Milwaukee Personal Injury Lawyer

LASIK SURGERY WARNINGS INSUFFICIENT

Paul Jacquart — Fri, 02 May 2008 08:26:34 GMT

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel has recommended bolstering the warnings of the dangers of Lasik eye surgery, reports the Associated Press. The article explains that although Lasik surgery is successful with minimal side effects for the vast majority of patients, as many as one in four people who seek the surgery are not good candidates because their pupils are too large, or due to other issues. Nevertheless, doctors do not always reject such candidates and the patients suffer the side effects, which can be severe: worse vision, severe dry eye, glare and inability to drive at night. The FDA panel heard testimony from patients who suffered from halos, double and blurred vision and eye pain.

The advisory panel has recommended the following changes to the current warnings:

· Add photographs that illustrate what people suffering certain side effects actually see, such as the glare that can make oncoming headlights a huge "starburst" of light.

· Clarify how often patients suffer different side effects, such as dry eye. Some eye surgeons say 31 percent of Lasik patients have some degree of dry eye before surgery, and it worsens for about 5 percent afterward. Other studies say 48 percent of Lasik recipients suffer some degree of dry eye months later.

· Make more understandable the conditions that should disqualify someone from Lasik, such as large pupils.

· And spell out that anyone whose nearsightedness is fixed by Lasik is guaranteed to need reading glasses in middle age, something that might not be needed if they skip Lasik.

Hopefully, the increased warnings will make for a more informed consumer and result in fewer Lasik surgeries performed on poor candidates and a lower incidence of severe side effects.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Jacquart

Tainted Heparin Deaths: Investigators Are Closing In On The Explanations

David Lowe — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:22:34 GMT

Update on the tainted heparin investigation:

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel website has posted a report that gives an explanation for how the tainted heparin caused injury and deaths, and how it evaded detection:

Baxter International Inc.'s blood thinner heparin killed patients because a hard-to-detect contaminant produced toxins and triggered dangerously low blood pressure, researchers said. Two new reports show how the contaminant evaded detection with current screening approaches and caused a chemical cascade that ultimately led to the death of 81 patients. The contamination occurred within heparin's long and complex chains of sugars, a defect that wouldn't be found with tests that look for proteins, fats and genetic traces of outside substances. The raw ingredient for Baxter International's recalled heparin came from Waunakee-based Scientific Protein Laboratories, which in turn owns a Chinese factory - Changzhou SPL - and buys additional raw heparin from other Chinese suppliers.

United States health officials have identified oversulfated chondroitin sulfate (OSCS) as the likely chemical culprit. Two scientific papers offer theories on the mechanism of the toxic changes. The FDA head has offered his speculation that the contaminated heparin was produced by economic fraud.

Meanwhile, it has been reported that the tainted Heparin reached 11 countries.

Despite Heparin manufacturer Baxter's CEO's declaration that not many heparin lawsuits are expected, these product liability cases would appear to have great merit. This is not an instance of a drug acting as expected, with certain known risks. This is a case of flaws in the manufacturing process. A drug that is released on the public with hidden dangers like this is defective and unreasonably dangerous. We'll be following this story.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Lowe

Wisconsin Leads The Nation In Drunk Drivers

David Lowe — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:42:30 GMT

A national study reveals that Wisconsin leads the nation in drunk driving, based on admitted behavior in surveys conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, an agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

According to these government surveys about drinking and driving, more than 26% of Wisconsin adults 18 and older admitted that they had driven under the influence in the previous year.

Nationally, the report reveals that 15.1 percent of the nation's drivers age 18 and older drove under the influence of alcohol at least once in the past year. An estimated 30.5 million people aged 12 or older drove under the influence of alcohol at least once in the past year according to the report.

Driving under the influence ranged from a low of 9.5 percent in Utah, to highs of 26.4 percent in Wisconsin, 24.9 percent in North Dakota and 23.5 percent in Minnesota.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) statistics show that there were almost 16,700 deaths in 2004 caused by drunk drivers, placing drunk driving and driving under the influence of illicit drugs as among the leading sources of preventable death by injury in the United States.

With the highest percentage of any state, Wisconsin placed more than 70% above the national average of 15.1%.

A story in today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel focusing on the Wisconsin drunk driving statistics quotes Paul Moberg, senior scientist in the Population Health Institute at UW-Madison and co-author of a 2007 study on wisconsin's alcohol and drug use patterns comments:

"I think it's something to do with the culture of Wisconsin and what the shared expectations are of behavior," Moberg said. "People who come from other states remark on it. Any event you go to (in Wisconsin) has alcohol."

What can be done about this sorry achievement? Stronger criminal law enforcement is certainly one way. A civil lawsuit for compensatory and punitive damages is another tool. A recent Wisconsin Supreme Court case known as Strenke v. Hoger upheld a large punitive damages award against a five time drunk driver against an argument that a drunk driver should not be punished because he does not act with malice against his particular victim. In the end, though, we need a cultural change; one that sees drinking and driving as abhorrent.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Lowe

Nail Gun Dangers Persist

Paul Jacquart — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:50:25 GMT

Our office successfully handled a nail gun injury claim over a decade ago. A carpenter working with a nail gun was positioned on scaffolding above our client. He lowered his arm and the tip of the nail gun came into contact with our client's helmet, triggering the firing mechanism and causing a nail to shoot through the helmet and into our client's skull.

Apparently little has been done to decrease the incidence of nail gun injuries. A news story from the Sacramento Bee suggests that nail gun injuries are on the rise. According to the article, the nail guns:

are dangerous, especially in the automatic mode known as "contact trip." Driven by compressed air, the brawniest nail guns can blast 30 nails a minute that travel up to 490 feet per second, qualifying the nails as low-velocity missiles. In contact trip mode, with one pull of the trigger, they fire those missiles whenever the muzzle makes contact with a surface - including heads, hands, eyes and even chests.

The article states that neither federal nor state agencies have done much to bring attention to the dangers, despite the fact that more than 100 nail gun injury victims show up each day at hospital emergency departments across the United States.

According to the article, manufacturers were aware of the dangers, but continued to sell contact trip guns because of their popularity with consumers. In 2003, manufacturers began making semiautomatic guns using a "sequential design" that requires the user to pull the trigger for each nail, a much safer alternative. Designs of these sequential trigger guns were available since the 1990's but manufacturers largely ignored the option, says the article. Some have advocated a ban on contact trip guns in light of the safer alternative, but they are still being used regularly nationwide.

If you are working with or around nail guns, it is important to read all manuals and to follow all rules for workplace safety. Mike Strawbridge offers these nail gun safety tips:

1. Understand the difference between sequential trip trigger and contact trip triggers. Be sure you are using the right one for the right work. The Bostich catalog has a good description of how each trigger works and when they should be used.

2. When trying to accurately place a fastener with a contact trip nail gun, be as sure of your target and the backdrop as you would if you were firing a pistol. There is always the possibility of a double shot that will not be contained by the wood. Keep body parts out of the possible line of fire.

3. When using a pneumatic nail gun, be alert to the added hazard of the air hose. Compressed air has its own hazards, but having an air hose stretched through a construction site adds to the already hazardous environment. Watching roofers with pneumatic nail guns always reminds me of the story about Mark Twain in the city: He said one day he saw a fellow on a ledge threatening to jump. A large crowd had gathered below but Mark Twain said he was the only one in the group with the presence of mind to throw him a rope and pull him down. The air hose always looks like someone has already thrown the roofers a rope.

4. When holding a work piece to be nailed, be aware that the force of the nail gun will drive through any obstacle in the wood like knots or other fasteners. The path through the wood is not always certain however. Nails have been know to come out the side of wood and in some cases even made a U turn and come back at the gun. Keep you hand at least the length of the fastener you are shooting away from the muzzle at all times when joining wood.

5. Don't use rusty fasteners. Using old nails in a nail gun can not only damage the gun, but they can send rust and scale out toward the operator. Be sure to use new clean nails for safe operation.

6. Wear your safety glasses or face shield. Not only can the nail gun send errant nails your way, but the force of the nailing operating can splinter the substrate as well. And if you ignored number six above, rust and scale can be ejected as well. So protect your eyes. It is a lot easier to use a nail gun safely when you can wee what you are working with.

7. Maintain the nail gun properly. Regular maintenance and lubrication will reduce the possibility of jams and misfires that require potentially dangerous repairs and unjamming procedures.

8. Read and follow all the manufactures safety rules and procedures. They have likely already been sued over something there.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Jacquart

The Wisconsin Family Justice Bill: Ensuring That All Medical Malpractice Claims Are Heard

David Lowe — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:22:14 GMT

Once again today, I had to turn down a potential medical malpractice case for a young adult because there was no survivor of the victim who had the legal right to pursue the claim. Under Wisconsin law, if a person is over the age of 17 and dies as a result of medical negligence, parents may not bring a claim for loss of society and companionship. If the victim dies without a spouse or children, there is no one to bring a claim for the wrongful death.

Similarly, if the victim of malpractice is an elderly parent, the only person that can file a claim is the spouse of the elderly parent. If that spouse is already deceased, then there is no one to file a claim to recover for the wrongful death.

The same is also true if medical malpractice causes the death of an unmarried, widowed or divorced parent whose children are no longer minors. The surviving adult children may not bring a claim for loss of society or companionship.

Ironically, if the doctor had killed the parent in an automobile accident, a wrongful death claim could be filed. But if the death is caused by negligent conduct in the operating room, there is no claim. This makes no sense and must be changed.

Wisconsin is one of only about six states that deprive adult children of the right to bring a wrongful death claim for the death of a parent due to medical malpractice.

The Wisconsin Family Justice Bill, a measure to change this rule, is stalled in our legislature.

Not surprisingly, the Wisconsin Medical Society opposes expansion of those who can sue for medical malpractice.

The Wisconsin Association for Justice is working hard to get this legislation passed. and has expressed sound reasons why survivors of medical practice victims should have the right to sue:

Wisconsin families deserve the right to a fair and just civil remedy through our court system when a loved one is killed in a medical malpractice case. Age and marital status should not be the determining factors!

How would you deal with the awful prospect of the loss of your own 18-year-old son or daughter due to medical errors? How would you react to the fact that there is no legal recourse for the medical negligence that lead to the death of your 18-year-old child or your elderly parent?

Everyone deserves to be treated equally in Wisconsin. Our laws should not discriminate against people based on their age or martial status. Negligent health care providers in an operating room should not be treated differently than negligent car drivers.

The Wisconsin State Senate has voted to approve the legislation, and forwarded it to the State Assembly for its consideration. The bill was referred to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and Ethics, where the legislation has stalled. Hopefully, this fall's elections will result in the replacement of several legislators who are blocking this needed legislation, and allow justice for all victims, regardless of age and marital status.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Lowe

Minnesota Hospital Admits Wrong Organ Removed

Jenny Albano — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:15:07 GMT

Methodist Hospital in Minnesota acknowledged that their medical staff accidentally removed the wrong organ from a patient. Dr. Samuel Carlson, chief medical officer for Park Nicollet Health Services, stated that one of the surgeons removed a patient's healthy kidney and left the cancerous one in place.

The surgery was performed last Tuesday, but it wasn't until the next day that a pathologist noticed the kidney taken from the patient was healthy. The doctor who removed the kidney - a veteran surgeon - has voluntary stopped seeing patients. Carlson says the mistake may have originated at a Park Nicollet clinic.

Wrong-site surgeries do happen, last year there were 24 in Minnesota, but removal of the wrong organ rarely happens. In the past four-and-a-half years that Minnesota has been collecting data there has not been any wrong organ removals.

Most hospitals have safety measures prevent wrong-site surgery, such as marking body parts that are being operated on before surgery and requiring a break in the operating room so surgical staff can double check documentation. Apparently standard protocols were followed at Methodist Hospital to avoid wrong-site surgery, but that was not enough. The hospital has now added another safety procedure requiring that surgeons double check MRI and CT scans before beginning surgery.

Neither the identity of the surgeon or the patient have been disclosed. It is known that the patient is still under the care of the Methodist Hospital.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jenny Albano

Ritter Lawsuit Demonstrates How Medical Malpractice Caps Discriminate On Basis Of Wealth

David Lowe — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 16:22:29 GMT

After a month long trial, John Ritter's doctors were found not liable by a California jury for medical malpractice in the actor's death in 2003. The lawsuit alleged that a cardiologist misdiagnosed an aortic dissection as a heart attack, and that a radiologist failed to perform an x-ray that might have revealed the dissection, thus causing Ritter to lose the chance for surgery that might have saved his life.

A recent New York Times Magazine article by Lisa Sanders describes the challenge of making the diagnosis of aortic dissection, calling it "one of the classic difficult diagnoses in medicine. Far too often it's not even considered."

A Los Angeles Times story about the trial's outcome makes the point that medical malpractice caps discriminate on the basis of wealth: "The case highlighted the high stakes in malpractice cases where the alleged victim is wealthy: Attorney's for Ritter's family contended that with a new hit show, the veteran actor best known for his role as Jack Tripper on "Three's Company" could have gone on to earn an additional $67 million had he lived."

The family has already received more than $14 million in settlements form the hospital and eight others relating to the malpractice claim. The family was seeking more than $67 million from the remaining defendants. Whether they would have received this exact figure if they had won the case we will never know. But the family certainly would have received a large award because Ritter had a track record as a successful actor, and was in the starring role of the first season of new TV series entitled "8 Simple Rules for Dating My Teenage Daughter."

We regularly review cases in which there is merit to the claim of medical malpractice, but statutory caps on the amount a family can recover preclude pursuing the case because the victim was either retired, in a low paying job, or unemployed. Typically, there is either no cap or a high cap for loss of income, but unfairly low limits for loss of companionship. The expense of devloping the case may approach the maximum a victim's survivors may recover for the loss of companionship, making the cases uneconomical to pursue. Of course, that is the reason that the health care industry and its insurers urge the adoption of caps. If it were not for the potential of a large verdict for loss of future income, the Ritter family may not have received the settlements they already obtained, and may not have secured the excellent legal team that fought so hard for them. Caps on the recover of damages for medical malpractice result in this kind of inequity.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Lowe

Divided Supreme Court Affirms Decision In FDA Preemption Case

David Lowe — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 18:06:08 GMT

In the wake of last month's Supreme Court decision in Riegel v. Medtronic, holding that Federal Drug Administration approval of medical devices shielded manufacturers from product liability lawsuits by injured patients, concerns have mounted that the Court will confer similar protection to drug manufacturers whose products have received FDA approval. This would leave injured consumers to the protection of the understaffed and underfunded FDA, whose lapses in the approval of drugs such as Ketek and Trasylol have been discussed here.

Today, in a four to four split decision, with Chief Justice Roberts not participating, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Second Circuit in Warner Lambert v. Kent,which held that a drug manufacturer that failed to warn the public about the dangers of its product -- and may have concealed key information from the FDA regarding the risks of the drug -- cannot hide behind a Michigan state law that provides immunity to prescription drug manufacturers. Oral argument in the Kent case was heard only last week.

Kent raised the preemption issue in the context of Michigan's somewhat unique statute that shields drug manufactures from product liability lawsuits if the drug was approved by the FDA unless it could be shown that the FDA was defrauded during the approval process. The drug involved in Kent was Rezulin, a diabetes drug that was withdrawn from the market after widespread reports of liver damage and deaths. Its manufacturer argued that federal law pre-empted the Michigan statute's statutory exception for instances where fraud was perpetrated on the federal agency. The Public Justice organization provided important assistance in the defense of the injured consumer. The amicus brief it filed in the Supreme Court can be viewed here.

Because of the 4-4 split and per curiam affirmance, the Kent case will be a minor footnote next to a more important case looming on the coming year's docket, Wyeth v. Levine, in which the Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether a musician who lost her arm after receiving the anti-nausea drug Phenergan via an off-label injection method may recover under Vermont tort law despite FDA approval of the drug's label. The Vermont Supreme Court ruled that the state court product liability lawsuit was not preempted by the FDA approval of the drug's label, a significant ruling for those seeking to preserve consumer rights. The Levine case is the likely forum for the definitive word on the implied preemption issue in pharmeceutical litigation. We'll be following the case closely.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Lowe

FDA Raises Number of Potential Heparin Related Deaths to 21

David Lowe — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 07:31:33 GMT

Today's New York Times reports that as many as 21 deaths may be linked to the drug heparin, and the number of reported adverse reactions (mostly decreased or low blood pressure and fast heart rate) has risen to 448, according to the FDA.

Baxter International, whose heparin seems to be involved with the problems, announced that it was expanding a recall to include most of its heparin products, including multidose vials, single-dose vials and its diluted solution of heparin used to keep blood clots from forming in intravenous lines.

The FDA investigation has revealed problems associated with unregulated local suppliers to a wholesaler that provided ingredients to the Chinese plant, but the root cause is yet to be determined.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Lowe

FDA Inaction Leads to 22,0000 Patient Deaths From Trasylol, Drug Researcher Claims

David Lowe — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 00:11:57 GMT

Stay tuned this Sunday for another FDA failure story on 60 Minutes in which Dr. Dennis Mangano, a respected drug researcher, asserts that 22,000 Trasylol deaths could have been avoided if the Food and Drug Administration had paid heed to his published research about Trasylol's dangers, and removed the heart surgery drug from the market two years ago, when his study revealed its widespread association with reports of patient deaths.

The drug Trasylol, manufactured by Bayer AG, was withdrawn in November, 2007 at the request of the FDA after a study linked the medicine to kidney failure requiring dialysis and increased death of those patients. Trasylol, also known as aprotinin, was given to as many as a third of all heart bypass patients in the United States at the height of its use over a period of many years, according to the report.

Sadly, Dr. Mangano's research was initially vilified by an FDA panel whose chairman had connections with Bayer. "I told you so" provides little solace to families who have lost loved ones due to FDA inaction.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Lowe