Personal Injury & Wrongful Death

Many Bowflex exercise machines are found in homes and gyms throughout Georgia. Now, Nautilus Inc, the manufacturer is recalling 78,000 of its Bowflex Ultimate 2 Home Gyms.

There are reports that the seat rails can unlatch causing potentially serious injury. At least 18 people have been injured so far, with some customers suffering cuts to their heads and shoulders; some requiring stitches.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission said the gym’s horizontal seat rail, if not manually latched for storage, can fall on a user or bystander, causing the injuries.

Georgia residents and countless others across the nation received good news today. In a surprise decision handed down today the United States Supreme Court held that drug manufacturers who fail to warn of known dangers are not immune from liability due to the federal preemption doctrine.
In the case of Wyeth v. Levine , the Supreme Court was confronted with a situation in which drug manufacturer Wyeth had been sued by Levine. Wyeth manufacturers the anti-nausea drug Phenergan. Levine had been injected with Phenergan by a clinician using the IV-push method whereby the drug is injected directly into a vein. However, the drug entered an artery and doctors were forced to amputate her arm below the elbow.
Levine sued in the state courts of Vermont alleging among other things, that Wyeth knew of the increased risks of using the drug by the IV-push method, but failed to provide adequate warnings to healthcare practitioners. A Vermont jury determined that Wyeth was liable under state failure to warn claims and awarded damages against Wyeth.
Wyeth appealed arguing that prior approval of the label for Phenergan by the FDA preempted all state law actions, in effect granting them immunity from suit.
The Supreme Court squarely rejected this argument, finding that Wyeth’s argument would shift the burden of providing adequate warnings to the FDA when the duty to warn rests directly upon the manufacturer.
This is a major victory for consumers across the United States.

Continue reading

The United States Department of Justice has charged the drug maker Forest Laboratories with defrauding the government of millions of dollars by illegally marketing the popular antidepressants Celexa and Lexapro for unapproved uses in children and teenagers.

In a civil complaint filed by the United States attorney’s office in Boston, federal prosecutors alleged that former top executives at Forest concealed for several years a clinical study that showed that the drugs were not effective in children and might even pose risks to them, including suicides. The drugs are currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration only for adults.

Doctors can legally prescribe drugs to patients, including children, for whom those drugs are not approved by the FDA, but it is illegal for companies to actively promote such uses

We have posted entries before about traumatic amputations and just how profound such injuries can be on the victims of the same. Unfortunately, we have seen these injuries too often in the context of motorcycle accidents. Because there is so little protection to the human body, if an accident is bad enough, the unfortunate victim riding on the motorcycle can lose a leg, an arm, a foot or a hand. In addition to traumatic amputations, traumatic brain injuries are also a distinct possibility in such cases. We have seen many such cases even when the motorcycle rider (or passenger) was wearing a helmet. If the blow is hard enough and the victim is thrown from his motorcycle and lands on the pavement, even with a good helmet, one can sustain either a closed head injury or a fractured skull. We have also handled cases where a broken neck resulted in death and/or paralysis. Again, when a motorcycle rider is involved in a serious collision, it is almost to be expected that there will be serious injuries involved.
The most dangerous aspect of riding a motorcycle is not the driver of the motorcycle but the third party driver who does not see the motorcycle and pulls out in front of it. Drivers are accustomed to seeing other cars and for whatever reason, many times pull out in front of motorcycles and fail to yield right-of-way to them. This can cause a serious collision between the motorcycle and vehicle resulting in a serious injury to the motorcycle rider. Traumatic amputations, traumatic brain injuries and associated orthopaedic injuries are what we typically see, which obviously indicates that motorcycle riders must be extremely cautious at all times when operating their bikes. This is particularly true in an urban area such as Atlanta where there are so many vehicles on the road. As accidents can happen in a split second and as such accidents are always serious for the motorcycle rider, wearing a helmet is absolutely mandatory from a safety standpoint but, of course, a helmet provides little protection from injuries to one’s limbs.
If you or a loved one are involved in a serious accident while riding a motorcycle, you should consult with counsel who has experience handling such cases. Typically the injuries are serious and thus qualified and experienced counsel is needed to assess the physical, emotional and vocational needs that arise from these types of cases. In addition, if liability is contested, an accident reconstruction expert may be needed to evaluate the claim. If the injuries are likely to be permanent, a Life Care expert may be necessary if something as serious as paralysis or traumatic brain injury or amputation is involved. In short, these are serious cases that involve extremely serious matters which require that qualified and competent counsel with experience in such cases be retained if the innocent victim’s interests are to be properly protected.

Georgia injury lawyers have seen products liability cases involving food poisoning for years; however, none like the one involving Peanut Corp. Of America (PCA). It appears that the problems of PCA extend well beyond their Georgia processing facility. Federal officials said Tuesday that tests have confirmed that peanut butter made from peanuts processed at a Texas plant contains the same strain of salmonella blamed for the poisoning hundreds in a national outbreak. Both the Texas plant and the Georgia plant were operated by PCA, which filed for bankruptcy amid fallout from the outbreak that had sickened more than 600 and may have contributed to nine deaths. Reports show that, federal inspectors are now taking a closer look at PCA’s plant in Virginia. There is also a criminal investigation underway by federal authorities to determine whether PCA knowingly shipped tainted food.
If it can be proven that the company knowingly shipped tainted product, then victims may not only be able to seek compensatory damages for injuries and wrongful death but may also be entitled to an award of punitive damages. If you or a loved one has been injured as a result of consuming adulterated or contaminated peanut butter products, call the experienced Georgia products liability lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP at (800) 228-9159.

The motorcycle accident lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP have represented many motorcycle riders over the years who have been seriously injured in collisions involving automobiles. Some result in brain injuries and others involve amputation of limbs. Just in the last couple of weeks ago we settled a case where our client sustained very serious injuries to his leg and foot when his motorcycle was struck in an intersection by a medical doctor who ran a red light in her SUV. As a result of the injuries he sustained, doctors had to amputate several toes and part of his foot. In this case and most others, the motorcycle rider was obeying the law and did nothing to cause or contribute to the collision.
As an example, we read an article yesterday about a motorcycle accident. A 22-year-old former Georgia resident who was traveling southbound on U.S. 1 near St. Augustine, Florida when a car pulled out onto the highway in front of him. Although he tried to avoid the car, he collided with its left rear fender and had to be flown to a hospital in Jacksonville where he was in critical condition. Unfortunately, he was not wearing a helmet or jacket.
If you or a loved one are involved in a serious accident while riding a motorcycle, you should consult with counsel who has experience handling such cases. The Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP have years of experience handling these cases. Call us for a free consultation at (800) 228-9159.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has prohibited Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., India’s largest drug manufacturer, from introducing new generic drugs from one of its factories after it falsified data about products’ shelf life.

Yesterday, the FDA announced that a facility owned by Ranbaxy Laboratories falsified data and test results in approved and pending drug applications. The facility, Paonta Sahib, has been under an FDA Import Alert since September 2008.

The FDA announced that it was continuing to investigate this matter to ensure the safety and efficacy of marketed drugs associated with Ranbaxy’s Paonta Sahib site. To date, the FDA has no evidence that these drugs do not meet their quality specifications and has not identified any health risks associated with currently marketed Ranbaxy products.

As Georgia injury lawyers we see many wrongful death cases from motorcycle accidents. Most motorcycle accidents seem to involve young drivers; however, that is not always the case. In the last two weeks, a Georgia man was killed in a single-vehicle motorcycle accident when the driver, age 57, lost control of his 2009 Revtech EX Wide motorcycle in a curve and laid the bike down on its left side. According to the Georgia State Patrol’s investigation, the motorcycle left a 113 foot-long gouge in the pavement before leaving the roadway on the right shoulder. It then overturned for 51 feet before coming to rest. The rider was ejected from the motorcycle, thrown 61 feet and was pronounced dead a local hospital.

Stryker, a leading maker of medical devices is reportedly the subject of a Justice Department investigation into Stryker’s marketing of human bone growth products. The investigation has already resulted in guilty pleas by former company sales representatives. Two former sales representatives pleaded guilty to charges that they had promoted off-label use of the products even though they knew that such use had earlier caused problems in some patients.

The investigation is reported to involve several issues. These include whether Stryker abused a federal exemption that authorized it to sell only limited quantities of its bone growth products for “humanitarian” reasons. The products are used by surgeons to aid the growth of bones that fail to heal properly.

One Stryker product, called OP-1, is a protein that promotes bone growth. The other product called OP-1 putty, is a moldable compound that includes the protein. Neither has been formally approved by the Food and Drug Administration for widespread medical use. In 2001, the F.D.A. approved limited use of OP-1 in patients whose broken shin or thigh bones had failed to heal properly. In 2004, the F.D.A. allowed limited use of OP-1 putty in patients who had failed spinal fusion procedures.

It was announced last week that The Peanut Corporation of America has decided to file for bankruptcy. Under bankruptcy law, one may not sue a company that has filed for bankruptcy protection. Accordingly, with respect to the wrongful death actions and serious injury claims that are likely to be brought as a result of the widely reported salmonella contamination at the Company’s Blakely, Georgia plant, the corporation has cleverly maneuvered into bankruptcy court to prevent the filing of these lawsuits. This will buy the corporation some time. Additionally, and more troubling from a victim’s standpoint, is a separate lawsuit filed by the liability insurance company for The Peanut Corporation of America (The Hartford Casualty Company) in which the insurance company is seeking to be relieved of any obligation to provide coverage for the acts and omissions at issue allegedly because the insured company committed criminal acts thereby allegedly voiding the insurance coverage which provided protection for negligent acts.
The described legal maneuvering should be very concerning for all victims and their families. On the one hand we have an insurance company (The Hartford) that is seeking to be relieved of any obligation to provide coverage for the acts and omissions of The Peanut Corporation of America. On the other hand, The Peanut Corporation of America has filed bankruptcy seeking to prevent individuals with valid claims from filing lawsuits against it. What this means is that the individual is going to have to file claims in bankruptcy Court as “unsecured creditors” with no judgments and that they may be in a long line of creditors with no ability to collect for their damages. Obviously, this makes the insurance company’s Petition for Declaratory Judgment even more important from the victims’ standpoint.
It is not yet clear whether the insurance company for The Peanut Company of America will be successful in its attempts to have a court declare that it has no obligation to provide coverage for the Salmonella contamination. The argument is that the client was insured for negligent acts, not for criminal acts, and since the client allegedly sent out contaminated peanuts with full knowledge of the contamination that this criminal act voided the coverage. Obviously, this will depend upon an analysis of the language in the policy and the facts involved. Nonetheless, both the bankruptcy filing and the separate Declaratory Judgment action filed by the insurance company are two troubling developments for innocent victims of the salmonella outbreak. The legal maneuvering by both the Corporation and its insurance company is just that. Legal maneuvering designed to protect their legal interests, not the rights of innocent victims. All such victims should associate legal council to protect their interests as neither the Corporation or its insurer will act to do so.