Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
Hormone Therapy Trial Opens in Reno for Six-Week Run - Friday, September 14, 2007
On Wednesday, September 12, a drug trial opened in Reno, Nevada to determine whether Prempro manufacturer Wyeth pharmaceuticals was malicious, negligent, or at least insufficiently cautious in its labeling and marketing of hormone-replacement therapy (HRT) drugs Prempro and Premarin. The suit was filed on behalf of three women, aged 64, 67, and 75, who were all long-time Prempro and Premarin users, who were all stricken with breast cancer, for which they claim the drugs are responsible.
In response, Wyeth attorneys claim that the company conducted studies to determine the risks associated with the drugs and worked with federal regulators to write adequate warning labels based on the best science available.
HRT is used to provide comfort for women suffering the adverse effects of menopause. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals has long touted their drugs' ability not only to provide relief from symptoms including hot flashes, night sweats, and vaginal dryness. In addition, they claimed that HRT protected women against osteoporosis, which they essentially invented in the public's consciousness as a disease for which their treatment would be a cure. In 1985, the company's own research showed that 77% of women had never heard of the disease, so they created an aggressive marketing campaign both for the disease and for their drug, similar to one recently conducted for the human papillomavirus (HPV) and accompanying vaccine. Wyeth supported the creation of a National Osteoporosis Week and then a National Osteoporosis Foundation. The firm also claimed that their drug reduced the risk of cardiovascular disease in women.
However, a study conducted by the Women's Health Initiative (WHI), was prematurely terminated in 2002 when it was concluded that the drug trial was too risky to its participants to be continued. When the results were tabulated, it seemed that the study participants experienced a 41 % increase in strokes, a 26% increase in breast cancer, and a 100% increase in blood clots compared to the control group, similar to what was seen in studies of the Ortho Evra birth control patch. The participants also experienced a 29% increase in heart attacks and a 22% increase in cardiovascular disease, conditions Wyeth had claimed were reduced by their drugs.
Even more damning is the precipitous drop in breast cancer rates since doctors dramatically reduced HRT prescriptions following the reporting of the study's results.
In the wake of this study, legal arguments are focused on whether or not Wyeth knew or should have known from its earlier studies that these conditions were influenced by its drug. We can only wait and see what the jury decides.
If you believe you or a loved one has suffered adverse side effects as a result of taking medication, you should consult an attorney regarding the viability of any possible claim against the manufacturer or your physician.
Dishonest Insurance Practices Increase Need for Lawyers - Thursday, September 13, 2007
We've all seen the commercials of the woman who is taking her kids to school when she gets in an accident. It's a minor one, but she is so scared for the health and safety of her children that she is broken down, crying in fear. Sobbing on her cell phone, she blathers to the insurance agent incoherently. The agent gets the basic information and rushes out to her aid. He calms her, takes her claim information, and, after finding that she and her children are fine, he gives them all a ride to school and home. The woman then tells us how helpful the agent was and how quickly her claim was handled.
It might be wrong to call the commercial an out-and-out lie, but let's say that insurance companies have decided to go in a different direction. No longer is their strategy customer service leading to satisfaction, loyal customers, and repeat business. Instead, their new strategy is "deny, delay, defend," according to whistle-blowers.
For about the last ten years, insurance companies have adopted a tough stance on minor accident claims, where there is little damage to the car and primarily soft-tissue injuries. They give minute offers of settlements, often insufficient to cover the cost of repairing the crumple-zone designs of modern vehicles, not to mention medical expenses, which often run exorbitantly high even if you are not injured. Even worse, they extend this practice to people who experience neck and spinal injuries, leading to tens of thousands of dollars in medical expenses and lost work. And when they pay damages, the settlement is anything but timely, sometimes taking a year or more.
These practices are making the insurance companies billions of dollars, while obviously they provide fewer and fewer benefits for clients. The only way to get justice in these cases is with a lawyer, and as much as five years of fighting. The laws of most states mandate that drivers be insured. Perhaps the laws should also mandate exactly what insurance companies should cover and what they should pay.
Lindsay Lohan Suit Instructive - Wednesday, September 12, 2007
In October 2005, Lindsay Lohan was driving her Mercedes and struck Raymundo Ortega's van. The California Highway Patrol blamed Ortega, a busboy, for putting his van in the way of Lohan's flight from paparazzi by making an illegal u-turn. Although Lohan's attorneys sought to have the suit dismissed, claiming it lacked legal sufficiency, Superior Court Judge Michael L. Stern rejected the motion and set a trial date.
Fallout from 9/11: 6 years and the news keeps getting worse - Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Although some charge in lawsuits that the government knew about the 9/11 attacks but refrained from action or even participated in the attacks, no substantial body of credible evidence to support such claims has yet come to light. What has come to light was that during the days and weeks following 9/11 many branches of the government conspired to misrepresent and play down the dangers faced by rescue workers and citizens in lower Manhattan. What is also clear is that the assessments of health risks from the toxic cloud continue to paint a misleading and rosy picture in the face of alarming conditions suffered by workers and citizens.
According to a 2006 report published y the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, the symptoms suffered by those exposed to WTC dust are postnasal drip syndrome, asthma, and gastroesophageal reflux disease, essentially comparable to eating bad pizza in a cockroach-infested restaurant. Clearly, the symptoms are worse than these. As early as February of 2002, residents of lower Manhattan were dying of sarcoidosis, an immune disorder caused by toxic exposure, but the NYC report mentions nothing of possible death resulting from exposure. Another 2006 report claims that WTC rescue workers suffered "respiratory symptoms and pulmonary function test abnormalities that persisted up to 2.5 years after the attack," making no mention of workers who suffered leukemia and organ failures that required life-saving transplants as late as 2006.
However, a 2004 suit filed on behalf of 10,000 NYC residents and rescue workers, charges that the City, the Port Authority, and the contractor in charge of the WTC cleanup were negligent not only in failing to adequately warn workers and residents of the dangers they faced, but in failing to provide adequate safety equipment. In fact, a 2003 report by the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of the Inspector general, effectively affirms the former charge. The report says that EPA officials, in collusion with the White House Council on Environmental Quality, pronounced the air in lower Manhattan "safe" when they had insufficient evidence to make such declarations.
The destruction of the WTC resulted in an atmosphere filled with abnormal levels of benzene, asbestos, and heavy metals including mercury, the effects of which go far beyond shortness of breath and heartburn and can include catastrophic results like wrongful death. In addition to the government's apparent desire to conceal the truth from us, it is troubling to think that these are materials that surround us all day every day, that we are exposed to under normal working conditions. We can only hope that as more people come forward with evidence about the symptoms they've suffered we will get closer to the truth about the toxic world we live in every day.
ATV Owner Sued for Boy's Death - Monday, September 10, 2007
In Arkansas, a wrongful death lawsuit was filed recently against a man and his concrete company in the death of an 11-year-old boy killed in a four-wheeler accident. Ashton Potter, died in May 2006 after he rode a four-wheel all-terrain vehicle (ATV) up a hill and it tumbled back on him.The boy was riding a Polaris 330 model all-terrain vehicle owned by defendant Donald Main and his company, A-1 Cement Finishers of Siloam Springs, Arkansas. The ATV was used by Main and his company for cement and construction-related activities. At the time of the accident, Potter was staying at the defendant's home.
The suit alleges Main and his company failed to properly secure and supervise the four-wheeler, giving the young boy access to it. Potter started the vehicle and rode it traveling up an embankment when it flipped over, landed on top of him and killed him. The boy died at the scene from a severe head injury.
The suit was filed on behalf of Mandi Lopez, the boy's mother. Damages are sought for wrongful death, conscious pain and suffering and loss of life. The suit alleges the defendants knew, or should have known, that minors would be attracted to a four-wheeler and the expense of remedying the dangerous condition would be slight compared to the risk of harm.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's 2004 statistics on ATV-related injuries and deaths reveal that there were almost 150,000 serious injuries requiring emergency room treatment and close to 800 ATV deaths. Of those deaths, at least 130 deaths were children younger than 16.
The CPSC and other consumer advocate groups have been pushing for stricter ATV laws for years, and one group, the American Academy of Pediatrics has even recommended that no child under age 16 ride an ATV of any size under any conditions.
Contact Personal Injury dot com today to find an experienced motor vehicle accident lawyer near you.
Find a lawyer in your state:
- Alabama
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- District Of Columbia
- Florida
- Georgia
- Hawaii
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Iowa
- Indiana
- Kansas
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Mississippi
- Missouri
Free Claim Evaluation !
