Rockford & Moline Personal Injury Lawyers

Prognosis Not Good: Slippery Slope of Safety and FDA Approval

Nick Avgerinos — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 11:03:00 GMT

With our incredible research capabilities, the availability of prescription drugs designed for your ailment can be daunting. And most of us want to know exactly what it is we're putting into our bodies by taking that pill. An FDA approval acts as a safety blanket, something to quiet those doubts about filling a prescription.

For those of us who are that cautious, who avoid the ominous online world of fast pharmaceuticals, and do our own research regarding benefits and side effects, that seal of approval from the FDA is an affirming nod from those who know better. It's disconcerting to learn, then, that "FDA approved" doesn't mean a whole lot.at least not anymore.

You should know that recent litigation has whisked away your safety blanket and revealed the scary state of pharmaceuticals underneath. Nothing guarantees that what you're taking is safe. Nothing. Recent high court cases are emphasizing just that, allowing pharmaceutical companies (and the FDA) to escape liability when those "FDA approved" drugs are discovered to be dangerous.

On May 28, for example, two separate state appellate courts largely dismissed claims regarding the painkiller Vioxx. Merck withdrew Vioxx from the market in 2004 after research demonstrated that the drug was linked to increased risk of heart attack. Effectually, the courts said "that's too bad." But words ring hollow for those whose lives are jeopardized by such risks.

As Forbes noted, this is good news for medical device makers. Unfortunately, it's bad news for the rest of us. A case set to go before the Supreme Court this fall, Wyeth v. Levine, will have a big role in shaping your rights with regard to pharmaceutical products. A ruling for Wyeth would preempt product liability lawsuits when a drug has been approved by the FDA, even when the drug is subsequently found to be harmful. Such a ruling would likely lead to further curtailing of your rights, as other industries would try to mimic this preemption doctrine.

When asked what its own approval means, the FDA responds as follows:

"No drug product is 'perfectly' safe. Every single drug that affects the body will have some side effects. Since the FDA considers both the benefits and risks of all medications before approval, side effects are generally not serious. For every drug FDA approves, the benefits are balanced against its risks. In addition, FDA makes sure the labeling (package insert) outlines the benefits and risks reported in the tested population. You and your health-care provider should decide together if the benefits outweigh the risks for YOU. Talking about your medicines with your health-care provider is just as important and good for your health as a complete check-up and taking your medicine as directed."

In other words, talk to your doctor. Do your own research. And it's a good idea to keep an eye on current legal decisions. Knowing your health and your rights is primarily your own responsibility. And if the current of the Supreme Court keeps trending the same way, you might be the only one left to take responsibility. So, please, be responsible.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick Avgerinos

Fun on the Fourth: 10 Tips for Fireworks Safety

Nick Avgerinos — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:05:00 GMT

It's that time of the year again: long weekends, barbeques, and-you guessed it-fireworks! And while we all enjoy a little Fourth of July fun, it's important to be careful, too. As pointed out by fellow attorney David Lowe , fireworks can pose a danger both for those who personally light them, as well as those sitting back to enjoy their bursts of color. That's not to say you should avoid the tradition entirely, just that you need to be smart while in the proximity of such festivities.

First off, it doesn't hurt to remind everyone that most fireworks are illegal in Illinois . And while it may be tempting to obtain these stunners illegally or from neighboring states, it's just not worth it. It's not worth the risk of getting caught, and it's not worth the risk of personal injury. Just as a refresher, some items are permitted: sparklers, snake/glow worm pellets, smoke devices, trick noisemakers, and plastic or paper caps. These fun effects can be purchased at retail stores like Target , but even they should be used with caution .

These items, on the other hand, are strictly prohibited: firecrackers, torpedoes, skyrockets, roman candles, and bombs. Why? For starters, do you want little Tommy playing with something called a torpedo? I didn't think so. The fact of the matter is that you shouldn't be playing with torpedoes either. Every year, you hear story after story about unfortunate accidents that started out as "innocent" fun. You don't want to be that story this year. So, as a preemptive attempt to reduce such accidents, I'm sharing 10 safety tips recently promulgated by the Chicago Tribune :

1) Be sure other people are out of range before lighting fireworks.

2) Only light fireworks on a smooth, flat surface away from the house, dry leaves, and flammable materials.

3) Never try to relight fireworks that have not fully functioned.

4) Keep a bucket of water in case of a malfunction or fire.

5) If a sparkler fails to light, douse it with water. Do not put inside a car, building or structure until it has been soaked for a while.

6) Only use fireworks outdoors.

7) Obey all local laws regarding the use of fireworks.

8) Purchase fireworks only from legitimate stores and roadside stands. Their products will be tested for safety. If you want to find a reliable place to buy using a zip code, click here .

9) Always wear safety glasses.

10) Alcohol and fireworks don't mix!

This Fourth of July, don't forgo the fun, just step up the safety. That way, you can really relax on your long weekend.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick Avgerinos

Faceless Foibles: Who's To Blame For Medical Device Mishaps?

Nick Avgerinos — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:47:00 GMT

A lot of people see the legal arena as a battlefield. The goal? The attach blame to the enemy faction and extract compensation. But behind those battle lines, there are people. Mistakes have been made and everyone just wants to move on. What makes matters trickier is when there is no one to blame. No, I'm not talking about those rare "Act of God" cases; rather, I'm referring to medical devices gone wrong. Here are some common problems:

Prescription drugs
Heart valves and pacemakers
Implantable contraceptives and intrauterine devices
Prostheses
Latex gloves
Silicone implants
Surgical and physical therapy equipment
Respiratory devices
Contact lenses and dental care products
Laser and orthopedic tools

You assume that just because you're treated at a well-respected hospital by a well-trained doctor, you'll be safe. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Sometimes it's not about human error. Instead, machines are to blame. And that makes your situation more difficult all around. There's "no one" to blame, no face to attach to your pain. So what now? Do you have a personal injury claim? Are you the victim of medical malpractice? Well, it depends.

Of particular interest to patients is the recent Supreme Court decision of Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. As Injury Board member Dan Firth discussed in May, this case involved the bursting of a balloon catheter, manufactured by Medtronic, during angioplasty surgery. The result: Medtronic was not held liable. The suit was dismissed on grounds that the malfunctioning device had pre-market FDA approval and, thus, was barred by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

The Court reasoned that the FDA has the responsibility for evaluating the risks and benefits of a new device and assuring that it is safe and effective for its intended use. Thus, they should take the blame for the mistake. And while that may make legal sense to some, it doesn't make much common sense to most. Why? The FDA approves devices for sale, but it does not guarantee that a particular product is safe. Seems like a game of hot potato, passing the buck as to who's to blame.

So, where does that leave you? We don't know yet. The legal landscape is still growing up around this fresh decision. But there's little question that patients deserve more protection. Keep up-to-date on the latest recalls and always question your care. Until someone is forced to take responsibility for these faceless foibles, you'll have to be extra aware of choices affecting your health.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick Avgerinos

AEDs: A Lifesaving Tool in the Workplace

Nick Avgerinos — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:04:00 GMT

June 1-7, 2008 marked the first annual American Red Cross CPR and AED Awareness Week. The Red Cross sponsored activities and educational services nationwide with the goal of encouraging "states, cities and towns to establish organized programs that provide CPR and AED trainings and increase public access to AEDs."

An automatic external defibrillator (AED), is a computerized medical device which can be used to restore natural heart rhythm to someone in cardiac arrest. AEDs are easy to use devices that, if readily available, can increase survival by as much as 49% and prevent many instances of severe brain injury. Legislation in 2006 established guidelines requiring AEDs to be placed in buildings owned or leased by the federal government.

The American Heart Association recommends AEDs to be placed in public areas such as office complexes as well as training several people in the workplace how to perform CPR and operate AEDs if necessary. In Illinois, recent legislation provides funding for public facilities such as parks to become equipped with AEDs, but the choice to place AEDs in private workplaces remains at the discretion of the employer.

Employers should seriously consider placing AEDs in the workplace. Heart disease is the leading cause of death in Illinois, and many of these deaths can be prevented if the person is treated quickly. At a cost of about $2000, they can be important life saving devices if easily accessible.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick Avgerinos

Think Safety at the Playground this Summer

Nick Avgerinos — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:42:00 GMT

As Chicago finally warms up, children will happily take advantage of the benefits of public playgrounds. Unfortunately, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that over 200,000 children are treated in emergency rooms for playground related injuries each year. While many of these injuries are the inevitable result of young children at play, inadequately built or maintained playgrounds can create unnecessary dangers.

Last week, the city of Bethesda, Ohio closed one of its playgrounds because it did not meet adequate safety standards. Here in Illinois, the City of Chicago, the Chicago Public Schools, and the Chicago Park District have funded a four-year program to improve the conditions of public playgrounds.

In order to improve the safety of public playgrounds, the Consumer Product Safety Commission created guidelines which were updated last month. These, and the standards of the National Program for Playground Safety specify equipment regulations that could dramatically reduce the injuries that send children to the emergency room.

According to Illinois law, municipalities have a duty of ordinary care to ensure that recreational parks are "reasonably" safe. However, Illinois law does not hold the city responsible unless there is "willful and wanton misconduct," (which has been defined as an intent on the part of the city to cause harm or an "utter indifference to or conscious disregard for the safety of the children"). In the past few years, courts have held that a playground with tall equipment from which a child could fall or a playground in which the surface was not soft enough were not considered willful and wanton misconduct, while more severe conditions such as a slide without proper railings and a damaged sidewalk for roller-skating were found to be an inexcusable lack of maintenance.

As the summer months bring warmer weather to Chicago, public playgrounds will provide exercise and entertainment to children. However, these benefits must be accompanied with proper caution and supervision in order to prevent serious injuries, as urged yesterday to school administrators, parents and community members by Governor Blagojevich and the Illinois State Board of Education.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick Avgerinos

Teeth Bared: Why Cute and Cuddly Can Be Doggone Dangerous

Nick Avgerinos — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:36:00 GMT

How much is that doggy in the window? And how about the food and toys? Oh, and the vet bills? And how much for the fence outside? By the time all of these expenses stack up, that doggy is pretty expensive. Perhaps that's why many dog owners don't opt for the fence, at least not right away. What owners may not realize, however, is that this leaves them vulnerable to liability, especially in cases where their canine companion is deemed "dangerous." Such is the case in Illinois.

Wisconsin personal injury attorney David Lowe recently wrote about a 17-year-old Wisconsin boy who suffered a fractured skull after running into a tree. Why the rush? The boy was fleeing a Rottweiler that broke its chain. The dog didn't bite the boy or touch him in any way, but it did break its chain. Thus, its owner was cited for failure to keep the Rottweiler behind a fence.

With warm weather upon us, more people will be leaving their furry friends al fresco. Likewise, more children will be outside soaking up the sun. Although a child's desire to 'pet the cute little doggy' may seem innocent, it is important to recognize the potential for disaster. According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, approximately 800,000 people receive medical treatment for dog bites each year. In fact, on average, 12 people die from dog bites each year. Personal injury attorney Kenneth Phillips has a very comprehensive website that addresses prevention of and compensation for dog bite injuries.

Although pet owners have the primary responsibility to keep their pets in line, the AVMA provides things that you can do to minimize your chances of getting hurt:

How can my family and I avoid being bitten?

Be cautious around strange dogs and treat your own pet with respect. Because children are the most frequent victims of dog bites, parents and caregivers should:

NEVER leave a baby or small child alone with a dog.
Be on the look out for potentially dangerous situations.
Start teaching young children - including toddlers - to be careful around pets.

Children must be taught NOT to approach strange dogs. Teach children to ask permission from a dog's owner before petting the dog.

Other tips that may prevent or stop a dog attack

Don't run past a dog: Dogs naturally love to chase and catch things. Don't give them a reason to be come excited or aggressive.

Never disturb a dog that's caring for puppies, sleeping or eating.

If a dog approaches to sniff you, stay still.
In most cases, the dog will go away when it determines you are not a threat.

If you are threatened by a dog, remain calm.
Don't scream. If you say anything, speak calmly and firmly. Avoid eye contact. Try to stay still until the dog leaves, or back away slowly until the dog is out of sight. Don't turn and run.

If you fall or are knocked to the ground, curl into a ball with your hands over your head and neck. Protect your face.

By following these tips, you can help keep your loved ones, both human and canine, as safe as possible. And that will give us all less to growl about.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick Avgerinos

Breaking Down Borders: Speaking Up For Those without a Voice

Nick Avgerinos — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:10:00 GMT

If a tree falls in the forest but no one hears it, does it still make a sound? You bet it does. Similarly, just because an injured party cannot speak for himself does not mean that he does not have something to say. Entiendes?

For the millions of immigrant workers in this country, this is precisely the problem they face every day. Hay muchos problemas, from the language barrier to lack of knowledge regarding one's rights. The AFL-CIO does an impressive job of delineating such rights in an accessible way. In fact, it goes so far as to provide the same information regarding workers' rights in Chinese, Spanish, and Vietnamese, thereby lowering the barrier of access to information. This sort of access, however, assumes that immigrant workers have the knowledge, time, and ability to use it. Unfortunately, this is rarely true.

The wages of immigrant workers are often much below the minimum wage. Perhaps an idealistic few might wonder how this is possible. Well, the meager sums paid by their employers still exceed the amount they could earn in their native countries. For many immigrant workers, one hour of the California minimum wage is more money an entire day of wages in Mexico.Simply put, it's better than nothing.and their employers know it. Oftentimes, then, their safety and well-being is sacrificed in favor of the almighty dollar. In a world where quality is often sacrificed for quantity, safety training is too often supplanted by a learn-as-you-go mentality.

More complicated problems arise when the immigrants being abused in the workplace are here illegally. Starving transcends the language barrier. So does the agony of losing one's limb. Yet, beyond the pangs of such suffering, the injured usually remain silent. Why? Because they don't have rights; at least that is what they're made to believe. As attorney Pat Jennings reported in January, though, the South Carolina Supreme Court recently ruled that citizenship status should not affect a worker's ability to recover for workers' compensation claims.

Yet, for most immigrant workers, speaking up means getting pushed further down. It means possible lower wages, even longer hours, or being forced to leave the country.

Such fear is alive in the community of Postville, where the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement raided the AgriProcessors meatpacking plant on May 12, putting nearly half of the plant's workforce out of commission. What this may mean for us: higher kosher meat prices. What this means for them: putting their entire lives on pause.

As those AgriProcessors employees who escaped detainment huddle in the local Catholic Church, praying for the chance to return to their lives, praying for the chance to be underpaid and overworked, we have stop and wonder why. Some of us might remember the old Schoolhouse Rock theme song, espousing that "Knowledge is Power." It's clear that many immigrants today lack any knowledge regarding their rights, while being acutely aware of their own powerlessness. Providing information, like that advanced by the AFL-CIO, is a step toward increasing knowledge and thereby distributing the extreme imbalance of power often present in the workplace.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick Avgerinos

A Dangerous Combination: Driving While Text Messaging

Nick Avgerinos — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 10:24:49 GMT

It is not news that in our modern world we find ourselves increasingly dependent on our cell phones and BlackBerrys for communication on the go. While Chicago has banned cell phone use while driving for several years, new technologies have created a growing issue of the prevalence of text messaging, which can be even more distracting to a driver than talking on the phone. Two weeks ago, Washington banned text messaging while driving, and Chicago may be soon to follow. Talking on a cell phone or using one to send text messages can triple the risk of getting into a car accident.

The issue becomes particularly interesting as more and more companies issue BlackBerrys to their employees in order to conduct business and stay in contact through emails while out of the office. If an employee is sending a business email, employers could be held liable, as the employee is acting within the scope of his employment.For this reason, employers need to properly train employees about BlackBerry use in order to protect themselves from this foreseeable action. They should not only require that employeesnot use their phones for business purposes while driving, but also refrain from certain requirements or incentives for employees to work while on the road.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick Avgerinos

Worker Safety Incentive Programs: Worker vs. Co-Worker?

Nick Avgerinos — Wed, 07 May 2008 14:23:51 GMT

Promoting workplace safety is as non-controversial as promoting firearm safety, safe-driving, and energy efficiency. However, when the advancement of workplace safety pits worker against worker then controversy begins.

Encouraging labor and management to work together to reduce on-the-job injuries is a good and noble policy. Who among us wants to see an injury occur at work, particularly one that would easily have been avoided if an adequate safety program had been in place, or if the worker had followed directions? Over the years many employers have taken steps to improve workplace safety by consistently explaining and describing how jobs are to be performed, holding mandatory safety meetings and so on. Labor, and labor unions have taken action to reduce workplace injuries by forming safety committees (oftentimes with management), holding workshops for stewards, and the membership, all with the intention keeping the workplace safe.

Reducing workplace injuries produces many favorable consequences, including:

-no lost time from work

-no loss in productivity,

-no loss or reduction in household income

-no disruption to the household

-no medical costs

-reduced workers' compensation costs

-less potential for labor-management conflict over availability and suitability of restricted work

Rewarding workers for exercising proper safety techniques, attending safety meetings or offering recommendations for improving safety practices all sounds good, right? But, here's where worker safety incentive programs can become a problem. In these programs, the employer rewards its employees for the company having gone so many days, weeks or months without a workplace injury, or without any lost time days. The rewards may take the form of monetary compensation, awards or recognition for having reached a predetermined goal as established by the employer.

What's the downside you ask? While workers may be encouraged to report all injuries, the reporting of an injury, regardless of how minor can cause a break in the run of consecutive injury-free days from work and, perhaps more importantly for some, no reward ($$) from the employer. By following the rules and reporting all injuries, a worker risks incurring the anger of co-workers who have been informed by their employer that they will not receive a prize. Here's the dilemma: Report the injury and lose the reward, or don't report the injury and risk potentially serious consequences by way of a reprimand, suspension or something worse for having failed to follow company policy. The situation becomes much more problematic down the road, if what seemed like a minor back strain that the worker chose not to report out of fear of turning the co-workers against him is later diagnosed by a doctor as a herniated disc for which surgery is needed. Now the worker has a huge problem because the workers' compensation claim resulting from the workplace accident will likely be denied by the employer and workers' compensation insurance company because there is no record of the worker having reported the accident to the plant nurse, supervisor, or anyone else in a managerial capacity.

What now is the worker to do if he has been taken off work by his doctor for an accident and condition that the employer has denied is work-related but prevents him from working and generating income, and which requires an operation? The problem is greatly magnified if the injured worker lacks health insurance, lacks short or long-term disability benefits, or lacks a second household income with which to pay for medical care, groceries and rent.

Worker safety programs are intended to bring workers together by providing them with a reward for having an injury free workplace. Programs that implicitly encourage the under reporting of injuries are wrong. It is simply unfair to place an employee in the position of having to forego a bonus because his friend and co-worker has suffered an injury on the job. Instead of uniting workers, the safety incentive programs may well have the unintended consequence of dividing them.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick Avgerinos

What Do Illinois Workers' Compensation Hearings And Social Security Hearings have in Common?

Mike Rom — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:31:26 GMT

What Do Illinois Workers' Compensation Hearings And Social Security Hearings have in Common?

During my three years of law school one of the many rules repeated over and over was, never ask a question at trial if you do not know the answer. When conducting a cross-examination in an Illinois workers' compensation hearing or social security hearing an attorney is often forced to ask questions for which he does not have the answer. Unlike civil cases there is no discovery in Illinois workers' compensation hearings or in social security hearings.

Discovery is a procedure by which both sides of a case obtain information held by the other party before trial (known as pre-trial). This disclosure could include facts, documents, witnesses, witness statements or any number of other documents or information.

Without discovery an attorney conducting a cross-examination must process new information immediately in order to form questions based on that information. It is important to have an attorney who is experienced, able to think on his feet and develop questions on the spot.

It is essential that an injured worker or claimant provide as much information as possible to his/her attorney including: prior claims, injuries, fractures, surgical procedures, union affiliation or potential witnesses. I frequently ask my clients to send me every document (medical records, medical bills, letters from the workers' compensation insurance carrier) that they have in their possession that is even remotely related to the claim. In addition, a thorough initial interview with the client is essential to gather as much information as possible. All of this information is used to anticipate possible defenses and/or witnesses and avoid costly surprise.

Both law school and years of practice have helped me prepare for the unexpected at trial. The need for such competency is heightened in Illinois workers' compensation claims and social security claims due to the lack of discovery rules.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Rom