Genie Recalls Garage Door Openers Due to Fire Hazard

Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
Recall date: February 25, 2014
Recall number: 14-114

Recall Summary
Name of product:

Garage door openers
Hazard:

The control board can overheat, posing a fire hazard.
Remedy:
View Details
Repair
Consumer Contact:

Genie at (800) 488-9918 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or online at www.geniecompany.com and click on “Recall Information” for more information.

From the CPSC

Are you in need of an injury lawyer?

Jury awards Jackson woman $1.3 million in medical malpractice case

By Danielle Salisbury February 21, 2014

JACKSON, MI – When she underwent an elective abdominal surgery less than five years ago, Kathie Pagan operated her own company and maintained a regular workout schedule, jogging at least two miles a day.

Now, her home care and medical staffing business is gone; she tried to run it as her health failed and it failed, too. She has frequent nightmares and struggles simply emptying the dishwasher.

Complications from the June 2009 surgery left her with long-term medical issues, both mental and physical, and she continues to receive treatment for what has been a large, gaping stomach wound that never entirely healed.

“I’ve just lost everything. That is all I can tell you. I lost my faith. I lost my dignity. I lost my independence,” Pagan said Friday, Feb. 21.

Late Tuesday afternoon, a jury awarded Pagan, 43, of Jackson $1.3 million in a medical malpractice case.

Read more on Mlive

Are you in need of a medical malpractice lawyer?

Rollerblade USA Recalls Tempest Inline Skates Due to Fall Hazard

Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
Recall date: February 25, 2014
Recall number: 14-113

Recall Summary
Name of product:

Rollerblade® Tempest Inline Skates
Hazard:

The mounting holes in the boot and frame can be misaligned causing the boot to separate from the frame and posing a fall hazard.
Remedy:
View Details
Replace
Consumer Contact:

Rollerblade USA at (800) 232-7655 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or online at www.rollerblade.com and click on “Product Recall,” on the lower left, or by email at RCS@Rollerblade.com for more information.

From the CPSC
Are you in need of an injury lawyer?

$180,000 Verdict: Carrier claims injuries didn’t stem from accident

Plaintiff admits to prior disability but says she was worse after crash

In a lawsuit filed in Oakland County Circuit Court, plaintiff sought noneconomic damages from defendant on claims of auto negligence.

plaintiff claimed injuries to her lower back, left shoulder and both knees as a result of defendant’s running two red lights and hitting plaintiff’s automobile. Defendant admitted negligence.

An MRI of plaintiff’s left shoulder revealed a rotator cuff tear that was repaired via an outpatient arthroscopic surgery. At the time of trial, plaintiff’s shoulder had improved by 95 percent. Though her knee and back had also improved, some pain persisted and she continued to follow up with her treating doctors.

Plaintiff admitted to her prior injuries and prior disability but stated that she was worse after the car accident.

Type of action: Auto negligence

Type of injuries: Lower back injury, rotator cuff tear

Court/Case no./Date: Oakland County Circuit Court; 12-129120-NI; Jan. 10, 2014

Verdict amount: $180,000

Are you in need of an auto accident lawyer?

Infantino Recalls Teething Toys Due to Choking Hazard; Sold Exclusively at Target

Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
Recall date: February 20, 2014
Recall number: 14-109

Recall Summary
Name of product:

Go Gaga Squeeze & Teethe Coco the Monkey
Hazard:

The tail of the monkey can pose a choking hazard to young children.
Remedy:
View Details
Replace
Consumer Contact:

Infantino toll-free at (888) 808-3111 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. PT Monday through Friday or online at www.infantino.com and click on Recall Information on the home page.

From CPSC

Are you in need of an injury lawyer?

Tandem Diabetes Care, t:slim Insulin Cartridges (Specific Lots) - Potential for Cartridge Leak

Recall Class: Class I

Date Recall Initiated: January 10, 2014

Products: t:slim Insulin Cartridges, Specific Lots, Used with the t:slim Insulin Pump

Affected Lot Numbers:
M001963 M001980 M002027 M002083 M002119 M001964 M001987 M002028 M002096 M002120 M001973 M001988 M002029 M002097 M001974 M001990 M002030 M002099 M001979 M001991 M002082 M002100 M000857 M001414 M001454 M000869 M001415 M001455 M001344 M001416 M001456 M001345 M001417 M001457 M001346 M001420 M001458 M001347 M001421 M001459 M001389 M001422 M001460 M001390 M001423 M001528 M001391 M001451 M001529 M001392 M001452 M001530 M001393 M001453 M001532

Other cartridge lots and the t:slim Insulin Pump are NOT affected by this recall.

The affected cartridges were distributed from December 17, 2013 through January 6, 2014.

Use: An insulin pump is used to deliver insulin directly under the skin to manage diabetes in people requiring insulin; for individuals 12 years of age and greater.

Recalling Firm:
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
11045 Roselle Street, Suite 200
San Diego, California 92121

Reason for Recall: The affected cartridges may be at risk for leaking. A cartridge leak could potentially result in the delivery of too much or too little insulin, which could lead to unexpected high or low blood glucose levels. Too much insulin can result in severe low blood sugar (hypoglycemia) and too little insulin can lead to severe high blood sugar (hyperglycemia), both of which can lead to serious injury or death.

Public Contact: To obtain replacement cartridges at no charge, call Tandem Technical Support at 1-877-801-6901, available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Also call this number for instructions and pre-paid packaging to return unused cartridges affected by this recall.

FDA District: Los Angeles District Office

FDA Comments: On January 10, 2014, Tandem Diabetes Care (or Tandem) began notifying customers by overnight mail and by email of an Urgent Medical Device Voluntary Recall for specific lots of insulin cartridges used with the t:slim Insulin Pump, noting that the affected cartridges may be at risk for leaking. 

Customers who received affected cartridges are being contacted by the company or its authorized distributors and are asked to call Tandem Technical Support to receive cartridges at no charge. Tandem Diabetes Care asked customers to return all unused cartridges from the affected lots to Tandem.

On January 20, 2014, Tandem Diabetes Care sent an updated URGENT MEDICAL DEVICE VOLUNTARY RECALL letter. The firm expanded its voluntary recall of specific lots of insulin cartridges that are used with the t:slim Insulin Pump.  All affected lot numbers are listed above.

Consumers/Patients:  What Should You Do?

    Check the lot numbers of your cartridge supply against the complete list of affected lot numbers above. You can find the cartridge lot number on the rear panel of the cartridge box and on the packaging of each individual cartridge.
    Look at the photograph of the cartridge box in the Urgent Medical Device Voluntary Recall letter that shows where the lot number is found. The affected cartridges cannot be identified by inspecting the cartridges themselves.
    STOP using cartridges affected by this recall. If you don’t have useable cartridges, discontinue the pump and revert to your backup plan until new supplies arrive.
    Call Tandem Technical Support at 1-877-801-6901, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to receive replacement cartridges at no charge if you are affected by this recall. Also call Tandem to receive instructions and pre-paid packaging to return unused cartridges affected by this recall.
    Read the Frequently Asked Questions in the firm’s Urgent Medical Device Voluntary Recall letter.

Class I recalls are the most serious type of recall and involve situations in which there is a reasonable probability that use of these products will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.

Health care professionals and consumers may report adverse reactions or quality problems they experienced using these products to MedWatch: The FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program either online, by regular mail or by FAX.

From the FDA

Are you in need of a product liability lawyer?

Wrongful lawsuit filed in Northland Center death

By: Oralandar Brand-Williams The Detroit News

Southfield — The family of a Ferndale man who died last month following a scuffle with security officers at Northland Center filed a wrongful lawsuit Friday in the man’s death.

The Northland Center mall, IPC International Corporation and the six security officers involved in the incident have been named in the lawsuit which seeks at least $800 million in damages.

“(Security guards) without legal justification indiscriminately and/or unreasonably repeatedly pepper-sprayed (McKenzie Cochran) at Northland Center who did not pose any threats,” according to the lawsuit filed by Cochran’s family attorney Gerald Thurswell.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of McKenzie Cochran’s estate and his mother Teresa Cochran.

Mackenize Cochran, 24, died Jan. 28 following the incident in which he was pepper sprayed and held down by security guards. Witnesses said Cochran hollered out for help saying he could not breath as the officers appeared to sit on him.

Officers assisted paramedics in treating Cochran. He was taken to nearby Providence Hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

The incident occurred after a merchant called mall guards on Cochran after allegedly complaining to them that the Ferndale man had been acting suspiciously.

The mall’s general manager, Brent Reetz, said the man made threatening statements and became combative after approached by security.

Cell phone video of the incident has touched off a firestorm of outrage over the incident.

On Thursday, state State Reps. Thomas Stallworth (D-Detroit) and Rudy Hobbs (D-Southfield) held a news conference calling for better training of security guards in Michigan. They introduced a bill that would require the state agency Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) to establish minimum training requirements appropriate for implementation, administration and enforcement for security guards working in Michigan.

From The Detroit News:

Are you in need of a wrongful death lawyer?

$350,000 Settlement: Woman ruptured Achilles tendon in accident

Struck by 1-ton truck, ankle was injured

On July 15, 2013, plaintiff was struck while riding her bicycle near a gas station in Traverse City. A 1-ton truck struck her, pinning her left foot and ankle underneath the truck.

plaintiff was rushed to the ER where she underwent an emergency surgery to repair the crush-type injury, including a ruptured Achilles tendon. An MRI revealed significant bone marrow edema and a fractured navicular bone.

The driver claimed that he did not see her, and defense argued that plaintiff should have gone around the backside of the truck.

The matter settled pre-suit for $350,000.

Type of action: Auto/pedestrian accident

Type of injuries: Ruptured Achilles tendon, bone marrow edema

Court/Case no./Date: Grand Traverse County Circuit Court; N/A (settled pre-suit); Jan. 21, 2014

Settlement amount: $350,000

Are you in need of an injury lawyer?

Kawasaki USA Recalls Off-Road Motorcycles Due to Fuel Leak and Fire Hazard (Recall Alert)

Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
Recall date: February 14, 2014
Recall number: 14-714

Recall Summary
Name of product:

Off-road motorcycles
Hazard:

Fuel can leak from between the fuel tank and fuel tap, posing a fire hazard.
Remedy:
View Details
Repair
Consumer Contact:

Kawasaki toll-free at (866) 802-9381 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday or online at www.kawasaki.com and click on Recall/Safety Info at the bottom of the page for more information.

From the CPSC

Are you in need of an motorcycle accident lawyer?

$2,843,355 Verdict: Millwright with prior back problems injured in bus accident

Experts refute defense’s theory that MRIs before, after crash didn’t change

On April 22, 2011, plaintiff was a passenger on one of defendant People’s Transit Ltd.’s buses. plaintiff, a millwright, and other tradesmen were being driven on the bus from a commuter lot in Dearborn to the nearby Severstal steel plant. Defendant drove the bus.

At approximately 6 a.m., defendant disregarded a red light, ran into an intersection and hit a 2000 GMC Jimmy, striking the passenger-side front corner of the bus. The bus was pushed into the median on Miller Road.

plaintiff, who was sitting behind defendant, was thrown around the inside of the bus. He suffered herniated discs that necessitated a lumbar fusion procedure and pain injections.

Defendant admitted liability for the accident, but argued proximate cause and said that any injuries plaintiff sustained came from prior injuries. plaintiff had undergone a neck fusion in 2008 and in 2008-09 had had back problems, for which he needed physical therapy and injections. Defendants’ expert, a radiologist, testified that she could not find any differences in plaintiff’s pre-accident MRIs and post-accident MRIs

Plaintiff’s experts testified that they did see differences in the MRIs and the findings corresponded with plaintiff’s physical complaints and their findings from plaintiff’s physical exams.

A Wayne County jury determined that defendants’ negligence was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries and that the plaintiff had suffered serious impairment of body function. The jury awarded $801,689 in future economic damages, $1,291,666 in past noneconomic damages and $750,000 in future noneconomic damages.

Type of action: Third-party no-fault

Type of injuries: Herniated discs, lumbar fusion

Court/Case no./Date: Wayne County Circuit Court; 12-001843-NI; Jan. 29, 2014

Tried before: Jury

Verdict amount: $2,843,355

Are you in need of a bus accident lawyer?

Visonic Amber Personal Emergency Response Kits Recalled Due to Failure to Signal Emergency Assistance

Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
Recall date: February 12, 2014
Recall number: 14-104


Recall Summary
Name of product:

Visonic Amber SelectX Personal Emergency Response System (PERS) Kits
Hazard:

Following a reboot or system reset, the Amber SelectX Base Stations can fail to operate and detect an emergency signal from the personal pendant.
Remedy:
View Details
Replace
Consumer Contact:

Visonic at (800) 223-0020 from 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or online at www.visonic.com and click on North America and click on Product News under the Solutions & Products tab for more information about the recall.

From the CPSC

Are you in need of a product liability lawyer?

$300,000 Settlement: Woman injured when driver passes out from epileptic seizure

Defendant said he knew he was undermedicated, thought he could still drive

Defendant male driver had passed out behind the wheel because of an epileptic seizure. He lost control of his vehicle, which crossed the center line and struck plaintiff female driver’s vehicle head-on.

Plaintiff suffered fractures of her right patella, which required surgical repair. She was left with a surgical scar approximately 8 inches in length on her knee. Residuals include stiffness, partial atrophy of quadriceps muscle and weakness.

To avoid the sudden emergency defense, defendant conceded that he knew he was undermedicated but thought he’d be able to drive. He was on his way to the pharmacy to pick up his medications when the accident occurred.

Defendant was uninsured and the plaintiff’s auto policy provided uninsured motorist coverage, which paid the settlement amount.

Type of action: Auto negligence

Type of injuries: Fractured patella, scarring

Name of case: Confidential

Court/Case no./Date: Oakland County Circuit Court; confidential; Dec. 6, 2013

Name of judge: Withheld

Settlement amount: $300,000

Are you in need of an auto accident lawyer?

BebeLove Recalls Baby Walkers Due to Fall and Entrapment Hazards

Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
Recall date: February 06, 2014
Recall number: 14-102


Share
Recall Summary
Name of product:

BebeLove™ Baby Walkers
Hazard:

The walkers failed to meet federal safety standards. Specifically, style number 358 can fit through a standard doorway and is not designed to stop at the edge of a step as required by the federal safety standard. In addition, style number 368 contains leg openings that allow the child to slip down until the child’s head can become entrapped at the neck. Babies using these walkers can be seriously injured or killed.
Remedy:
View Details
Repair
Consumer Contact:

BebeLove toll-free at (888) 464-1218 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday or online at www.bebeloveusa.com and click on “Recall Contact” for more information.

From the CPSC click for more info.

Are you in need of an injury lawyer?

$4.25 million Settlement: Heart rate misinterpreted by delivery staff

Plaintiff contends hospital should have decreased mother’s Pitocin intake

Plaintiff mother went to the defendant hospital at 35 weeks’ gestation after noticing slight bleeding after urinating. The mother had three previous miscarriages and carried a gene associated with recurrent miscarriages.

The mother was evaluated for a premature rupture of her membranes and an external fetal monitor was placed. The fetal monitor strips along with subsequent testing would confirm that the baby was neurologically intact and healthy as of 8:40 a.m. At this time the mother was dilated 1 cm and not yet effected.

A vaginal examination was performed at 2:14 p.m., and the results showed that the mother was dilated 2 cm, 50 percent affected, with a fetal station of -2. Shortly thereafter, an order for Pitocin was written to start augmentation of labor. Because of the various risks associated with the use of Pitocin, both the mother and the baby needed to be properly monitored during this time.

After onset of labor, the Pitocin was gradually increased, resulting in excessive uterine activity. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that the standard of care required Pitocin to be decreased and that fetal heart decelerations worsened when the mother was pushing.

During the course of delivery, the fetal heart rate monitor had begun to graph the mother’s heart rate rather than the baby’s, causing the defendants to misinterpret the increases in the mother’s heart rate that were caused by the pain and discomfort ordinarily associated with contractions.

At 8:33 p.m. defendant OB/GYN performed a vaginal examination, noted that the baby’s head was in the occiput transverse position, and unsuccessfully attempted to rotate the baby’s head.

At 8:35 p.m. plaintiff’s claimed that the OB/GYN unnecessarily employed the use of forceps, and negligently misarticulated to forceps as he struggled to extract the baby from the mother’s uterus.

The baby was born at 8:47 p.m. with a bruised head and severe brain damage. After the baby was resuscitated with oxygen and vigorous stimulation, he was sent to the special care nursery to be further evaluated. The baby was observed as not doing well, and he was transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit.

Radiographic studies revealed that the baby sustained a subdural hematoma, intracranial bleeding and encephalopathy. The baby has since been diagnosed with permanent static encephalopathy and suffers from permanent brain damage, as well as global developmental delays.

Plaintiff deployed a team of expert physicians to establish that the defendants breached several standards of care. Plaintiff contended that defendants should have decreased the use of Pitocin, rather than increase.

In addition, the defendants failed to interpret the fetal monitoring strips correctly, as they were actually observing the mother’s heart rate. Had the defendants not made such an error, they would have realized that the baby was not in distress and would not have rushed to use the forceps which caused the injury to the baby.

Defendants denied any and all breaches of the standard of care, and argued that if the baby’s delivery was not hastened, plaintiff would have simply reversed her theory and sued defendants for failing to deliver the baby in a timely fashion.

In terms of causation, defendants denied that the use of forceps caused the baby’s injuries and blamed the injuries on the fact that the mother had the gene associated with recurrent miscarriages, which could have been passed to the baby, and that the bleed was due to the mother’s clotting disorder.

The case settled for $4.25 million.

Type of action: Medical malpractice, birth trauma

Type of injuries: cerebral palsy, profound developmental delays

Name of case: Confidential

Court/Case no./Date: Confidential; confidential; Dec. 18, 2013

Name of judge: Withheld

Settlement amount: $4.25 million

Are you in need of a medical malpractice lawyer?

3T Design Recalls Cervélo Bicycles with Aduro Aero Handlebars Due to Risk of Injury

Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
Recall date: February 04, 2014
Recall number: 14-099

Recall Summary
Name of product:

Cervélo P5 bicycles with 3T Aduro aero handlebars
Hazard:

The forward extension mounts can detach from the base bar while riding causing the rider to lose control, posing a risk of injury.
Remedy:
View Details
Refund Replace
Consumer Contact:

Aduro Recall Hotline toll-free at (855) 225-7226 from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or online at www.3tcycling.com and click on Aduro Recall for more information.

From the CPSC
Are you in need of an injury lawyer?

$2,825,881 Verdict: Estate of 22-year-old driver sues over wrongful death

Defendants say plaintiff wasn’t properly awake at time of auto accident

Plaintiff Kathryn Groulx, representing the Estate of Christopher J. Groulx, sought compensatory damages from defendants Muma Logging Inc. and Daniel Baird on claims of wrongful death.

In the early morning of Sept. 12, 2011, Groulx, 22, was driving his 2009 Pontiac G6 south on Garfield Road in Garfield Township. He struck a John Deere logging vehicle driven by Bard, an employee of Muma Logging. Bard had been driving 15 mph, according to police reports, and that the vehicle did not have the required lights Groulx would need to see it.

Defendants contended Groulx was not properly alert at the time of the collision, possibly due to lack of sleep, speeding or using a cellphone.

A Bay County jury awarded plaintiff’s estate $45,881 in past economic damages, $30,000 in future economic damages, $2 million in past noneconomic damages and $750,000 in future noneconomic damages.

Type of action: Wrongful death

Type of injuries: Death

Name of case: Groulx v. Muma Logging Inc., et al.

Court/Case no./Date: Bay County Circuit Court; 11-3869-NI; Oct. 3, 2013

Tried before: Jury

Are you in need of an auto accident lawyer?
Do you know what to do in an accident, download our accident reference guide.

Fred & Friends Recalls Infant Pacifiers Due to Choking Hazard

Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
Recall date: January 30, 2014
Recall number: 14-097

Recall Summary
Name of product:
Fred & Friends Chill Baby Artiste, Volume and Panic pacifiers

Hazard:

The pacifiers fail to meet federal safety standards. The beard on the Artiste and the knob on the Volume pacifiers can detach, posing a choking hazard to young children. In addition, the ventilation holes on the Volume and Panic pacifier guards are too small.
Remedy:
View Details
Refund
Consumer Contact:

Fred & Friends toll-free at (855) 346-6372 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, email the firm at pacifiersconsumer@fredandfriends.com  or online at www.fredandfriends.com and click on Pacifier Recall for more information.

From the CPSC

Are you in need of an injury lawyer?

$2.85 million Settlement: Man with medical history suffers cardiogenic shock

Plaintiff: Patient not taken to laboratory after abnormal EKG results

Plaintiff’s decedent, a 43-year-old married father of two children, had a medical history of hypertension, high cholesterol and gastritis and a family history of untimely deaths caused by heart attacks. The decedent also had an extensive history of vascular disease considering his relatively young age.

The decedent treated with his primary care physician (defendant physician) over the course of several years, and often complained of shortness of breath with and without exertion. In January 2010, the patient went to defendant physician with complaints of a racing heart, cough and stress. An EKG revealed supraventricular tachycardia.

Defendant physician diagnosed the patient with palpitations and bronchitis, prescribed a Z-PAK and Robitussin, and instructed the decedent to eliminate caffeine from his diet. The following day the decedent called defendant physician’s office with complaints of pain in his chest and arms and shortness of breath. Rather than instruct the decedent to go to the emergency room or suggest a cardiac workup, the defendant physician simply prescribed benzodiazepine.

The day after calling the defendant physician with complaints of chest and arm pain and shortness of breath, the patient presented to the emergency department of defendant hospital with chief complaints of chest pain, shortness of breath, pain in each arm and pain in his neck. The defendant ER physicians ordered an EKG, which was performed at 17:55, revealing abnormal results.

At 19:10, a second EKG was performed, demonstrating ST segment elevation. The patient was finally taken to the catheterization laboratory at 19:32. The first angioplasty balloon was inflated two hours and 34 minutes after the patient first presented to the emergency department.

By the time the patient received emergency intervention, it was too late to save his life and the decedent suffered cardiogenic shock. The patient was then transferred to another facility where he was diagnosed with end stage ischemic cardiomyopathy and brain damage, and ultimately died.

Plaintiff contended that defendant physician breached the standard of care by failing to refer the patient to the ER or suggest a cardiac workup when the patient complained of pain in his chest and arms and shortness of breath.

Plaintiff also argued that the ER defendants breached the standard of care by failing to take the patient to the catheterization laboratory within 30 minutes of his abnormal EKG results, and by failing to maintain a door-to-balloon ratio of no more than 90 minutes.

Defendant physician denied any breaches in the standard of care, and maintained that he had made efforts to respond to the patient’s complaints during the phone call following the patient’s office visit.

The ER defendants and defendant hospital maintained that even if there was a breach in the standard of care, the patient’s heart muscle was no longer viable by the time he reached the emergency department.

A major key to settling the matter for $2.85 million was plaintiff counsel’s use of a joint-hospital initiative, known as the Door to Balloon Initiative, aka D2B, which was launched by the American College of Cardiology. This initiative seeks to make the 90-minute interval the ordinary performance standard and is comprised of more 800 hospitals, one of which being the defendant hospital.

Type of action: Medical malpractice

Type of injuries: Death

Court/Case no./Date: Confidential; confidential; Oct. 14, 2013

Settlement amount: $2.85 million

Are you in need of a medical malpractice lawyer?

West Marine Recalls Folding Bicycles; Frames Can Break Causing Riders to Fall

Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
Recall date: January 30, 2014
Recall number: 14-096

Recall Summary
Name of product:

Folding Bicycles
Hazard:

The bicycle’s frame can break during use, posing a fall hazard to the rider.
Remedy:
View Details
Replace
Consumer Contact:

West Marine at (800) 262-8464 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or online at www.westmarine.com and click on Product Recalls at the bottom of the page for additional information.

From the CPSC

Are you in need of a product liability injury lawyer?

$4 million Settlement: Hour-plus delay leads to newborn’s injuries

Mother should not have been discharged on her first admission, suit alleges

In November 2002, plaintiff mother was admitted to the defendant hospital at 41 1/7 weeks’ gestation for an attempted induction of labor. After half a day of induction, the mother indicated that she wanted to go home, and declined further induction of labor.

The resident physician acknowledged the mother’s desire to go home, and instructed the mother to come back to the hospital three days later for induction if she did not go into spontaneous labor prior to that time. No plan was made for a fetal assessment in the interval.

Although the records indicated that fetal heart tones were reassuring, a review of the strip showed that there were not only long periods of time where no readable tracing was obtained, but there were also variable decelerations, and some periods of decreased variability.

The following evening, the mother called her prenatal office and reported that she was contracting 20 minutes apart and that the defendants had tried to induce her but that she was sent home. The mother was instructed to go to triage at the defendant hospital for further evaluation.

The mother arrived at the defendant hospital and was noted to be contracting every two minutes. She was moved from triage to the OR when occasional decelerations in the fetal heart rate surfaced. The mother and her baby continued to be monitored in the OR, and the plan was to place an epidural in case there was a need to move towards operative delivery.

More than an hour after arriving, the mother’s membranes ruptured, producing thick golden brown meconium. After there was a prolonged episode of an abnormally low fetal heart rate, or bradycardia, the decision was made to move forward with a C-section.

Although the C-section was performed shortly after, the baby was not delivered until more than 1½ hours after the mother’s arrival at the hospital.

Plaintiff alleged that the baby’s condition at birth was clearly that of an infant who had been severely and recently asphyxiated. The baby’s CT performed at one day of life and her MRI scan performed at three days of life were read as normal and not indicating any congenital abnormalities or antenatal insult.

Plaintiff alleged that the defendants’ negligence caused the baby to suffer from cerebral palsy, a seizure disorder, global developmental delay and a nonfunctioning right kidney.

Plaintiff advanced two primary theories of negligence. First, when the mother presented to the defendant hospital for induction, she was permitted to go home despite the fact that the induction was proceeding slowly. Plaintiff alleged that the mother should have never been discharged and sent home, and had she been adequately informed that she should stay in the hospital and continue the induction, she would have stayed.

Secondly, plaintiff contended, when the mother returned to the hospital and was evaluated, it was immediately clear that there was tachycardia, decreased variability and decelerations in the fetal heart rate. However, instead of rushing to deliver the baby, there was a delay of more than an hour resulting in a hypoxic injury to the baby.

Defendants denied any negligence in allowing the mother to leave the hospital after induction of labor, and that the mother should have independently recognized the risks of leaving the hospital. Defendants further claimed that the baby was timely delivered by way of the C-section.

In terms of causation, defendants asserted that the baby’s condition at birth was due to a genetic defect and congenital abnormality and not related to the care that her mother had received.

The case settled for $4 million.

Type of action: Medical malpractice, birth trauma

Type of injuries: Brain damage, cerebral palsy

Court/Case no./Date: Confidential; confidential; Nov. 1, 2013

Are you in need of a Birth Injury Lawyer?
Download our Birth Injury Reference guide.

Gree Expands Dehumidifier Recall to Include GE Brand Dehumidifiers Due to Serious Fire and Burn Hazards

Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
Recall date: January 30, 2014
Recall number: 14-095

Recall Summary
Name of product:

Dehumidifiers
Hazard:

The dehumidifiers can overheat, smoke and catch fire, posing fire and burn hazards to consumers.
Remedy:
View Details
Refund
Consumer Contact:

Gree toll-free at (866) 853-2802 from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, and on Saturday from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. ET, or online at www.greeusa.com and click on Recall for more information.

From the CPSC

Are you in need of a product liability injury lawyer?

$2.5 million Settlement: Metastatic oral cavity cancer leads to death

Defense contends that therapy carries risk of radiation-induced cancer

Plaintiff was pregnant at the time she was diagnosed with oral cavity cancer. Surgery was performed. Because of the features of the cancer, national consensus guidelines and much of the medical literature indicated that plaintiff should have received post-operative radiation therapy or a combination of radiation therapy and chemotherapy.

Defendants recommended no additional treatment and did not inform plaintiff of the guidelines or the medical literature. Plaintiff continued the pregnancy, and after she delivered, the recurrence of her cancer was diagnosed. The cancer continued to spread and led to her death.

Defendants argued that there was no Level 1 evidence that post-operative radiation therapy or radiation therapy and chemotherapy would have prevented the death, and that any radiation therapy carries a risk of radiation-induced cancer and other significant side effects.

The matter settled for $2.5 million.

Type of action: Medical malpractice, wrongful death

Type of injuries: Metastatic oral cavity cancer leading to death

Court/Case no./Date: Confidential; confidential; Sept. 18, 2013

Are you in need of a medical malpractice lawyer?

Bodum USA Recalls Coffee Presses Sold Exclusively at Starbucks Due to Laceration and Burn Hazards

Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
Recall date: January 28, 2014
Recall number: 14-092

Recall Summary
Name of product:

Bodum® rose gold glass coffee presses
Hazard:

The glass carafe can fall out of the metal frame and plastic base of the coffee press and break or shatter, posing laceration and burn hazards to consumers.
Remedy:
View Details
Refund
Consumer Contact:

Bodum toll-free at (855) 378-6864 from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, email Bodum at recall@bodum.com, or online at www.bodum.com and click on Product Advisories for more information.

From the CPSC

Are you in need of a product liability injury lawyer?

System Sensor Recalls Reflected Beam Smoke Detectors Due To Failure to Alert Consumers in a Fire (Recall Alert)

Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
Recall date: January 28, 2014
Recall number: 14-713

Recall Summary
Name of product:

System Sensor reflected beam smoke detectors
Hazard:

When used with certain power supplies, the reflected beam smoke detectors can fail to send a signal to the fire alarm control panel that sounds the alarm and fail to alert occupants of a fire.
Remedy:
View Details
Replace
Consumer Contact:

System Sensor at (800) 736-7672 from 7:30 a.m. through 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or online at www.systemsensor.com and click on Resources, then Product Info Library/Technical Field Bulletins, then Safety Bulletins for more information and a list of acceptable power supplies.

From the CPSC

Are you in need of an injury lawyer?

$4.75 million Settlement: Baby develops cerebral palsy, developmental delays

Plaintiffs argue that timely delivery was required to prevent birth asphyxia

Plaintiff mother, on behalf of plaintiff-minor, sought compensatory damages from defendant hospital, doctors and hospital residents on claims of birth trauma and medical malpractice.

Plaintiff received full prenatal care and was a compliant patient. Plaintiff had a history of epilepsy and it was considered a possibility that she would be at risk for seizures from induction of labor.

At near term, Plaintiff presented to the defendant hospital with complaints of contractions and labor. Plaintiff was told she was not ready to deliver and was sent home. Plaintiff returned to the hospital a couple hours later and defendant doctors and residents induced labor.

Fetal heart tracings were nonreassuring and demonstrated the presence of cord compression over a period of 24 hours. Vaginal delivery was attempted, but active pushing caused concerning fetal heart tracings. An emergency C-section was ordered.

Baby was not breathing at birth. Apgar score was zero at one minute, and zero at five minutes. The baby was resuscitated more than minutes after birth following several failed attempts at intubation. Umbilical cord blood gases were below the normal range, indicating metabolic acidosis.

The baby experienced seizure activity and received hypothermia cooling treatment for 72 hours. Head imaging was abnormal and consistent with hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy (birth asphyxia). Plaintiff minor was later diagnosed with cerebral palsy and profound developmental delays.

Plaintiff asserted that the fetal monitor tracing from plaintiff’s labor showed nonreassuring fetal heart tones and excessive uterine stimulation, which required earlier delivery of plaintiff minor. The hospital staff managing the labor failed to respond to fetal distress and thus a C-section was not timely performed. This delay caused a lack of oxygen to the baby’s brain causing brain damage.

Defendants’ position was that plaintiff minor had microcephaly at birth, suggesting a chronic in utero injury and injury before labor. Defendants also asserted that there was a very short life expectancy given plaintiff minor’s lack of mobility and feeding tube.

Defendants also argued that cord compression is common as labor progresses, and that the C-section was timely performed when fetal monitoring became concerning.

The case settled pre-suit for $4.75 million.

Type of action: Medical malpractice, birth trauma

Type of injuries: Cerebral palsy

Court/Case no./Date: Confidential; confidential; Dec. 1, 2013

Are you in need of a birth injury lawyer?
Download our birth injury reference guide.

Flushmate Expands Recall of Flushmate III Pressure-Assisted Flushing System Due to Impact and Laceration Hazards

Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
Recall date: January 23, 2014
Recall number: 14-089

Recall Summary
Name of product:

Flushmate® III Pressure-Assist Flushing System
Hazard:

The system can burst at or near the vessel weld seam releasing stored pressure. This pressure can lift the tank lid and shatter the tank, posing impact and laceration hazards to consumers and property damage.
Remedy:
View Details
Repair
Consumer Contact:

Flushmate at (800) 303-5123 between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. ET Monday through Friday and between 8 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. ET Saturday, or online at www.flushmate.com and click on “Flushmate III Recall” in the black box on the top left of the page for more information.

From the CPSC

Are you in need of a product liability injury lawyer?

$1 million Settlement: Woman’s brain injury worsened with fall

Plaintiff: Therapist didn’t carefully protect patient while walking with her

Plaintiff, 86, was in the hospital rehabilitating from a recent hemorrhage on the left side of her brain, believed to be caused by hypertension. She was stabilized and no surgical intervention was required.

She was to undergo rehabilitative therapy, which was to include occupational and physical therapy. It was anticipated that she would be discharged from the hospital within two weeks. Prior to going into the hospital, plaintiff was socially active and fully independent in all activities of daily living.

During plaintiff’s hospital admission, she was known to have lower extremity weakness, abnormal mobility, balance deficits and dizziness. Numerous safety and fall precautions were in place.

On the morning of the plaintiff’s first scheduled physical therapy session, the nurse told the physical therapist that the plaintiff was dizzy and postponed the therapy. Later that day, the physical therapist came back to perform therapy. The therapist had the plaintiff walk by herself in the hallway, with the physical therapist allegedly following behind her.

Per the medical record, no gait belt or assistive device was used, although the therapist testified to using one. While plaintiff was walking, the therapist was following behind plaintiff in a manner where the therapist was out of position to secure the plaintiff or catch the plaintiff if she fell.

After walking three steps, the plaintiff fell down and hit her head, sustaining a “goose-egg” hematoma on the right side of her brain. She required brain craniotomy surgery, was hospitalized for a lengthy period of time, and never regained her functional status.

She was required to be cared for by nursing homes, and required 24-hour attendant care which continued when she returned home.

Defendants and their experts argued that the physical therapist had to allow the patient to walk in order to assess the patient’s gait. Defendants also contended that they complied with the standard of care in all respects.

Plaintiff asserted that it was too soon to have the plaintiff walking at all; that a gait assessment need not be done as it was clear that the plaintiff could not walk; and that the therapist did not carefully protect the plaintiff while allegedly walking with her.

As to causation, defendants argued that plaintiff would have never fully recovered from her pre-existing brain injury and would have likely required continued medical treatment and attendant care even if she had not fallen.

Plaintiff countered with the testimony of two neurologists, including the independent medical examiner. Both testified that plaintiff’s outcome was significantly worsened by the fall.

Complicating factors for trial/settlement included negotiating a claimed Medicare lien in excess of $800,000. The matter settled for $1 million.

Type of action: Medical malpractice

Type of injuries: Hematoma brain injury and craniotomy surgery leading to permanent brain damage

Name of case: Confidential

Court/Case no./Date: Confidential; confidential; Aug. 13, 2013

Name of judge: Withheld

Settlement amount: $1 million

Are you in need of a personal injury lawyer?

Suunto Recalls Air Hoses Used With Scuba Gear Due To Drowning Hazard

Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
Recall date: January 23, 2014
Recall number: 14-088

Recall Summary
Name of product:

Scuba high-pressure air hoses
Hazard:

The high pressure air hose may leak or rupture leading to a loss of breathing gas posing a drowning hazard.
Remedy:
View Details
Replace
Consumer Contact:

Suunto Support toll-free at (855) 258-0900 anytime, or email at support@suunto.com, or online at www.suunto.com and click on Recall at the bottom of the page for more information.

From the CPSC

Are you in need of a product liability injury lawyer?

$1.35 million Settlement: Mechanic killed when van hits car at 55 mph

It’s contended defendant driving the van had cruise control on, never slowed

Plaintiff’s decedent, a 31-year-old auto mechanic, was heading to his father’s home. En route, he drove through an intersection controlled by an east-west stop sign that gave the right of way to the north-south traffic. A van owned by defendant Gratiot County Community Mental Health was driven through the intersection, striking his vehicle on the driver’s side at approximately 55 mph.

His vehicle was forced across the intersection and into a field, where it came to rest and caught fire. He died a short time later, and his body was burned beyond recognition. He left behind a wife and two children, ages 1 and 3.

It was argued that the driver of the van had cruise control on and never slowed down the van prior to impacting Wilson’s vehicle.

Plaintiff’s counsel said that the key to settling the case for $1.35 million was submitting a detailed settlement demand that documented facts that would have been used to support a jury demand of damages in excess of $950,000. The remaining funds sought to compensate the decedent’s estate were calculated based on the possibility of a jury awarding compensation for decedent’s conscious pain and suffering experience after the injury but before his death.

Type of action: Auto negligence

Type of injuries: Death

Court/Case no./Date: Montcalm County Probate Court; 13-31336-DE; Sept. 26, 2013

Settlement amount: $1.35 million

Are you in need of an auto accident lawyer?
Do you know what to do after an accident? download our auto accident reference guide.

Matrix Fitness Ascent Trainers and Ellipticals Recalled by Johnson Health Tech Due to Fire Hazard

Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
Recall date: January 23, 2014
Recall number: 14-086

Recall Summary
Name of product:

Ascent Trainer® by Matrix and Matrix Fitness Elliptical
Hazard:

Moisture from user perspiration or cleaning liquids can build up in the power socket on the unit, causing a short circuit, posing a fire hazard.
Remedy:
View Details
Repair
Consumer Contact:

Johnson Health Tech North America toll-free at (866) 218-3674 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or online at www.matrixfitness.com and click on Safety Notice at the bottom of the page.

From the CPSC

Are you in need of a product liability injury lawyer?

$3 million Settlement: Driver injured when truck stops on freeway’s middle lane

Defense argues plaintiff had sufficient distance, time to avoid the collision

On April 10, 2012, plaintiff was driving west on Interstate 94 when a tractor-trailer came to a complete stop in the middle lane. Independent eyewitnesses testified that there was no warning given to other motorists.

plaintiff ran into the trailer, suffering serious injuries as a result, including a below-knee amputation.

The truck driver was employed by a driver leasing company, and he was driving under the authority of Three Star Trucking Co.

Plaintiff argued that the collision was caused, in part, by the driver’s negligence when he failed to properly secure the glad hand (an air pressure hose that connects the tractor to the trailer). The hose supplied air to the trailer’s spring brakes, and when the air pressure was lost, the trailer brakes were automatically engaged.

Plaintiff said the truck driver noticed the truck beginning to slow, but was clueless as to why the truck was slowing. Rather than heed the multiple warnings (audible and visual) in the cab and move off the highway, the driver essentially did nothing and came to a stop in the center lane of the freeway. There was not enough time for plaintiff to perceive what was actually going on and react timely to avoid the collision.

Defendants argued that plaintiff was the cause of the collision, and that he had sufficient time and distance to avoid the collision. The defendants also asserted the presumption that the rear-ending driver is “prima facie negligent” under Michigan law.

Defendants asserted various comparative negligence arguments, including the failure to stop in assured clear distance ahead and that plaintiff’s medications affected his ability to safely operate his vehicle. The defense even filed a notice of nonparty fault against the owner of the vehicle that plaintiff was driving.

Plaintiff’s counsel noted that all of the defendants’ arguments were defeated through extensive written discovery; depositions of independent witnesses; investigating police and numerous defendant employees; tractor and trailer inspections; and a complete understanding of the mechanics and operation of the tractor and trailer combination.

The $3 million settlement was achieved after communication with the treating physicians and gaining an excellent grasp of the underlying medical issues and orthopedic injuries, and how these injuries have and will affect plaintiff for the rest of his life.

Type of action: Third-party auto negligence

Type of injuries: Severe orthopedic injuries resulting in multiple surgeries and a below-knee amputation

Court/Case no./Date: Macomb County Circuit Court; 12-3672-NI; Dec. 6, 2013

Settlement amount: $3 million

Are you in need of a truck accident lawyer?
Do you know what to do in an accident? Download our auto accident reference guide.

Bosch Security Systems Recalls Fire Control Panels Due to Fire Alarm Failure (Recall Alert)

Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
Recall date: January 16, 2014
Recall number: 14-711

Recall Summary
Name of product:

Bosch GV4 Fire Alarm Control Panels
Hazard:

The notification appliance circuit module can cause the panels to fail to activate an audible or visual alarm in the event of a fire.
Remedy:
View Details
Repair
Consumer Contact:

Bosch Security Systems Inc., at (800) 289-0096, from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. ET Monday and 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. ET Tuesday through Friday or online at www.boschsecurity.us and click on Customer Care for more information.

From the CPSC

Are you in need of a product liability injury lawyer?