The Injury Lawyer Directory Blog

Labels: nursing home abuse

Labels: defective pharmaceutical, product liability

In 1857, when the Oregon constitution was written, the law claimed that the only way you could recover damages from an assailant was if they injured you, not if they killed you. So, if someone got into a fight over something, it was better to kill the opponent so the attacker didn't have to pay damages. In this way, as the murderer was sitting in prison or getting ready for the hangman's noose, at least he or she could rest assured they wouldn't also have to pay money to the dead person's family. I guess that would be adding insult to injury.

The Modern Day Equivalent

On February 22^nd, the Oregon Supreme Court used the law set down in 1857 to cap non-economic damages in a wrongful death case. They claim this is constitutional. A jury awarded a woman $1 million for the death of her daughter caused by medical negligence. Using the constitution, the Court cut those damages in half.

Those who have been clamoring for tort reform for several years will probably look at this case and cheer. It's a victory for them. They claim that limiting what people can recover in cases like this will hold down insurance rates. Yet, Washington, right across the river, has no wrongful death cap, but their insurance rates are similar to those in Oregon.

For anyone paying attention, this isn't the first time an argument like this has wound up in the news. The Bush Administration has been pushing tort reform for years. There are many different scenarios that are bandied about which might fall into this subject. And maybe there are reasons why insurance companies, hospitals, and others, believe caps are valid. But tell that to the family of those who have died. This gets into the realm of deciding your loved one is only worth a certain amount, and no more. Is this going to become the law of the land, written down into state constitutions so that in another 150 years, lawyers, judges, and the average Joe will know just how much everyone is worth? Perhaps.

Until then, if you, or a loved one, believe you are entitled to damages due to a wrongful death, please contact an experienced injury lawyer.

Labels: medical malpractice, noneconomic damages, wrongful death

Remember, during the 1994 O.J. Simpson murder trial, when Johnnie Cochran said, "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit"?

Some people might remember that, but most may only remember the recent reasons Simpson has been in the news. The book Simpson wrote called If I Did It, whose rights were signed over to Fred Goldman, Ron Goldman's father, and retitled If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer made a bit of news a few years ago. Then, Simpson wound up in court again last year for allegedly stealing his own memorabilia at gunpoint from someone in Las Vegas. These are the things people probably pay more attention to. If they even pay attention to O.J. anymore; he's more likely under the list of has-been sport stars, and there's that pesky wrongful death suit....

While Simpson may have lost the wrongful death suit filed against him in 1997, it seems it's still newsworthy a decade later. Sure, this has more to do with Simpson's celebrity status and the media circus surrounding his suspected role in the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, his slow moving police chase on the L.A. freeway, and his murder trial. However, this news also has to do with the actual law.

The Money He Owes

Simpson owes the families of his ex-wife and Goldman, but he won't pay. Maybe he can't pay. Maybe he's broke. Maybe he doesn't care that the civil suit he lost requires him to pay $33.5 million (now $40 million with interest). Whatever the reasons, Simpson tried to get out of paying. Fred Goldman filed a renewal in 2006, and then Simpson appealed.

Wrongful death cases don't usually get as much attention as O.J. Simpson's, but that's probably a good thing. It's a constant reminder to the Goldmans and Nicole Brown Simpson's family that their loved ones are not just dead, but a media spectacle. Also, the man whom they believe is responsible won't pay.

If you, or a loved one, are involved in a wrongful death case, and you find the alleged killer won't pay, you need to have an experienced lawyer to help you claim your damages. Please contact an injury lawyer with experience in wrongful death cases.

Labels: wrongful death

In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court overrode tough state regulations, claiming that makers of medical devices, such as breast implants or defibrillators, are now immune from liability for personal injuries if the device in question had premarket approval from the F.D.A. This is a victory for the Bush administration and big business that have been looking for ways to get around state regulations that usually award vast sums in damages to injured patients. The Bush administration reversed the federal policy in 2004, arguing that the F.D.A.'s premarket approval of new medical devices overrides claims for damages given by the states.

This came to light with the Riegel v. Medtronic Inc. case on Wednesday, February 20. In 1996, Charles R. Riegel went in for an angioplasty procedure. During the angioplasty, a catheter burst while being inserted into his coronary artery, injuring Riegel. The F.D.A. gave the device premarket approval in 1994. Though Riegel died after the lawsuit was filed, his widow carried on with the case. Riegel's case also concerns the Medical Device Amendments of 1976. Though the F.D.A. sends products to market through a different process now, the F.D.A. has found them to be "substantially equivalent" to product marketed before the Amendments law took effect.

Antonin Scalia Speaks

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that, though state juries might impose liability on companies who make approved medical devices, this "disrupts the federal scheme," since the F.D.A. evaluates the risks and benefits of new devices. It is their responsibility to find that the devices are safe and effective for use. Scalia goes on, saying, the jury will only look at the injured patient, weighing only the dangers of the device. The juries don't look at the device's benefits or those patients who have not had any problems. He bases this on the premarket approval process laid out by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Dems Respond

As the sole dissenter, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg claims that the court has misinterpreted Congress's original intent with the 1976 law. Justice Ginsburg claims the original law was to keep individual states from applying their own premarket approval process to medical devices, and that was all. Democratic lawmakers seem to agree with Justice Ginsburg. Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts sponsored the 1976 law, and said Congress didn't mean for the F.D.A.'s approval to give "blanket immunity" to manufacturers of medical devices. Representative Henry Waxman of California said this decision strips consumers of rights we've had for decades. He also claims Congress will pass legislation to "fix this nonsensical situation."

Until then, hope you don't have to sue a manufacturer for a faulty heart pump, artificial heart valve, or prosthetic knee. The Bush administration and seven of eight Supreme Court Justices claim they're immune if the F.D.A. approved their product before it even hit the market. However, if you find yourself involved in a product liability case, please contact an experienced injury lawyer.

Labels: defective product, FDA, governmental affairs, product liability

In many states, there is something called the "one-bite" rule for dogs. This means that dog owners are generally not liable if their dog attacks someone, and that dog has been well behaved showing no vicious tendencies in the past. However, with the continuing popularity of animals, and the fact that twice as many Americans own pets as have kids, the odds of being attacked by even a good dog have gone up. Fighting breeds, such as pit bulls, are popular, and though these breeds are illegal in some cities, people still own them.

The Lawsuit

In Bridgehampton, New York, a lawsuit is before the New York State Court of Appeals involving a Labrador mix named Scooter, Scooter's owner, Juan Abel Mendez, and eight-year-old Danielle Bernstein, whom Scooter bit. Scooter is what we would generally consider a good dog and had never shown any aggressive tendencies in the past. However, in 2003, Scooter was in Mendez's toy store, a place that attracts children, when Danielle walked in. For reasons probably only clear to Scooter, Danielle was bitten in the face. She received 40 stitches as a result of the bite. Mendez was "beside himself" when Scooter bit Danielle. This lawsuit, and lawsuits like it, raises the possibility that one-bite rules in many states will be thrown out and replaced with more stringent laws.

Reasons?

We hear about stories all the time in which pit bulls, chows, and other "aggressive breeds" maim and kill children and adults. The argument here often comes down to: Is it because these breeds are aggressive, or is it because their owners are irresponsible? Or was the dog being teased? Does the Bridgehampton case rest on the idea that Mendez is a bad owner, or that Scooter was having a bad day? Like people, dogs don't feel like putting on a happy face every day. Maybe Scooter just felt off that day. And breeds smaller than Labradors can’t be overlooked.

Breeds, Large and Small

We don't often hear about Dachshunds, Chihuahuas, or other small dogs attacking people, but it does happen. People own Labradors more than any other breed because they’re perceived as a nice, kid friendly, outgoing sort of dog in the suburbs. They are also good for bird hunting.

Around the time 101 Dalmatians is released, and re-released, kids begin to beg their parents for Dalmatian puppies. The thing about Dalmatians is that they tend to be territorial and can be rambunctious. Put these two qualities in an otherwise "good breed" together with small children, and accidents can occur.

What it comes down to is dogs will be dogs, and, though they're considered man's best friend, they are still animals. Even the breeds that have been around people for centuries will display flares of what we, as civilized people, consider violent behavior, but to them it is completely in line with their animal nature. Dachshunds might be a sweet, funny dog, but put your face too close to their mouth while they're playing with a ball, then the same kinds of injuries could occur as with Scooter and Danielle. This is not to say Danielle did something like this. Perhaps she simply tried to pet Scooter. But 40 stitches and a lawsuit later, New York is re-examining its one-bite rule.

Reality

Because we live in a world where the law of man takes precedence over the law of the jungle, we try to keep dogs' natural tendencies on the proverbial leash. Yet people are still getting bitten. Since we obviously can't take the dogs to court, we have to look to their owners. Dog bites send hundreds of thousands of people to the emergency rooms every year, and oftentimes these occurred with non-aggressive breeds, or pets whose owners swear have never shown violent behavior in the past. Again, the one-bite rule, which many states have, will allow the owners off the hook, but sometimes someone needs to take responsibility.

If you find yourself on the receiving end of a dog bite, you do have options. Please contact an experienced injury lawyer to discuss what to do if you wish to take legal action.

Labels: dog bite

After going in for what was supposed to be a fairly routine bypass procedure at Providence Everett Medical Center, one of the top cardiac care hospitals in the Northwest, Paramjit Singh is now facing a new round of problems. In 2004, Singh suffered a minor heart attack and had successful bypass surgery. After the surgery, a catheter was inserted into Singh's heart and connected to a monitor to measure blood flow. However, the catheter overheated, approaching what doctors said was 500 degrees, which then melted, cooking Singh's heart.

Singh expected to be awake the same afternoon the surgery was performed, but instead awoke six weeks later in a different hospital and different city. He found that he was kept in a drug-induced coma and on a machine to keep his blood flowing until he could get a heart transplant.

Singh, who was once a track star in the Indian army, and active throughout his life, now must face the fact that he has a shortened life expectancy. The anti-rejection drugs Singh takes have left him with lymphoma, possible kidney failure, and possibly another transplant.

The Lawsuits

1. The manufacturer of the device that fried Singh's heart, Edwards Lifesciences, is being sued by Singh and his family, and has accepted responsibility for the injury. But what is now being decided is how much Edwards must pay, and if the Providence Medical Center bears any blame. Singh's lawyers contend that Edwards knew the device might be dangerous and the company's actions were so offensive, that the jury should award damages.

The device in question is the Vigilance monitor, which controlled the catheter. Edwards produces products that treat cardiovascular disease, and made both the monitor and the catheter. Part of the computer code written for the Vigilance monitor is the center of the lawsuit. Alleging that Edwards knew about a software error which might cause the catheter to overheat, Singh's lawyers claim that Edwards didn't warn hospitals of the hazards. The software problem was discovered in 1998 and a fix was developed in 1999. However, by 2003, Edwards had still not removed the useless piece of computer code.

The same problem occurred in Japan in 2002, in which the filament of the catheter began smoking while still outside a heart patient's body. The hot end was removed by doctors who witnessed the catheter overheat.

2. Edwards is also being sued by the hospital. Providence spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a three-year investigation to find out what went wrong, as well as court fees. However, Edwards contends the hospital shares some of the blame for using a defective cable in the operation and for having no procedures to inspect and replace these cables.

End Result

While Edwards "voluntarily" recalled thousands of Vigilance monitors in 2006, Singh's tragedy didn't have to happen. Even if Edwards' scientists and engineers believed the faulty computer code probably wouldn't hurt anyone, they knew it might. For a company who is supposed to be a leader in creating products that help people continue to live quality lives, it seems apparent that they should have known better.

Stories of people like Paramjit Singh give a face to disastrous events like this. How many other unsuspecting victims are there who don't know what to do, or whose families don't know where to turn? Going up against a billion dollar company, like Edwards, seems daunting, but there are lawyers out there who know how to give you a voice. If you feel that a defective product has caused you, or someone you know, harm, please contact an experienced injury lawyer who can help answer your questions.

Labels: defective product, product liability

Remember the good old days when the only worries with handing out candy were razor blades in apples at Halloween? It seems that age of innocence has passed, never to return. Last week, an elementary school in Polk County, Florida had their Valentine's Day party crashed by metal shavings in their Pokemon lollipops. This was just after a Lakeland, Florida woman claimed to have found a razor blade in her child's candy.

The importer, Sherwood Brands, recalled 400,000 treats and advised all stores within its distribution network to remove the Pokemon lollipops immediately. Dollar General sold the product, but has pulled it from all its stores nationwide since being notified of the situation.

Polk County authorities began the investigation after Lisa Porter found the razor blade in the candy she bought for her son. Metal shavings were then found in lollipops sold at separate stores, leaving not much but conjecture. According to Polk County Sheriff, Grady Judd, the lollipops do not appear to be tampered with. The metal shavings were baked into the candy in - where else? - China.

The China Connection

China has certainly been ground zero in the world of recall. Toys, candy, pet food and other defective products have found their way to shelves in the U.S. Why, we as consumers wonder, is this continuing? As Sheriff Judd said: "We do know this: [the lollipops were] made in China, and the quality control was not there." Is it a mere problem of quality control in China, or is it something else?

At least, in the case of the lollipops, you can see the metal shavings. You can see through the candy, which helped the authorities to determine this was not a case of product tampering. (Imagine if the shavings were in chocolate hearts or some other type of V-Day candy.) Had any of these children eaten any of this candy, the injuries suffered would probably be pretty awful. Cutting your tongue or mouth is one thing, but imagine swallowing shards of metal. Rumors of an international incident would surely follow if this were the case.

While the chances of becoming entangled in the world of recalled products seem minute, given all the consumer products out there, it still happens. If you, or someone you know, have been injured due to a product defect, and you feel that you want to pursue legal representation, please contact an injury lawyer with experience in the field of product liability.

Labels: defective product, product liability, recall

Last year, a pregnant woman was prescribed the prenatal vitamin Materna by her doctor. According to a federal lawsuit she later filed, Walgreen's gave her Matulane, a drug used in combination with other chemotherapy drugs, and one that hinders cell growth. The lawsuit claims she miscarried two months later after weeks of various symptoms, including lightheadedness, nausea, chills, vomiting and more. The suit further claims that the miscarriage was a direct result of Walgreen's' negligence, and she and her husband sought damages of $75,000.

While cases of pharmacies prescribing the wrong medication pop up here and there, the question of who is to blame and why did it happen is never far behind. First of all, why was this error made? Sure, Materna and Matulane both begin with the same three letters, but how could someone mistake a prenatal vitamin for an anticancer medication? And is there any sort of fail-safe in case this happens? Is one person behind the counter at the pharmacy and are they so busy they rush through the order? Can't they read the doctor's penmanship? Is this a case of medical malpractice? There are literally dozens of hypothetical questions one can ask. Still, who is to blame?

For better or worse, we put our trust in the hands of pharmacists and pharmacies across the country. We assume they'll be able to fill the prescriptions we need correctly - and perhaps this assumption is our fault. However, when one of them makes a truly horrible mistake like Walgreen's did, we cast about looking, not only for answers, but blame and justice.

This is Where the Lawyers Come In

Lawyers are there to serve their clients and help guide them through the often confusing aspects of the law. The Walgreen's lawsuit was settled confidentially. Thus, only those involved know the outcome and where any blame was assigned - or even if blame was assigned. And yet....

How and Why is the Settlement Any of Our Business?

Well, for starters, it's probably in the interest of safety to find out if this was just one tragic mistake, or if there is a pattern. Most big stores have a pharmacy, and with scores or hundreds of Walgreen's across the country, the chances that a mistake here and there becoming a pattern increase.

Another reason these settlements should perhaps be transparent is that it looks like the law is protecting the big-box stores over the safety of the public. Yet, there is always the issue of the payment of damages, and if the idea is simply to embarrass some of the nation's biggest retailers, then there are other ways of going about this. Publicity is always important, especially when the big stores insist on being portrayed in a positive light. There is a contract that will come up and we must abide by this contract, even if it means the case is shrouded in secrecy.

Public Knowledge of Pharmacy Errors Vs. Protection of Big-Box Store Reputations

I suppose it's up to the law. I suppose that some people have a flicker of national pride that our pharmacies are much better than, say, Chinese toy factories will ever be. However, as a consumer, you have the right to get the proper prescriptions without having to worry about mistakes that might harm or kill you or your family.

If something like this happens to you, you have legal recourse. By contacting an experienced injury lawyer, you can get good advice on how to best pursue damages. Don't let the fact that you're up against giants deter you from pursuing justice.

Labels: damages, medical malpractice, prescription error

The U.S. Product Safety Consumer Commission and Soft Air U.S.A., Inc., of Grapevine, Texas, have announced that remote-controlled "Fun2Fly Microcopter" sold at sporting good stores and other retailers between May and December 2007 might catch on fire. It has been reported that the internal rechargeable batteries may combust, igniting not only the helicopter, but also anything nearby or burning someone. Soft Air U.S.A., Inc. has reported six instances of this problem, but thousands of the toy helicopter are at risk.

The foam and plastic "Fun2Fly Microcopter" in question is manufactured in China and comes with the item number 91001. You can see the number above the UPC label. If you believe you have purchased one of these toys, it is recommended that you return it immediately to the retailer where you bought it.

While the public has been inundated with reports of toy recalls this year, and the reasons are numerous, they need to be taken seriously. It is in your best interest to pay attention to the different products announced in the recalls. In several cases, injuries and deaths have occurred. If you, or someone you know, have been involved in a case like this, please contact an injury lawyer with experience in product liability to see what your options are.

Labels: defective product, recall

Another drug recall has been announced. This time patches containing the painkiller fentanyl were recalled on Tuesday, February 12, due to a flaw that might cause caregivers or patients to overdose. The FDA recently put out its second warning in two years on the dangers of misusing this drug.

Fentanyl is a powerful opioid. It is given only to people in chronic pain who are used to narcotics of this nature. If you are not used to narcotics like this, it can cause breathing problems. While it should be given to people in serious chronic pain, the FDA reported cases where doctors prescribed fentanyl for post-surgical pain and even just for headaches.

The problem lies in the fact that some patches may have a cut in the lining of the reservoir where the fentanyl gel is stored. If this leaks into the packaging, it could cause caregivers or their patients to come into contact with the drug. This could cause breathing difficulties or even death.

Fentanyl is sold in the U.S. under the brand name Duragesic by PriCara and generically by Sandoz Inc. 25-microgram-per-hour patches with expiration dates on or before December 2009 are involved in the recall. PriCara claims that two of every million patches might contain this flaw.

You might have a claim against the company if you feel you have been affected by this flaw or recall. If this is the case, you should contact a lawyer with experience in drug recalls or drug injuries to set up an initial consultation.

Labels: drug injury, FDA, fentanyl, recall

Last week, we blogged about the malpractice suit John Ritter's family filed in California. Well, the medical malpractice suit has reached the court. Ritter's family is seeking $67 million from the two doctors they claim are responsible for Ritter's death in September 2003.

They are also seeking damages of $14 million from the hospital, Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Burbank, and several other medical personnel. Why? Because this is the amount the family determined Ritter would have made had he not suffered an aortic tear. According to family attorney, Michael Plonsker, ABC and Touchstone Studio executives will testify that Ritter's show, Eight Simple Rules for Dating My Teenage Daughter, could have run for several more seasons and made millions more dollars. Of course, that's all speculation.

However, this certainly raises an interesting point. When it comes to damages, just how much are families willing to accept? How much are our loved ones worth? Granted - the average person probably won't earn as much as John Ritter might have earned. But does - and should - that make a difference? When the government and some doctors want to put caps on malpractice and wrongful death suits, are they also capping how much pain and suffering families are supposed to feel? And had Ritter lived, should the family still be able to sue for a misdiagnosis (aortic tear versus heart attack)?

While Ritter's lawyers fight it out publicly, many more lawyers representing average families will never have that kind of media attention. Still, this doesn't mean your lawyer isn't going to fight for what you deem to be your due. If you feel you have a medical malpractice or wrongful death case, be sure you speak to an experienced malpractice lawyer.

Labels: damages, medical malpractice, wrongful death

The Federal Court in Rhode Island charged with handling of all claims related to the Davol, Inc Kugel Mesh Hernia Patch, has announced that it is now accepting personal injury claims based on all Davol patches, not just the ones recalled in the FDA class 1 recall. In essence, this is a further expansion of the recall, the third such, saying that people may have legitimate claims based on any and all Davol products.

The most recent action is based on FDA inspections carried out at Davol's headquarters, where it was discovered that the quality control procedures were so bad that the company had no idea which of its patches were experiencing problems or were likely to experience problems. The company had been unable to respond to emergent problems in its patches to alter its design or to inform patients of the possible risks they faced. In response to this, and in response to the wide range of people alleging damage as a result of other Davol products, the Federal Court in Rhode Island declared that any and all claims against Davol for its patches would be heard.

The Composix mesh that is the substance of the Kugel Mesh was at first heralded as a remarkable innovation for its manufacturing process that laminates two biocompatible plastics—polypropylene and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene—in one product. However, as early as 2000, reports began to surface that the mesh became delaminated or crushed, causing bowel adhesions and obstructions. Because of Davol's shoddy quality control practices, however, a recall was not issued until 2005.

Negligence of this level in handling medical products is criminal, and companies that practice it need to be punished not only to provide compensation for the victims of their work, but also as an example to other companies that such practices are not tolerated. If you or someone you love has suffered as a result of any Davol mesh patch, you have a responsibility to pursue a claim against the company. To get a free initial consultation about your claim in Mobile, Alabama, contact the experienced pharmaceutical injury lawyers at the Injury Lawyers, P.C. today.

Labels: defective pharmaceutical, defective product

A Baltimore County jury awarded $15.3 million, primarily in pain and suffering damages, to 73-year-old ex-shipbuilder George J. Linkus, Sr. who is suffering from mesothelioma as a result of his shipbuilding work that exposed him to asbestos fibers. He suffered exposure partly from a rope he used to line valves, a rope manufactured by defendant John Crane, containing between 60 to 70 percent asbestos. According to one of Linkus's attorneys, David L. Palmer, of the Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, P.C, the rope "emitted visible dust," indicating "high levels of exposure." Despite the fact that a large body of literature on the dangers of asbestos existed by the 1950s when Linkus worked with the rope, he was never informed about the dangers of exposure.

Palmer, along with co-counsel Andrew M. Cantor and William G. Minkin, called a series of experts including two pathologists, an industrial hygienist, and a cell biologist, constructing a case so convincing that the jury took just over half an hour to return their verdict, which included $335,000 in past medical expenses and $15 million in pain and suffering.

In addition to manufacturer John Crane, the jury found two cross-defendants co-liable for Linkus's exposure injury, Owens-Illinois, Inc, a glass manufacturer that made thermal insulation containing asbestos, and Foster Wheeler, Inc, which made boilers containing asbestos. Linkus had already received a settlement from Owens-Illinois and from two other cross-defendants, Westinghouse Electric and International Paper Company, who were not found liable.

It is expected that John Crane will request that the award be divided among all three cross-defendants.

The life expectancy of a person diagnosed with mesothelioma is 12-18 months, although Linkus, who first suffered symptoms of mesothelioma in 2004 and was diagnosed in 2005, has fortunately outlived that period to see the verdict in his case.

If you or a loved one have been diagnosed with mesothelioma, contact the Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, P.C. today for a free initial consultation.

Labels: asbestos, mesothelioma

A woman who died in May 2004, three hours after giving birth to her son, because a nurse attached the bag of anesthetic for her epidural to a line going to her arm rather than to her back, was the victim of "gross negligent manslaughter" according to an inquest recently concluded on the tragedy. The finding was that the wrongful death was due not only to the mistake in attaching the bag, but in the failure to properly check it, which the husband said could have been done at any of six different opportunities, but was not. The nurse testified that she thought she had connected either saline or a blood volume expander to boost the woman's blood pressure. Not only is the nurse liable for her criminal medical malpractice, but the hospital as well, which admitted to a chaotic storage of drugs that may have led to the pharmaceutical error. Similar but non-fatal misconnections occurred at the hospital in 1994 and 2001.

If you have lost someone you love as a result of a delivery room error in Chicago, contact experienced medical malpractice lawyer Barry G. Doyle at the Law Offices of Barry G. Doyle, P.C. for a free initial consultation.

Labels: hospital misconduct, medical malpractice, wrongful death

When John Ritter died unexpectedly at the young age of 54, the world mourned an actor who was famous not only for his television comedy work on the hit Three's Company and its less popular spin-off Three's a Crowd, but also for his ubiquitous presence in TV and movies, with guest spots on everything from Hawaii Five-O to Felicity to Scrubs. And it seems that his death was not only unexpected, but unnecessary as well, or, at least, that is what his widow is trying to prove in her wrongful death lawsuit against doctors at the California hospitals where he was treated.

Her hope is that penalizing the doctors for their medical malpractice in his case, to the tune of $67 million in damages, will both further publicize his condition to help future sufferers and keep the doctors accountable for following-through on recommended treatment. When Ritter went to the hospital after suffering severe nausea, vomiting, and chest pain on his daughter's 5^th birthday, an emergency room doctor recommended a chest x-ray. However, none was performed, and instead his cardiologist, thinking Ritter had suffered a heart attack, prescribed anticoagulants, which could only have worsened his condition, an aortic dissection, a tearing of the inner layer of the aorta, the primary artery by which blood is conveyed to the body from the heart. The lawsuit contends that if a chest x-ray had been performed, the condition might have been identified.

Medicine is a tricky business, and doctors unfortunately make mistakes all the time. However, there is no excuse for doctors jumping to conclusions without following through on necessary diagnostic tools. If you have suffered or lost a loved one as a result of a doctor's carelessness or failure to diagnose your condition, you need an experienced medical malpractice attorney. In Phoenix, Arizona, contact the law firm of Snyder & Wenner, P.C. for a free initial consultation.

Labels: medical malpractice, medical negligence, prescription error, wrongful death

Bull riders are ten times more likely to get injured than players of major contact sports like hockey and football, but that could be changing. One of the main changes that could improve the injury rate is the swapping of the ornamental cowboy hat for a protective helmet. Since over half of bull riding injuries are head traumas and brain injuries, with spinal injuries coming soon after, helmets could make a big difference.

Although some riders complain that helmets are bulky, block their vision, and are ineffectual or even harmful, the same study that showed the frequency of injury among bull riders also showed that a helmet could cut the rate of injuries in half. Currently, rodeo association rules do not require riders to wear helmets, and that's unlikely to change for a while, but the current is alternating from negative to positive, as high-profile riders are putting on helmets to keep themselves competitive. Both the bull-riding champion and the rookie of the year from 2006 now wear helmets. And the Professional Bull Riders association plans to offer scholarships to youth leagues that require helmets, once they meet the full standards applied by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).

Labels: brain injury, rodeo, Texas