Archive for the ‘Medical Malpractice’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

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 »

Indiana’s Dr. Weinberger, The Nose Doctor, Finally Faces Kenneth J. Allen and a Jury: $13,000,000 Wrongful Death Verdict – “You Got What You Deserve”

March 25th, 2011 by admin

Indiana medical malpractice lawyers as well as most of the state, the country, and possibly most of the world, are all too aware of the very bad acts performed by Indiana surgeon Dr. Mark Weinberger — he’s had hundreds of medical malpractice (professional negligence) claims filed against him.  People have died as a result of his negligence according to any number of wrongful death suits that have been filed by loved ones throughout Indiana. 

However, maybe the bigger noteriety of Indiana villian Dr. Mark Weinberger is how he didn’t stick around to face the music but instead ran away.  Ran away from his family, his friends, his practice, his home. 

A January 2011 article in Vanity Fair entitled, “The Runaway Doctor,” written by Buzz Bissinger, chronicles Weinberger’s disappearance in 2004 and his ultimate capture in the Italian Alps many years later.  His capture was a highlight of TV’s America’s Most Wanted.

“The Nose Doctor” of Merrillville, Indiana Goes to Trial  – Ken Allen Represents the Plaintiffs: Victorious Verdict After Six Days

This week, the wrongful death medical misdiagnosis trial for the loved ones of Weinberger patient Phyllis Barnes began.  Represented by noted trial lawyer Kenneth J. Allen, the plaintiffs alleged that The Nose Doctor’s faulty diagnosis failed to catch her cancer in time and because of Dr. Weinberger’s failure to diagnose Phyllis Barnes’ cancer, she died. 

Seems that Mrs. Barnes saw one of Weinberger’s billboards and made an appointment with him for help with some sinus and throat problems.  No mention was made, or investigation had, regarding the cancer that killed her.  Dr. Weinberger did, however, perform surgeries (yes, more than one) on Mrs. Barnes — all these operations being unnecessary to her and vital to his pocketbook. 

Mrs. Barnes’ wrongful death suit sought punitive damages under Indiana medical malpractice law.  After a six day trial, the jury awarded $3 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages against Dr. Mark Weinberger.

The Need for Strong Law in Medical Malpractice Lawsuits

The details of evildoer Dr. Mark Weinberger aren’t necessary here.  They’re there in the Vanity Fair article as well as numerous other resources on the web.  However, the example of this one bad man exemplifies the power that health care professionals have over their clientele.   They are in positions of power and trust — we all rely upon them to be acting in our best interests, with knowledge and skill and integrity. 

When physicians fail to live up to these standards, then justice must be available to those they have harmed.  For many personal injury attorneys, the impact of tort reform across the country ties the hands of justice in many medical malpractice situations.  Perhaps Dr. Mark Weinberger is an anomoly.  The personal injury bar might disagree with that assessment: Dr. Weinberger may be notorious, and his running away worthy of a TV Movie of the Week — but he’s far from the only marketing-happy doctor who has sacrificed patient care for profits.

“You Got What You Deserve”

As Ken Allen said during his closing arguments in the Nose Doctor Wrongful Death trial this week, this verdict should send a message not only to Dr. Weinberger but to anyone that might be following in his footsteps.   This verdict — $3,000,000 in compensatory damages and $13,000,000 in punitives — should send a message that is a strong, loud warning against this evildoing.  

Kenneth J. Allen’s words to The Nose Doctor after the jurors returned with their decision:  “You got what you deserve, is what I say to Mark Weinberger.” 

To hear Kenneth Allen’s remarks shortly after the jury verdict came in, check out the NBCChicago online video here. 

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

Drug Distributors See Bright Future While CDC Report Released: Drugs Kill More Americans Than Guns

January 20th, 2011 by admin

Drug distributors are forecasting industry growth in this recessionary climate, the IndyStar reports today.   Indiana, take note: here’s a market with good economic predictions.  Something our part of the country could really use right now, right?

Read the story, and you’ll find the drug marketing gurus are almost gleeful in their descriptions of rising “prescription volume” and the dependable strength of both ” generic dispensing” and “mail-order volume.”  2011 is going to be a good year for these guys.

Which makes this week’s news release by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention even more important – and disturbing.  According to the CDC (read the report here), drugs are the cause of more deaths in the United States today than guns or alcohol.  And by drugs, the CDC isn’t referencing solely illegal drugs like cocaine or crystal meth.  No.  Drugs like prescription drugs and over the counter medicines are responsible for a shocking number of human fatalities in this country. 

The danger of drug induced deaths aren’t new to Indiana’s state government.  In March 2008, the Indiana Center for Policy released its own report on the dangers of drug-related deaths (read the report here).  This hits home, folks.

People in our community are at risk for serious injury or death from drugs that are purchased over the counter at WalMart or CVS or any other store as well as those that are prescription drugs given by a trusted health care professional.  Of particular concern: pain medications like Oxycodone.

Meanwhile, the drug companies are looking to make bigger and bigger profits now and in the future.  Remember, Big Pharma is a for-profit industry: its goal is monetary growth.  These are not entities built to serve charitable purposes and many of us tend to forget this – to our detriment.

Remember: drugs aren’t safe.  Drugs can kill you or a loved one.  Be careful and be sure to get help if you believe that you or a loved one may be having a detrimental reaction to any drug or medication.  Get medical care.  And if a tragedy happens, consider the laws on the books of Indiana and the federal government that exist to protect against defective products and wrongful death.

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

Nursing Home Abuse and Neglect in Illinois: Will the New Safety Reforms Do Anything?

January 13th, 2011 by admin

On Wednesday, the Illinois General Assembly passed legislation that will increase the state taxes assessed against nursing homes (“the bed tax”) with the goal of bringing in more than $145,000,000 targeted for safety reforms in nursing homes across the state.   The gist of this, of course, is to make the nursing homes pay for the safety reforms themselves, instead of dipping into Illinois’ (empty) pockets. 

Under current health care provisions, this will allow the State of Illinois to get another bunch of money, almost a dollar for dollar doubling of this new safety reform fund, through Medicaid federal funds.   That’s a lot of cash.

And the horrors of nursing home abuse and neglect are very real. 

Families face terrible situations where they file lawsuits either on their own behalf, or on behalf of their loved one who has been victimized, only after bad, bad things have happened.  While law firms like Kenneth J. Allen & Associates are always ready to fight for justice in these situations, it’s clearly a better scenario to stop the elder abuse and neglect long before it ever happens.

But will these new nursing home safety reforms actually stop nursing home abuse and neglect? 

Many say no, including the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP).  This new legislation will really throw lotsa cash into the pockets of nursing home facilities that are focused on their bottom-line, and are profit-driven as opposed to care-driven, critics suggest.  Plus, where are these bed tax increases going to get shifted – who’s gonna end up paying them ultimately? 

If you suspect any resident of a nursing home of being the victim of nursing home abuse or neglect, trust your gut.  Contact state authorities like the Illinois Department on Aging or the Indiana Division on Aging who will then pursue criminal investigations — and remember, private malpractice lawsuits  based upon personal injury or wrongful death claims against these facilities can be powerful ways to help not only the individual victim, but to force overall changes that help others in the future.

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

FDA Warns of Online Pharmacy Scam: Fake FDA Agents Extortion Scheme

January 11th, 2011 by admin

There are phony FDA Agents out there, scamming thousands of dollars from Americans who are trying to save some cash by purchasing their drugs and medicines from overseas pharmacies.  This week, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a news release warning the public of a scam apparently originating out of the Dominican Republic, where the fakes are finding their victims from online identification provided during their purchase of drugs online (e.g., names, addresses, and phone numbers). 

These con artists are then contacting their prey, pretending to be FDA agents or investigators as they warn that purchasing drugs overseas (or online) is a crime carrying stiff penalties…like big fines. 

Fines, which the victims can easily pay via wire transfers.  And people falling for this scam are sending money to these charlatans. According to the FDA, Americans who have fallen for this scam have sent anywhere from $100 to $250,000 via wire transfers that cannot be tracked down in order to obtain reimbursement.

Meanwhile, the FDA also warns against buying drugs from foreign suppliers online or by phone, arguing that there are quality issues, an increased risk for identity theft, and the vulnerability to scams like this one. The FDA urges Americans to buy their drugs here in the USA.

Meanwhile, the reality is that drugs and medicines overseas cost a lot less than they do here in the United States.  

So much so that back in 2004, former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich  together with then-Representative Rahm Emanuel went to war with the FDA, announcing plans for Illinois to be the first state in the union to actively assist its citizenry in purchasing overseas drugs (from European sources).  They even put together their own website to help coordinate the foreign drug buys.  Additionally, the first budget that President Obama presented to Congress in 2009 included provisions to allow and aid Americans buying drugs from overseas sources. 

The truth is that drugs are overpriced here in the United States.  The same drugs can be bought for much less in Canada, Ireland, Mexico, the United Kingdom, etc.  The FDA argues that these may be flawed or counterfeit.  However, proponents of opening the borders to overseas drug sources counter that counterfeit pharmaceuticals are rare, and for many Americans the only way that they can afford their needed medicines is through a foreign supplier.

Bottom line?  Be careful of scammers.  Be prudent with your drug purchases. 

There are laws on the books (state laws and federal laws) to protect you from harm.  However, it will be much more difficult to pursue a products liability or defective drug case against a foreign defendant than a domestic drug maker.  That’s one of the risks that you take when you choose to buy foreign pharmaceuticals — at least, until the government attitude toward this practice changes.

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

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »