Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
VP's ICD unreliable? - Friday, November 30, 2007
On November 26, vice president Dick Cheney's long-worrisome heart received more treatment. This time, the veep's heart was shocked to correct arrhythmia. Mr. Cheney's atrial fibrillation was detected during an examination for a lingering cough from a cold. Atrial fibrillation is the most common type of arrhythmia (irregular heartbeat), suffered by almost 3 million Americans. It is not considered to be life-threatening, and often the heart returns to its normal rhythm without treatment.
It is rather telling that, although Dick Cheney received an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) on June 30, 2001, and had the power supply changed in late July, he seems now to be getting externally-applied shock treatments to keep his heart in rhythm. Does this mean that the VP's ICD is not working? Or has it been disconnected over fears that defective leads may cause him to suffer painfully debilitating shocks at an inopportune time? At this point, information is not readily available.
ICD's were once considered the peak of preventive medical technology. The fact that they were used to protect the life of our vice president was widely touted. Now, however, it seems that product defects have reduced that confidence dramatically. If you or someone you love has become a victim of this broken promise of modern medicine, contact PersonalInjury.com today to get in touch with a local lawyer who will make sure your heart is not broken as well.
Workers Still Waiting on Flats Verdict - Thursday, November 29, 2007
Over 15 years after production stopped at the Rocky Flats Plant, workers from the plant who have suffered radiation-related cancers are still waiting for compensation for their personal injuries. Although federal scientists have acknowledged that workers at 19 buildings at the site were exposed to dangerous neutron radiation, they have refused to grant fast-track status to the workers as a class, forcing each one to present individual evidence that their particular cancer is related to their work environment, a kind of personal toxic tort. The process of individual application often takes two years or more, and one in ten of them will not survive it.
Because the claimants worked on plutonium bomb triggers, they are not eligible to sue the government under the FELA law, and, instead, have to follow governmental procedures set forth by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Under these guidelines, workers are supposed to prove a link between their specific illness and their toxic exposure, unless records are missing or faulty, in which case the government can put them on a fast-track for approval. However, NIOSH scientists claim they can make valid individual estimates for all workers employed at the site after 1970, forcing them to make individual applications. And, despite the fact that the law demands workers' claims be resolved in a "timely and efficient" manner, workers have waited over two and a half years for approval.
All the workers have cancer, and all of them worked in buildings where they were exposed to high levels of neutron radiation, so it seems irrational to demand that the workers present individual evidence of contamination. If their petitions are successful, the workers are not looking at multi-million-dollar settlements, either. If successful, each worker will receive $150,000 and medical expenses.
This is another case where the government uses its legal immunity to abuse workers' rights, and, unfortunately, the only remedy seems to be through congressional action. Write your senator or representative to get a revision of the compensation guidelines.
If you have suffered injury as a result of contamination in a private workplace, or a federal one covered under FELA, a personal injury lawyer can help. Contact PersonalInjury.com today to get in touch with one in your area.
Labels: federal government, radiation, toxic tort, workers compensation
Safety Optional on Ford Expedition - Monday, November 26, 2007
On November 15, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a product liability wrongful death suit judgment in favor of Ford Motor Company. The lawsuit charged that the company's Expedition is a defective automobile because it has a "large and unreasonably dangerous blind spot immediately behind the vehicle," and that a reverse sensing system should be mandatory safety equipment to protect children and others walking behind the vehicle.
The case stems from the summer 2003 death of a 3-year-old boy who was walking through a parking lot. The boy was walking through the parking lot by himself as his father paid for the sno-cones and his mother waited in the car. The driver of the Expedition checked the vehicle's rear- and side-view mirrors, but did not see the boy and backed over him.
In response to the charges that its vehicle was unsafe, Ford argued that the Expedition was in full compliance with federal safety standards. They also argued that an optional reverse sensing system existed and was known to the driver, but had not been purchased. Therefore, Ford said, it could not be held responsible for the death of the young boy.
Does this then mean that all purchasers of a vehicle should be expected to purchase optional equipment to make their automobile safe? This certainly seems a profitable conclusion to the case for Ford Motor Company. Not only do they not have to pay for their design errors in the case of this vehicle, but they can expect to sell more options to those people who feel a responsibility to protect children and other pedestrians from wrongful death around their vehicles. Do not let Ford or other automobile manufacturers profit from this state of affairs. Rather than purchasing the safety equipment separately, refuse to buy a vehicle that is not equipped with adequate safety equipment.
If you or someone you love has been hurt or injured in a motor vehicle accident, do not be satisfied if the manufacturer claims the vehicle is adequately designed, if you know it is not. Contact PersonalInjury.com today to get in touch with a local product liability lawyer who can make the manufacturer take responsibility for their mistakes.
Labels: auto accident, defective product, wrongful death
Contact our Personal Injury Lawyers and Attorneys today to find an experienced motor vehicle accident lawyer near you.
