The Injury Board Regional Blogs

Pennsylvania Saw Several Car Wrecks And Injuries After Weekend Snow, Ice And Wind

Scott Cooper — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 08:02:55 GMT

Always remember that winter weather causes many roads to become slippery. Also, high winds make the conditions even more potentially dangerous. This weekend Pennsylvania saw snow, ice and wind.

According to many newspaper and television station reports, last Saturday February 11, 2012 saw many car wrecks and accidents resulting in injuries in Pennsylvania. These crashes coincided with the light snow, some ice and high winds throughout the Commpnwealth of Pennsylvania, from Philadelphia to Harrisburg and out west to Pittsburgh.

For instance in Central Pennsylvania, just outside Lewistown, north of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania State Police in Selinsgrove report two McClure residents were injured during a two-vehicle crash. Rodger Joseph Secrest was traveling eastbound along U.S. 522 just west of Beaver Springs around 1:15 p.m. when his vehicle appears to have crossed over the center line and struck a westbound vehicle operated by Ellen L. Knepp.

Police said Rodgers was transported to Geisinger Medical Center for treatment, while Knepp was transported to Evangelical Hospital in Lewisburg. For more on the accident go to the Lewistown Sentinel website at the following link:

http://www.lewistownsentinel.com/page/content.detail/id/533172/Police–Two-car-collision-involves-local-residents.html?nav=5010

This accident and wreck is just one of the many crashes which occurred over the weekend. Please remember to drive even slower when winter weather conditions cause slippery roads.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Scott Cooper

Recall of 226,000 Coleman, Coleman Evcon and Red-T Gas Furnaces Re-announced

Greg Webb — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 08:00:00 GMT

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in cooperation with the Unitary Products Group of York International has re-announced a voluntary recall of 226,000 Coleman, Coleman Evcon and Red-T brand gas furnaces for manufactured homes, due to continued reports about the furnaces overheating and causing fires. The recall involves approximately 223,600 recalled which were sold in the U.S. and 2,400 in Canada.

This recall was first issued on November 15, 2004, when only 27 reports of overheating incidents with these furnaces had been reported. To date, 393 reports have been received by York International, including several reports of extensive property damage.

According to the CPSC, “the furnaces can overheat, causing heat-exchanger cracking, burn-through and, in extreme cases, furnace wrapper burn-through” which can lead to heating and possible burning of drywall and other combustibles adjacent to the furnace posing a fire and smoke hazard to consumers.

The Coleman, Coleman Evcon and Red T furnaces are “silver” with white access panels. The brand names Coleman, Coleman Evcon and Red T can be found on their front access panels. By removing both front access panels, the furnace’s model number can be located on a faceplate on the left inside surface of the furnace (behind the lower panel access panel). Furnace models involved in the recall are:

DGAM075BDD
DGAM075BDE
DGAM075BDF

DGAT070BDD
DGAT070BDE
DGAT070BDF

DGAT075BDD
DGAT075BDE
DGAT075BDF

DLAS075BDD
DLAS075BDE
DLAS075BDF

These furnaces were sold to be used in manufactured homes throughout the United States and in Canada from 1995 through 2000. Consumers should stop using the furnace until it has been inspected and repaired; and consumers should contact Unitary Products Group (UPG) of York International to arrange for inspection and repair of any recalled furnace listed in this recall.

Consumers may contact the UPG/York International company for additional information on the hazard involved with these furnaces and to answer any installation, inspection and repair questions, by calling toll-free 1(888) 665-4640 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, or by going to the company’s website at www.dgatprogram.com. According to the CPSC, UPG Technical Services is also conducting a comprehensive notification and communications program and working with its distributors to locate owners of these furnaces.

To view a photo of these furnaces and the faceplate (with model number), please visit the CPSC website at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12102.html

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Treating Doctors' Opinions' Weight in Social Security Disability Cases

Doug Landau — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 06:28:00 GMT

In many disability claims brought before the Social Security Administration, the treating physicians' records are reviewed along with the reports from medical doctors hired by the Federal Government. These medical examiners and records reviewers retained by the government often support a denial of the disabled worker's claim. According to Loudoun County Social Security disability lawyer Doug Landau, the treating doctors' opinion are supposed to be given more weight than a one-time examiner or medical records reviewer, neither of whom have ever spoken with any of the health care providers who have actually cared for the disabled claimant. A recent Washington DC Social Security Disability case illustrates how the Federal Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") is supposed to weigh the medical evidence in these claims. The ALJ rejected the opinion of the claimant's treating doctor that his patient could not sit more than 4 hours in an 8 hour day (which would eliminate the ability to do most sedentary work). Under the the treating physician rule, if an ALJ does not give a treating doctor's opinion controlling weight, the judge must always provide a good reason for the weight given.

In Jones v. Astrue,* the DC Federal Circuit Court of Appeals held that,

"Because the ALJ failed to explain his reason for rejecting [the treating doctor's] opinion regarding Jones ability to sit, his decision cannot survive review. On remand, the ALJ is instructed to explain what weight he attaches to the treating physician's conclusions. If he gives the opinion no weight, he must explain his reason for doing so."

The decision denying Social Security benefits was reversed and the case was remanded for consideration of new and material evidence. Adds lawyer Landau, when a Federal disability judge fails to give the proper weight to a long-time treating or family doctor's opinions, and does not have a good reason for doing so, the Appeals Court should reverse the decision and, as happened here, send the case back so that the evidence can be properly weighed. If you or someone you know or care for has become disabled and there are questions about Social Security Disability, e-mail or call us at ABRAMS LANDAU, Ltd. (703-796-9555) at once.

*Jones vs. Astrue, 647 F.#rd 350 (D.C.Cir., 2011)

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Doug Landau

Top Virginia Lawyer Runner Supports "Girls on the Run"

Doug Landau — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:45:03 GMT

Rather than run with other lawyers at the Scottsdale Convention site, Triathlon Trial Lawyer Doug Landau chose to run in the competitive 34th Annual Runners Den 5k and 20k races in Phoenix, Arizona. Landau, who has won a number of prizes in lawyer and law meeting sports events, opted to take on local racers and compete in the "Double Down" competition. Melissa and Doug's "Double Down" entry fee went to several good causes, one of which was "Girls on the Run" ("GTR"). Doug has participated in "Girls on the Run" events on the East Coast, and this was an opportunity to support GOTR in the SouthWest. The objective of Girls on the Run is to educate and empower girls at an early age in order to prevent at-risk activities in the future. At risk activities include substance/alcohol use, eating disorders, early onset of sexual activity, sedentary lifestyle, depression, suicide attempts and confrontations with the juvenile justice system. Click here for more information about Girls on the Run of Maricopa County

After attending Continuing Legal Education at 6:30 AM (!) the Landaus drove past the Forge Convention Fun Run to Paradise Valley. Herndon Virginia injury lawyer Doug Landau was able to medal in the 5km race, average under 7 minutes per mile in the 10 km and was 21st (and the top out of state finisher) of the 119 finishers of the prestigious "Double Down" competition. Landau, of the Herndon law firm ABRAMS LANDAU, Ltd., is shown in the photo with the Runners Den Race Directors collecting his "hardware" before returning to learn at the Association for Justice meetings. The Landaus were able to return to the Convention site in time for inspiring presentations and networking and problem-solving with the best trial lawyers from all over the United States.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Doug Landau

Need To Keep Cars Off 2012 Minnesota Ice

Mike Bryant — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 19:33:27 GMT

There have been all types of vehicles and people falling through Ice around the Twin Cities.

Feb. 8: an SUV broke through ice on Eagle Lake in Maple Grove.

Feb. 7: an ATV broke through ice on Parker’s Lake in Plymouth.

Feb. 6: an SUV broke through ice on Medicine Lake in Plymouth.

Feb. 4: a pick-up truck broke though ice on Lake Minnetonka, Upper Lake. The vehicle became submerged and the driver escaped through a window. A passerby, a man who was cross country skiing, assisted the man with getting out of the lake. The man was transported to a hospital and treated for hypothermia.

Feb. 4: a pick-up truck broke though ice on Lake Minnetonka, Smith’s Bay.

We need to look at the thermometer and not at the calendar this winter. The Hennepin and Ramsey Sheriff departments have announced that:

enough is enough by prohibiting the use of cars, trucks and SUVs on all frozen bodies of water in the county. Lake access points were closed on Feb. 9, and will remain closed until further notice.

It is important that no matter the date, we need to make sure that the ice is safe before it is used. Also check out:

The Ice May Not Be Ready Yet to Go Out On, Mike Bryant | January 01, 2012 4:40 PM

A Lot Of Reasons To Recheck Your Fish House, Mike Bryant | January 29, 2011 6:23 PM

The Dangers of Ice and Frozen Bodies of Water During Winter, Tom Hastings | December 13, 2010 2:52 PM

Winter is a great time in Minnesota. Safety thoughts will make it even better.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Survey Reveals that Some Doctors Mislead and Hide Information from Patients

Jim Lewis — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 19:32:08 GMT

In a nationwide survey of nearly 2,000 physicians, close to 20 percent of physicians disagreed with the notion that they should "never tell a patient something that is not true." Basically, this means roughly 20 percent of doctors are comfortable with not telling the truth to their patients. If that wasn’t bad enough, 11 percent of the physicians surveyed admitted that they told a patient "something that was not true" in the past year, according to sacbee.com.

Many doctors disagreed with the notion of revealing all of their financial ties to companies that make drugs and medical devices. In the survey, 35 percent of physicians did not agree with the notion that these ties should always be fully disclosed to patients. This is troubling since some patients may not be comfortable having a certain procedure done or taking a particular medication if they were told that their doctor was being funded by the company making that drug or something affiliated with a particular procedure.

Take, for example, the DePuy hip replacement recall. After the recall was announced, it was discovered that DePuy paid 200 doctors close to $80 million for “consulting” work. Some surgeons were paid over $1 million each. Some people have suggested that getting paid large amounts of money by a manufacturer influences what the doctor suggests to their patients.

But the most disturbing revelation from the survey was related to doctors actually being comfortable hiding medical mistakes. The survey revealed that 34 percent of physicians did not completely agree that "all significant medical errors" should be disclosed to patients. Furthermore, 20 percent of physicians said they had actually withheld information about medical mistakes from their patients in the past year. This behavior is totally unacceptable. It’s one thing to not want to tell a patient about a medical error, but it’s totally different to consciously withhold that information. Innocent patients have suffered serious injuries, or had their injuries exacerbated, by medical errors that were not disclosed to them. For example, our firm represented a client who suffered serious injuries after it was discovered that a surgical sponge was left inside her body from a surgery. As a result of this blatant medical error, the patient had to undergo a bowel resection surgery.

If you or a loved one is undergoing a procedure, know that your doctor has no right to withhold important information regarding your condition and medical procedures. Such behavior is wrong and grounds for legal action.

About the Editors: The Shapiro, Lewis & Appleton personal injury law firm, which has offices in Virginia (VA) and North Carolina (NC), edits the injury law blogs Virginia Beach Injuryboard, Norfolk Injuryboard and Northeast North Carolina Injuryboard as pro bono services.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jim Lewis

The Big Trial Charade

Steve Watrel — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 14:11:37 GMT

Personal injury trial lawyers deal with some curious laws as a result of insurance industry sponsored statutes that stack the deck in their favor. One of these is the so-called “Non-Joinder Statute” (Florida Statute section 627.4136) which says it is illegal for an injured person to sue the at-fault party’s liability insurance company as a defendant in a lawsuit. The law only allows an injured person to sue the at-fault party even though the at-fault party is covered by a liability insurance policy.

This law, together with others, prohibits jurors from knowing anything about a defendant’s liability insurance company including how much coverage they have. The premise of this law is that if jurors knew about liability insurance, they would give the injured person much more money for compensation. This is a questionable premise at best and based upon an old jury research study.

The reality is that a defendant’s liability insurance company controls all aspects of the defense of the at-fault party including choosing the defense lawyer and making the ultimate settlement decision. The defendant merely goes along for the ride relying on the company’s good faith in handling the case. Losing a personal injury case is not a huge concern for many insurance companies because they have billions of dollars at their disposal to defend cases.

The unfairness of the law is this: Jurors absolutely want to know if the defendant has liability insurance. When they are told by the court that it’s none of their concern, they may conclude there's no insurance and may actually compensate less which is unfair to the injured person. Jurors are human and want to know if their ultimate verdict could financially impact a defendant.

It’s a challenge for the injured person and their attorney to navigate around this issue at trial without running afoul of this law. If the word insurance is mentioned or if it’s disclosed the defense lawyer is employed by the insurance company, it’s a mistrial and the case will need to be retried at great expense. If the issue of insurance is not disclosed, jurors may believe there’s none at all and be very cautious with their verdict.

Unfortunately, there’s no chance that this law will be struck down or taken off the books anytime soon because it's one of the insurance industry’s crown jewels. So, the charade continues.

Steve Watrel is a personal injury trial lawyer in Jacksonville, Florida. His website is www.stevewatrel.com.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Watrel

Mesh Implant Update: FDA Requires More Studies and Information From Manufacturers

M. Brandon Smith — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:10:51 GMT

Following up on previous warnings about the safety of transvaginal mesh implants to treat pelvic organ prolapse, the FDA is now enlisting the research power of the manufacturers of these devices. On January 3, the FDA sent letters to 35 manufacturers of surgical mesh implants, mandating them to conduct a total of nearly 100 post-market studies. These studies are to address specific safety and effectiveness concerns related to surgical mesh devices used in POP treatment. Unfortunately requesting these studies comes a little too late. The products originally got approval without clinical testing and the results for many women have been disastrous.

Concerns about the use of transvaginal mesh to treat POP hit the news in July of last year, when the FDA issued a safety communication calling attention to the hundreds of reports of adverse outcomes that it had received. In just the two-year time span between 2008-2010, the FDA received 1,500 reports of complications related to mesh treatment procedures. Based on those reports and additional study, the FDA found that serious complications from the use of surgical mesh to treat POP “are not rare,” and that the use of mesh is not clearly more effective than other surgical procedures even though it may expose patients to greater risk. Since issuing that safety communication, the FDA has continued its review of the safety of transvaginal mesh implants.

Depending on the results of the review, the FDA is apparently considering reclassifying mesh implants as a riskier device than originally believed. As reported by Reuters, surgical mesh has been used since the 1950s to treat abdominal hernias, which meant that the manufacturers of transvaginal mesh implants originally got product approval without the need for doing clinical trials. But the use of those mesh implants for POP treatment only started in the 1990s and the flood of adverse reports now calls into serious question its safety. A reclassification of the device would mean manufacturers need to do clinical trials.

What does all of this mean for patients? The fact is that thousands of women—nearly 75,000 in 2010 alone—received a medical treatment that had never undergone significant safety testing. Many of them are now suffering because that treatment was unsafe and are seeking legal recourse to hold these manufacturers accountable for putting an un-tested and un-proven product on the market.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by M. Brandon Smith

FDA warns dentists and vets that hand-held dental X-ray units may harm patients

Paul Napoli — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:55:40 GMT

Government regulators are warning dentists and veterinarians not to use unapproved hand-held dental X-ray devices imported from outside the United States.

Hand-held dental X-ray units, which are small, portable devices that use a form of radiation to create a picture of teeth, bones and soft tissue of the mouth, must comply with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) radiation safety and medical device requirements, and receive FDA clearance before sale in this country. To ensure the radiation safety of their patients and staff, dentists and veterinarians should only be using hand-held dental X-ray units cleared by the FDA that carry a permanent certification label, ID tag and warning label.

The FDA said yesterday that the agency is aware of unapproved, illegal hand-held dental X-ray devices sold on the internet then shipped directly to customers in the U.S. and that these devices could potentially expose the user and patient to unnecessary and potentially harmful X-rays.

“Health care professionals using these devices should verify they are purchasing and using those that have been reviewed and tested to meet FDA’s standards,” said Steve Silverman, director of the Office of Compliance in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

To ensure this, users should:

Verify the presence of required labels on the device.
Ask vendors whether the device has been reviewed and cleared by the FDA.
Access the FDA Medical Device Approvals and Clearances searchable database to verify that the X-ray unit has been cleared by the FDA.
Contact their state regulatory agency if they become aware of a device that may be hazardous or does not meet the FDA’s requirements.

The FDA is also notifying state regulatory veterinary and dental organizations and health organizations to be aware of the illegal hand-held X-ray units and their risks.

There have been no reports of injury or adverse effects at this time.

Visit us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter @NapoliBern

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Napoli

Drugstores to Sell Over-the-Counter Sperm Analysis Test

David Mittleman — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 09:42:00 GMT

There are a plethora of products available for women attempting to conceive including ovulation predictor kits, pregnancy tests, and other fertility tests. But the fact of the matter is that it takes two to make a baby. However, men have typically had to go to the doctors to have a semen analysis conducted if they had concerns. Now, thanks to the over-the-counter availability of sperm analysis tests men will have the same option to make a convenient trip to their drugstore.

SpermCheck Fertility is set to hit stores in April and Walgreen's and CVS are already selling the sperm-counting test online. The test is $40 and may save men an embarrassing trip to their doctor, although doctors also warn that the product only tests one aspect important for healthy sperm. To use the test, men mix a sample of their semen with a solution provided with the test. A reddish line means that the sperm count is above 20 million per milliliter which is considered normal. A negative test shows no line and means that the man should visit his doctor for further testing. According to tests, SpermCheck Fertility is 96% accurate compared to laboratory tests.

However, doctors say that there are four major factors that they look for when testing men's sperm: the number of the sperm, their shape, their mobility, and the volume of the ejaculate. In addition, men's sperm count can vary from week to week, causing alarm in some men and an unnecessary trip to the doctor when there may be nothing seriously wrong. In fact, doctors say that even if a man has a lower than normal sperm count, if the other factors are in place this might not matter. In general, they say to use the test with caution.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman