The Injury Board Commentary - All Topics - Most Popular

Aunt Jemima Pancake Recall: Too Close for Comfort

John Lowery — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 21:36:05 GMT

I've never been a fan of the shopping cards some stores make you sign up for to get their discounts. But the nearest grocery store to my house is Kroger and I begrudgingly signed up and let them track my purchases. I admit the coupons targeted to one's shopping patterns are nice but the whole concept was a little too "Big Brother is Watching" for my comfort level. Until tonight. I got a phone message on Sunday night stating that certain varieties of frozen pancakes have been recalled and to not consume them. As some of you may know, I'm a single dad with a daughter who LOVES pancakes. I can't cook anything without either making way too much or dirtying every dish in the kitchen, so the frozen pancakes are an easy option that I let my kiddo have once every week or so. The shopping history traced by my registration with Kroger enabled them to alert me of this recall almost as soon as it was announced. It was a bit scary since I just opened a box of those very pancakes this morning, but thankfully the recall was based upon cross contamination with soy that could cause problems for those with soy allergies, which we don't have at our house.

If you have purchased any variety of Aunt Jemima Frozen Pancakes, click here for more information. I'm reconsidering my distaste for discount programs that track purchase histories and giving two thumbs up to Kroger for the quick safety alert that could save lives.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by John Lowery

Pfizer Recalls Birth Control Pills

Craig Kelley — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:00:00 GMT

On January 31, 2012, Pfizer announced a voluntary nationwide recall of a million packs of oral contraceptives. The recall affects both the brand-name Lo/Ovral-28, and the generic Norgestrel and Ethinyl Estradiol Tablets. Both of these drugs are marketed and labeled by Akrimax Rx Products, carrying the label of that company on the packaging.

According to the FDA press release announcing the recall, Pfizer took action after their own investigation revealed that some packages of the oral contraceptive may contain the incorrect amount of active-ingredient tablets and that the tablets in the packages may be out of sequence. The problem has since been remedied, but not before 28 lots of the drug were packaged and put on the shelves. The FDA announcement includes a list of all lot numbers that were affected. That same press release also has photographs to help patients identify if their product is included in the recall.

Typically these birth control pills contain 21 white pills with an active ingredient and then seven pink pills that are inert. The effectiveness of the contraceptives depends on the pills being taken in a specific sequence. Simply taking the pills in the wrong order—which is much more likely in the recalled packages—can eliminate the contraceptive effect of the pills and increase the likelihood of pregnancy. While there are no other health risks, the FDA advises users of the product to begin using a non-hormonal contraception immediately. In addition, patients prescribed these birth control pills should immediately notify their physician and return the product to the pharmacy.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Craig Kelley

More Accounts of Cipro/Levaquin Side Effects

Jeff Rasansky — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:20:16 GMT

Last week we blogged about Cipro and Levequin, two antibiotics that have been known to cause some pretty bad side effects. The FDA released a statement on July 8, that requested black box warnings for these drugs. Talk about side effects! These drugs have been linked to a risk of tendinitis and tendon rupture!

I decided to dig around a bit and see if I could find any first-hand accounts of people who have taken these drugs and experienced the side effects. I was amazed at what I found:

I have taken Levaquin 500 mg tablets for 11 days (until 2 days ago) against pneumonia.

I have developed severe pain in my achilles tendons (mostly on the left side ). I can hardly walk in the morning. Not having had any problems before I could not figure whatever could be the reason for this problem, especially since I have been doing stretching exercises for years.

I was diagnosed in an emergency room with pneumonia after some mysterious symptoms that included blood pressure over 200 and pulse of 110 with sputum containing blood. I was given a prescription for Levaquin for the "pneumonia."

After two days, there was tremendous swelling of my right arm and left leg.

There was acute weakness and pain of the left Achilles tendon. My left leg bothers me to this day--about 8 months later.

I was in doubt about the pneumonia diagnosis to begin with, and still am. Doubly in doubt about the prescription, since I have never been allergic or had any reaction to drugs in 85 years.

I just finished taking Levaquin for 10 days for a sinus infection. After the 5th day I noticed extreme pain in my muscles through my entire body. I just finish my 10th pill 3 days ago and am still in extreme pain. I feel like I'm an 80 year old woman in a 34 year old's body.

I’m not sure if a “black box” warning will do anything for the pain these people have already experienced. What about you? Have you experienced any of these side effects with Cipro or Levaquin?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jeff Rasansky

Did You Know... Ford Explorer Rollover Crashes Continue To Happen?

Brett Emison — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:34:14 GMT

One of the great advantages to writing on this platform is the tremendous number of people I am able to interact with. One family sent me a link to a video tribute to their mom, who was killed in a Ford Explorer rollover crash. Nicole Miller was killed when her Ford Explorer suffered a flat tire and instead of being able to pull over, the Ford Explorer rolled over. Her sons made the video below in her honor and to help warn people about the Explorer rollover problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQk1-DJxQzc

You can follow the Miller Family and their cause on Twitter by searching #DontRollover or #1000MilesForMom.

There are still millions of Ford Explorers on the road with documented stability problems that lead to rollover crashes. A simple Google News search this morning showed news concerning at least 4 Ford Explorer rollover crashes in just the last few days here, here, here, and here.

The Ford Explorer has been plagued by rollover and stability problems since its inception as the Ford Bronco II in March 1983. More than 25 years later, Ford is still battling the stability problems that plagued the vehicle at its inception and fighting losing battles in courts across the country.

PBS analyzed the long history of the Explorer stability and rollover problem on its Frontline series back in 2002. PBS found that Ford's Bronco II -- the precursor to the Ford Explorer -- suffered from stability and rollover problems from the day it was rolled out in 1983. According to the PBS report, even Ford engineers were "flipping these things over" in test drives.

To make the Bronco II less likely to roll over, Ford engineers proposed to widen the vehicle by two inches. But widening the vehicle would have delayed Job 1 -- the first date of production. Management decided not to widen the vehicles.

Ford engineers knew there was a problem and knew how to fix it. Engineers told management they needed to widen the vehicle by 2 inches. However, the delay would have cost Ford money by delaying production, so management scrapped the plan and produced the Bronco II "as is", and knowing about its stability problems.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety rated the Bronco II the most deadly SUV on the road.

The Ford Explorer grew directly out of the Bronco II. The Explorer was made for a family, but kept the rugged characteristics -- and the stability problems -- of the Bronco II. In fact, an internal Ford memo from May 1987 said that the stability of the UN46 -- the Ford Explorer Prototype -- was worse than the Bronco II, but could be improved by widening and lowering the vehicle.

Alarmed, Ford immediately sent its engineers to the company's Arizona proving grounds to put the Explorer prototype through the Consumer Reports tests. When the Explorer was put through the same tests, it repeatedly tipped up off the ground. Ford engineers scrambled to find a fix.

Ford tried a number of small fixes, such as tire pressure and suspension changes, but they were not enough. Ultimately, the Explorer suffered the same problem as the Bronco II and needed two more inches in width to achieve a safe level of stability.

Ford executives admitted that one of the reasons Ford refused to widen the vehicle was because it would lose money if it waited for the fix. Instead, the company again sold vehicles to the public that it knew would roll over.

The Explorer's inherent stability problems came to light in the mid-1990s when Explorers began to rollover after Firestone tire failures. In 2001, Firestone ended its 100 year relationship with Ford Motor Company. In a letter to Ford, Firestone's chairman, John T. Lampe said:

Today, I am informing you that Bridgestone/Firestone Inc. is ending its tire supply relationship with Ford Motor Company.

***

Business relationships, like personal ones, are built upon trust and mutual respect. We have come to the conclusion that we can no longer supply tires to Ford since the basic foundation of our relationship has been seriously eroded. This is not a decision we make lightly after almost 100 years of history....

Our analysis suggests that there are significant safety issues with a substantial segment of Ford Explorers. We have made your staff aware of our concerns. They have steadfastly refused to acknowledge those issues.

In sworn testimony before Congress, Mr. Lampe said:

There is something wrong with the Ford Explorer. The testing and the accident data we have submitted prove it.

This isn't some plaintiff's lawyer saying this. This isn't some safety organization saying this. This isn't some consumer rights organization saying this. This is the head of Firestone acknowledging to Congress that its testing proves the Ford Explorer is defective.

Finally, in 2002, after 20 years of stability and rollover problems, Ford finally widened the Explorer. However, Ford resolutely denies that it widened the vehicle because of stability problems.

Late model Ford Explorers are still driving on our roads and highways. Each year, more innocent passengers are killed or paralyzed because of stability and rollover problems knew about more than 25 years ago. Ford's conduct in knowingly putting dangerous and defective vehicles on the roadway is inexcusable.

Fortunately, juries across the country are taking their duty seriously and holding Ford accountable for its actions. In 2009, Ford lost at least four vehicle defect cases with verdicts of $10 million or more.

In 2010, a California jury awarded more than $23 million to Cynthia Castillo after she was paralyzed when her Ford Explorer became unstable, ran off the road and crashed.

Ford's conduct in knowingly putting dangerous and defective vehicles on the roadway is inexcusable.

[More information about the Ford Explorer]

[More information about Rollover Accidents]

Follow @BrettEmison on Twitter.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brett Emison

The Increasing Deaths on Cruise Ships

Brett Rivkind — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:22:02 GMT

With the recent Costa Concordia disaster, resulting in 17 known deaths, the spotlight has again been placed on the cruise ship industry regarding safety issues. Over the years, our firm has been reporting on the increased number of disappearances of passengers or crewmembers, or situations involving passengers or crewmembers going overboard. The spotlight was placed on the cruise ship industry following the disappearance of George Smith who is suspected to have been a victim of foul play onboard a passenger cruise ship.

As a cruise ship attorney for almost 30 years, I have seen an increased number of criminal activities occurring aboard cruise ships, along with an increase in the number of serious accidents.

In the wake of the Costa Concordia disaster, there have been two more deaths occur aboard a cruise ship within the span of a few days.

On Friday, it was reported that a 26-year-old man fell and died aboard the Carnival Cruise Lines passenger cruise ship, the Fantasy. He was reported to have fallen from an upper level of the ship to the lobby level.

On Monday, a 47-year-old female passenger on the Royal Caribbean cruise ship Liberty of the Seas died when she fell down a flight of stairs on the ship. Although an initial characterization is made that she missed a step and fell, there are questions arising as to the responses by the medical personnel to her injuries. It will need to be determined whether there was an appropriate emergency response to the medical situation, and whether the failure to receive appropriate medical attention played any part in the death. It will also need to be determined whether the passenger slipped and fell due to any design defects of the stairs, including whether the stairs were unreasonably slippery for a public staircase frequently trafficked by the passengers. Often times, slip and fall accidents aboard the cruise ships are related to some type of design defect in the stairs. The types of design defects that potentially make the stairs unsafe are numerous. This will require an evaluation by an appropriate expert to determine the safety of the stairs. More facts and circumstances will need to be developed to determine the cause of this tragic accident.

As in all of the passenger cases, especially in the wake of the Costa Concordia disaster, anyone bringing a claim for an injury or death to passenger will soon learn about the passenger tickets that are issued which contain significant limitations on the right to bring a lawsuit. These limitations include the location where a lawsuit must be filed. The passenger ticket also contains a time limitation to give notice to the cruise ship company of the claim, and a time limitation in which to file the lawsuit. Many attorneys who are not cruise ship attorneys have mistakenly believed that cases arising from the Costa Concordia must be filed in Broward County, Florida against Costa Cruise Lines. However, the passenger tickets that apply to the Costa Concordia are different than the passenger tickets that are issued to passengers cruising onboard a Costa Cruise Lines cruise ship which sails to or from a United States port. In the case of the Costa Concordia, which never touched a United States port, the passenger ticket has what is called a forum selection clause, which requires lawsuits to be filed in Geneva, Italy.

The courts have routinely enforced the forum selection clauses dictating where the lawsuits must be filed against a cruise ship company. In the case of Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines and Carnival Cruise Lines, the passenger tickets require the lawsuits to be filed in Miami, Florida, and the lawsuit must be filed in the Southern District here in Miami, Florida.

Although the Carnival Cruise Lines passenger ticket requires a lawsuit to be brought in Miami, this requirement does not apply to cruises aboard the cruise ships operated by Costa Cruise Lines. This is despite the fact that Carnival Cruise Lines own Costa Cruise Lines. Costa is a subsidiary of Carnival Cruise Lines. However, the law is clear that parent companies can only be liable for the acts of the subsidiary if you are able to legally “pierce the corporate veil,” which is very difficult to do.

In addition, the passenger tickets issued by the cruise lines contain clauses which prevent the institution of class action lawsuits.

The recent deaths that occurred over the weekend on the cruise ships owned and operated by Carnival and Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines, as well as the recent disaster with the Costa Concordia, again emphasizes the need for increased investigation into the safety onboard cruise ships, and the need for increased regulations of the cruise ship industry.

Our firm continues to serve as safety advocates for those injured or harmed at sea.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brett Rivkind

Ford 6.0 Power Stroke Diesel Lawsuit

Pete Strom — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:05:40 GMT

Ford 6.0 Class Action

The Strom Law Firm, L.L.C. is currently investigating claims on behalf of Ford owners who purchased a Super Duty Truck or Excursion built with the 6.0L Power Stroke Diesel engine manufatured between 2003 and 2007.

The engines, which were manufactured by Navistar (formerly known as International Truck and Engine Corporation) and used in approximately 275,000 Ford Diesel pick up trucks annually, are believed to be plagued with serious and pervasive design and manufacturing defects that render the engines and vehicles unmerchantable and unsuitable for use.

Many owners contend the Ford 6.0L diesel engine is defective and can result in breakdowns.

Common complaints include significant, persistent, and costly breakdowns. Ford 6.0 truck owners further complain about a diminished resale value.

Known problems include, but are not limited to problematic injectors and required turbocharger replacements.

Upon information and belief, Ford's F-Super Duty Truck line has been one of Ford's best selling vehicle lines over the years and Ford has continuously boasted about the truck's first rate quality, superiority and toughness.

While Ford continued to market the engine's superiority, Ford was pursuing their own claim against Navistar for failing to contribute to its share of the significant warranty costs that Ford was incurring in having to repair, replace, or repurchase a significant number of Ford trucks equipped with the 6.0L Diesel Engine.

If you own a Ford Super Duty Truck or Excursion built with the 6.0L Power Stroke Diesel Engine manufactured between 2003 and 2007, contact the defective products attorneys at the Strom Law Firm, L.L.C. today for a free consultation to discuss your legal rights.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Pete Strom

Captain Schettino of Costa Concordia Remains Under House Arrest

Brett Rivkind — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:07:10 GMT

An Italian Court ruled on Tuesday that Captain Schettino must remain under house arrest. He was the captain of Costa Concordia that killed at least 17 people because the captain sailed too close to island. Schettino has been under house arrest since January 17. The Florence Court rejected both sides of the argument in determining the outcome for the captain. According to Fox news “Prosecutors had argued that Schettino -- who is accused of manslaughter and abandoning his ship ahead of his passengers -- is a flight risk and that he should be incarcerated rather than continue to be held under house arrest at his home in Meta di Sorrento, near Naples. On the other hand, Schettino's lawyers argued he should be freed on bail and that he posed no immediate threat of re-offending, as he was suspended from his job as ship captain.”

The captain faces 2500 years in prison if convicted. Schettino could receive an 8-year sentence for each and every one of the 300 passengers left on the ship after he selfishly abandoned. The investigation ended last week leaving 15 people still unaccounted for in this tragic disaster.

Our firm is currently assisting crewmembers and passengers who were onboard the Costa Concordia. We remind everyone that the 30 day time deadline is on Sunday, February 12, 2012, to claims for property loss. We have been helping passengers get this filed.

I have been a Miami maritime and cruise ship attorney for 30 years. This disaster is the worst disaster I have seen during this time. I previously testified in Congress about cruise ship safety, and I am hopeful I will do so again as there definitely needs to be changes made for the safety of all passengers and crew on cruise ships.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brett Rivkind

Novartis Tekturna Problems Study Cancellation

Shezad Malik MD JD — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 21:35:15 GMT

Medical side effect concerns about Tekturna, a blood pressure drug sold by Novartis, have arisen after clinical trials were canceled due to a high number of strokes and kidney problems among diabetic patients.

Novartis was running a trial of the drug to see if it could be useful in the treatment of diabetic hypertension. The drug maker found that Tekturna may increase the risk of non-fatal strokes, kidney problems and other health risks.

Read the Safety Warning from Novartis here. Direct Healthcare Professional Communication on potential risks of cardiovascular and renal adverse events in patients with type 2 diabetes and renal impairment and/or cardiovascular disease treated with aliskiren (Tekturna®) tablets and aliskiren-containing combination products.

As a result of the findings, a safety review of the potential Takturna problems was launched in December in Canada, where the medication is sold under the brand name Resilez.

The cancellation of the clinical trials was announced in a December 20 press release by Novartis. The trial, known as ALTITUDE, involved 8,609 patients from 36 countries. It was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the drug’s use in patients with diabetes and kidney problems.

The study found an increase in Tekturna side effects after 18-24 months that included not only strokes and kidney complications, but also caused hypotension (low blood pressure) and hyperkalemia (high potassium), both of which can cause circulatory problems.

The clinical trial involved the use of Tekturna along with angiontensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). As a result of the bad side effects, Novartis says it will cease promoting the use of Tekturna in combination with those drugs in any patients.

ALTITUDE was cancelled after an independent Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) overseeing the clinical trial became alarmed at the high rate of Tekturna health risks among tests subjects and recommended Novartis pull the plug.

The company has not yet released data from the study, but has told all of the clinical trial’s investigators to remove Tekturna products from their patients’ treatment regimen.

Tekturna (aliskiren) was approved in 2007 for the treatment of high blood pressure. In several countries outside the United States, it is sold under the brand name Rasilez.

In a recent statement released by the Canadian regulatory agency, Health Canada, noted that 329 of the test subjects were from Canada and the agency has expressed concerns over the risks of the clinical trial to its citizens.

Canadian officials say they are looking at available safety data and is considering taking appropriate regulatory action if necessary. The actions could include new label warnings and safety recommendations.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Shezad Malik MD JD

Fentanyl/Duragesic: Exposing the Truth About the Pain Patch of Sudden Accidental Death-Interview With Injury Trial Attorney James Orr

Rick Shapiro — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:13:04 GMT

I am on a mission to use my forum as an editor on three Injuryboard regional injury law blogs to educate consumer/patients, doctors, pharmacists and medical providers about the extreme risk of accidental overdose deaths associated with the prescription of Fentanyl pain patches, also known as Duragesic pain patches. Fentanyl patches are often being prescribed to patients who can instead be prescribed a safer alternative pain medication, and my argument is that the medical community is unaware of the epidemic of accidental overdose deaths nationwide. Does the FDA realize the truth about how many accidental fentanyl overdose deaths are really occurring nationwide?

Our firm has been investigating two accidental fentanyl patch overdose deaths in North Carolina alone, and what about the other 49 states? Based on my research of lawsuits against the manufacturers of this drug, I have officially associated with James Orr, a Texas lawyer with the firm of Heygood, Orr, Reyes, Pearson & Bartolomei, to investigate a wrongful death because of fentanyl toxicity/accidental overdose, involving one of our law firm’s North Carolina client's. I consider James Orr to be one of the foremost authorities on the dangers of fentanyl pain patches, because of at least two prior successful wrongful death trials he has participated in, representing the families of those killed by this exceedingly dangerous pain patch medication. Fentanyl toxicity death is turning up with frightening frequency. And as the public learned in the Firestone tire defect/safety cases, and many other public health & safety scenarios, who usually exposes dangerous health and safety problems first? Yes, the injury lawyers through the civil justice system. I asked Jim Orr if I could interview him for our Injuryboard injury law blog network and our interview follows:

Shapiro: Jim: Thank you for agreeing to this interview about what I consider to be the epidemic of nationwide sudden deaths/accidental overdoses of persons who were lawfully prescribed Fentanyl or Duragesic pain patches.

My first question is this--why is the fentanyl patch so dangerous in the hands of consumer/patients in your view?

Orr: It is the most potent narcotic there is. It is 100 times stronger than morphine. Everyone's skin absorbs fentanyl at different rates, as much as a 10 fold difference. Typically, if a person is starting to suffer from fentanyl poisoning, they don't get sick, they just get sleepy. If they lay down, they never wake up. Also, even if you do recognize that you may be in trouble, if you take off the patch, it does not help. The fentanyl enters the skin from the patch into what is called the "skin depot" and it takes as much as 18 hours for that fentanyl to subsequently enter the blood stream. Thus, if you take off the patch, it is too late as the fatal dose may already be in the "skin depot." This is why a leak can be so dangerous. If you have a leak, the skin depot can fill up real fast and then kill you hours later.

Shapiro: How many trials have gone to verdict that you participated in the trial as a trial attorney?

Orr: The first case was the Hendelson case which was tried in federal court in West Palm Beach Florida in June of 2007. Hendelson involved a father that lost his 28 year old son due to a defective fentanyl patch. The result of the case was a $5.5 million verdict for our client. The second case was the DiCosolo case which was tried in state court in Chicago in November of 2008, just a couple of months ago. DiCosolo involved the death of a 38 year old wife and mother of 3 children due to a defective fentanyl patch. The result was a $16.5 million verdict for our clients.

Shapiro: Is it true that Johnson and Johnson and one or more of its subsidiaries have earned well over $1 billion in distributing transdermal Fentanyl patches?

Orr: Yes, their sales from just the brand name Duragesic are as follows:

2003 1.63 Billion

2004 2.08 Billion

2005 1.58 Billion

2006 1.29 Billion

2007 1.16 Billion

Shapiro: When the food and drug administration first approved Fentanyl patches for patient use, wasn't it limited to only terminal cancer patient pain cases? How did it get expanded?

Orr: No. It was originally approved in 1990 for “management of chronic pain in patients requiring opioid analgesia.” However, its use initially was primarily for cancer patients. Now, due to J&J’s marketing claims such as “Duragesic stops the pain, not the patient” and “Life uninterrupted”, it is being handed out for all kinds of pain. In fact, J&J subsidiaries have recently been found guilty by a West Virginia court of willfully publishing misleading promotional materials relating to Duragesic and were fined heavily for doing so.

Shapiro: What have some of the drug manufacturer corporate representatives stated was the need for the widespread prescription of Fentanyl patches in their defense of this product?

Orr: J&J claims that fentanyl is a potent drug and that it carries with it a risk. In fact, they have filed a pleading in a case asserting that Duragesic is unavoidably unsafe. They claim that they have not encouraged its use in situations in which it is not indicated. Unfortunately for J&J, they don’t sufficiently warn about the risk they themselves claim fentanyl patches present.

Shapiro: Are you advocating removal of Fentanyl medication from the hospital operating rooms setting, or just removing it from the hands of patients and why?

Orr: I would advocate that leaking patches getting out of the plant and sold to the public be eliminated. In terms of patches that are manufactured properly, I would advocate that doctors and patients be warned that the proper use of fentanyl patches carries with it a risk of death and that in fact many patients have died. I would advocate stronger warnings in the black box regarding use of fentanyl patches at the same time with other sedating medications. I would advocate that these warnings not only be included in the package insert, but that they be prominently displayed in any promotional materials regarding fentanyl patches.

Shapiro: What types of product defects have you proven have gone wrong with Fentanyl patches?

Orr: Manufacturing defects, i.e., that the patches have failed to perform as intended; marketing defects, i.e., the warnings were inadequate

design defect, i.e., safer alternative design existed.

Shapiro: What is your opinion about what the FDA should do to control the fentanyl patch prescription death overdose epidemic in the United States?

Orr: Require drastic changes in both the package insert, the patient information insert and J&J’s promotional materials. Also, in my view, the prescribing of this medication in a patch form should be limited to anesthesiology, pain medicine and oncology physicians.

Shapiro: Thanks so much for explaining some of these details. If this article can prevent one doctor from prescribing these fentanyl patches where it is unnecessary, or help build a groundswell to convince the FDA that the present warnings are totally inadequate, we accomplished something here. Also, I plan to send this interview to every physician or pharmacist I know to get the truth out there about this fentanyl patch accidental overdose epidemic.

Shapiro, Cooper Lewis & Appleton personal injury law firm is based in Virginia, with offices in northeast NC and Virginia Beach (VA), practicing primarily in the southeastern U.S. and handles only injury law, including car, truck, railroad, and medical negligence cases and more. The firm's website is: hsinjurylaw.com, the firm edits three injury law blogs: Virginia Beach Injuryboard & Norfolk Injuryboard, as well as the Northeast North Carolina Injuryboard and also hosts a video library covering many FAQ’s on personal injury subjects.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Rick Shapiro

Las Vegas hotel guest dies following exposure to Legionnaires' disease at Luxor

Brian Nettles — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 03:21:07 GMT

As if lightning has struck twice, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has again contacted the Southern Nevada Health District and reported that guests of the Luxor in Las Vegas hotel have contracted Legionnaires' disease after vacationing on the Las Vegas Strip. This comes on the heels of the Legionella exposure outbreak reported this past summer at the Aria Resort, another Strip property.

On January 30, the Las Vegas Sun newspaper reported that the Health District was contacted by the CDC and advised that 3 guests of the Luxor hotel have been diagnosed with the virus since this past spring. In the last of the 3 confirmed cases, the guest has died as a result of the exposure to the Legionella bacteria.

The Los Angeles Times recently reported that the Southern Nevada Health District has issued a public health notice to warn the public of this hazardous condition.

Just 6 months ago, the Las Vegas Review Journal reported that water testing performed by local officials confirmed the presence of the type of bacteria that causes Legionnaires' disease was present at the resort. The testing was performed after 6 former hotel guests had been diagnosed with this sometimes deadly disease. Subsequently, the Aria issued a public statement to notify guests of the possible exposure.

Of note, these 2 properties are only about 1 mile apart on the Las Vegas Strip.

Manifestation of the bacteria's symptoms typically occur within 2-14 days of the the exposure period. According to the Southern Nevada Health District, symptoms include: high fever, chills, cough, and fatigue or weakness and/or pneumonia. The Health District recommends that any former guests experiencing such symptoms should see your doctor and inform him or her that you may have been exposed to Legionella.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brian Nettles