Personal Injury & Wrongful Death

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.

Many Georgia consumers have been impacted by a recent Supreme Court ruling granting immunity from lawsuits to medical device makers for products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Our Atlanta Georgia lawyers have previously written about this decision.
Since that ruling judges in Georgia and across the United States have used it as a basis to dismiss cases against a wide range of manufacturers, including Medtronic. The most recent dismissal was this past Tuesday, by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
The New York Times reports that on the same day last month that a federal judge in Minnesota dismissed hundreds of lawsuits against the maker of a faulty heart device, a man entered a nearby hospital to have one of the flawed products surgically removed. The risky surgeryhad a tragic result. As doctors removed the device, a vessel was punctured, causing extensive bleeding. The 33-year-old patient died two days later, leaving behind a wife and two young sons.
His widow and children are left without a remedy due to the Supreme Court decision. This is especially appalling in light of the fact that numerous reports show the FDA has not been adequately testing these products before granting approval.
But now, some members of Congress want to give potential plaintiffs a chance for legal recourse. Two House Democrats, Henry A. Waxman of California, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Frank Pallone Jr. of New Jersey, the head of its health subcommittee, plan to reintroduce soon legislation that would effectively nullify the Supreme Court decision. A similar Senate bill is expected to be reintroduced.
Not surprisingly, medical device manufactures and some conservative legal groups have begun to gear up campaigns to oppose the legislation.
This situation was perhaps best summed up by David C. Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center. He was quoted as follows: “The F.D.A. has shown itself incapable of keeping dangerous products off the market, and now the Supreme Court has said patients can’t sue companies for redress.”

Continue reading

The Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP have handled many products liability cases involving many different defective and dangerous products, including a defective and dangerous deer stand. When these products fail, catastrophic injury or death often results. This week I read about a recent case in which a jury returned a $157M (million) dollar verdict in a wrongful death case against three companies, L & L Enterprises in Hattiesburg, Miss., Ol’ Man Tree Stands in Jay, Florida, and TSR Inc. in Pace, Florida, who were involved in the manufacture and sales of a deer stand.
If you or a loved one have been seriously injured as a result of a defective product, the trial lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP stand ready to represent your interest and seek justice for you. Call us at (800) 228-9159 for a free consultation.

Every year the Georgia injury attorneys at Finch McCranie, LLP get calls about people being seriously injured on All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs), especially children. Just last year we had a wrongful death case involving a minor and an ATV. In that case, we represented the family of a young girl who was thrown off of the back of an ATV while riding as a passenger, at night and with no helmet! As spring approaches, a quick warning about the dangers of ATVs is in order. When used appropriately and with proper safety precautions, ATVs can be an enjoyable form of recreation. However, when used inappropriately, these vehicles pose a great risk for catastrophic injury, including TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury). Consumer critics argue more limitations must be placed on ATV use. Backing then are some staggering numbers. For instance, children under the age of 16 account for two-thirds (2/3) of ATV-related deaths and injuries. Some states have passed regulations prohibiting young children from riding and requiring riders to wear helmets. One state (North Carolina) now requires safety training for all ATV riders. Unfortunately Georgia has no age restrictions and no helmet law. Regardless of what the lawmakers say, parents must insure their children are safely using ATVs, in order to avoid serious injuries or death. In our recent case, neither the driver of the ATV or the passenger were being properly supervised by adults. As a result of negligent supervision, she died. If you or a loved one have been injured on an ATV either as a result of a product defect of the ATV or because of the negligence of someone operating one, call the experienced lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP at (800) 228-9159.

We have blogged before about the need for consumers to protect their interests when trying to retain an attorney. Truck accident cases present many obstacles for attorneys who do not regularly practice in the area. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations oftentimes control this type of case and yet many attorneys are not familiar with the requirements imposed by federal law. Additionally, the technology available on trucks that can be downloaded by experts with proper computer software may present different evidentiary and investigative challenges for the attorney who has never confronted similar issues. Moreover, due to the nature of the case, the injuries likely to be involved in any trucking case are usually serious, many times involving brain injury, amputation, paralysis or death. Thus, because the cases are more serious by nature, they demand a higher skill set for the attorney.
Any consumer looking to hire a Georgia trucking accident lawyer should look at their qualifications and should ask the attorney how many cases they have worked on involving interstate trucks collisions. The consumer should ask many questions about whether the lawyer is a member of any professional associations involving other truck accident attorneys, whether they have tried cases before juries in federal or state courts involving serious truck accidents, whether they have been asked to speak as lecturers on the subject, whether they have published articles on the subject and approximately how many such cases they have handled over the years which have resulted in settlements and/or jury verdicts. In short, these are the types of questions that a potential client should ask of their attorney in most any case but the questions become more important when dealing with a serious injury which is likely to be involved in a serious motor vehicle accident involving a tractor-trailer or a large truck.
The attorneys at Finch McCranie have considerable experience dealing with interstate trucking accidents and the serious injuries and wrongful deaths that regrettably flow from these collisions. Our attorneys have lectured on this subject, have published on this subject and have presented cases to juries in both state and federal court on behalf of clients injured by the negligence of trucking companies. These are the qualifications one should seek when hiring an attorney and because our attorneys are qualified to handle such cases, any client that comes to this firm can be comfortable in the knowledge that their attorneys have the skill set needed to deal with the nuances of federal and state law as it pertains to trucking litigation.

Georgia law relating to uninsured automobile insurance has changed effective January 1, 2009. We have previously written about the importance of uninsured/underinsured (UM) coverage. Essentially this is coverage which protects you and your family if you are injured in a wreck caused by a person with no or low limits of insurance. Unfortunately there are many of these drivers on the roads in Georgia.

Under the new law the major changes relate to the ability to purchase increased coverage. This is best understood by way of example. For purposes of this explanation we will assume you are involved in an accident with an at-fault driver with the minimum limits of $25,000.00. Under the new available coverage assume you have UM coverage of $100,00.00. Then the available coverage to you will be $125,000.00. This is the sum of the at-faults drivers $25,000.00 and your $100,000.00.

Under the old law, the amount of the at-fault driver’s coverage is deducted from your coverage. In the example above, the available coverage to you would from your UM policy would be $75,000.00. This plus the at-fault driver’s $25,000.00 would make $100,000.00 available.

Our Atlanta, Georgia lawyers see health insurance companies deny valid claims on a daily basis, depriving policyholders of necessary medical care to which they are entitled. Now, a California health insurer has been caught red handed. The insurer, Health Net, has agreed to pay as much as $14 million to settle a pair of lawsuits brought on behalf of 800 former policyholders whose coverage was dropped after they submitted substantial medical bills.
On February 11, the court granted preliminary to a settlement in which individuals whose health insurance policies were canceled since 2004 are eligible for payments of up to $218,000. The average payment is expected to be $7,836.
The settlement would resolve a class-action lawsuit filed by private attorneys and by Los Angeles City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo.
In addition to the payments to customers, it requires Health Net to pay a fine of $2 million to the city attorney and to contribute $500,000 to charities.
The settlement comes after a two-year crackdown by California regulators on the widespread and controversial practice known as rescission. Rescinding an insurance policy is a serious matter. It means that an insurer is accusing the policyholder of withholding or concealing vital information.
A policy rescission means that the consumers coverage is completely gone. Insurance companies can unilaterally cancel a health insurance policy, after issuance if the insurer later finds omission on the application. In many cases, the rescission is for a valid reason, such as failure to mention a history of severe cardiovascular problems. But many insurers collect premiums and when a large claim is filed, rescind the coverage over minor mistakes in the application.
In deals with California regulators, insurance providers Health Net, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield all have agreed to make substantial changes in the way they sell individual coverage in an effort to reduce the number of rescissions. Health Net has agreed to pay more than $40 million to resolve the regulatory actions and litigation over rescission.
According to documents Health Net rescinded 1,600 policies and saved $35.5 million over several years. Health Net paid bonuses to an employee based in part on how many rescissions she carried out.
We applaud the California officials who protected consumers from these reprehensible practices, and can only hope that Georgia officials will show the same courage.

Continue reading