Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Be Vigilant of Misdiagnoses - Friday, September 21, 2007

We trust our doctors to tell us what's wrong. After all, it's their job, right? We pay them for their expertise, so why wouldn't we trust them?

Trust is one thing, but blind faith is another. Listen to your doctor, but if something just doesn't feel right, maybe you should think it through and get a second opinion. Here are five ways to determine if you might have been misdiagnosed:


  1. You don't get better with treatment. If a treatment for a particular illness doesn't seem to be working, maybe there's a simple explanation: you don't have that illness.
  2. Your symptoms don't match your diagnosis. Do some searches on Google or Yahoo for your supposed condition. If key symptoms are missing or if you have other symptoms not listed, your doctor may have made a mistake. Of course, don't trust just any site, and don't trust a site that seems to disagree with all the others. The internet is far less trustworthy than your doctor sometimes.
  3. Your diagnosis is based entirely on a lab test. Laboratories have been known to make mistakes, and if there's no corroborating evidence, you should be dubious. Make sure you get a test done by a reputable lab that specializes in your supposed condition.
  4. Your doctor makes mountains out of molehills. Don't listen if your doctor tells you that everyday things are caused by out-of-this world diseases. Get a second opinion.
  5. Your diagnosis is based on tests you never received. Often, there are telltale tests that can and should be done for particular conditions. If you never received those tests, maybe you should.

All in all, it is crucial to be vigilant and skeptical. Doctors make mistakes, and sometimes even err on the side of profitable treatments and drugs that might be otherwise harmless. Get a second opinion, and don't go forward with treatment until you're satisfied that you really have what they say you have. In some cases, a misdiagnosis can be just as dangerous as a failure to diagnose major diseases like heart attacks or cancer.

Sometimes, misdiagnoses can lead to major health problems, either by proscribing risky treatments that cause damage by drugs or procedures. If you or a loved one has suffered because of a doctor's misdiagnosis, you need a lawyer to help you get back on track. Contact PersonalInjury.com today to get in touch with a skilled malpractice lawyer in your area.

More Families Settle Out of Court for 9/11 Victims - Thursday, September 20, 2007

Fourteen more families of people killed in hijacked planes on September 11, 2001, settled their lawsuits against the airlines. Just one week before the first trial was scheduled to begin, the families received undisclosed settlements.

The settlements follow hard upon the families' victory in United States District Court in Manhattan that would have allowed them to play cockpit recordings from United Airlines Flight 93. The judge's ruling made settlement talks move very quickly, according to the plaintiffs' lawyer. He said that once it became clear that jurors would hear evidence that the passengers were aware the plane had been hijacked and had reacted heroically, the airlines moved to settle.

The emotional impact on the jury would have been great, and though it would not necessarily have helped establish the airlines' culpability, it could not help but move the jury to sympathy with the plaintiffs.

It seems the families' motives for filing the suits were purely monetary. Although they were offered compensation from a federal Victims Compensation Fund, they chose to forego that compensation, arguing that the fund did not adequately compensate certain classes of people, such as children, retired persons, and very high wage earners. Although settlement amounts are confidential, the families said they felt adequately compensated for their decision to sue.

There are still 21 cases pending related to people killed or wounded on September 11. They include one passenger on Flight 93; 15 cases involving American Airlines Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon, including four deaths and four injuries of people in the Pentagon, and seven passengers on the plane; three passengers on American Airlines Flight 11, and two passengers killed on United Airlines Flight 175.

Settlements such as this are bittersweet. On the one hand, the families felt satisfied that their motivations "from compensation to accountability, to answers" had been fulfilled. On the other hand, however, the possibility that more information might be discovered to determine the true culpability, which must extend beyond the airlines to many involved parties, must forever go unexplored.

If you or a loved one has suffered injury or death from an aviation accident, litigation may be your only route to receive not just compensation, but truth as well. Contact PersonalInjury.com today to get in touch with a lawyer who can get you compensation and accountability for the accident.

Court Deals Blow to Pre-Emption Tactics - Wednesday, September 19, 2007

As I mentioned in an earlier post, industry lobbyists have recently changed tactics and are seeking governmental regulations where once they fought tooth and nail to avoid them. One of their primary rationales for this change of heart was to attempt to get Federal regulations that would pre-empt state regulations.

However, in a major ruling last week, the US District Court of Southern Florida declared the Graves Amendment unconstitutional. The Graves Amendment was a particularly cynical attempt at pre-empting state law to the detriment of public interest. The Amendment, which was snuck into a 900-page transportation appropriations bill in 2005, absolved car rental companies from the vicarious liability imposed on them in some degree by many states.

The legislation was purely directed at the profit margin for rental car companies, who sought to avoid both liability for any accidents and responsibility for checking the insurance status of the drivers to whom they rented vehicles. Under the Graves Amendment, a car rental company had no incentive to check whether their renters were insured, and if an uninsured renter caused an accident, they could not be held responsible. This combination might prove particularly dangerous to public health and safety in Florida, whose No-Fault statue was recently allowed to lapse, meaning that more and more drivers might find it difficult to collect from their insurance companies in the event of an injury accident.

Thankfully, though, the Graves Amendment has been declared unconstitutional for violating the Tenth Amendment, which reserves power for the states against the power of the Federal government. Although US lawyers argued that the Amendment was within the rights of the Congress under the Commerce Clause, US District Judge K. Michael Moore found the amendment overreached the power granted by the Clause, saying, "Under the rationale set forth, this Court is hard pressed to think of any type of state legislation which could not be pre-empted by Congress, including state taxes."

This ruling has broad implications for efforts to seek pre-emption of tough state laws regulating product liability and workplace safety, and shows that, while legislators are sometimes in the pocket of big business, a lawyer can be your best friend. If you have suffered an accident due to a defective product or corrupt practice by a major corporation, get in touch with a lawyer through PersonalInjury.com, and act now. Others may be waiting for your case to set a precedent.

Drug to Stay on Market Despite Risk of Kidney Failure, Death - Tuesday, September 18, 2007

On September 13, a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel of independent medical experts voted to keep Trasylol, a drug marketed by Bayer AG, on the market in the US.

As part of a continuing review, the panel was given the opportunity to review all pertinent data and determine whether the drug was safe enough to be used or whether it should be pulled. Since 2006, four studies have linked the drug, which is used to control bleeding in patients undergoing heart-bypass surgery, with kidney failure and even death.

Two studies published in 2006 showed that the drug doubled the risk of kidney failure in patients, while two additional studies have suggested that it might be linked to increased death risk. In one study, the increased risk was 50%, while in another the increase was 54%. The FDA warning for the drug also notes the possibility of severe anaphylactic reaction if administered to a patient more than once in a 12-month period.

In the face of this information, the panel voted overwhelmingly by 15 to 1 with one abstaining to keep the drug on the market.

Apparently, panel members believed that the data, especially from the anaphylactic reaction studies, was too slight to merit pulling the drug from the market. They pointed to the fact that Trasylol is the only antibleeding product specifically approved for use in cardiac surgery, although other antibleeding products are available.

Although some of the data had been available to Bayer before the panel's 2006 meeting, Bayer did not immediately hand over the report, although the company denies withholding the information, but was careful to state in protective language that senior management had not been told the data was in until after the FDA panel met.

In keeping the drug on the market, panel members recommended that additional studies should look at safety concerns connected with the drug. Apparently, not enough people have died to make a convincing statistic.

Despite recent health debacles over drugs like Vioxx, Prempro, and the Ortho Evra birth control patch are insufficient to convince regulators to step in earlier rather than later. Let the companies fiddle while we burn, they say, because they know that we are the ones who pay the fiddler.

Bayer says Trasylol "is an important part of blood conservation programs" during heart bypass surgery. Perhaps we could get the drug off the market more easily if the blood supply were more secure: a good reminder that we should all donate blood whenever possible.

And we should also use our only recourse when drug companies and regulators conspire to keep dangerous drugs on the market: the courts. If you or someone you love has experienced undue or unexpected side effects from taking a drug, contact PersonalInjury.com to find an experienced drug side effects lawyer to help you receive compensation for your loss and penalize pharmaceutical companies who push bad drugs.

Industry Seeks Regulation to Protect Itself - Monday, September 17, 2007

In a recent and unexpected trend, many industries that have been vehemently fighting regulation for decades have suddenly turned around, seeking to protect themselves from lawsuits by getting cover from governmental laws and guidelines.

The movement seems to stem from two influences. First, corporations are seeking to protect themselves from product liability suits that can lead to huge punitive judgments against them. Second, they want to stop the flow of imported products that do not follow voluntary industry guidelines. These imported products appear equal to consumers, since they have no warning labels and the domestic products have no governmental stamp declaring their high standards of production, but are much cheaper.

The movement crosses over many different industries and intersects with many areas of law. For example, we see pushes coming from industry advocates such as the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association of the United States, which seeks to limit workplace exposure to diacetyl, an artificial flavor commonly used in microwave popcorn that has already caused lung damage and even death for hundreds of workers. Meanwhile, the United Fresh Produce Association and the Grocery Manufacturers Association are both seeking new farming rules to fight E. coli outbreaks caused by contaminated produce. The Specialty Vehicle Institute of America is pushing for standards for braking and suspension systems on ATVs, and, most recently in the news, the Toy Industry Association, is seeking pre-market testing to detect hazards like lead paint and choking parts in toys before they go to market.

One of the main goals in industry seeking regulation is the passage of laws with a pre-emption clause that will bar consumers from filing liability claims in court and supersede any tougher state regulations.

This means that the time to seek compensation for your personal injuries related to defective products is now, before these regulations are in place. Contact Personal Injury.com today to find an experienced product liability lawyer near you.

Contact Personal Injury dot com today to find an experienced motor vehicle accident lawyer near you.

Find a Personal Injury Lawyer

Free Claim Evaluation !

Date of Incident:

* Required Field

Practice Areas

No Recovery No Fee at PersonalInjury.com
Personal Injury Lawsuits