Connecticut Injury Attorney Blog

Bed, Bath and Beyond, a nationwide retailer, has issued a recall of a tissue holder because of radiation emitted by the metal used in its manufacture. The retailer has sold the product, known as the "Dual Ridge Metal Boutique," in about 200 stores nationwide since July 2011. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), a smelter in India may have accidentally used scrap metal contaminated with cobalt-60, a radioactive isotope, in producing the metal used for the tissue holders. Inspectors in California first identified the contamination when a box containing several tissue holders set off a radiation alarm at a truck scale. The products had arrived in the United States from India at the port of Newark, New Jersey.

A spokesman for the NRC said that the company had received three shipments of the product from India in July, August, and December, but that only the December shipment had raised alarms. Bed, Bath and Beyond is reportedly investigating other shipments to look for contamination. Although only one of the three shipments has demonstrated contamination, he says the company has opted to recall all of the tissue holders "out of an abundance of caution."

The NRC spokesman, speaking to the AP, also said that the levels of radiation contained in an individual tissue holder does not pose any specific health threat. The recall is motivated by the principle that it is better to avoid unnecessary radiation exposure. The spokesman said that a person spending 30 minutes a day near the tissue holder, for example while in the bathroom, over the course of a year would receive a radiation does roughly equal to two chest x-rays. This can be a significant amount of exposure for people with certain medical conditions and people who have a high level of other radiation exposure as part of their jobs.

Bed Bath and Beyond had another issue with a recall in Connecticut in June 2011, when the manufacturer of a product sold by the retailer issued a voluntary recall, monitored by the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection. The product, FireGel, was a gel used in citronella firepots during the summer to deter mosquitoes and other insects. The gel itself is flammable, burning without a wick. As a result, consumers could not always tell if the material was burning or not. Consumers who added additional gel to a pot they did not realize was already burning caused minor explosions and suffered burns, some quite severe. At least one Connecticut resident sustained life-threatening burns requiring hospitalization.

Continue reading "Retailer Issues Recall of Radioactive Tissue Holders" »

When a doctor uses a sophisticated medical device incorrectly, and a patient suffers an injury, what happens? Is the doctor liable for misusing the machine? Is the medical device's manufacturer responsible if it failed to warn of the risks of its product? American Medical News, a publication of the American Medical Association (AMA), examined these questions recently. Its report details how device information or labeling affects doctors' liability, and what steps the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has taken to protect patients.

The AMA relates the story of a Kentucky man who went to an orthopedic surgeon for reconstructive shoulder surgery. The doctor implanted a pain pump in the man's shoulder to allow direct administration of pain medication to the shoulder joint. The man returned shortly with shoulder pain, and an exam found that he had developed chondrolysis, a condition that results in the loss of joint cartilage. Chondrolysis can be caused or exacerbated by the use of a pain pump to continuously supply anesthetic drugs. In other words, the pain pump implanted by the doctor may have destroyed the man's shoulder joint.

The man filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the device, alleging that the company failed to warn doctors and patients of the risks of using the pain pump, and that it did not notify doctors that some uses of the pump had not received FDA approval. The device manufacturer filed a claim against the orthopedic surgeon as a third-party defendant, arguing that the doctor was at fault for not using the pain pump correctly and not following the device's instructions or warnings about placement of the pump, and the use of anesthetics. While the plaintiff blames the device manufacturer for his injuries, the manufacturer seeks to hold the doctor liable.

This case, and many others like it, involves multiple competing theories of liability. The law forces the parties in a dispute like this to present all their competing theories to see whose wins the day. The doctor could be held liable under a theory of negligence, commonly known as medical malpractice. A doctor, as a licensed professional, owes a very strict duty of care towards patients. If a doctor breaches that duty of care through an error or omission, such as the misuse of a medical device, and the patient suffers injury as a result, the doctor is liable for those damages. This could include medical costs, lost wages, and past and future pain and suffering.

Continue reading "Doctors and Medical Device Manufacturers Fight It Out Over Malpractice Claims" »

Department of Transportation worker who lost part of her leg in the back of a dump truck while getting it ready for winter snow operations received a 3.6 million dollar verdict in Waterbury Superior Court on November 1, 2011. Her boot was entrained in the moving conveyor chain during a maintenance operation. The defense was primarily that she disregarded a "Danger" decal affixed to the side of the truck advising her not to stand in the body of the dump because of the moving chain which could cause injury. While that was true, the decal had been serially disregarded as the back of the dump bed was often used to store tools and for various other purposes and ther was a ladder affixed to the side of the dump body placed there by the Manufacturer and Dealer to enable access. The dealer who sold and assembled the dump body knew that and in fact their own mechanics would inspect the chain's operation on occasion from inside the dump body as well while the chain was in motion. The State of Connecticut's contract with the DOT required mandatory training on the proper operation and maintenance of the dump body which implicitly included how to clean and maintain the unit in a safe and recommended manner.It also required compliance with OSHA regulations and Industry safety standards. The Dealer maintained that it did so comply and that physical guarding of the chain during operation was implausible as any such guard would necessarily tend to interfere with its intended purpose. Accordingly, administrative controls which included proper training and clear operating instructions were essential and the Dealer maintained that it provided proper training and that the DOT which had operated a fleet of hundreds of similar trucks before the instant purchase should have known how to train their own employees in the first place. After the incident, Conn OSHA did cite the DOT which employed the injured worker for allowing exposure to unguarded nip points and in consequence thereof the DOT implemented a series of heightened administrative controls.

The case was brought under Connecticut's Product Liability Act and was plead under legal theories including Strict liability for Defective design, Breach of the Statutory Duty to provide warnings and instructions, Breach of warranty and negligence. The manufacturer of the Dump bed had settled with the Plaintiff weeks before Trial and was a settled and released party whose fault was considered by the jury for purposes of allocating fault between the Plaintiff, the manufacturer and the remaining Defendant which was the dealer who sold the dump beds to the State under a procurement contract. The Jury allocated slightly less fault to the Manufacturer than to the Dealer who had the contract and primary relationship with the DOT and assigned 38% fault to the injured DOT worker as well resulting in a net verdict of slightly more than 1.3 million dollars to the worker in addition to a confidential sum obtained from the manufacturer shortly before Trial.

On Monday, the FDA initiated a recall of various chocolate products manufactured by Chocolate Decadence after a Connecticut consumer became ill from eating the chocolate.

Subsequent investigation revealed that the chocolate had been manufactured on production lines that had previously been used to process milk chocolate. It was thus determined that the products contain an undeclared milk allergen. Consumers who are allergic to milk run the risk of serious or life-threatening reaction if they consume these products.

According to the FDA release, the recalled products were distributed nationwide via the Internet and physical retail locations.

Continue reading "Connecticut Consumer's Allergic Reaction Prompts Recall of Chocolate Products" »

Connecticut patients being treated for wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD) with eye injections should be aware that, last week, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a release alerting health care professionals to a cluster of serious eye infections suffered by patients in Florida and Tennessee who received eye injections of repackaged Avastin (bevacizumab). Avastin is approved for treatment of various cancers, but used off-label in smaller doses by many ophthalmologists to treat wet AMD due to its substantially lower cost than alternatives ($50/dose vs. $2,000/dose for Lucentis). Tragically, some of the patients were blinded.

As explained on EyeDocNews (a blog covering new treatments for eye conditions), in order to convert Avastin from a cancer drug to a wet AMD drug, pharmacies must repackage the vials into much smaller doses. If that repackagaging process is not handled with proper aseptic techniques, product sterility can be compromised, which puts patients at risk for microbial infections.

Continue reading "Contaminated Avastin Causing Eye Infections and Blindness in Patients" »

As reported today in the Hartford Courant, leading meat processor Cargill announced that it is recalling 36 million pounds of ground turkey linked to a nationwide salmonella outbreak that has killed one person in California and sickened individuals in at least 26 states so far across the country.

The recall covers fresh and frozen ground turkey products produced at the company's Springdale, Arkansas plant between February 20, 2011 through August 2, 2011.

Continue reading "No Illnesses Reported Yet in Connecticut in Nationwide Salmonella Outbreak" »

Consumers in Connecticut and other States who purchase generic drugs instead of brand name prescriptions have had an important legal remedy taken away as a result of a ruling just issued by the United States Supreme Court A divided Court has ruled that those injured or killed by generic brand prescription drugs because the product warnings were inadequate to explain and articulate the risks of taking the medicine can no longer sue the manufacture for damages. A wrongful death or Personal injury claim could still be brought it would appear if the drug were manufactured defectively or designed improperly in a situation where either of which circumstance caused harm. However, if there was simply inadequate information disclosed within the product literature to somebody who went into a CVS pharmacy store in Hartford, for example, resulting in their consuming the drug and suffering harm, their legal remedy now has disappeared against the manufacturer and likely the seller of the generic drugs. Since almost 75% of all prescriptions sold are generic( and cheaper than brand name equivalents) this is a big deal to the consumers.

Continue reading "Generic Drug Manufacturers shielded from Product Warnings Liability" »

One can hardly doubt that persons who have sustained serious work site injuries, some that have led to their Death, by their pursuit of lawsuits beyond the mere assertion of workers compensation claims have fostered awareness and safety for many. The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire that occurred in the year 1911 was one of the most tragic industrial accidents in U.S. history. 146 workers lost their lives, many were young female immigrants.
The factory conditions were so deplorable and unsafe that a criminal investigation and charges were filed but the owners of the Factory were acquitted. However, they were sued for civil damages-monetary compensation for those that lost their lives and brought wrongful death claims which they won. The American Society of Safety Engineers(ASSE) was also founded, in part, because of this event and made efforts to bring attention to the horrid conditions which the workers were having to work in.

Continue reading "Safety In The Work Place- " »

The immediate goal of initiating a lawsuit where governmental or Industry standards have been deviated from is obviously to compensate the unfortunate victims injured as a result. What may not be so obvious, however, is that in addition to providing remedies to those who have been injured, the evolving body of standards and practices recognized by governmental bodies and industry standards setting organizations benefits society as a whole, in that litigation premised on these principles often serves as a vital force for change, resulting in safer products, improved warnings, better regulation of work sites , and greater public awareness of the hazards. Over the last fifty years litigation involving these principles has caused significant changes in the way manufacturers do business and in the way businesses run their companies and regulate the safety of their own work environments. In the process, these changes have saved lives here in the United States and abroad, and prevented countless injuries.

Continue reading "Private Lawsuit Enforcement of Government and Industry Standards- " »

Amputation injuries continue to occur in Connecticut despite the presence of Federal safety regulations as well as industry manufacturing and Product Design standards which have become prevalent. Frequently, these terrifying injury events occur attendant to the use of power tools and industrial equipment. An overview of the regulatory landscape which is set forth below begs the question why do such events continue to occur with such regularity. A summary of the pertinent regulations and standards is in order before addressing that question.

HOW DO AMPUTEES COPE

Full or partial body part amputations are due to a multitude of causes and require major life and psychological adjustments including strategies for coping with the loss of an integral part of one's body, but recovery is possible and I have seen excellent results over the longer term. Frankly, financial security and taking account of future ergonomic needs as well as supportive medical care gains much of the credit in my experience. Often times an injured Amputee will also need to pursue a workers compensation claim, a general negligence claim and on occasion a products liability claim as well. Too bad our military Men and Woman have no such resort for financial recompense when their injuries happen while defending our Society's Freedom.

Continue reading "PREVENTING AMPUTATIONS- A GOVERNMENTAL AND INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE" »

On November 30, 2010, Bloomberg news reported that the United States Senate has pass legislation that when enacted would overhaul Food Safety oversight by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. According to sources quoted in that article food-borne illnes are estimated to cost the U.S. economy as much as $152 billion dollars a year in direct and indirect expense and loss of productivity. The legislation received backing by multiple food industry and public- health groups and adds inspections and other powers including the ability of the FDA to force recalls, rather than relying on companies to voluntarily remove contaminated foods from store shelves. Just in recent years there have been massive recalls and food-borne illness outbreaks from a variety of consumer food porducts, some of them imported by foreign manufacturers.

Continue reading "Food Safety And Products Liability Law" »

In Connecticut as well as many other Jurisdictions, in the case of accidental deaths whether occuring on the job, while operating a motor vehicle or opertaing machinery or simply the result of substandard medical care lawsuits may be initiated on behalf of those killed. Legally, this may be accomplished through the appointment of an Administrator of the Estate by the Probate Court who then engages legal counsel to investigate and file the lawsuit if warranted by the circumstances.

From a personal injury perspective, wrongful death claims are often complex and challenging cases to pursue, not only for the Law Firm entrusted with this task but also for the family members left behind who must interact with lawyers and provide information and insight into the life of the decedent. In Connecticut, accidental death lawsuits must generally be initiated within two years of the event causing the death in order to fall within the Statute of Limitations period. It is not uncommon for the investigation of such claims to take an extended period of time to complete so prompt retention of an experience lawyer is always helpful and sometimes critical. This is particularly the case when critical evidence or witnesses may no longer be easily ascertainable given any extended delay.

Continue reading "Wrongful Death Lawsuits" »

Personal Injury and Medical Malpractice cases are not only about benefiting the injured parties, obtaining answers for them and appropriate financial compensation,but also about achieving social justice which benefits us all. To quote Connecticut Supreme Court Justice Peter Zarella:

"The profession of law is not just a business. It transcends a mere occupation. It is a lifelong communal pursuit of justice."

Just like government must be accountable to have a free and fair society and its mistakes laid bare the same is true in our society's private endeavors. Errors committed by Connecticut area hospitals, physicians, construction companies, manufacturers , Insurance companies as well as Companies who employ Connecticut workers must be held accountable where their actions cause harm and suffering. The natural inclination to deny any mistake or wrongdoing and defend is most often the predictable iniital response. Occasionally, active concealment and coverup is as well. Neither instinct when allowed by these Entities to become an ongoing legal strategy serves to assure justice to those injured or the rest of us. That behavior is injurious to our familes in the larger community and must not be tolerated.

Continue reading "Public Interest Benefits From Personal Injury Lawyering" »

Accidents involving Buses have repeatedly made headlines in our State. Most recently, a school bus driven by an operator with a poor driving history was involved in a tragic bus crash which led to the death of a Rocky Hill High School student and injured scores of others. In this particular event, it appears that the lack of mandatory seat belts for Connecticut school bus riders shares blame with the bus operator's error and that of his employer for hiring this individual in the first place without conducting a thorough driving history background check. This occurence is now reverberating through Connecticut's legislature and perhaps will finally enable the necessary political will to adopt laws protecting the vulnerable passengers of such motor carriers. The sheer weight and mass of the bus when combined with highway speeds or rollovers at even city street speeds produces sheer and crush injuries to the muscular skeletal frame of many riders.

Continue reading "Connecticut Bus Safety " »

A commerical dough mixer was determined to be a defective product by a hartford Connecticut Jury in April 2008. The Connecticut Jury also found that the manufacturer's failure to have placed on the machine in question a bowl guard which was only available as an optional piece of equipment warranted the assessing of punitive damages. A Punitive damages award is uncommon in the setting of a products liability lawsuit and is generally based upon the determination that the manufacturer or distributor's actions were taken with extreme indifference to the rights and safety of the products intended or forseeable users. In this case the manufacturer, Varimixer, had maintained a practice of selling large and powerful commercial dough mixers without having an interlocking bowl guard as a standard piece of safety equipment. It appeared to councel based upon information developed through discovery that the decision to only offer this safety device as a non standard piece of equipment available for an extra charge was commercially motivated and failed to take into account the potential for harm to the user should the mixer be used without the bowl guard. Based upon user experience throughout the industry, it was known that there would be a certain injury incident rate that would occur in the absence of the bowl guard's presence. The defendant's expert argued at trial that the injury incidence rate was small enough that making the bowl guard standard was not necessary in order for the product to be considered safe enough to use in accordance with the ordinary consumer's expectations of safety for the product. The Hartford Connecticut jury in this defective products personal injury case rejected that argument and found the manufacturer liable for both compensatory and punitive damages. The Compensatory damages award exceeded 1.3 million dollars. The case was settled for a confidential amount following the jury award last year.

Continue reading "Defective Product Receives Hartford Connecticut Punitive Damages Jury Verdict" »