Archive for the ‘Medical Malpractice’ Category

« Older Entries

Indiana Nursing Homes Should Call the Closest EMS in Emergencies, But They’ve Been Known to Choose the Cheaper Option

January 19th, 2012 by admin

Barbara Parcel died last March because her nursing home didn’t call the 911 responders that were minutes away, but instead contacted a hired company that was much farther away.  That company’s EMS unit arrived too late to save Mrs. Parcel, who died from a heart attack there at Indiana’s  Kindred Healthcare’s Wildwood Healthcare.  Her friend, Elsie, was a witness to the events and reported that it took over an hour for the EMS ambulance to show up in order to transport Mrs. Parcel to the hospital.

Local news reporters (13 Investigates) first discovered that the nursing home had never called 911, which would have brought nearby paramedics to the scene; instead Wildwood Healthcare called the private ambulance company with which it had a contract.  We can assume it was cheaper for Wildwood to call the contract service than to call the 911 service.   You can read the March 2011 expose online here.

Indiana State Senator Patricia Miller Pushes Senate Bill 0224 as New Indiana Law for Nursing Homes

Responding to the tragic story of Barbara Parcel, Indiana State Senator Patricia Miller authored and presented a bill which should become law in the State of Indiana.  You can read the proposed law as she wrote it here.

If passed, this law will require nursing homes to forego their bottom line and to call to get the fastest emergency medical services team in place.  Which is good news for everyone who either lives in an assisted facility or who has a loved one residing in a nursing home.

You can track the bill as it moves through the Indiana Legislature here.

Indiana Courts Are Already At the Ready to Right Nursing Home Abuse and Neglect

Nursing homes have a legal duty to care for those that reside at their facilities.  If they fail to meet that duty, just as a doctor fails in his care of a patient or a hospital commits an error in care, they can be found legally responsible for the wrongful death of their resident.

These laws are already on the books for Indiana victims and their families.  They are made the basis of a personal injury lawsuit filed against the nursing home and anyone else that has contributed to the harm.

Posted in Indiana Wrongful Death, Medical Malpractice, Serious Personal Injury, Wrongful Death | No Comments »

Prescription Drug Deaths Are Epidemic in This Country: Pain Medications Alone Are Killing 40 People Every Day

December 20th, 2011 by admin

Prescription drugs are killing people in the United States.  Lots of people.  So many people, in fact, that the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a report last month (November 2011) that is downright terrifying.

Among people 35 to 54 years old, unintentional poisoning caused more deaths than motor vehicle crashes.

These are not street drugs sold illegally.  They’re not drugs like cocaine or crack, sold with no safety checks or ingredients listing and bought for the purpose of getting high.  No.  These drugs that are killing so many Americans in this country that the  situation has been declared an epidemic by the federal government are those that have been prescribed by doctors to patients to help them with ailments and injuries.  Ones that you have to go to the drug store to get.  Ones that may be in your medicine cabinet in your home right now.

In its report, the CDC provides details of its research, confirming:

1.  the death toll from overdoses of prescription painkillers has more than tripled in the past decade;

2.  more than 40 people die every day from overdoses involving narcotic pain relievers like hydrocodone (Vicodin), methadone, oxycodone (OxyContin), and oxymorphone (Opana);

3.  Overdoses involving prescription painkillers are at epidemic levels;

4.  Prescription drug overdoses now kill more Americans than heroin and cocaine combined; and

5.  In 2010, 1 in every 20 people in the United States age 12 and older (12.000,000 people) reported using prescription painkillers nonmedically.

So, what is causing this Prescription Drug Epidemic of Death?

According to the CDC (and from its blog post by guest blogger Christopher M. Jones, PharmD, MPH, LCDR, U.S. Public Health Service), the amount of prescription drugs sold in the United States over the past ten years has skyrocketed.  Not by just 100% or 200% — but by 300%.

Imagine the profits to the drug companies.

Doctors are using these prescription painkillers more and more to help patients who are suffering from pain.  That is how these drugs are getting out there — from doctors’ signatures on prescription pads, which are filled at pharmacies around the country.

As coverage grows about this terrifying truth in our America today, it’s important to remember that solid fact.  These are PRESCRIBED medications that are killing people, not home-cooked, back-alley street drugs made with ingredients scarfed up at the lcoal grocery store.

Posted in Defective Products, Illinois Wrongful Death, Indiana Wrongful Death, Medical Malpractice, Product Liability, Serious Personal Injury, Wrongful Death | No Comments »

Biggest Drug Company Settlement in US History Made by GlaxoSmithKline for Diabetes-Drug Avandia and Other Claims

December 1st, 2011 by admin

It’s not a done deal yet, but that may just be paperwork at this point because everyone seems to acknowledge that GlaxoSmithKline has settled its claims with the federal government to the tune of $3 billion, which beats the old record of $2.3 billion paid by Pfizer back in 2009 in settlement with the feds for violating the law in marketing some of its drugs for uses other than what was instructed on their labels.

GlaxoSmithKline will be paying $3,000,000,000 to the government to settle a bunch of claims of illegal activity: Medicaid reimbursement hijinks; promoting its drugs for off-label uses; and some strange things in particular about its cash cow drug, Avandia, which was said to help people suffering with diabetes but was revealed by medical researchers to be connected to an almost 50% increase in the chance of a heart attack and an even higher risk of dying from heart problems.

Key: Mayo Clinic investigations revealed that almost every single scientist (90%) who published papers that supported the use of Avandia in humans had financial connections with GlaxoSmithKline. (For more details on Avandia issues, please refer to our earlier post).

The Biggest Drug Company Settlement In History Isn’t High Enough

Billions of dollars in settlement sounds like a serious deal, a financial hit that should make the drug company think twice about doing things like this in the future. GlaxoSmithKline has this cash on hand, and has already informed its shareholders that the settlement will be paid by cash in the bank.

That’s right: GSK has $3 billion setting around to pay the U.S. Department of Justice when the paperwork is signed, no surprise when GlaxoSmithKline is reported to have a market value in excess of $110,000,000,000.00.

So who really won here?

Many will argue the drug company did.   The lesson learned: drugs are products manufactured and marketed for profit in this country just like cars and boats and smartphones and coffeemakers.  Americans cannot blindly trust that the products that they bring into their homes are safe to use or consume.

If you or a loved one has reason to think that you may have been harmed by a drug or drug-related product, then it is important to get medical help first and legal help as well. That’s what products liability law does – and maybe, in the future, an American jury will explain to big drug companies that putting profits over people is just plain wrong.

Posted in Defective Products, Medical Malpractice, Product Liability, Wrongful Death | No Comments »

Electronic Medical Records: Will Digital Medical Records Make You Safer or Increase Your Risk of Medical Malpractice? New Report Issues Warning.

November 10th, 2011 by admin

This week, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released its findings after much research into the use of digital medical records, entitled “Health IT and Patient Safety: Building Safer Systems for Better Care.” (Read the full report here.)

The IOM has found there is danger in digital medical records and we should all be concerned about the move to put all our medical records into electronic databases.

Of course, factions of the medical community like the idea of digital medial records. Medical malpractice defense attorneys and insurance companies argue that putting patient medical records into electronic databases would lower the number of prescription drug mistakes, doctor errors, and hospital negligence. They push for electronic medical records because, they say, this will help all sorts of health care providers to do their jobs better, and there will be less medical mistakes (and of course, fewer medical malpractice claims and medical negligence lawsuits).

Not everyone is on board with the safety and benefits of electronic medical records, however – including some private medical experts. Now, the Institute of Medicine also voices its concern about the use of electronic medical records.

In its new report, the IOM warns that digital medical records could mean big mistakes will happen, just in different ways. For example, electronic medical software, or “Health IT,” has no established industry standards or rules. It’s the wild west out there – bad software means big dangers when human patients are involved. The report points out that things like “… dosing errors, failure to detect life-threatening illnesses, and delaying treatment due to poor human-computer interactions or loss of data have led to serious injury and death.”

So, what to do? In its report, the IOM suggests that the federal government (via the Department of Health and Human Services) put together a plan to minimize patient dangers and to thereafter monitor things every year. Alternatively, the FDA should undertake regulation of Health IT and create the appropriate safety rules and regulations.

In other words, the IOM thinks that the federal government needs to get a handle on the electronic digital medical records problem as soon as possible, to set standards and to oversee things.

Here is the press release issued in conjunction with this week’s Report:

Date: Nov. 8, 2011

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

To Improve Patient Safety, Health Information Technology Needs Better Oversight, Accountability

WASHINGTON — To protect Americans from potential medical errors associated with the use of information technology in patient care, a new report by the Institute of Medicine calls for greater oversight by the public and private sectors. The report examines a broad range of health information technologies, including electronic health records, secure patient portals, and health information exchanges, but not software for medical devices.

The secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services should publish a plan within 12 months to minimize patient safety risks associated with health IT and report annually on the progress being made, the report says. The plan should include a schedule for working with the private sector to assess the impact of health IT on patient safety. However, if the secretary determines that progress toward improving safety is insufficient within a year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration should exercise its authority to regulate these technologies. Concurrently, FDA should begin planning the framework needed for potential regulation so that the agency is ready to act if necessary.

“Just as the potential benefits of health IT are great, so are the possible harms to patient safety if these technologies are not being properly designed and used,” said Gail L. Warden, president emeritus of Henry Ford Health System and chair of the committee that wrote the report. “To protect patients, industry and government have a shared responsibility to ensure greater transparency, accountability, and reporting of health IT-related medical errors.”

The federal government is investing billions of dollars to encourage hospitals and health care providers to adopt health IT so that all Americans can benefit from the use of electronic health records by 2014, but demonstrated improvements in care and safety are not yet established, the report says. Some of these technologies have significantly improved the quality of health care and reduced medical errors. However, concerns about potential harm are emerging as health care providers increasingly rely on health IT to deliver care.

Little published evidence exists that quantifies the magnitude of the risk associated with health IT problems, partly because many technology vendors discourage the free exchange of safety-related information in their contracts with health care providers. But serious errors involving these technologies — including medication dosing errors, failure to detect fatal illnesses, and treatment delays due to poor human-computer interactions or loss of data — have led to several reported patient deaths and injuries.

HHS should establish a mechanism for both technology vendors and users to report health IT-related deaths, injuries, or unsafe conditions, the report says. Reporting events related to patient safety should be mandatory for vendors and voluntary, confidential, and nonpunitive for care providers. In addition, Congress should establish an independent federal entity to investigate patient deaths, injuries, or potential unsafe conditions associated with health IT. Based on those investigations, the entity could make nonbinding recommendations, allowing flexibility for HHS, health care organizations, vendors, and other experts to determine the best course forward.

A new Health IT Safety Council should be funded by HHS to evaluate criteria and develop methods for assessing and monitoring safety and measuring impacts of health IT on safety, the report says. The agency should also ensure that health IT vendors support the free exchange of information and not discourage health care providers from sharing patient safety concerns, including screen shots. Nondisclosure agreements in contracts between vendors and health care providers and “hold harmless” clauses that shift the liability of unsafe health IT features to care providers greatly discourage information sharing.

HHS should establish quality management principles and risk management processes in designing and implementing health IT products, which can be complex and difficult for doctors and nurses to use. Alerts in technology systems should be designed to have lower false-alarm rates and computer interfaces need to be more intuitive for users.

The study was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, the Institute of Medicine provides independent, objective, evidence-based advice to policymakers, health professionals, the private sector, and the public. The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council make up the National Academies. For more information, visit http://national-academies.org. A committee roster follows.

Posted in Medical Malpractice, Serious Personal Injury, Wrongful Death | No Comments »

Pfizer Settles With Feds Again – Big Pharma and Bad Marketing of Dangerous Drugs That Hurt or Kill People

October 25th, 2011 by admin

For those working in the legal fight against evildoers whose actions hurt people and their loved ones and impact families’ futures for a lifetime, stories like this are not surprising.  Legal secretaries aren’t shocked that Big Corporations put profits over people; paralegals have seen numerous examples of products that were put out into the marketplace which turned out to hurt or maybe even kill unsuspecting victims. Lawyers read case after case where legal fights are fought, if not where the Big Company is denying liability, then where the Big Company is trying to keep how much money it has to pay in damages as low as possible.

It’s true in trucking accidents and job site injuries and wrongful death car crashes.  It’s something that Kenneth J. Allen & Associates knows all too well because it’s something that we all see, all too often.  However, it serves us all to keep vigilant to these things, and to let you know about justice when it occurs.

And, this week, there’s yet another example of injustice being fought as U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder issued a press release to announce the federal government’s settlement with Pfizer Inc. over False Claims Act allegations tied to Pfizer’s marketing of its drug, Detrol. (Pfizer doesn’t have a news release about the settlement on its website.)

It is interesting to note that Pfizer is already known as a “repeat offender” after entering a guilty plea two years ago in what is considered to be the biggest known fraud in U.S. health care, with Pfizer getting zapped with the biggest criminal penalty ever levied against a defendant for the illegal marketing of four drugs (Bextra; Geodon; Zyvox; and Lyrica). At that point, Pfizer was entering into its 4th settlement on this type of thing with the feds.

Pfizer to Pay $14,500,000 for False Claims About Detrol, a medicine for overactive bladder problems

The Department of Justice worked this case and got this settlement because of the brave acts of some whistleblowers, who filed a series of qui tam, or whistleblower, suits. This settlement involves the last of those suits; the others were taken care of in the federal government’s big overall settlement with Pfizer, where Pfizer agreed to pay $2.3 billion to resolve criminal charges as well as numerous civil products liability actions against it, involving several of its drug products.

What did Pfizer do this time?  Here, the case involves the feds asserting that Pfizer illegally marketed Detrol for uses that the FDA had not approved as being safe and/or effective:  these included its use by men suffering from benign prostatic hypertrophy, bladder outlet obstruction, and lower urinary tract problems.

Yet Another Example of a Person Trusting a Product That Can Hurt Him

Products liability law exists in every state in this country, passed by state legislatures because companies cannot be trusted to put products into the marketplace for sale that are safe and effective for their intended use.  The Food and Drug Administration exists to police the same sort of thing, as an arm of the federal government with the ability to file criminal charges against offenders.

However, marketing power is strong in this country and Americans like to think the best of everyone.  When products are bought at the store, including drugs — maybe especially drugs — people trust that the product is safe for them to use.  This trust is, sadly, all too often misplaced as the continuing story of Pfizer’s litigation (and that of all of Big Pharma) reveals.

If you are suspicious of any type of product, then investigate that suspicion.  Your instincts may be right and the product may be dangerous.  Seek medical help – and legal help if you have been harmed or damaged.  Products do hurt people.

Be careful out there.

Posted in Defective Products, Illinois Wrongful Death, Indiana Wrongful Death, Medical Malpractice, Other Jurisdictions, Product Liability, Serious Personal Injury, Wrongful Death | No Comments »

Ability of Plaintiffs to File Class Actions is Vital: Congress Investigating Recent U.S. Supreme Court Decisions Harming Plaintiffs’ Class Action Rights

July 7th, 2011 by admin

Class action lawsuits allow individual plaintiffs to group together in one lawsuit and in one courtroom as they seek justice against a defendant that is all too often a huge, international corporation. Class action lawsuits level the David vs Goliath playing field in countless ways, and class action lawsuits have proven to be vital to justice when defendants are powerful, rich, and ruthless.

Consider these famous class action lawsuits in American history: (1) the breast implant litigation of the 1990s, settled for $3.4 billioin, where a class action lawsuit sought damages for women injured by silicone breast implants against the major implant makers (Corning, Baxter, Bristol-Meyers Squibb/MEC, 3M), (2) the Exxon-Mobil class action litigation after the Exxon Valdez oil spill, where those injured by the oil spill along 1300 miles of coastline took the oil and gas giants to judgment (not settlement) for $5 billion in damages, or (3) the nationwide tobacco product class action litigation, where the top six tobacco companies were sued by each state’s attorney general for injury and death caused by cigarette smoking, etc..

Movies are made about class actions: A Civil Action and Erin Brockovich are just two examples.

Senate Is Investigating Supreme Court’s Recent Impact on Class Action Lawsuits

The Senate Judiciary Committee is investigating recent opinions released by the United States Supreme Court and for details, the Opening Statement by SJC Chairman Patrick Leahy to the June 29, 2011 Hearing provides a good overview of what Congress is doing to help injured plaintiffs and their families:

This morning, we will highlight several recent Supreme Court decisions to examine the impact on the lives of hardworking Americans. Each of these decisions give corporations additional power to act in their own self-interest, and each limits the ability of Americans to have their day in court. This hearing is a continuation of previous hearings about how Supreme Court rulings affect Americans’ access to their courts. Especially in these tough economic times, American consumers and employees rely on the law to protect them from fraud and discrimination. They rely on the courts to enforce those laws intended to protect them. Unfortunately, these protections are being eroded by what appears to be the most business-friendly Supreme Court in the last 75 years.

Last week, in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, five men on the Supreme Court disqualified the claims of 1.5 million women who had spent nearly a decade seeking justice for sex discrimination by their employer, Wal-Mart. They ruled that the women did not share enough in common to support bringing a class action. Perhaps more troubling, they told those women that Wal-Mart could not have had a discriminatory policy against all of them, because it left its payment decisions to the local branches of its stores.

The case gives Wal-Mart, and the rest of corporate America, a clear path to avoid company-wide sex discrimination suits: Have your lawyers write a non-discrimination policy, then allow your local branches to implement compensation decisions, and you can hide behind your policy regardless of what really happened to your employees across America. Through this decision, a narrow majority of five justices have, again, made it harder to hold corporations accountable under our historic civil rights laws.

Earlier this month, in Janus Capital v. First Derivative Traders, the same five justices gave corporations another victory by shielding them from accountability even when they knowingly lie to their investors. In that case, the Court held that investors have no remedy when a corporation knowingly issues false statements from a shell entity it created to “make” the false statement. Some have said that the Janus decision provides Wall Street companies with a “license to lie.” Others have called the opinion “a roadmap for fraud.” Whichever phrase you use, the decision allows Wall Street companies to design new ways to evade accountability from the harm inflicted on hardworking Americans who have seen their life savings ravaged over the past few years by fraudulent investment schemes and corporate misconduct.

This term, the Supreme Court also issued a devastating decision that will harm the ability of consumers to band together when their phone company or other corporations falsely charge them small, unjustified, and unfair fees. Two months ago, in AT&T v. Concepcion, the Supreme Court, in another 5-4 opinion, held that companies can take advantage of the fine print on telephone bills and other contracts to bar customers from bringing class action lawsuits. What’s more, the Court held that states cannot prohibit such “mandatory arbitration clauses” — even if the state legislatures vote to do so — because such a law would be preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. Justice Scalia and the four fellow conservatives on the Court, once again, misinterpreted Congress’ intent; they favored corporations and further weakened protections for consumers. Binding mandatory arbitration makes a farce of the American people’s constitutional right to a jury trial and the due process our Constitution guarantees to all Americans.. In arbitration, there is no transparency. There are no juries. There is no appellate review.

Like the Wal-Mart case, the AT&T case also denies consumers the right to bring their lawsuit as part of a class action. Class actions serve an important function in our justice system. If I have a claim for $50 or $100 against a company, the potential recovery is too small for me to hire a lawyer and seek redress. If I combine my claim with those of other people who also have a small claim, that would allow us to attain adequate representation and seek accountability. When consumers can band together, then corporations can be forced to account for their misconduct, even if the harm to each individual consumer is relatively small. Class actions are an essential way for everyday Americans to gain access to our courts.

The cases we are discussing today are just a few examples of how the Supreme Court’s recent decisions will hurt individual Americans and benefit large corporations who engage in misconduct. A study by Lee Epstein, William Landes and Richard Posner, entitled “Is the Roberts Court Pro-Business?” illustrates this phenomenon. It found that the Supreme Court ruled in a pro-business fashion in 29 percent of cases under Chief Justice Earl Warren. Under Warren Burger the figure was 47 percent. Under Chief Justice Rehnquist, it was 51 percent. Now, under Chief Justice Roberts it has risen to 61 percent. The point of today’s hearing is to put these statistics in context by examining some of the most troubling pro-business rulings from the Supreme Court’s term and to consider the lasting effect of these divisive rulings.

Over the past few years, the American people have grown frustrated with the notion that regardless of their conduct some corporations are too big to fail. The Supreme Court’s recent decisions may make some wonder whether the Supreme Court has now decided that some corporations are too big to be held accountable. You get the unfortunate feeling that many of the Justices view plaintiffs as a mere nuisance to corporations. We cannot ignore that sex discrimination in the workplace continues, that corporations continue to deceive consumers and that fraud continues on Wall Street. I believe that the ability of Americans to band together to hold corporations accountable when these things occur has been seriously undermined by the Supreme Court. These decisions have been praised on Wall Street, but will no doubt hurt hardworking Americans on Main Street.

Posted in Airplane & Train Crashes, Auto Accidents, Bus Crashes, Construction Injuries, Defective Products, Electrocution, Equipment and Machine Malfunction, Explosions & Fires, Falls, Illinois Wrongful Death, Indiana Wrongful Death, Insurance Claims, Job Site Injury, Longshoremen & Maritime, Medical Malpractice, Mill Accidents, Motorcycle Accidents, Other Jurisdictions, Product Liability, Semi-Truck Crashes, Serious Personal Injury, Transportation, Work Related, Wrongful Death | No Comments »

U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Plaintiffs Harmed by Generic Drugs Like Accutane, Darvocet, Zocor, and More: Generic Drug Companies Win Big

June 23rd, 2011 by admin

Earlier today, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case of Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing (5-4) that generic drug companies are not legally responsible and therefore will not be held liable for failing to warn consumers about the side effects of medications they sell, and of which they are well aware, if their packaging labels are identical to those of the original brand-name product.

The High Court ruled that federal law preempted any state law rulings that required these generic drug companies from letting people know about problems that these companies know about – by labels, or by writing letters to doctors, whatever. Seems that the generic drug companies are to coattail on the drug makers’ actions.

According to Justice Clarence Thomas (who wrote the majority opinion), it’s just too hard for drug manufacturers to have to deal with federal laws on consumer warnings along with state laws that might ask them to do more. So the generics aren’t going to have to do this, either. Preemption.

This will be a big problem for thousands of Americans who have sued for severe injuries resulting from taking the generic versions of drugs including Accutane, Darvocet, Reglan, and Zocor.

It is a big win for Big Pharma.

Once again, be careful out there. Don’t trust the product (including the drug) just because a doctor or pharmacist handed it over to you. Learn what it is, investigate for yourself, and trust your instincts. Get medical care and legal help when you think you may need it: don’t expect your health care professional to tell you to seek a second opinion or to find a lawyer.

To read the Supreme Court opinion, go here.

Posted in Defective Products, Medical Malpractice, Product Liability, Serious Personal Injury, Wrongful Death | No Comments »

New Research on ED Treatments – You Can Go Blind AND DEAF: Levitra, Cialis, Viagra May Cause Loss of Hearing

May 24th, 2011 by admin

Those little pills designed to treat the small segment of the male population that suffers from erectile dysfunction are actually used by many more men – it’s an industry with over $5 billion in annual sales in the United States alone.

However, warning: any man using Viagra, Cialis, or Levitra (the most popular erectile dysfunction treatments) or any other PDE-5 inhibitor — could be risking losing his hearing, according to a new research study that links these pills to a risk of hearing loss in men.

Permanent deafness, total or partial, all from taking one little blue pill.

The study confirms 47 cases of hearing loss and Viagra was found to be responsible for over 50% of them. Of all the cases, the men lost their hearing within 24 hours of taking the pill. It has been published by the American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc. in their journal, The Laryngoscope.

Of course, this really isn’t big news: the FDA warning on the label tells users that permanent hearing loss is a risk, and that comes after the 2005 warning was placed on these types of pills that there was also a risk of vision loss (“non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy”).

Some are dismissing the numbers as low risk. However, the problem may be more widespread than previously believed, since this research study had over 250 other cases of hearing loss that they didn’t include in their findings, for various reasons. Over in Great Britain, it’s serious enough of a concern that their experts are asking that the UK products get a hearing loss warning asap.

Posted in Defective Products, Insurance Claims, Medical Malpractice, Product Liability, Serious Personal Injury | No Comments »

New JAMA Study Reveals Over Half of FDA Approved Drugs Were Never Comparison Tested

May 5th, 2011 by admin

The cat is out of the Food & Drug Administration’s bag:  the media is reporting that only around 50% of drugs approved as safe for Americans to take were ever submitted to comparative effectiveness testing at the time of their approval by the FDA, and approximately 75% of these new drugs had this information available where alternative treatment options existed.

This information was revealed in an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), appearing in  its May 4, 2011 issue: Nikolas H. Goldberg, Sebastian Schneeweiss, Mary K. Kowal, Joshua J. Gagne. Availability of Comparative Efficacy Data at the Time of Drug Approval in the United States. JAMA, 2011; 305 (17): 1786-1789 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2011.539.

What does this mean?

As the Citizens Commission on Human Rights International points out this week in an article from Natural News entitled, “FDA approved Big Pharma drugs without effective data,” the FDA approved a huge (HUGE) amount of drugs for all of us to trust and take when they didn’t have the proper data to support that decision, specificially “comparative effectiveness data.”

Comparative effective data, the article explains, compares the new drug against other treatments to determine which is best. Which is safer? Which works best? In other words, is the Big Pharma drug the best one for the particular problem that the person is experiencing?

If that hints that profit would be impacted by this, you’re right.

Posted in Defective Products, Medical Malpractice, Product Liability, Serious Personal Injury, Wrongful Death | No Comments »

Good Samaritan Laws in Illinois and Indiana: Do You Risk a Lawsuit If You Stop to Help Someone at the Scene of an Accident?

April 28th, 2011 by admin

You’re driving home from work, or maybe it’s the end of a long weekend and you’re part of a parade of cars filled with families returning home. Or maybe you’re at work. In a mine, in a mill, on a train, or in a factory.  You could even be at school, or at the stadium for a game.

Suddenly, without warning: there’s an accident. A serious, scary accident where someone is seriously hurt. They’re in need – and if someone doesn’t help them, they may die.

This scenario becomes reality every day, in every state, in this country. Tragedies happen. Shockingly, however, not every state protects its citizens in the same way when they step up to render aid in an emergency. In fact, without Good Samaritan Laws in place, these do-gooders were sometimes later sued (yes, sued) for trying to help in a crisis.

For example, this winter in Fort Wayne, Indiana, there was a horrific car crash and an off-duty state trooper stopped to help the woman trapped inside her car.  It was only when a stranger, an ordinary citizen and good guy, stopped to help the trooper that they were able to set the woman free.

Illinois Good Samaritan Law

In 2011, the Illinois Good Samaritan Act was amended to clarify that the Illinois General Assembly’s purpose in passing the law was to ” …establish numerous protections for the generous and compassionate acts of its citizens who volunteer their time and talents to help others. These protections …shall be liberally construed to encourage persons to volunteer their time and talents.”

The overall Good Samaritan Law for Illinois is found in 210 ILCS 50, where it provides:

Sec. 3.150. Immunity from civil liability.

(a) Any person, agency or governmental body certified, licensed or authorized pursuant to this Act or rules thereunder, who in good faith provides emergency or non‑emergency medical services during a Department approved training course, in the normal course of conducting their duties, or in an emergency, shall not be civilly liable as a result of their acts or omissions in providing such services unless such acts or omissions, including the bypassing of nearby hospitals or medical facilities in accordance with the protocols developed pursuant to this Act, constitute willful and wanton misconduct.
(b) No person, including any private or governmental organization or institution that administers, sponsors, authorizes, supports, finances, educates or supervises the functions of emergency medical services personnel certified, licensed or authorized pursuant to this Act, including persons participating in a Department approved training program, shall be liable for any civil damages for any act or omission in connection with administration, sponsorship, authorization, support, finance, education or supervision of such emergency medical services personnel, where the act or omission occurs in connection with activities within the scope of this Act, unless the act or omission was the result of willful and wanton misconduct.
(c) Exemption from civil liability for emergency care is as provided in the Good Samaritan Act.
(d) No local agency, entity of State or local government, or other public or private organization, nor any officer, director, trustee, employee, consultant or agent of any such entity, which sponsors, authorizes, supports, finances, or supervises the training of persons in the use of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, automated external defibrillators, or first aid in a course which complies with generally recognized standards shall be liable for damages in any civil action based on the training of such persons unless an act or omission during the course of instruction constitutes willful and wanton misconduct.
(e) No person who is certified to teach the use of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, automated external defibrillators, or first aid and who teaches a course of instruction which complies with generally recognized standards for the use of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, automated external defibrillators, or first aid shall be liable for damages in any civil action based on the acts or omissions of a person who received such instruction, unless an act or omission during the course of such instruction constitutes willful and wanton misconduct.
(f) No member or alternate of the State Emergency Medical Services Disciplinary Review Board or a local System review board who in good faith exercises his responsibilities under this Act shall be liable for damages in any civil action based on such activities unless an act or omission during the course of such activities constitutes willful and wanton misconduct.
(g) No EMS Medical Director who in good faith exercises his responsibilities under this Act shall be liable for damages in any civil action based on such activities unless an act or omission during the course of such activities constitutes willful and wanton misconduct.
(h) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create a cause of action or any civil liabilities.

Indiana Good Samaritan Law

Indiana’s Good Samaritan Law is not the same as that of Illinois.  Indiana focuses upon protecting emergency medical professionals, whether they are licensed in Indiana or elsewhere, as they do their work at the scene of an emergency.

Indiana’s Good Samaritan Law is found at IC 16-31-6-1, where it provides:

IC 16-31-6
Chapter 6. Immunity From Liability

IC 16-31-6-1
Emergency medical technician services
Sec. 1. (a) A certified emergency medical technician or a certified emergency medical technician-basic advanced who provides emergency medical services to an emergency patient is not liable for an act or omission in providing those services unless the act or omission constitutes negligence or willful misconduct. If the emergency medical technician or emergency medical technician-basic advanced is not liable for an act or omission, no other person incurs liability by reason of an agency relationship with the emergency medical technician or emergency medical technician-basic advanced.
(b) This section does not affect the liability of a driver of an ambulance for negligent operation of the ambulance.
As added by P.L.2-1993, SEC.14. Amended by P.L.205-2003, SEC.33.

IC 16-31-6-2
Use of defibrillators
Sec. 2. (a) Except for an act of negligence or willful misconduct, a certified first responder who uses an automatic or semiautomatic defibrillator on an emergency patient according to the training procedures established by the commission under IC 16-31-2-9 is immune from civil liability for acts or omissions when rendering those services.
(b) If the first responder is immune from civil liability for the first responder’s act or omission, a person who has only an agency relationship with the first responder is also immune from civil liability for the act or omission.
As added by P.L.2-1993, SEC.14.

IC 16-31-6-3
Advanced life support
Sec. 3. An act or omission of a paramedic or an emergency medical technician-intermediate done or omitted in good faith while providing advanced life support to a patient or trauma victim does not impose liability upon the paramedic or emergency medical technician-intermediate, the authorizing physician, the hospital, or the officers, members of the staff, nurses, or other employees of the hospital or the local governmental unit if the advanced life support is provided:
(1) in connection with an emergency;
(2) in good faith; and
(3) under the written or oral direction of a licensed physician;
unless the act or omission was a result of negligence or willful misconduct.
As added by P.L.2-1993, SEC.14. Amended by P.L.205-2003,

SEC.34.

IC 16-31-6-4
Life support provided in connection with disaster emergency
Sec. 4. (a) This section does not apply to an act or omission that was a result of gross negligence or willful or intentional misconduct.
(b) An act or omission of a paramedic, an emergency medical technician-intermediate, an emergency medical technician-basic advanced, an emergency medical technician, or a person with equivalent certification from another state that is performed or made while providing advanced life support or basic life support to a patient or trauma victim does not impose liability upon the paramedic, the emergency medical technician-intermediate, the emergency medical technician-basic advanced, an emergency medical technician, the person with equivalent certification from another state, a hospital, a provider organization, a governmental entity, or an employee or other staff of a hospital, provider organization, or governmental entity if the advanced life support or basic life support is provided in good faith:
(1) in connection with a disaster emergency declared by the governor under IC 10-14-3-12 in response to an act that the governor in good faith believes to be an act of terrorism (as defined in IC 35-41-1-26.5); and
(2) in accordance with the rules adopted by the Indiana emergency medical services commission or the disaster emergency declaration of the governor.

Posted in Airplane & Train Crashes, Auto Accidents, Bus Crashes, Construction Injuries, Electrocution, Equipment and Machine Malfunction, Explosions & Fires, Falls, Insurance Claims, Job Site Injury, Longshoremen & Maritime, Medical Malpractice, Mill Accidents, Motorcycle Accidents, Pedestrian Accidents, Railroad Workers (FELA), School & Playground Injuries, Semi-Truck Crashes, Serious Personal Injury, Slip & Falls, Spinal Injuries, Sports & Boating Accidents, Transportation, Work Related, Workers’ Compensation | No Comments »

« Older Entries