Houston Personal Injury Lawyer

BP Engineer Claims there is Evidence to Exonerate him.

Michele Van Almelo — Tue, 15 May 2012 17:34:16 GMT

Kurt Mix, the engineer, who was also the first person charged with a crime in the BP Oil Spill litigation, claims there is evidence that may clear him in the case. The former BP employee, was arrested last month for destroying evidence that could prove BP knowinlgy falsified statements and records of the rate that oil was leaking at the spill.

Lawyers for Mix contend there is evidence that fully exonerates him. Currently protected by an attoney / client priviledge for an unidentified third party, the evidence has not yet been made available to the prosecuters. "The evidence is key to Mix's defense," the engineer's lawyers said in the filing. They will proceed by asking the judge to allow the information to be used if the government moves forward with the case.

This indictment baffling the public, as to why the first criminal charge would be that of a lower-level engineer whose only involvement is that of deleting texts determining flow rate, and leaving everyone in wonder about charges focusing on those involved with causing the disaster. David Uhlmann, an environmental law professor at the University of Michigan and a former Chief of the Justice Department's environmental crimes section, states that if the said documents emerge to exonerate Mix, "it would be a major embarrassment to the government." Going on to say, "Today's developments underscore the need for the government to move forward with charges based on the oil spill and the worker deaths, rather than the obstruction to justice charges that are not at the heart of the matter."

The explosion on the Deepwater Horizon, that leaked millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico and killed eleven men working on the offshore drilling rig, has been the root of thousands of lawsuits. The Settlement is viewable to the public here. If you feel you may have a case to file in the suit you can contact us, we are representing several clients who have been impacted by the disaster.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michele Van Almelo

FDA panel votes to eliminate Vicodin, Percocet

Brandy Miller — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:35:05 GMT

Government experts called for sweeping safety restrictions on the most widely used painkiller, including reducing the maximum dose of Tylenol and eliminating prescription drugs such as Vicodin and Percocet.

The Food and Drug Administration assembled 37 experts to recommend ways to reduce deadly overdoses with acetaminophen, which is the leading cause of liver failure in the U.S. and sends 56,000 people to the emergency room annually. About 200 die each year. But over-the-counter cold medicines — such as Nyquil and Theraflu — that combine other drugs with acetaminophen can stay on the market, the panel said, rejecting a proposal to take them off store shelves.

The FDA is not required to follow the advice of its panels, though it usually does. The agency gave no indication when it would act on the recommendations. In a series of votes, the panel recommended 21-16 to lower the current maximum daily dose of over-the-counter acetaminophen from 4 grams, or eight pills of a medication such as Extra Strength Tylenol. They did not specify how much it should be lowered.

“I think it’s a very useful dose and one that is needed for treating chronic pain, such as people with chronic osteoarthritis,” said Linda Suydam, president of the Consumer Healthcare Products Association.

The experts narrowly ruled that prescription drugs that combine acetaminophen with other painkilling ingredients should be eliminated. They cited FDA data indicating that 60 percent of acetaminophen-related deaths are related to prescription products. But some on the panel opposed a sweeping withdraw of products that are widely used to control severe, chronic pain. Prescription acetaminophen combination drugs were prescribed 200 million times last year, according to the FDA.

“To make this shift without very clear understanding of the implications on the management of pain would be a huge mistake,” said Dr. Robert Kerns of Yale University.

If the drugs stay on the market, they should carry a black box warning, the most serious safety label available, the panel decided.

“If we don’t eliminate the combination products we should at least lower the levels of acetaminophen contained in those medicines,” said Sandra Kewder, FDA’s deputy director for new drugs, summarizing the panel’s vote.

Percocet and similar treatments combine acetaminophen with more powerful pain relieving narcotics, such as oxycodone.

If the combination products are eliminated, the acetaminophen and the other ingredients could be prescribed separately. In effect, patients would take two pills instead of one, and be more aware of the acetaminophen they are consuming.

is marketed by Abbott Laboratories, while Percocet is marketed by Endo Pharmaceuticals. Both painkillers also are available in cheaper generic versions.

“The panel recommending banning Vicodin and Percocet seems a little draconian,” said Les Funtleyder, an analyst for Miller Tabak & Co.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31664450/ns/health-health_care/t/fda-panel-votes-eliminate-vicodin-percocet/#.T5Nnp7Rog8c.email

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brandy Miller

Actos Risk How It Affects The Nations.

Brandy Miller — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:01:27 GMT

In accordance to the 2011 National Diabetes release on January 26, 2011, 25.8 million children and adults in the United States alone are diagnoses with diabetes. Type 2- diabetes is responsible for nearly 95% of diabetes cases in the United States, according to the CDC.

Avandia was restricted in the United States because it was found to cause heart attacks. Actos became the popular drug after Takeda marketed Actos as a safer alternative to Avandia. Then it became the top prescribed drug in the United States, but in 2010, the (FDA) issued a warning stating that Actos patients were reporting that they developed bladder cancer while on the drug.

When a former employee of Takeda Pharmaceuticals’ wanted to report the cancer risk caused by Actos she was terminated.

Dr. Helen Ge, Knew if the Actos cancer risk, but Takeda refused to report it to the FDA. Dr. Ge’s whistleblower lawsuit against Takeda has been filed in the U.S District Court of Massachusetts.

District Court Judge F. Dennis Saylor, who has been presiding over the filed case, issued an order to have the case to be unsealed; releasing to the public the allegation that Takeda’s knew about the cancer risk, and how it encouraged its employees to downplay the risks associated with Actos.

Despite the link between Actos and several forms of cancer, including pancreatic cancer, blood cancer, breast cancer, and gastrointestinal cancers, Dr Ge says she was asked to change her professional opinion about the side effects to down play the cancer risk.

How many times has a pharmaceutical company done this? From a consumer point of view, it makes me not want to take any medicine. We find out daily that in some way, shape or form they keep that knowledge to themselves. I guess risking a few to save many is their goals these days.

If you would like to know more about Actos cases

http://www.reichandbinstock.com/index.php/Dangerous-Drugs/Actos/actos-linked-bladder-cancer-and-hear-risks.html

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brandy Miller

$14.8 Million FEMA Trailer Settlement

Michele Van Almelo — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:17:37 GMT

The 21 companies, that manufactured trailers for Hurricane Katrina and Rita victims, have reached a settlement. They have agreed to pay 14.8 million to resolve the claims. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued these trailers to provid temporary housing for the casualties of the 2005 storms.

The lawsuit claims that the occupants were exposed to hazardous fumes caused from fomaldehyde. Formaldehyde fumes can cause respiratory problems and asthma-like symptoms, such as breathlessness, shortness of breath, wheezing, coughing and/or chest tightness. Repeated exposures may cause bronchitis, with symptoms of cough and shortness of breath. Over 4,000 cases alleging exposure to the toxic chemical have been filed in courts throughout the Gulf Coast leading to a class action suit in 2007. This settlement could benefit an estimated 10,000 - 20,000 residents who lived in these trailers.

The nearly two dozen companies involved are said to pay the claims without any admission of wrong doing. A court ordered Special Master will determine how much each claimant receives. The role of the special master (who is frequently, but not necessarily, an attorney) is to supervise those falling under the order of the court to make sure that the court order is being followed. The next hearing will commence August 1, 2012.

We have asked our clients to call us back in two weeks for more information. Click here to find out more about our firm.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michele Van Almelo

New Documents Produced could help determine BP's Liability

Michele Van Almelo — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 14:35:58 GMT

There are new documents being produced by the Untied States that may give everyone a more clear picture of the Deepwater Horizon spill, and exactly how much oil was spilled into the Gulf of Mexico. BP requested these documents be handed over to the courts in proceedings recently, citing that the United States withheld information dealing with the the amount of oil that spilled.

The documents are said to contain information vital to determining initial calculations of flow rate in the spill. They provide reports that a group of scientists working for the U.S. estimated a rate much lower than the 4.9 million barrels that the government claimed in August, 2010. The relevance of these documents could prove BP less liable under the Clean Water Act, in which the penalties considered depend on the amount of barrels of oil discharged into the ocean.

The United States agreed to turn over the evidence, adding that they would like the process to continue moving at a rapid pace, and that they will assert privilege over certain documents. In the filing the government expresses that they "look forward to working with the court and BP to ensure that BP lives by the rule of its brief". The U.S. also said that they expect BP to be just as open with their own flow rate analysis.

There are about 13,000 documents being re-reviewed by the government expected to be complete by mid-May.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michele Van Almelo

Texas Hospital Won't Hire Obese Workers

Brandy Miller — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:03:13 GMT

I read an article in The Texas Tribune about a doctor of Indian descent who filed a discrimination lawsuit against Citizens Medical Center located in Victoria, Texas.

The doctor who filed the complaint against Citizen Medical Center said they have an unusual hiring policy, which discriminates against job applicants whom are overweight. Further, he said that the hospital does not go by the person’s weight; they go by body mass index. Anyone in the healthcare profession would know that this is not an accurate indication that a person is overweight.

Citizens Medical Center instituted their hiring policy about a year ago. The policy requires potential employee(s) to have a body mass index of less than 35 — meaning if you weigh 210 pounds and are 5-foot-5, you do not qualify for the position. Citizens Medical Center wants their employee’s to be physique fit with a representational image and/or have a specific mental projection of the job of a healthcare professional, which included free from distraction appearance for hospital patients.

During an interview, Dr. David Brown, chief executive for Citizens Medical Center stated that “The majority of our patients are over 65, and they have expectations that cannot be ignored in terms of personal appearance. We have the ability as an employer to characterize our process and to have a policy that says what’s best for our business and for our patients.”

An Employment Attorney says Citizens Medical Center’s hiring policy is not against the law in Texas. This hiring policy is only illegal in a few states. Those states are Michigan and six other U.S. cities — including but not limited to San Francisco and Washington, D.C. — ban discrimination against the overweight in hiring.

“In Texas, employers cannot discriminate against employees because of their race, age or religion,” said DeDe Church, an Austin-based employment lawyer. “Weight is not one of those protected categories.”

This hiring policy is unheard of in most medical circles. Both the Texas Hospital Association and the American Hospital Association said that although they’ve seen more hospitals restricting employment for job candidates who smoke — Baylor Health Care System, for example, no longer hires employees who use tobacco — they had not heard of any hospitals with weight or body mass limits.

Citizens Medical Center’s policy does not indicate that paying for the health insurance of an obese workers is too expensive — the reason some companies have been able to denial employment to workers who use tobacco — or suggest that obese employees are unable to do their jobs. Mostly, it references physical appearance, and puts overweight applicants in the same category as those with visible tattoos or facial piercings.

“This is discrimination plain and simple,” said Peggy Howell, public relations director for the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance. She said a hospital should know that lots of medical conditions lead to obesity or weight gain. “So the field of medicine is no longer an option for people of larger body size? What a waste of talent.”

Dr. Brown, the hospital CEO, said there is more to the story than what is written in Citizens Medical Center’s policy. He said that excessive weight has “all kinds of encumbrances” for the hospital and its health plan, and that there is evidence proving that extremely obese employees are absent from work more often.

In a healthcare profession shouldn’t they pay more attention to the job qualification of their healthcare providers, then mass body weight? A professional football player might have a body mass index of 32, which is technically obese, but only have 7 percent body fat. So how can they judge with something that is not accurate?

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-health-resources/health-reform-and-texas/victoria-hospital-wont-hire-very-obese-workers/

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brandy Miller

High Court to Hear Arguments on the Constitutionality of Health Care Reform

Scott Kappes — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:53:06 GMT

Over the next three days the Supreme Court will be hearing arguments on the constitutionality of the health-care overhaul. They Court is expected to rule on the law’s constitutionality in late June. The White House and its allies believe the law must be upheld to ensure that Congress has the power to make the moves that are necessary to address problems the nation may face, but opponents believe that lawmakers have overstepped their boundaries.

The Court will hear a total of six hours worth of oral arguments over the next three days, and will make their ruling based on these arguments, along with their own interpretation of the Constitution.

The Court’s decision in this matter will have wide-sweeping implications, as it will not only determine how Americans receive medical care in the future, but also set precedent for government regulation over a range of social areas.

In this election year the Court’s decision could play a huge role, as healthcare reform is a hot button topic with staunch supporters and opponents on each side.

Supreme Court decisions of this nature shape the nation for years to come. No matter what side of the issue then are on, Americans should be watching the developments closely as it will undoubtedly have a impact on the future of this great nation.

For more information see this CNN article that lays out the issues and arguments that each side will offer.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Scott Kappes

BP Settlement, High Point for Most, but Headache Up for Some

Scott Kappes — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:05:45 GMT

The news of BP reaching a settlement with a core group of plaintiffs spread quickly through the legal and oil industries. While most plaintiffs are happy with the recent developments it has come as unwelcomed news for some. A recent New York Times article tells the story of one couple for whom the settlement means they will be waiting a little longer for their money.

According to the NYT story Denise and Larry Haralson had settled their claim for losses Mr. Haralson had suffered as construction worker during the economic slump that followed the spill. The couple were finishing up the last few pieces of paperwork and waiting for a $14,600 check when the settlement was reached early this month.

The couple planned to use the funds to get away from the sluggish market of Mississippi and relocate to North Dakota where the construction business is booming, but now it looks like they will not getting the money as soon as they expected.

Under the guidelines of the settlement a new claims center will replace the Gulf Coast Claims Facility that has paid out $6 billion in claims thus far and was about to pay out the Haralson’s claim. Plaintiff’s attorneys believe that the new court supervised claims center will result in higher payouts for most plaintiffs, but for the Haralson’s this means more waiting.

Once the center gets up and running the Haralson’s will receive 60 percent of the original offer and the remaining 40 percent will be judged under new rules. Under the new rules no one will have to accept less than their original offer but many may receive higher payouts. This is little consolation to the Haralson’s who were ready to take their offer and move on, but now it looks like they will be waiting at least a little longer.

The Haralson’s and hundreds of others feel like they have been victimized twice, first by the spill and then by the daunting legal process.

The oil spill attorneys at Reich & Binstock are representing hundreds of plaintiff’s who suffered damages as a result of the spill. Even if you have already settled your claim you may be entitled to additional damages under the new rules outlined in the settlement. Contact us today for a free consultation with one of our BP oil spill attorneys.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Scott Kappes

UK Rolling out Camera’s to Prevent Uninsured Vehicles from Filling Up, Should we be Doing the Same?

Scott Kappes — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 15:05:50 GMT

We all know that uninsured drivers are huge problem and increase insurance costs for the millions of law abiding Americans who do pay for insurance, but what are we doing to solve the problem? Sure drivers can be ticketed, fined, and even have their vehicle impounded in some states, but is there a better solution available? According to officials in the UK there is, and it will likely be rolling out soon.

The UK is planning to start rolling out CCTV devices that would prevent cars without insurance and valid registration from filling up with gas. While I am not completely sure how I feel about this idea, but I can certainly see the value of such a system in curbing the number of uninsured motorists.

The technology is rather simple and would capture a vehicle’s license plate and cross reference it with insurance and registration databases. The process would only take a few seconds and after successful verification the pump would engage, but for those who are uninsured “No gas for you!”

In the U.S. about one in every seven motorists are uninsured. This number dwarfs the UK statistics where only an estimated 4% of drivers are uninsured. Mississippi tops the charts with 28% of drivers being uninsured, with Maine coming in a close second. New Mexico leads the rest of the pack at 26% along with Florida, Tennessee, and Oklahoma all weighing in at 24%. See a USA Today story from last year here.

Each year thousands are injured in accidents where an uninsured motorist is at fault. Some of these claims end up costing insurers tens of thousands of dollars and those expenses are passed on to us through increased premiums.

The National Association of Insurance Commissions (NAIC) estimates that uninsured drivers cost $10.8billion dollars, based on 2007 data. You can see how much it costs you in the “uninsured motorist coverage” section of your premium notice. It might surprise you.

While I am not completely convinced that this type of intrusion is the best way to address the situation, something must be done. The fact is that current laws in most states have proven to be ineffective at reducing the number of uninsured drivers. Some drivers legitimately cannot afford insurance but my guess is that far more make a conscious decision to be uninsured and don’t care that the rest of are paying heavily for it.

What do you think? Would a similar plan be a good idea for the U.S. to adopt?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Scott Kappes

Metal-on-Metal Hip Debacle Highlights Need for U.S. Medical Device Tracking System

Scott Kappes — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 17:30:03 GMT

Over the past several years metal-on-metal hip implants have gone from an innovative and promising new prosthetic device to a colossal failure. Other countries like England and Australia have national registry systems that track medical devices and prosthetics allowing for better post operation tracking and adverse event reporting, the U.S. has no such system.

The results of a recent study that looked at total hip replacements in the UK from 2003 to 2011 shows that metal-on-metal hip replacement systems are far more likely to require revision surgery within the first five years than other options. Read the MedPage Today write up here.

The study looked at data from the National Joint Registry of England and Whales. The data included more than 402,000 total hip replacements over the eight year period including 31,171 that involved metal-on-metal implants.

The data clearly shows that patients who received metal-on-metal implants were almost twice as likely to experience issues requiring revision within five years than those who received ceramic on ceramic-on-ceramic implants (6.2% vs 3.3% respectively). Even fewer serious problems occurred when metal-on-polyethylene devices were used, with only 1.8% requiring revision surgery within five years.

The data also showed that younger women appear to be at the greatest risk for serious problems requiring subsequent revision surgery. Larger head diameters have also shown a greater propensity for problems than those with smaller diameters. It is still unclear why this is, but some believe that larger heads may increase torque on the stem which can lead to loosening.

The study provides unequivocal evidence that metal-on-metal hip implants are associated with higher failure rates than other types of prostheses. In light of the evidence researchers wrote “we therefore recommend that metal-on-metal bearing surfaces are not used in stemmed total hip replacements,” and also suggested that those who have had such devices implanted undergo annual clinical and radiographic exams.

The metal-on-metal hip implant debacle has caused significant damages to patients throughout the world, and without tracking data from the UK and Australia, many more would have suffered. It is glaringly obvious that U.S. is in dire need of creating as similar tracking system for medical devices. Hopefully this fiasco will spur regulators to start making efforts to establish our own system.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Scott Kappes