Florida Personal Injury Blog - All Topics - Most Popular

Obama Citizenship Lawsuit To Be Amended To Add Defendants

Brian W. Smith — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:02:40 GMT

DISCLAIMER: The author is a registered Independent and does not have an opinion as to the truth and/or veracity of the allegations of the lawsuit referenced in this blog or the information contained at the web sites cited.

Philadelphia attorney Philip J. Berg has sought court approval to amend his complaint in a lawsuit styled Berg v. Obama. The amended complaint would add the Pennsylvania Department of State, the Secretary of the Commonwealth Pedro A. Cortes (in his official capacity), the U. S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and Senator Diane Feinstein (in her official capacity as chairman) for their failure to exercise due diligence with respect to Barack Hussein Obama's constitutional qualifications to be elected and serve as President of The United States, and for his inclusion on the ballot in Pennsylvania as a candidate for President of the United States.

In his original complaint, Mr. Berg alleged that Defendant Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible for the Office of the President because Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen and naturalized in Indonesia. Plaintiff further alleged that Obama followed her naturalization and failed to take an oath of allegiance when he turned 18 years old to regain his U.S. citizenship status.

According to a web site maintained by the Plaintiff, the amended complaint is intended to clarify issues regarding the plaintiff's standing to bring the lawsuit and supplement the lawsuit with additional relevant facts. Those additional facts are summarized at that web site.

According to the Washington Times, the Obama campaign has firmly said the Illinois Democrat is a natural-born citizen. Last month, the campaign posted on Obama's Web site a copy of his certification of live birth. It says he was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961. The Obama web site, commenting on questions regarding whether Obama is a citizen of Kenya, cites FactCheck.org as follows:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

The issue of Obama's citizenship have been the topic of internet sites for months. Documents and photographs, claiming that Obama was registered in schools in Kenya under the name of Barry Soetoro, have been circulated through a variety of blogs and web sites which has fueled the debate. The Berg lawsuit raises not only the Kenyan citizenship issue but also questions whether Obama was a citizen of Indonesia. According to the allegations of the Plaintiff, Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen, Lolo Soetoro, who legally “acknowledged” Obama as his son in Indonesia and/or “adopted” Obama, which caused Obama to become a “natural” Indonesian citizen.

The parties are waiting on the court to rule on a motion to dismiss filed by Barack Hussein Obama. Lawyers for Obama and the Democratic National Commitee have also filed a motion for a protective order staying discovery in the case until the court rules on the motion to dismiss.

See an affiliated bog on this subject at this link:

UPDATE: Brian Smith has been asked to appear on Roy King's radio show this afternoon (Saturday) at 4:30 Eastern, to discuss the Berg lawsuit and these blogs.

The show can be heard at this link: http://www.newstalk980.com/personality/roy-green

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brian W. Smith

Obama Citizenship Lawsuit Headed to U.S. Supreme Court?

Brian W. Smith — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 23:48:35 GMT

Philip J. Berg, the lawyer who filed suit against Barack Hussein Obama, challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced today that he is immediately appealing the dismissal of his case to the United States Supreme Court.

Yesterday, Judge R. Barclay Surrick dismissed the suit brought by Berg, ruling that Berg did not have standing to bring the suit. In his lawsuit, the Plaintiff, Berg, a Philadelphia attorney, alleged that Defendant Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible for the Office of the President because Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen and naturalized in Indonesia. Plaintiff further alleged that Obama followed her naturalization and failed to take an oath of allegiance when he turned 18 years old, to regain his U.S. citizenship status. The lawsuit raises not only the Indonesian citizenship issue but also questions whether Obama was a citizen of Kenya.

Mr. Berg has stated that if Barack Hussein Obama will produce a certified "vault" birth certificate, a copy of his Certificate of Citizenship and a copy of his Oath of Allegiance to the United States, that he (Mr. Berg) will dismiss his lawsuit voluntarily. To date, Obama has refused to comply with Mr. Berg's request.

Berg said, "I am totally disappointed by Judge Surrick's decision and, for all citizens of the United States, I am immediately appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States - the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world - then who does?.....What happened to ‘...Government of the people, by the people, for the people?"

Berg's lawsuit is not the only one filed, challenging Obama's eligibility. There are apparently as many as 8 lawsuits currently pending.

In Honolulu, Andy Martin, a longstanding critic of Mr. Obama, filed a lawsuit, asking the Hawaiian Department of Health to release Mr. Obama's birth certificate records.

In the state of Washington, Steven Marquis, a resident of Fall City, Wash., a town about 30 miles southeast of Seattle, has filed a lawsuit against Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed, demanding that Mr. Reed verify Mr. Obama's citizenship status. The complaint seeks specifically that the office of the Washington Secretary of State verify and certify that Mr. Obama is or is not a "natural born" citizen by producing original or certified verifiable official documents. The lawsuit argues that this certification should take place before the election to preclude a constitutional crisis.

The interesting question to be possibly answered by the U.S. Supreme Court is whether voters, whether Republican, Democratic or Independent, have a right, under the Constitution, to challenge the eligibility of a presidential candidate. Hopefully, if that question is to be addressed by the Supreme Court, it will be decided before the election on November 4.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brian W. Smith

Stork Craft Drop-side Crib Recall Highlights Flaw in Preventing Defective Products

K.C. Bouchillon — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:35:52 GMT

The Consumer Product Safety Commission has finally recalled more than 2 million Stork Craft drop-side cribs that have caused numerous injuries and deaths to babies for more than a decade.

The head of the CPSC admitted that the government watchdog for product safety failed to move quickly enough to recall the deadly cribs, which have been on the market since 1993.

Unfortunately, too many consumers assume that just because a product has not been the subject of a recall, it is not defective. That is far from the truth. As the crib recall demonstrates, it sometimes takes hundreds of incidents and years of attention before the government finally acts.

The lesson: be your own watchdog, particularly when it comes to your loved ones. Manufacturers often cut corners to increase profits, which puts you at risk. Inspect products with a critical eye. See if the parts function properly with heavy use. Look for cheap materials used in construction of the product. Do online research to see if there have been reported incidents with the product, or lawsuits pointing out defects in the product.

The crib recall is a classic example: by using cheap plastic parts that easily break and deform, dozens of infants have been injured, and many killed, after getting trapped and suffocating in these cribs, which were also sold under the Fisher-Price logo. Despite scores of reported incidents, the manufacturer did nothing, except continue to rake in profits while more children were injured and killed.

Don't assume that a product manufacturer is looking out for your best interest. If you or someone you know has been injured or killed as a result of a defective product, give me a call.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by K.C. Bouchillon

Big Tobacco Caught in the Back Draft of its Scorched Earth Litigation Strategy

Cal Warriner — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:20:46 GMT

Big Tobacco's pants are aflame today after suffering a 300 million dollar verdict in yet another defeat in its Florida litigation war. You see, knowing it has imposed more death and suffering than modern war, pestilence and aids combined, Big Tobacco's mantra has always been millions for defense and not a dime for restitution (and a few extra hundred million thrown in for political payola and advertising). Historically the strategy has worked. The big bully with its army of well healed, silver tongued lawyers could outspend, outmaneuver, and overwhelm wheezing customers and their lawyers. Tire them out, grind them into the dust, argue every issue, appeal every ruling and intimidate lawyers into not taking up the cause. No matter the cost, Big Tobacco had to make suing it so distasteful that smokers would just die and go away quietly. I mean, what would happen if all the sick smokers sued us at once? Right?

Today however, as Phillip Morris arrogantly thumbed its nose at yet another former customer who sat in the courtroom on oxygen, the strategy cost Phillip Morris 300 million dollars. Having once again turned its back on the opportunity to settle for for less than it paid one defense expert, Phillip Morris placed its fate in a gaggle of highly skilled cigarette lawyers from Chicago and San Francisco. The juries verdict, millions for restitution, to hell with your million dollar defense.

You see, the tide has turned in Florida. Instead of unleashing its army and unlimited resources on one poor smoker, Big Tobacco faces almost 8000 filed cases that are all proceeding concurrently. The cases arise from years of class action litigation in which a jury and ultimately the Florida Supreme court finally put an end to decades of Big Tobacco's dismiss, distract, deny and deceive strategy. No longer are Tobacco's slick litigators allowed to come to court ready to contest whether nicotine is addictive or whether it causes lung disease and cancer. Nor can the companies argue that their products were not defective or that they were not guilty of negligence and fraudulently lying to the consuming public about the dangers of cigarette smoking. Remember, as late as 1994 every tobacco company CEO stood before Congress and swore that nicotine was not addictive and that there was no medical proof linking cigarette smoking to cancer. Swallow lye to perpetuate the lie, no problem. Nope, the issue for the jury to decide in Florida is now what it always should have been. Is it the smoker's fault for buying the defendants' product and using it exactly as intended (quite ironic) or is it the product's addictive qualities manipulated so adeptly by Tobacco chemists that resulted in the smoker's disease? For the first time in the history of tobacco litigation, it's a fair fight. Recent history teaches when Big Tobacco can't poke, bite or hit below the belt, it is losing its shirt.

Since members of the now decertified Florida class have been trying their cases against Big Tobacco, the smoker has won eight of ten trials many in the multiple millions of dollars with today's 300 million dollar verdict being the largest. In each case, Tobacco has flatly refused to discuss settlement many times rejecting settlement offers of as little as $10,000. As a result, all of the smoker's litigation costs and attorney's fees are being tacked on to the verdict. Tobacco already faces over fifty trials next year with more being set every day. If past is prologue, the nicotine purveyors are in for disastrous 2010.

As the saying goes, all good things must come to an end. In Florida at least, the courts have put an end to traditional Tobacco defenses. When then will the companies spin to the financial industry about its exposure in Florida tobacco litigation end. The Florida Supreme Court's Engle decision is flawed, this verdict is an aberration; we intend to appeal; we feel good about our chances on appeal; we have plenty of resources to defend ourselves; lawyers will lose interest and Engle cases will just go away like the flight attendant second hand smoke cases did. Hogwash.

With this verdict, it's time that the financial markets woke up smelled the coffee. They need to start asking probing, hard questions. Can an industry that sells an addictive product that has killed millions and continues to kill hundreds of thousands each year cheat the fates indefinitely? Will the American public stand to have its children and its children's children addicted and killed by this evil industry?

Ironically, the litigation strategy that has served Big Tobacco so well for so long has exposed its biggest weakness. Tobacco cases are very winnable. They are even more winnable when filed en masse by just a fraction of its victims. Juries no longer buy Tobaccos' lies. Ironically, for less than the cost of corporate jet fuel, Big Tobacco could have resolved the entire Florida litigation. Now, it must live with the consequences of an archaic philosophy, hatched moons ago by dead men, each made rich by the very cigarettes that ultimately killed them.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Cal Warriner

Fighting the Good Fight -- Hormone Replacement Therapy Litigation

John Hopkins — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:53:49 GMT

They weighed profits against safety and profits won out. Women across the country lost and were forced to suffer with breast cancer. That is the conduct attached to Wyeth for their handling of hormone replacement therapy drugs (HRT).

In 1983, the Food & Drug Administration told Wyeth that human trials were necessary for the safe marketing of HRT medication, PremPro. Wyeth made the conscious decision to refuse doing the trials. Internal documents demonstrate that Wyeth refused to perform additional studies in order to conceal the risks associated with what they knew would be a drug, which would reap huge profits for Wyeth.

www.youtube.com/watch

Women such as Connie Barton and Donna Kendall demonstrated the courage to bring Wyeth into court to answer for their conduct. Jurors who have heard evidence related to Wyeth’s negligence and intentional failures have used terms such as “despicable” and "outrageous conduct” to characterize Wyeth’s behavior.

It was not until Wyeth was forced to admit the dangers of the HRT drugs that they finally took some action. When the study through the Women’s Health Initiative was terminated due to the development of breast cancer by participants, Wyeth’s hand was forced. What did Wyeth do? They “circled the wagons”; continued to deny their fault; and stone-walled women’s claims concerning the danger of their product.

Women such as plaintiffs, Connie Barton and Donna Kendall suffered the loss of their breasts and horrible consequences of cancer treatment because a corporation thought that profit was more important than patient safety.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by John Hopkins

Federal Posting Requirements

Robert Blanchard — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 09:50:04 GMT

One impediment to an injured worker receiving fair compensation is the employee lack of knowledge about the laws an rules that apply in the workplace. If an injured worker does not know that there should be compensation for certain injuries (carpal tunnel syndrome, for example), the claim for benefits may not be timely filed. Interestingly, Federal law requires the posting of information about a number of topics, but workers compensation is not one of them. State laws govern the posting of worker compensation rights.
Federal law currently requires posting about the following:

1. New Federal Minimum Wage (Fair Labor Standards Act) - With the minimum wage due to go up each year through 2009, employers are required to display a poster prescribed by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor.
2. USERRA Notice - covers the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, which protects the employment and benefits rights of workers in the military.
3. Equal Employment Opportunity - provides information concerning the laws and procedures for filing complaints of violations of the laws with the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. (OFCCP)
4. Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) - informs employees of the protections of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and its amendments.
5. Polygraph Protection - explains the Polygraph Protection Act on its promises as prescribed by the Secretary of Labor.
6. Family and Medical Leave - informs employees how to file a complaint and summarizes the major provisions. This must be posted even if there are no eligible employees.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Robert Blanchard

Adderall IR; Adderall XR: Are they from Shire, Barr, Teva, or Ranbaxy?

Armand Rossetti — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:01:00 GMT

Adderall is in the news today. Barr Laboratories (Barr) recalled lot #311756 of the powerful psychostimulant, indicating that consumers might receive exceedingly potent dosages due to oversized tablets.

To get a better idea of the complex under currents in Big Pharma, let’s discuss the pharmaceutical giant,Teva, a player by acquisition in the Adderall recall:

For 7.5 billion dollars, Israeli drug giant, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (now the world’s largest generic drug manufacturer) acquired Barr Laboratories in 2008. Barr currently owns intellectual property rights to Adderall.

The average consumer might not be familiar with Teva as a drug manufacturer. However, due to numerous acquisitions and joint ventures, Teva is huge. As a result, the giant generic pharmaceutical concern has become the utmost patent copycat pharmaceutical player on the international scene.

Here are several examples of Teva’s acquisitions and agreements:

Teva and India’s largest generic drug manufacturer, Ranbaxy, reached an agreement in 2004 for Teva to ship its Quinapril HCL tablets.

In 2008, Teva and the Japanese generic firm, Kowa partnered for a 50-50 stake in Teva-Kowa, which would become a leading generic producer in Japan.

In January of 2009, Teva and Swiss based Lonza Group formed a joint venture to manufacture and market a portfolio of “biosimilars.”

On June 29, 2009, Teva and its partner, Antares, announced the introduction of a needle-free injector product.

Teva plans to spend another billion dollars to acquire Indian drug companies and to set up Greenfield manufacturing facilities.

In March of 2009 Stem-Ex, Gamida Cell-Teva joint venture product received the European Union’s orphan drug equivalent.

In fact, Teva is not afraid to challenge any drug company for the right to make generic copies of drugs. For example, Teva has challenged and prevailed over Novartis, concerning the right to manufacture a generic copy of Lotrel, even though Novartis’ patent is valid until 2017.

Win a few and lose a few.

In 2008, The Court of Appeals for the Federal District of New York ruled in favor of TAP Pharmaceutical in its quest to prevent Teva from infringing TAP’s patent for Prevacid.

The Barr-Shire Connection:

Last year, Teva acquired Barr, but not before Barr acquired Shire, plc’s intellectual property rights to Adderall.

Adderall XR (extended release) is the brand name for a mixture of extended release encapsulated amphetamine salts that Shire is still manufacturing and selling, and that physicians prescribe to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

In 2006, Shire’s worldwide sales of Adderall XR were 864 million dollars. Then Barr applied for and received an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) from the FDA that would permit Barr to manufacture a bioequivalent generic Adderall. After Bar received its ANDA designation for Adderall, Shire sued in New York’s Federal District Court for the Southern District to protect its patent rights.

In an effort to end the intellectual property tussle in August 2006, Shire and Barr reached an agreement whereby Shire would pay Barr a net amount of up to $102 million.

The structured deal had Shire paying Barr’s subsidiary, Duramed, up to $165 million; $25 million immediately and up to $140 million over eight years, described as compensation for product development. In return, Barr agreed to pay Shire $63 million as compensation for transferring Shire’s rights to Adderall IR (immediate release) tablets.

After the parties consummated their deal, Barr retained of exclusivity eligibility regardless of the patent suit. In return, Shire agreed not to release an authorized generic for 180 days, during which time, Barr would pay Shire a royalty. Thereafter, the Adderall license would be non-exclusive and royalty-free. In addition, Barr received the rights to Shire’s Adderall IR and the opportunity to purchase an innitial supply of Adderall IR from Shire.

The settlement removed Shire’s threat via lawsuit and created a protective intellectual property bottleneck. As part of the same agreement, Barr agreed to enter the market on April 9, 2009 (a date in between the earliest point that Barr could have entered the Adderall market and the time that Shire’s patent was due to expire). See pages 133-134 of: Testimony of C. Scott Hemphill, Associate Professor, Columbia Law School before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection; Hearing on H.R. 1902, Protecting Consumer Access to Generic Drugs Act of 2007.

A second drug company called Impax was also on the ANDA side of the Shire-Barr patent lawsuit. Unlike Barr as first filer, Impax was a later filer and, therefore, had no eligibility for intellectual property exclusivity. As further compensation, Impax received cash for promotion of another drug.

Given the compression of competition due to the agreement, the FTC caught wind of the Shire-Barr-Impax agreement and opened an investigation in October 2006:

“The US Federal Trade Commission (‘FTC’) informed Shire on October 3, 2006 that it was reviewing the ADDERALL XR patent litigation settlement agreement between Shire and Barr Laboratories, Inc. (‘Barr’). On June 22, 2007, the Company received a civil investigative demand requesting that it provides information to the FTC relating to its settlement with Barr and its earlier settlement with Impax Laboratories, Inc. The Company is co-operating fully with this investigation and believes that the settlements are in compliance with all applicable laws.”

The Aftermath of it all:

Of course this whole intellectual property rights tussle died down, and in 2008 Teva acquired Barr, together with all of Barr’s intellectual property and manufacturing know how. But there is something else that might be important to note.

In the Adderall IR settlement, Barr agreed to provide manufacturing backup for products that might emerge from the development agreement. Right now, Shire manufactures the XR formula and Teva (through its division Barr-Duramed) manufactures the Adderall IR formula. Shire's Adderall XR formula is still patent protected until 2018. However, Duramed is free to manufacture the IR formula. And lest we forget, India’s Ranbaxy also produces a generic form of Adderall. If I recall correctly, the now Japanese owned Ranbaxy is also the company that falsified data on drug applications?

Consumer Confusion:

Internet discussion boards are replete with commentary concerning the different kinds of Adderall on the market, and the way that physicians go about prescribing that drug:

Comment #1 (orange or pink);

Comment #2 (Insurance decides and potent v. impotent);

Comment #3 (Barr or Ranbaxy); and

Comment #4 (A drug for wrong reasons).

It is pretty clear to see why something as simple as oversized pills might elude Big Pharma's quality control effort. There's probably too much wheeling and dealing taking everyone's attention off the ball; the ball being, consumer safety.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Armand Rossetti

Tobacco Held Responsible for Placing Profits Ahead of...Everything

Brenda Fulmer — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:16:34 GMT

Philip Morris suffered yet another blow in the latest post-Engle tobacco trial. A Fort Lauderdale jury rendered a verdict on November 19, 2009, for $300 million against the tobacco manufacturers on behalf of a living smoker who suffers from severe emphysema. The verdict included $246 million in punitive damages.

This verdict is one of a number of verdicts that have been entered in completed jury trials in Broward and Escambia Counties this year.

More than 8,000 claimants and their survivors have individual lawsuits pending in courts throughout Florida. These claims stem from the Engle class action which was filed in 1994 and resulted in a verdict of more than $145 billion after one of the longest trials in history. Currently, there are dozens of trials scheduled for 2010 in Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Bronson, Jacksonville, Gainesville, Bradenton, Tampa, Pensacola, and Daytona Beach.

Thousands of additional smokers and their survivors are hopeful that the current scheduling and budgetary problems facing the Florida court system are overcome so that they may have their day in court in the not too distant future.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brenda Fulmer

Number of Yaz and Yasmin Lawsuits Growing

Eddie Farah — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:10:56 GMT

In 2007, Susan Galinis of San Francisco was the happy mother of 3-year-old twins, until doctors put her on the Yaz birth control pill. Four weeks and one day later she suffered a stroke.

Today it’s obvious to see part of her skull has been removed. Doctors had to operate to accommodate the brain swelling following her stroke. Her IQ is 77. She has chronic pain and no short-term memory. Her twins have gone to counselling to deal with the differnt mother who returned from the hospital after six months.

Galinas has sued Bayer HealthCare. Her doctors told her it was Yaz that caused her stroke.

Anne Marie Eakins, 34, a history teacher and mother of two is also suing. She developed blood clots in both lungs in 2007 after starting Yaz. That resulted in partial loss of her right lung.

Yaz is the newest sister to drug, Yasmin, both made by Bayer. Ocella birth control is the generic version that is sold by Teva Pharmaceuticals.

All three oral contraceptives are among the most widely used and involve a combination of ethinyl estradiol with a new type of progestin, drospirenone that has been inked to health problems including strokes, heart attacks, deep vein thrombosis, gallbladder disease, pulmonary embolisms, and death.

Our firm is taking in a number of cases by women who have been hurt by these oral contraceptives which should be taken off the market. With six new cases being filed around the country every day and class action lawsuits being launched around the country, it won't be long before the drug is taken off the market.

Until then, women have to suffer.

The go-to drugs for women under the age of 35 generated sales of about $1.8 billion for Bayer last year. A multi-million dollar ad campaign promises the pill is a quality of life treatment that will improve acne and severe premenstrual depression. Bayer had to spend $20 million correcting those ads after the FDA said the company went well beyond what the drug approval.

Bayer stands behind its oral contraceptives and plans to defend itself vigorously against the rising number of lawsuits filed by lawyers and the women they represent, to hopefully soon bring the marketing of these dangerous oral contraceptives to an end.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Eddie Farah

Tarceva Receives New Warnings from FDA

Joe Saunders — Mon, 11 May 2009 13:08:00 GMT

Cancer drug Tarceva will have to add new warning labels because of serious side effects associated with the drug manufactured by Genentech and OSI Pharmaceutical, Inc. The side effects include skin problems, eye reactions, and punctures in the digestive tract. According to the FDA, some of the skin problems resemble those associated with Stevens Johnson Syndrome. Eye problems include corneal perforations and ulcers.

Tarceva has been approved to treat certain forms of lung and and pancreatic cancer.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Joe Saunders