided to phase out the hip implant due to declining sales, but did not include an admission that this was a defective product.
In 2008, the New York Times reported that reported problems with the ASR Hip implant were growing, with over 400 complaints reported from 2008 to 2010, and 90% of those complaints involving a full replacement for the implants. In late 2009, the director of the Australian implant database went to the company with reports that the ASR was failing earlier and more frequently than other companies’ hip replacement devices. At the director’s pressure, the company withdrew the implant from the market in Australia in December 2009, which he described as “way too late.”
DePuy issued an advisory in March that some patients were at an increased risk for failures, but only after it had decided to phase out the implant due to declining sales, a decision it had made in January 2010. However, in August the data from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales (NJR) showed a very high failure rate for the ASR. About 12-13% of the implants failed within five years–even though they were supposed to last 15 years or more. This is about twice the failure rate reported for Zimmer Durom Hip Replacements recalled in 2008.
In addition, there are concerns that many people who had metal on metal joint replacements, like the ASR hip implants, are suffering secondary effects due to metal filings shaved off the components. These secondary effects can be local, like bone and soft-tissue failures, or potentially systemic, like bowel and kidney inflammation as well as heart, nerve, and thyroid problems.
It is clear from DePuy’s actions that it, like many large corporations, responds more to market pressure than to either regulatory requests or concern about the end-users of its products. A product liability lawsuit can help it understand that individual lives matter, and every injury should be considered seriously.
If you have suffered an injury due to the ASR hip replacement or another defective medical device, the product liability lawyers of Robert W. Kerpsack, CO. LPA can help. Please contact us today for a free consultation.
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
August 30th, 2010
The Parable of the Sower is one of the most famous parables used by Jesus. In this parable, he talks about a farmer who is sowing his fields, and the seeds fall on many different types of soil. Some fall on the path and are eaten by birds. Others fall on rocky places with little soil, where they sprout quickly but die in the sun because their roots are shallow. Still others fall in the thorns, where they are choked by the weeds. Finally, a few of the seeds fall in good soil and grow well and strong.
Drug prescriptions might be compared to a farmer sowing seed. The good soil is uses for a drug that are sufficiently safe and effective that the company feels confident and can get FDA approval. Seeds that fall in the weeds are treatments that a drug is effective for, but less effective than competing drugs that are already on the market. Those that fall on the path are conditions for which a drug is not effective at all. The worst, though, are the seeds that fall in the shallow soil. These are the conditions for which a drug is effective, but it has so many serious side effects that it ends up doing more harm than good, potentially leading to serious pharmaceutical injury and even the wrongful death of patients.
What constitutes “shallow soil” for any given drug depends on the severity of its side effects. For a drug with serious side effects, it is only suitable in the treatment of very serious conditions. Seroquel is one of those drugs with serious side effects that should only be used for serious conditions. It is technically approved for schizophrenia treatment and as an adjunct to other drugs in treating bipolar disorder, to be used only when these drugs do not work.
Unfortunately, earlier this year AstraZeneca–the maker of Seroquel–was forced to pay over $520 million for promoting off-label uses of the drug from 2001 through 2006. In addition, the company was charged with giving doctors kickbacks to prescribe the drug, including not just cash payments, but paying them to lecture about unapproved uses. In other words, the company was paying doctors to sow the seed in rocky soil, and if the plants would wither, what did it matter if they came up green, even for a little while?
In combination with this off-label promotion, the drug was discovered by the Veteran Affairs Department for the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). As a result, sales of the drug to the Department of Defense and the VA soared by over 700%. Seroquel also became the 5th best-selling drug in the nation. As a result, we are now seeing more people suffering the drug’s dangerous side effect, including sudden death. Sudden death is a known side effect of the drug when used to treat elderly patients (which AstraZeneca also promoted), but it has begun to appear among veterans. Because the drug is often prescribed in combination with as many as dozens of others at the same time, it is hard to determine whether Seroquel is to blame for the deaths, but it is suspicious.
If you have suffered serious injury or lost a loved one due to off-label use of Seroquel, your injury might have been the result of illegal marketing, and you may be able to receive compensation for your injuries. The pharmaceutical injury lawyers at Robert W. Kerpsack, CO. LPA stand ready to help you. Contact us today for a free case evaluation.
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
August 18th, 2010
At this point, it seems that plastic surgeon to the stars Frank Ryan died as a result of texting a Tweet about his dog, a border collie named Jill. Police are still investigating, but according to the surgeon’s ex-girlfriend the family was told that the fatal car accident was caused by texting. The surgeon was driving along the famous, curvy cliffside Pacific Coast Highway when his car went off the road, killing him. Police have confirmed that he had been texting, and, according to an officer on the case, “It is one of the elements that we are investigating.”
Distracted driving, especially text messaging and cell phone use, are the focus of a new campaign by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Studies performed by the NHTSA and others have shown that texting can have as big an impact on driving and reaction time as driving drunk.
The ex-girlfriend says she hopes that others will learn from the accident that “people should not text and drive at all.” And just as many worry more about animals than people in movies, hopefully they will take this accident to heart. Although Jill survived, she suffered serious injuries to her head, eye, and paw.
Distracted drivers endanger not only themselves and their passengers, but everyone else on the road. If you have been hurt or lost a loved one in an accident with a distracted driver, you may be able to receive compensation for your loss. To learn more, please contact the Ohio personal injury lawyers at Robert W. Kerpsack CO, LPA today for a free case evaluation.
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
August 16th, 2010
You may remember the story a couple months ago about the woman who was driving with fifteen cats in her car. She fought all the way to the Supreme Court of South Dakota to get her cats back after they were impounded following a traffic stop. Now we have the story of a local Akron driver who also had animals loose in his car, and they posed a serious distraction that led to a car accident.
The man was transporting three mice from a pet store to a friend’s house where they were going to feed the friend’s snake. However, en route the mice got free from the box in which they were being carried. When the man tried to shoo them off his body, he lost control of the car, hitting the curb and crashing into a tree. Fortunately, although the driver hurt his ankle, no one suffered serious injuries in the accident.
The driver was then cited by Akron Police for failure to control and driving without a license, although he claims to have a valid license in Oklahoma. The driver blamed the mice, but nonetheless pleaded guilty to the charges, paid a fine, and was released.
Although this time no one was seriously hurt, driver distraction can lead to serious accidents. If you or a loved one was involved in a serious accident caused by a distracted driver, the car accident lawyers of Robert W. Kerpsack CO, LPA can help. Please call or email us today for a free case evaluation.
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
August 13th, 2010
Ambrose Bierce in The Devil’s Dictionary famously defined a corporation as “An ingenious device for obtaining profit without individual responsibility.” No matter how many Supreme Court decisions say otherwise (such as the latest one related to corporate campaign financing), a corporation is not a person, it is a machine, a machine for making money. As a machine, it has no heart, no brain, no soul, and no conscience.
You might say, “Wait, a corporation has a conscience–it is the combined conscience of all the people who work there.” Yes, and no. As a corporation grows, it becomes increasingly specialized. One person designs a widget, someone else obtains the components, someone else puts them together, someone else tests the widget, someone else designs the packaging, and someone else writes the ad copy. Someone takes orders for the product (as the widget, artfully packaged and marketed, is now described), someone else puts the product on the trucks, and someone else drives the trucks.
Once a corporation reaches a particular size, it tends to obtain a person or people with a very special talent and a very specialized job. The talent is often described in terms such as business acumen, toughness of mind, or clarity of vision, and their job is to be the conscienceless command center for the corporation. Somewhere along the way, someone hired them because they had the ability to “make the hard decisions.” The hirer doesn’t actually ask what these decisions are, partly because it is part of this person’s job to insulate everyone else from thinking about these decisions, such as the decision to continue marketing a fan whose motor is known to cause fires (without implementing the available fix), putting police officers in a car with an inherent fire risk, or concealing the heart attack risk associated with a diabetes drug. This person’s job is very important, because each one of these decisions can mean billions of dollars for the corporation, enough to help it keep consuming and growing and developing new specialized parts to increase its ability to obtain more money.
The only way to stop corporations from obtaining a conscienceless command center is to make this component unprofitable. By making a corporation pay for every injury it causes through a product liability or drug injury lawsuit, we can increase the cost of making these kinds of “hard decisions,” so that the right decision for protecting people from injury becomes the right decision for protecting corporate profits.
Now you might object, “A corporation is such an ingenious device for obtaining profit that it just passes the cost of lawsuits onto the consumer, increasing the price we all pay.” True. And appropriate. Because one of us got paid to design that widget, another of us got paid to assemble it, and one of us got paid to write the ad copy. And if you feel the cost, it’s because you bought a product from a company with a conscienceless command center. The best way to avoid this cost is to stop doing business with companies that hurt people.
The two parts work together. Lawsuits expose and publicize corporate misconduct, and in their detailed investigations provide enough information for us, as consumers, to decide who we will and will not deal with. All it takes is for us to look at the information, using our hearts, our brains, our souls, and our consciences to supply what corporations lack. It is easy to think of corporations as huge and terrible juggernauts, unstoppable by frail human flesh, but each of us holds the lever, and it only takes our collective will to grind the consuming machine to a halt.
If you have been hurt by a dangerous product or drug, you deserve compensation for your injuries, and the company that profited from the dangerous product deserves to pay. The product liability lawyers of Robert W. Kerpsack, CO., LPA may be able to help you. Please contact us today for a free case evaluation.
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS).
