Los Angeles Injury Lawyer Blog

The Supreme Court in Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. recently denied a man an award for damages when his balloon catheter ruptured during heart surgery due to over-inflation. The man sued the manufacturer of the catheter, alleging that the device violated New York state law and that the defective product caused him to suffer from severe and permanent injuries. After hearing the facts, the Supreme Court found that the federal Medical Device Act prevented the man from seeking remedies based on his state common law claims of strict liability, breach of implied warranty and negligence.

The Medical Device Act bars a State from establishing any requirements that are 1) different from or in addition to any federal requirements which 2) relate to the safety and effectiveness of a medical device. The purpose of the Act is to provide federal oversight to the introduction of new medical devices. The Act categorizes devices into three categories, with more federal oversight regulating the most complex of the devices. Class I, which include items such as bandages or examination gloves, is subject to the lowest level of oversight. Examples of devices that fall within Class II are powered wheelchairs or surgical drapes. Class III devices, which include replacement heart valves and pacemaker pulse generators, are those that are purported to be used for sustaining human life, that significantly prevent impairment of human health, or that present a potential unreasonable risk of illness and injury. Class III devices are subject to the most federal oversight. According to the Act, medical equipment manufacturers cannot market or make changes to Class III devices without FDA approval.

In determining whether to grant pre-market approval, the FDA applies a balancing test that weighs the probable health benefit against the probable risk of injury or illness. Thus, a device that has the potential to cause injury could still be approved if the FDA determines that its benefits significantly outweigh that risk.

In the case at hand, doctors inserted the Evergreen Balloon Catheter into the patient’s coronary artery in attempt to dilate it. Despite the manufacturer’s warnings not to use the device in patients with a heavily calcified coronary artery and to refrain from over-inflating it past its rated burst pressure, doctors did both of those actions. As a result, the patient suffered a heart block, was placed on life support, and underwent an emergency coronary bypass surgery. In response, the man brought a suit against Medtronic, claiming that its catheter was designed, labeled, and manufactured in violation of NY state law. The Supreme Court found that the Medtronics catheter in question complied with Class III pre-market approval requirements of the FDA. As a result, the Court held that the man was pre-empted from bringing any state law claims because in doing so, it would impose additional requirements expressly prohibited by the Medical Devices Act.

While this case imposes some limitation on an individual’s ability to recover from damages sustained in medical injury case, the Court left open several issues. First, the case only applies to medical devices and doesn’t include approved drugs. Additionally, the Court only addresses the impacts of the Medical Device Act on Class III devices. Finally, the case only applies to devices that have met the federal requirements. Devices that are not in compliance with regulations are still subject to claims of strict liability.

If you or someone close to you has been injured by a malfunctioning medical device, you may still be able to recover. The laws on medical malpractice and product liability are complex, but we are here to help. If you have been injured in the state of California due to a malfunctioning device, please call us at The Law Offices of Greenberg & Rudman LLP at 1-800-ALAWPRO (1-800-252-9776) for a free consultation regarding your rights.

Posted by Greenberg & Rudman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: MEDICAL MALPRACTICE , PRODUCT LIABILITY

Bookmark:

A Compton, California jury recently awarded $30 million to ten construction workers and two spouses for injury and damages resulting from a workplace roof collapse of a tank constructed for the Sanitation District of Los Angeles County. When the roof collapsed, several workers plummeted six floors into the bottom of the tank filled with rebar, metal, and wet concrete. Several others were left hanging 50 feet above the ground until help arrived. The occupational accident left several of the construction workers severely injured.

The construction workers sued the manufacturer and installer of the shoring and scaffolding material on claims of negligence, strict products liability, and product liability negligence. After reviewing the facts of the case, a jury deemed the manufacturer, Harsco Corp. 75 percent liable for providing damaged and inadequate shoring material. The jury also found DYK liable for negligently erecting the shoring and scaffolding material.

In 2006, there were nearly 49,000 nonfatal injuries and illnesses among California construction workers, according to the California Department of Industrial Relations. In 2005, 102 fatalities resulted from construction accidents, falls, or exposure to harmful substances. In the state of California, there are nearly 940,000 Californians employed in the construction industry.

If you have suffered from a construction or workplace-related injury and live in the state of California, please call the Law Offices of Greenberg & Rudman LLP for a free consultation about your rights. We are experienced personal injury attorneys who can help you recover from your injuries.

Posted by Greenberg & Rudman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: PREMISES LIABILITY , PRODUCT LIABILITY

Bookmark:

A person injured by falling objects (such as from a ceiling or roof) may have a claim of negligence against the owner of the premises where the accident occurred. Whether a claim of premises liability will be successful in a court of law depends on the relationship between the injured party and the property owner. Specifically, the law will look at whether the owner owed and breached a duty to the injured person to exercise reasonable care and whether that breach was the proximate cause of the injury. In most cases, an ordinary standard of care applies. This “ordinary” standard of care typically requires the landowner to inspect his or her premises for any hidden dangers. If a dangerous condition is found, the owner must then take steps to remove it or provide a proper warning about the danger. The standard of care is even higher for certain categories of business owners such as innkeepers or common carriers.

Courts have ruled on several types of “falling objects” cases including but not limited to:
• Merchandise in retail stores: paint cans, canned goods, bottles, boxes, product displays
• Carpet and linoleum rolls, bolts of fabric
• Plaster from ceiling
• Construction debris
• Bridge repair sites
• Lighting fixtures
• Fans, cooling systems
• Walls, doors, windows, and roofs/ ceilings
• Trees
• Loading and unloading activities
• Building facades

Often in falling object situations, the injured person is unable to prove exaclty what caused the object to fall or the exact location from where it fell. In these situations, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (“the thing speaks for itself”) steps in to help the injured victim. Res ipsa loquitur applies where the circumstances of certain types of accidents may justify an implied negligence, even if negligence cannot be definitively proved by the occurrence of the accident. Byrne v. Boadle is the landmark case in which the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was first applied. In this case, a man injured by a barrel of flour that fell from the second-floor of a shop, could not prove exactly how or why the barrel had fallen. However, the court still found the shop responsible because such an accident could not have occurred without some degree of negligence. Since then, courts have used the res ipsa loquitur doctrine to find liability in falling objects cases. A California court found a theater operator liable for plaster that fell from the ceiling and injured a patron because he had responsibility for the upkeep of the premises.

If you or a loved one has been injured by a falling object, you may be able to receive for compensation for your injuries. Call the experienced injury lawyers at The Law Offices of Greenberg & Rudman LLP at 1-800-ALAWPRO (1-800-252-9776) to find out how we can help. By taking action, you can help prevent unfortunate accidents such as these from happening again.

Posted by Greenberg & Rudman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: BRAIN & SPINAL CORD INJURY , PREMISES LIABILITY

Bookmark:

Common tow-trailers that are hitched to the back of passenger cars, SUVs, and trucks pose extremely hazardous risks when not secured properly. In Los Angeles, an unsecured trailer that came unhitched on the Sierra Highway caused the wrongful death of a man. When the trailer broke lose from the Chevy Suburban that was towing it, the driver of a Ford Expedition driving behind had to serve unexpectedly to avoid hitting it. Tragically, the SUV swerved across the median and slammed directly into an oncoming Dodge pickup, killing the driver of the truck instantly. The cause of the runaway trailer was a worn latch in the locking device. The widow of the man and their children were only able to recover $312,500 from their wrongful death suit.

A little known fact is that runaway trailers are responsible for a sizeable number of harmful accidents across the country. Trailers are used for a variety of purposes such as hauling household appliances, cars, boats, gardening materials, etc. When not used for commercial purposes, these trailers are often owned by individuals who are not properly trained to properly connect and secure them the towing vehicle. A study conducted by Master Lock found that most owners of trailers lacked basic safety and handling knowledge of the towing devices. In addition, more than half failed to attach safety chains to their trailers.

The risk of runaway trailers grows even greater, considering the lack of state and federal regulations governing private trailers and hauling devices. While some states require the use of safety chains, the safety requirements and regulations are not uniform or widespread. Although the California Highway Patrol posts very rudimentary towing and hauling guidelines on its website, there exists no formal training program or requirement for individuals prior to using a tow-trailer.

The remedies that can be sought after an accident involving a runaway trailer are, for the most part, limited to common law claims such as negligence, wrongful death, pain & suffering, etc. However, there seems to be a growing recognition of the dangers involved with towing. The state of Washington recently implemented a law that criminalizes the failure to secure a load when it results in bodily injury. The law, named “Maria’s Law,” was inspired by a tragic accident where debris from a U-Haul truck flew into the windshield of a woman driving behind the truck, causing her permanent blindness and disfigurement.

Tips for Safe Towing
Preparing a Trailer• Hook up the electric cable for trailer lights and make sure to check that the lights work.
• Tie the load down securely if you are using an open trailer,.
• You will need to look at your owner's manual to check the maximum weight the vehicle can safely tow. A general rule is to make sure that the vehicle is heavier than the trailer.
• Organize slightly more of the weight in the front half to ensure stability when loading the trailer,. When a trailer has been loaded correctly, approximately 10% of its total weight will be sitting on the trailer tongue.
• If you have a trailer with electric brakes, make sure the battery for the emergency breakaway system is charged and that the power cable is attached.
• Confirm before you leave that your tires are in good condition and are inflated the proper amount.

Towing a trailer• If you are in a situation where the trailer sways, hold the wheel straight and do not apply the brakes on the tow vehicle. If you brake or steer to counter the swaying, it can lead to loss of control of your vehicle. Stop when it is safe to do so and be sure the trailer is loaded properly.
• When towing a trailer, be sure to drive slowly, especially down hills. Avoid sudden stops and lane changes whenever possible.
• Avoid towing in windy, wet, or icy conditions.

If you or a family member has been involved in a truck accident, you could be eligible for compensation. If you have been injured as the result of a collision with a truck, which was not your fault or if a family member has been killed through a truck accident, you should contact a lawyer. If the accident occurred in California, please call us at The Law Offices of Greenberg & Rudman LLC for a free and private consultation. We are experienced attorneys who can help guide you at this difficult time.

Posted by Greenberg & Rudman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: CAR ACCIDENT , MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT , TRUCKING ACCIDENT , WRONGFUL DEATH

Bookmark:

A young girl and her family have recently obtained a $55 million award as a result of a severe car accident that rendered her a quadriplegic requiring constant care. This is the largest award given out in the Central District of California, which covers the counties of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside. In 2002, an Army National Guard employee ran a red light in Costa Mesa, California at a busy intersection near South Coast Plaza. In doing so, the man slammed into the passenger side of an SUV truck in which a 4-year old girl was riding. The car crash left the girl with a spinal cord injury.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles never contested the government’s liability. Instead, the issue at hand was the calculation of damages that should be awarded to the victims of this car accident. Six years after the accident, the injured girl still requires 24-hour nursing care to ensure that her respirator works properly. Confined to a wheelchair that she can move with her chin, she must still rely on a feeding tube for her meals. In addition, constant rotation of her body and medicine must be administered throughout the night.

After a prolonged lawsuit, the girl and her family finally received some relief. A judge in the Central District of California recently awarded the girl $54 million to help cover the costs of past and future medical expenses, lost wages, and pain & suffering. The calculation of medical costs is based on the expenses required until the girl reaches the age of 35 – her expected life expectancy given the accident. Because of the severity of her injuries, medical experts and the court determined that her life expectancy is now half of what it was prior to the collision. In addition, the court awarded the girl’s mother an additional $1 million for treatment for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) that she suffered from the accident as well as other compensatory damages.

If you or a loved one have become the victim of a car accident or have been seriously injured in the State of California, please call the lawyers at The Law Offices of Greenberg and Rudman LLC at 1-800-ALAWPRO (1-800-252-9776) for a free initial consultation regarding your rights and how the law can help.

Posted by Greenberg & Rudman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: BRAIN & SPINAL CORD INJURY , CAR ACCIDENT , MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

Bookmark:

A retired police officer sued the City of LA when he was hit by a city-operated dump truck while riding his motorcycle in Northridge, California. As a result of the very serious motorcycle accident, the man suffered severe brain injury which caused him to suffer from short-term memory loss. After a two-year lawsuit, the man was finally able to receive ample compensation for damages suffered from this traumatic accident.

The case went finally went to trial after prolonged settlement negotiations failed to materialize. Even though the retired officer suffered severe brain injury and now requires 24-hour care as a result of the collision, the city never offered more than $50,000. The key issue in the case was the degree of the city’s liability. City attorneys contend that the driver of the dump truck was merely a contractor of the Bureau of Street Services, and thus an independent worker outside of the responsibility of the city. In addition, they argued that the driver had finished his day’s shift and was thus “off-site” when the collision occurred.

Luckily, the jury was more sympathetic to the victim of this tragic motorcycle accident. Despite the city’s attempt to escape liability, the jury found that the city was indeed liable for the man’s injuries. The Chatsworth Superior Court awarded him $4.7 million for his past and future medical expenses and lost wages. In addition, the court also awarded the man an additional $11 million to compensate for his pain and suffering and emotional distress. This was the largest award given out by this court.

If you or a loved one has been injured in a motorcycle accident in California, please call The Law Offices of Greenberg & Rudman, LLC for a free consultation at 1-800-ALAWPRO (1-800-252-9776). We are trial attorneys who will fight for you!

Posted by Greenberg & Rudman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: BRAIN & SPINAL CORD INJURY , MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT , MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENT , TRUCKING ACCIDENT

Bookmark:

We recently settled a wrongful death case where our client's husband was electrocuted when he plugged in a defective product he purchased from a second hand store, into an incorrectly wired electrical outlet that was in the home he was renting in the San Fernando Valley, County of Los Angeles, California.

In addition to her wrongful death claim, our client had a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress damages because she witnessed the horrific event.

We sued the manufacturer of the defective ultrasonic cleaning product and the store that sold it for product liability as well as the owner of the rental home for negligence and premises liability.

We hired a well known professor of Electrical Power Engineering from a prestigious university to inspect the ultrasonic cleaner and the electrical outlet that it was plugged into. This expert concluded that the electrocution occurred because the electrical outlet was reversed wired, and the ultrasonic cleaner contained an interior exposed wire which came in contact with the metal casing of the product. These factors combined to electrically charge the outside of the product, causing our client's husband to die by electrocution when he picked it up.

The homeowner, who we proved hired a handyman who negligently wired the electrical outlet, had a homeowner's insurance policy for $300,000. We were successful in forcing the insurance company to pay the entire policy to settle the case. We also collected a significant sum of money from the manufacturer and seller of the product.

Posted by Greenberg & Rudman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: PREMISES LIABILITY , PRODUCT LIABILITY , WRONGFUL DEATH

Bookmark:

Burns are extremely serious injuries in children and lead to over 116,000 children being treated for fire and burn injuries. Over 40,000 of these children each year require hospitalization and over 500 of these children die from fire and burn-related injuries. Over the past few years, there has been an increase in lighter-related fires and burns associated with misuse by children. Cigarette lighters are easier to ignite than matches, in many cases, so younger children more frequently are involved in lighter-associated fires and burns. Generally it is unattended children who start these types of fires and adult negligence is to blame.

This is tragically what happened to one of our client’s. He was a seven year old boy who lived in an apartment complex with his mother. The apartment house manager agreed to baby sit the boy when the mother had to go to work, so the boy was taken to the manager's apartment. The boy's mother did not smoke, and the boy had not seen a cigarette lighter before he was at the manager's apartment. The mother never taught the boy not to play with matches or cigarette lighters as the boy had not been exposed to these before. The manager was a smoker, and had a cigarette lighter. While the mother was at work, the boy watched as the manager would light one cigarette after another with the lighter. The manager had to go out to a tenant’s apartment, and left the lighter on the table next to the boy. While the manager was out, the boy started to play with the lighter, and lit himself on fire. The boy was severely burned with third degree burns by the time the manager came back. The liability policy that covered the apartment complex paid for the negligence of the apartment manager, and we were able to settle this case for many hundreds of thousands of dollars.

If your child has been burned or injured in a lighter or match related accident, please call our law offices at 1-800-ALAWPRO (1-800-252-9776) for a free consultation. We cannot stop the injury from having happened, but we may be able to get you proper monetary compensation to help care for your child for the rest of his or her life.

Posted by Greenberg & Rudman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: BURN INJURY

Bookmark: