The Injury Lawyer Directory Blog

Congress has agreed to permanently ban three types of chemicals for children's toys, as well as outlaw three others from pending products. The chemicals, called phthalates, are added to plastic to make them softer and more durable. They are also added to items, such as lotions, perfumes and shampoos. 1999 study conducted by the FDA showed them in every one of the 1000 products tested, proving their ubiquity.

The ban, which will take place in six months, is a major victory for health experts and parents who have been asking the government to remove these harmful chemicals found in toys. It also seems to show that the pendulum is swinging toward consumers and away from the chemical industry and their ability to fight off regulation.

Potential Storm Clouds

While the measure had broad support in Congress, it slowed in the House due to the chemical lobby pouring millions into its defeat. The chemical industry, perhaps unsurprising, was lead by Exxon Mobil. Exxon is the manufacturer of diisononyl phthalate (DINP), one of the most frequently found phthalates in children's toys. This is a further concern for the chemical industry because U.S. companies manufacture $1.4 billion of phthalates annually, and only five percent of those go into children's toys, according to the American Chemistry Council.

On top of the chemical industry fighting to keep phthalates, President Bush has said he'll veto the measure. The President claims there is no evidence that the health concerns are real.

In an Orwellian turn of events, Exxon Mobil contends that by removing phthalates, more children will be exposed to greater risks. They contend that more hazardous chemical will have to be added to replace phthalates.

Phthalates are thought to act as a hormone and cause reproductive problems, especially in boys. In a study conducted in 2005 by the Center for Reproductive Epidemiology, male infants born to mothers with high levels of the chemical in their bodies showed changes related to low sperm count and undescended testicles. Other studies connect phthalates to liver and kidney cancer.

Phthalates have been part of the chemical makeup of thousands of products for nearly half a century. The EU banned six phthalates in 1999, and many other countries have followed suit. California, Washington, and Vermont are the only three states to already have legislation banning these chemicals from children's products. Wal-Mart, Toys R Us, and Babies R Us have also already told their suppliers that they will stop carrying products that contain phthalates beginning January 1, 2009. This gives them one more holiday season in which to sell harmful toys to unsuspecting parents.

If you or a loved one has been injured by a defective product, please contact an experienced injury lawyer in your area.

Fourteen years ago, Exxon Mobil Corp. was ordered to pay $5 billion in punitive damages for the destruction of beaches and wildlife in Prince William Sound, Alaska. This was then reduced to $2.5 billion in 1994 by a federal appeals court. On Wednesday, June 25^th, this was further reduced to $500 million by the U.S Supreme Court. In a 5-3 decision, Justice David Souter, writing for the court, stated that because the company has already exceeded the $2.5 billion amount in compensation to victims for economic losses, punitive damages have already been paid out. Exxon has asked the high court to throw out the punitive damages claiming it has spent $3.4 billion due to the damages which occurred along 1,200 miles of coast line.

Writing for the dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens stated that it was Congress who chose not to impose restrictions on punitive damages under the circumstances. Also in dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court was "engaging in lawmaking" with their conclusion. She believes the decision should have been left to Congress. Justice Stephen Breyer agreed with her by opposing a one to one ratio of punitive damages to victim compensation.

Justice Samuel Alito took no part in the decision because he owns Exxon stock.

This decision has left many Alaskans affected and in line for compensation in dismay. Under the original award nearly 33,000 would have collected $75,000 each. Now they stand to gain only $15,000 a person. According to Supreme Court lawyer Jeffrey Fisher, Native Alaskans, landowners, businesses, local governments, and commercial fishermen have had "their lives and livelihood destroyed and haven't received a dime of emotional-distress damages."

Revenue and profit margins of Exxon Mobil have surpassed $330 billion a year for the last several years, and is currently the world's richest corporation whose net income was almost $40 billion last year. As other oil companies, Exxon Mobil is under the threat of investigation for price gouging during a time of record gas prices, as well as for funding global warming skeptics while spending less than a percent on researching alternative energy sources.

While the Exxon Valdez was captained by an alcoholic who had five double vodkas the night of the spill, the fact remains that massive oil tankers continue to dump oil into the oceans, polluting the beaches and killing wildlife, which affects many people's livelihood. Because of this, environmental litigation is sure to have some kind of staying power. However, due to the Supreme Court's ruling, potential punitive damage claims may be significantly reduced.

Over the Memorial Day weekend, the military contractor once tied to Halliburton, KBR, asked a judge to throw out a lawsuit brought by the family of a soldier who died in Iraq when he was electrocuted while showering. Staff Sgt. Ryan Maseth, a 24-year-old stationed with the Green Berets in Baghdad, was killed in January, and an Army investigation found that the electric pump that supplied water to the building was improperly grounded. His death is considered an accident, yet the Maseth family believes since KBR was responsible for supplying the military with things such as showers and food, they are also responsible for Sgt. Maseth's death.

Though Sgt. Maseth's death is tragic, he is one of at least twelve soldiers who have been electrocuted in Iraq. The Maseth family is trying to find out what KBR knew and what - and when - the government knew. Because KBR was attached to Halliburton, there is some suspicion that Dick Cheney, who once led the energy company before becoming vice president, knows what was going on as the US invaded Iraq and began parceling out contracts to their companies the Bush administration favored. Cheney has denied having any contact with Halliburton or KBR since he joined the administration. KBR is also accused of price gouging the military and government even though they deliver questionable service.

The Maseth family may wonder why their son, a highly trained soldier, died in this manner, but they are not alone. Democratic chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Henry Waxman, asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates to hand over documents relating to the electrical systems managed by the military. Many are concerned about the pattern they see which extends into KBR's management - or lack thereof.

Handing out government contracts to your friends is certainly undemocratic. But what's the word for it when your friends may be responsible for the deaths of at least twelve soldiers whose lives were contingent on your friends' corporations doing their job? And what do you call it when your friends' corporations ask a judge to throw out a lawsuit like this over Memorial Day weekend?

If you have lost a loved one in Iraq who was killed in an accident where negligence may have been a factor, please contact an experienced injury lawyer in your area to see if you have a claim.

A bill meant to modernize the nation's air traffic control system, improve the inspection of commercial airlines, and ensure that stranded passengers on delayed flights are given food and water failed in the Senate after Republicans blocked the bill. They claim Democrats were trying to add provisions into the bill that had nothing to do with aviation, and were angry that they were not allowed to add in their own amendments.

Specifically, the Republicans objected to a proposed tax increase to raise billions of dollars to make up for expected shortfalls in the nation's highway trust fund next year. They argue that this is meant to build and repair roads and bridges, but not airports.

Perhaps predictable, as these types of political fights are, the Democrats accused the Republicans of obstructionism. Sen. Jay Rockefeller also warned of severe consequences when he stated, "I am deeply concerned that the risk of a catastrophic accident is increasing, not decreasing....I am growing increasingly concerned that our aviation system is operating on borrowed time."

Because of this impasse, the funding for a new satellite-based air control system and tougher safety inspection rules will be put on hold until Congress tries again next year. Also on hold are new rights of airline passengers, as well as a provision stating that airlines must disclose on their website which flights are chronically delayed.

While flight delays can be excruciating, and sitting on a stranded flight with little food or water is probably criminal (someday, anyway), because the infinite wisdom of Congress has delayed overhauling aspects of flying that make the public safer, things will probably get worse before they get better.

Airline disasters that occur due to pilot or mechanical error are horrible enough. What if a catastrophic plane crash is the result of political inaction?

If you have lost a loved one in an airline disaster, please contact an experienced injury lawyer in your area who has been involved in aviation disaster cases.

In 2003, Bill Janklow, a Republican senator from South Dakota, was driving at least 70 mph in a 55 mph zone when he ran a stop sign and hit a motorcyclist. The motorcyclist, Randolph Scott, was killed instantly. Janklow escaped the worst with a broken hand and bleeding on the brain.

The Janklow Trial

At the beginning of Janklow's trial in December of that year, his lawyer argued Janklow suffered from hypoglycemia, had taken an insulin shot, and then hadn't eaten at all the day of the accident. As a result, Janklow was "mixed up" and "confused" when he hit Scott. Prior to Janklow's trial, he was involved in three previous accidents and received 12 tickets for speeding (an action Janklow had been unapologetic for). However, the jury was never informed of this driving record.

In December, 2003, Janklow was convicted of second degree manslaughter. He resigned his Congressional seat a few days after this. As a convicted felon, Janklow's role in Congress would have been limited until a House Ethics Committee investigated the allegations. In January, 2004, Janklow was sentenced to 100 days in jail. He was released the following May.

Lawsuit

Randolph Scott's family filed a $25 million wrongful death lawsuit against Janklow. The court ruled that because Janklow was on "official business" at the time of the accident, he was therefore working for the government at the time and was protected from a lawsuit due to the Federal Tort Claims Act. This essentially means that the federal government will assume liability for things like accidents instead of the individual who may have been involved and was working at the time - no matter how liable that individual is. The Scott family's lawsuit was then turned toward the government in 2006. That same year, the South Dakota Supreme Court reinstated Janklow's license to practice law.

Attorneys are still trying to settle the case. If no settlement is reached by May, the whole thing goes back to trial.

Randolph Scott's family still hasn't seen any of the money they have asked for after the accident in 2003. However, Bill Janklow, a man with a lengthy driving record, doesn't have to worry about paying anything because the federal government sheltered him, which essentially gave Janklow a free pass. Yes, he had to spend a hundred days in jail, and this event ended his political career. But he's a practicing lawyer again. This is a better deal than the one Randolph Scott and his family received.

If you have lost a loved one due to another driver's negligence, please contact an experienced injury lawyer in your area.

Federal officials have announced that a fairly common ingredient in nutritional supplements has been identified as the contaminant in heparin, a blood thinner used in surgery and kidney dialysis. Heparin helps to prevent blood clots that may cause heart attacks and strokes. The contaminant known as hypersulfated chondroitin sulfate, or chondroitin sulfate, is made from animal cartilage and is an ingredient in several nutritional supplements used to promote healthy joints. However, the hypersulfated chondroitin sulfate is not approved for use in the U.S. Levels of the contaminant ranged from 2% to 50% in lots of heparin tested.

Unknown Origin

It is believed that this substance is the culprit that sickened and killed hundreds of patients across the U.S. How it got into heparin is a question authorities are still investigating. The contaminant originated in China, and there are several theories about how it made its way into the drug. There may have been some kind of "mishap." Or perhaps it was an experiment gone awry. However, it may have also been deliberately added to the heparin to boost profits of middlemen. FDA officials may never find out due to difficulties in back-checking.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, chairman of a panel overseeing the FDA, stated, "it is unacceptable that Americans have died and been seriously injured by what appears to be deliberate tampering." He went on to say that those responsible must be brought to justice. Independent experts tend to agree that this is deliberate tampering, and akin to the pet food case in which thousands of cats and dogs were sickened by food ingredients from China last year.

Heparin manufacturer, Illinois-based Baxter Healthcare Corp., believes the contaminant was introduced before raw heparin ingredients reached its supplier, Scientific Protein Laboratories. Scientific Protein Laboratories is a joint venture partner with the Chinese facility that supplied the heparin in question.

Chinese Cooperation

It is hoped that this case will lead to better cooperation between the U.S. and China regarding imports. The last year has seen several high profile examples of the poor monitoring of products from China, including tainted pet food and lead in children's toys, as well as this case. But Chinese officials expedited the visas of FDA investigators. Their Chinese counterparts seem to have been more helpful with this case than others.

Rep. John Dingell wants a more stringent system that will oversee imports from other countries. It is unknown if the Bush Administration will go for it because the system would need to be financed by new industry fees.

If you, or a loved one, have been sickened by tainted heparin, please contact an experienced injury lawyer in your area.

The banana company, Chiquita Brands International Inc., is involved in yet another legal battle for its payouts to Columbia's left-wing paramilitary group, the Fuerza Amadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC). Families of five missionaries killed by the FARC in the 1990s have filed a wrongful death suit claiming that Chiquita's payments to the rebel group contributed to the deaths.

Bananas and War: A Brief Overview

Chiquita's history in Latin America dates back to the beginning of the 20^th century when they were called the United Fruit Company. Chiquita was trademarked in the 1940s, but the company didn't become Chiquita Brands International Inc. until 1985. As a giant corporation, they faced criticism over their amount of influence on the banana republics of Latin America. There is also speculation that Chiquita's lobbying against the democratically elected president of Guatemala in the 1950s led to a CIA-led military coup in that country that overthrew the government. The company was already in Columbia when a guerilla war began in the 1960s.

In 2007, Chiquita agreed to a $25 million fine based on its having paid Columbia's left-wing FARC and ELN (National Liberation Army), and right-wing AUC (United Self-Defense Forces of Columbia) for protection. However, Chiquita claims the payments were extortion and made only under duress. These groups have been labeled terrorist organizations by the US government. In addition to a litany of human rights abuses, these groups have also been tied to Columbia's drug trade.

Wrongful Death Suit

The evangelical New Tribes Mission, based in Florida, has missionaries all over the world. In the 1990s, they were in Columbia. The families of the slain claim that their family members were abducted from two small villages by the FARC in 1994, and were killed because the missionary group couldn't come up with the ransom money. Chiquita is involved because they were allegedly financing the FARC's operations at the time of the abductions. The suit also claims that Chiquita provided weapons and logistical support to the FARC at this time.

The law suit seeks unspecified damages.

Unfortunately, this seems to be another case of foreign missionaries caught up in events bigger than they are. While they certainly have the right to go to places as dangerous as Columbia, and they do believe in their calling, they also know the risks. What could not be foreseen is a major US corporation aiding the same rebel group that would eventually kill them. Rarely does the American public think about multi-national corporations giving guns and money to armed groups that may turn around and use them against US civilians.

If you, or a loved one, believe a family member's death may have been caused by another party's negligence, recklessness, or intentional behavior, please contact a personal injury lawyer with experience in wrongful death cases.