Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
Corporate Countersuit Fails - Friday, September 28, 2007
In a toxic tort suit stemming from pollution in a small Nevada town that may be responsible for a leukemia cluster that has sickened 17 children and killed three, Kennametal Inc. sought to protect itself against wrongful death charges by bringing a countersuit against the US Navy.
Kennametal is one of several defendants in the case, which also include Kinder-Morgan Energy Partners, which owns a jet fuel pipeline that runs through the town, and several other firms related to the pipeline, including contractors and right-of-way owners.
Kinder-Morgan, whose slogan "A Different Kind of Energy Company" is reminiscent of Enron in its heyday, has, of course, denied that the jet fuel pipeline is at all related to the leukemia cluster. Their argument is supported by Federal Investigators, who said there are no chemicals or fuels in the drinking water. According to the federal Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), "The Fallon pipeline does not pose a current or future public health hazard. Information regarding the pipeline was evaluated from 1970 to the present. Based on the information provided, the pipeline did not pose a public health hazard during that time period." However, some note that the information on the pipeline had not been independently verified by the agency, but relied on information from Kinder-Morgan, the Navy, and a superficial survey by the state.
The United States Geologic Survey (USGS) also reported that the area's wells were free from solvents, pesticides, or jet fuel. The wells were high in naturally-occurring arsenic and radiation, although these impurities have been present since at least a 1989 survey, and, officials said, were unlikely to be the cause of the sudden cancer cluster.
Local residents charged that the reports constituted a "whitewash," saying that if the ATSDR "really wanted the truth, they'd look for it."
The pipeline carries JP-8 jet fuel, which has been linked to DNA damage--a common precursor to cancers--immuno-suppression, and damage to the lung, kidney, and liver.
Most of the families of leukemia victims live within one-third mile of the pipeline.
Sierra Vista, an Arizona town which also suffered a similar spike in childhood leukemia in 2002 shares one important feature with Fallon: it also has a military airfield that uses JP-8 fuel.
On the other hand, high levels of tungsten were found in Fallon residents and in tree-ring samples taken from Sierra Vista trees and those of a Sacramento County neighborhood with a suspected cancer cluster.
Kennametal's suit against the Navy was dismissed by lawyers for the children's families as a "sham" designed to get the corporation out of state court, where it has suffered negative rulings in the past. US District Judge Brian Sandoval agreed, returning the case to state courts and dismissing the suit against the Navy.
While it is true that Kennametal's suit against the Navy was probably designed as a defense mechanism, it does cause one to wonder why the Navy is not named as a defendant, since it must be held partially responsible if Kinder-Morgan is found culpable. Further, it is more likely that the Navy is responsible, since Navy jets regularly jettison fuel. Navy lawyers have argued that the government is immune from such suits, but is it and should it be? The only way to find out is to test the limits of the law by bringing suit. If you or someone you love has suffered a toxic tort and you want to find those responsible and punish their actions, please contact PersonalInjury.com today to get in touch with a lawyer with the skill and tenacity to pursue your case to its ultimate conclusion.
Another Insurance Practice Shot Down in Court - Thursday, September 27, 2007
The Colorado Court of Appeals put a stop to another money-making tactic by State Farm Mutual Insurance Company. It reversed a trial-court ruling that said the insurance behemoth could unilaterally reduce payments to patients and doctors based on information in its computer database.
In an effort to keep its profits growing, State Farm began processing its payments through Sloans Lake Auto Injury Management, a medical database that claims to compare physician charges against "same or like services" in a geographic region. The problem is: is there any such thing as "same or like services" when dealing with an individual involved in an accident completely unlike any other accident?
This case turned on exactly this issue. A woman was involved in an auto accident in 2001, then was treated by the only orthopedic surgeon in the area. She dutifully submitted the legitimate claim to her insurance company, expecting it to be paid, but, instead, the insurance company decided the services were not worth what she had been charged. In other words, they didn't want to pay that much for her care because their database said the doctor should charge less.
However, lawyers for doctor and patient argued that the database had made a mistake because it had not considered that the doctor was the only one capable of performing the procedure, and that complications made his charges reasonable.
Judges ruled the database was incapable of accurately assessing the "reasonableness" of a doctor's charges, a victory for doctors and patients. Doctors, because it means they will not have to worry that their expert judgment will be overruled by an ignorant database. Patients because it ensures that doctors will not be afraid of taking on insurance cases for fear of being lowballed.
This database represents another example of insurance companies trying to improve their profits at the expense of policy holders. I guarantee they never follow-up if the database shows they should have been charged more. This case also shows how individual lawsuits can lead to the common good. If you or a loved one has suffered unfair treatment at the hands of an insurance company devoted to profit, contact PersonalInjury.com today to fight back.
State Seeks to Punish Bad-Faith Insurance Practices - Wednesday, September 26, 2007
In Washington, this year's election has been fired up by Referendum 67, a law that would allow consumers to collect triple damages if their insurer unreasonably denies a claim or violates rules against unfair practices.
Supporters say the law gives consumers the power they need to punish bad practices that are becoming ever-more-common in the insurance industry, while opponents claim it will lead to even more unfounded lawsuits, ultimately leading to a rise in insurance rates that would hurt consumers.
We have already talked about the insurance industry's recent profit-taking at the expense of policy-holders.
In the campaign to garner votes on R-67, the industry is trying to use age-old stereotypes of lawyers to conceal its own greed by painting lawyers as dishonest practitioners just seeking a profit.
Partly, the controversy has broken on party lines as Republicans loyal to the industry and Democrats supported by trial lawyers split over the law last year. Now, as the industry is seeking to recall the law, the bitter blood remains. Insurance companies have donated $8 million dollars to try and squash the law, $8 million dollars they hope to make back in double or triple by collecting premiums and denying claims.
Spokeswoman for the organization Approve 67 put the issue in perspective: "This is about bad faith. Nobody should have to hire a lawyer to settle a legitimate claim, period. If they treated people fairly, trial lawyers would be out of a job."
And it's clear that she's right. If all legitimate claims were settled fairly, juries would be more skeptical of suits in court.
No matter how you feel about lawyers, they at least make their living getting money for people suffering from the greed of pharmaceutical companies, medical malpractice, or, in this case, the calculated spurns of insurance companies. If you find yourself fighting an uphill battle to get compensation in any of these cases, contact PersonalInjury.com today to get in touch with a lawyer who can put you on a level field with your adversary.
Injured Part-Time Firefighter Files Suit over Deadly Pizza Explosion - Tuesday, September 25, 2007
A part-time firefighter injured in a January 30th explosion at a Little General Store/ Godfather's Pizza has filed a $20 million-dollar suit against the store owner and seven other defendants, some of whom are unnamed. The explosion, which occurred at around 11 am in the town of Ghent, West Virginia, killed four people and injured five, including the firefighter, who has filed the fourth lawsuit related to the explosion.
The lawsuit claims that the store and Godfather's pizza were negligent for not providing a safe workplace and for not properly maintaining the propane tank. The lawsuit also accuses propane suppliers of being careless when transferring propane from one tank to another, and for inadequately training their employees.
In his suit, the firefighter claims he suffered severe and disabling injuries, with medical bills already exceeding $300,000, along with severe physical and emotional pain and suffering.
The defendants in the case are the store and pizza chains, BP America, Appalachian Heating, Thompson Gas Propane Partners, and Ferrell gas, along with unnamed landowners and distributors of propane and manufacturers of allegedly defective propane equipment.
None of the defendants have yet commented on the case.
This case shows how small negligences can combine to create a fireball of damages, and in a case such as this it is important that all parties be brought to bear their share of responsibility. In order to bring all these parties to light, it is necessary to employ a skilled injury attorney. If you or a loved one has suffered an injury but cannot put your finger on one or all of the responsible parties, contact PersonalInjury.com today to get in touch with a skilled lawyer who can help you discover the nuances of the case.
Breast Cancer Trial Moves to Second Week - Monday, September 24, 2007
A suit involving three women against pharmaceutical giant Wyeth over the relationship between Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) drugs Premarin and Prempro and the women's breast cancers has entered its second week of testimony.
The women's lawyers claim that Wyeth received "red flags" about the safety of the drugs as early as 1975, but that the company downplayed some results and simply didn't seek answers to important safety questions.
Wyeth lawyers claim that they conducted sufficient studies and that they worked with the US Food and Drug Administration to write adequate (i.e. litigation-resistant) warning labels for the drugs.
But a former sales representative for the company called to the stand last week told that he was coached to downplay studies that showed a link between Prempro and breast cancer. "That's how we were trained, to offset any bad publicity, we would redirect and emphasize the benefits of the product," the rep said.
This strategy continued in court, where Wyeth lawyers said there was no evidence that their drug had caused these specific women's cancers, despite the National Institutes of Health's Women's Health Initiative studies that show the drugs increase risks of breast cancer by at least 50%. Instead, the lawyers pointed to evidence that the women had been relieved of their night sweats, and probably benefited from some protection against osteoporosis.
The women's doctors are expected to testify this week, probably partially to exempt themselves from charges of malpractice by showing that they were also deceived by Wyeth's dishonest practices.
Pharmaceutical corporations and their lawyers will continue these tactics as long as they can get away with them. If you believe you are suffering undue, severe, and unanticipated, side effects from a prescription or non-prescription drug, contact a drug side effects lawyer today at PersonalInjury.com. Others may also be suffering, awaiting you to bring the truth to light.
Contact our Personal Injury Lawyers and Attorneys today to find an experienced motor vehicle accident lawyer near you.
