Personal Injury Law Blogs

Welcome to TortBlawg: A Law Blog on Tort Law across the World

Welcome to TortBlawg: Tort Law 2.0

Following on from the continued success of PersonalInjuryClaimsBlawg in helping to share legal information and news regarding personal injury law, we are pleased to announce the arrival of TortBlawg. This law blog, otherwise known as a “blawg”, is designed to contribute to tort law from around the globe, with a particular emphasis on the development of tort law from the Australia, Canada, the US, England and Scotland (under the head of ‘delict‘, which is admittedly more to do with principle rather than specific legal wrongs). This blawg is designed specifically for law firms, lawyers, law students and businesses looking to know more about and indeed share more about tort law and practice.

As noted from Wikipedia, tort law concerns those situations where a person’s behaviour has unfairly caused someone else to suffer loss or harm. Allowing people to recover loss for harm, tort does not necessarily deal with actions which are illegal and indeed there is a major distinction to be drawn between the law of tort and criminal law (which concerns situations where an individual has acted in such a way as to harm society generally). A tort claim (often known as a personal injury claim or an accident claim) can be brought by anyone who has suffered loss (cf criminal cases which are often brought by the State).

If you would like to publish a guest blog post on TortBlawg or become a permanent contributor, please do not hesitate to get in touch at https://wardblawg.com/contact.

MD Birth Control Injury Attorneys Warn of Blood Clot Risk with Non-Oral Contraceptives

It’s widely known that oral contraceptives such as Yasmin and Beyaz come with an increased risk of blood clots, or venous thromboembolism (VTE). Now, results from a Danish study recently been published in the British Medical Journal, has found that significantly higher risks of blood clots are found in women who use non-oral hormonal contraceptives such as transdermal patches and vaginal rings. Researchers followed the health of more than 1.5 million women for over 10 years and discovered that those who utilized vaginal rings have a six times higher risk of developing blood clots than women using non-hormonal methods of birth control. Women who used the transdermal patches had a risk eight times higher than those not using hormonal contraceptives.

Researchers also looked at progesterone implants, but found no significant increase in blood clot risk.

Product liability attorneys in Maryland are concerned that women already at high risk of VTE may be taking non-oral contraceptives and increasing the chance of stroke and serious injury. Physicians are encouraged to discuss a patient’s health history, and any relevant risk factors, before prescribing contraceptives such as vaginal rings and transdermal patches. Those at a high risk of VTE should be regularly monitored and eliminate behaviors that may further increase the danger of clots, such as smoking.

With an increase in blood clot injuries in women using these non-oral forms of birth control, an uptick in birth control injury lawsuits are expected, similar to those faced by Bayer AG, maker of oral contraceptives Yasmin and Yaz. In those cases, Bayer ultimately agreed to pay an estimated $110 million to settle some 500 lawsuits over claims that its contraceptives caused venous thromboembolism (VTE).

VTE is a potentially fatal condition in which blood clots occur and travel through the veins. These blood clots can cause heart attack and stroke, and, in extreme cases, a clot can travel to the lung and result in death. Women who are currently utilizing vaginal ring or transdermal patch contraceptives and have experienced serious medical side effects are advised to contact an experienced Maryland product liability attorney for more information.

Written by Phil Balbo, staff writer for Price Benowitz LLP. To learn more about birth control and their potential to cause blood clots, please visit the National Institute of Health. Please contact the Maryland personal injury attorneys with Price Benowitz LLP for a free consultation.

FDA to Review Metal-On-Metal Hip Implants

Below is a guest personal injury law blog regarding the FDA’s upcoming review of metal-on-metal hip implants.

The Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee, which is part of the Food and Drug Administration, will host a public meeting on June 27 and 28, 2012, to discuss the metal-on-metal hip implant system. This comes almost two years after Depuy Orthopedics, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, recalled its metal-on-metal ASR XL Acetabular Hip Systems.

The National Joint Registry of England and Wales released data saying that the five-year failure rate of the hip implants was at around 13 percent, which is one for every eight patients. Symptoms of the failure are: loss of vision, severe pain, implants loosening, dislocation of the implant, and toxic metal poisoning.

The FDA formed this committee to seek expert scientific and clinical analysis on the risks and benefits of the metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty systems based on the available scientific data. The decision comes almost a year after the FDA gave 145 orders for post market surveillance studies to the 21 manufactures of the metal-on-metal hip implant systems.

The Hip orthroplasty is used to increase the patient’s mobility and at the same time, reduce the pain by replacing the damaged hip joint where evidence of sufficient sound bone to seat and support the components.

The two categories of the metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty systems are:

1.    Metal-on-Metal total hip replacement (THR) systems consist of a metal ball (femoral head), a metal femoral stem in the thighbone, and a metal cup in the hip bone (acetabular component).  MoM THR systems are typically indicated for use in total hip arthroplasty in skeletally mature patients with the following conditions:
a.    Non-inflammatory degenerative joint disease (NIDJD) such as osteoarthritis, avascular necrosis, post-traumatic arthritis, ankylosis, protrusio acetabuli, and painful hip dysplasia;
b.    Inflammatory degenerative joint disease such as rheumatoid arthritis;
c.    Correction of functional deformity; and,
d.    Revision procedures where other treatments or devices have failed.

2.    Metal-on-Metal hip resurfacing systems consist of a trimmed femoral head capped with a metal covering and a metal cup in the hip bone (acetabular component).  Hip resurfacing arthroplasty is intended for reduction or relief of pain and/or improved hip function in skeletally mature patients having the following conditions:
a.    Non-inflammatory degenerative arthritis such as osteoarthritis, traumatic arthritis,  avascular necrosis, or dysplasia/developmental dislocation of the hip (DDH); or
b.    Inflammatory arthritis such as rheumatoid arthritis.

The meeting will revolve around mechanisims of failure, metal ion testing, imaging methods, complications, pre and postoperative risks, and clinical follow up considerations for patients with the metal-on-metal hips, according to the FDA website.

This story is brought to you by Hipimplantrecovery.com. We help people who have fallen victim to defective metal-on-metal implants. To find out more information about defective hip implants, please visit our blog.

Room for improvement, says PiP implant review

I was interested to read Lord Howe’s recent report into the response by UK regulators to the PiP breast implant scandal.

This found that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the Department of Health had acted properly, but that lessons needed to be learned.

Problems with breast implants manufactured by the Poly Implant Prothèse (PiP) Company first came to public attention late last year, when a French regulator urged French women with PiP implants to have them removed. This was because the implants had been found to contain non-medical grade silicone – and had a high rupture rate.

However, the concerns about PiP implants have been around for some time – so much so that in March 2010 the MHRA issued an alert advising breast implant surgeons not to use them.

But was this enough? Should more have been done? Health Minister Lord Howe was asked to find out.

According to Lord Howe, the regulator did do its job – acting appropriately and following scientific and clinical advice – but improvements must be made in communication and data collection, and in the Europe-wide system and processes for gathering and analysing data.

The report reveals that the MHRA’s investigations “were hampered by a lack of reliable and comprehensive information about all the adverse incidents relating to PIP breast implants.”

It was also trying to “draw evidence-based conclusions about the performance of a device from data that were incomplete, and which we now know were filtered through a manufacturer that turned out to be fraudulent”.

“It must be emphasised that this case was one of deliberate fraud by the PiP manufacturer which purposefully misled European regulators. Regulation alone cannot prevent fraudulent activity such as this,” said Lord Howe. “But serious lessons must be learned from this scandal. The MHRA needs to look at how it gathers evidence so it is able to identify problems early. It needs to better analyse reports about higher risk medical devices. And it needs to improve the way it communicates with the public.”

I’m glad to say that Mrs Thom has not been caught up in the scandal but, through my friends at Thompsons Solicitors, I know of many women who have been affected by it.

If you are worried that you are one of them, you should:

  • Find out if you have a PiP implant
  • Speak to your specialist or GP, if you had the implants on the NHS, or to your clinic if your original operation was carried out privately
  • Get advice on whether further assessment is necessary, and discuss appropriate action with your doctor
  • Consider speaking to a solicitor, as you might be entitled to compensation.

Accident Compensation: The Pros And Cons of Claiming In Court

Guest post contributed by Charles Worthering, on behalf of Accident-compensation.co.uk. Charles is a solicitor and works with clients on cases pertaining to accident compensation claims. In his spare time he enjoys writing about claims, patent disputes and infringement claims.

If you’ve been injured in a car accident, then you could be eligible for compensation from the driver who caused the accident. Similarly, if you’ve been injured in an accident at work, you can bring a claim for compensation against your employer. As with most legal proceedings, it’s a good idea to find and hire a good personal injury lawyer to represent you. This will give you and your case better odds of a positive outcome. Alternatively, it is sometimes possible to settle a claim out of court. Settling out of court avoids a lengthy legal process, but you might get a larger settlement by going through the courts. There are both pros and cons to claiming in court, which are explained in this article.

Benefits of Settling Out of Court

Sometimes, it is possible to settle compensation claims out of court. The other party might agree to pay you a settlement to avoid having to go through a court process. Settling out of court offers benefits for both parties, as you don’t have to go through the stressful process of arguing the case in court.

One of the main disadvantages of claiming in court is that the process can drag on for a long time. Settling out of court means that you don’t have to wait as long to get your payment. This is advantageous if you have bills that you need to pay urgently, or if you are experiencing urgent financial difficulties due to not being able to work because of your injuries.

The other big disadvantage of claiming in court is that even if you have a strong case, you can never guarantee that you will win. Settling out of court removes the risk of losing the court case and receiving no compensation.

Benefits of Claiming in Court

Even if the other party agrees to settle out of court, you may still prefer to claim in court. Agreeing to settle does not mean that the other party is admitting liability; the payment is simply being offered to avoid having to go to court. You might feel it is important to you to have a judge declare that the other party is at fault.

You might get more money if you claim in court than if you agree to accept the other party’s offer to settle. Compensation amounts that are ordered to be paid by the courts are usually higher than those offered as out-of-court settlements.

Many law firms in the UK offer “no win no fee” arrangements, which means that if you go to court and your claim is unsuccessful, you will not have to pay any legal fees. If you do win, your solicitor will take his or her fee from the compensation paid by the other party.

Conclusion

Whether you want to settle out of court or take your claim to court, you should contact a solicitor for help. A solicitor can negotiate an out-of-court settlement on your behalf, or guide you through the claims process and represent you in court if you decide to pursue your claim. Your solicitor will also be able to advise you on how likely you are to win if you go forward with claiming in court, so that you can make an informed decision about your best course of action.

Falling Tree Limb Leads to Stuyvesant Square Park Lawsuit

In July 2007, 29-year-old Alexis Handwerker was sitting on a bench under a tree in Stuyvesant Square Park in New York City when a huge limb from the giant elm suddenly fell and pinned her to the ground. She survived the incident but was badly injured.

She sued the city for negligence, claiming that parks workers had failed to observe that the tree was rotting, despite the fact that the 80-foot tree had dropped limbs in the past. She suffered broken bones and required six staples in her head.

Falling Limbs Lead to Lawsuits

When a judge declined to dismiss the case, New York City settled Handwerker’s lawsuit for $4 million. The city has already paid millions of dollars in settlements related to falling tree limbs. These lawsuits have come at a time when the city is facing deep cuts in their budget dedicated to tree maintenance.

There are at least 10 other lawsuits against the city for falling tree branches that have caused significant injury or death. These suits raise the issue of whether more diligent tree care by the city’s parks department might have prevented injuries.

Unclear Level of Diligence Required by City

The legal issues revolve around the central question of how much responsibility the city has to protect its citizens and visitors from falling limbs. Experts suggest that the science of tree care has improved risk management strategies for trees in high traffic areas, including playgrounds and walkways. The plaintiffs’ lawyers argue that New York has not kept up with the available technology. The lawsuits also uncovered instances of poor communication and delayed responses to concerns about tree health.

Lawyers representing New York City argue that the city does not have the responsibility to protect citizens from tragic accidents caused by falling trees. They deny that the city should be required to use the latest technology to regularly inspect trees for signs of rotting or disease.

Evidence Suggests Injuries Were Preventable

In the past five years, 49 people were injured and two were killed by falling tree branches in the city. Although the number of victims is relatively small, the evidence brought up in the lawsuits suggests that these accidents could have been prevented.

While the city has tree care systems in place, these lawsuits have identified significant problems within these systems. In Handwerker’s case, the city’s workers did not notice that the tree had rotted to such an extent that its trunk was “gooey.” These lawsuits have also demonstrated that the parks department has not made use of available technology designed to manage the risks posed by aging trees.

Several of the lawsuits involved falling tree branches from trees that had already been slated for removal. Parks department employees have provided several reasons for the delays. In at least one case, the department was required to attend to other emergencies and had to delay tree removals. In another case, an employee stated that the delay was a money-saving measure. The city could contract to have trees removed at a cheaper rate if they hired a contractor to remove several trees at one time.

Although the city has fought to have these lawsuits dismissed, their attempts have not been successful. If the city does not change the way it addresses dangerous trees, there are sure to be many more tree-related lawsuits in the future.

About the Author

Tyler Cook is a freelance writer who follows US tort activities. His experience has confirmed his view that life is risky and that individuals should consider review insurance quotes online to find policies to help defend against the financial risks.

Parker Waichman Files DePuy Pinnacle Lawsuit

The national law firm of Parker Waichman LLP has filed a lawsuit alleging that a metal-on-metal version of the DePuy Pinnacle hip implant caused pain and multiple dislocations in an Alabama woman. DePuy Orthopaedics, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, brought about safety concerns over all-metal hip implants when they recalled 93,000 ASR systems in 2010.

According to Parker Waichman’s press release, the plaintiff received her DePuy Pinnacle hip implant in February 2009, suffering from pain and multiple dislocations as a result. The case was filed on May 10th in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, where other similar suits are being consolidated in a multidistrict litigation (MDL. 2244).

Metal-on-Metal Hips: An Industry Issue

The lawsuit alleges that the Pinnacle causes the same problems as DePuy’s ASR devices. According to data from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales, the recalled implants were failing at a rate of 13 percent (1 in every 8 patients) in five years. Since then, experts have realized that the issue is common among almost all metal-on-metal implants, particularly those with large diameter heads (greater than 36mm). The primary problem arises from metallic debris generated by the implant, which can result in:

  • Metallosis
  • Pseudotumors
  • Tissue death
  • Bone loss
  • Lack of mobility

In some cases, the complications may lead to revision surgery and the implant is removed.

Last May, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) asked 21 manufacturers to conduct postmarket studies assessing the dangers of metal ions released from metal-on-metal hip implants. On June 27th and 28th, the agency’s Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel will convene to discuss the benefits to risk ratio of the devices.

New Study Shows Even Mild Head Injury Can Result in Significant Brain Abnormalities

A new study suggests that even a mild head injury can cause significant problems in brain function. This latest study supports earlier research which has suggested that even seemingly mild cases of traumatic brain injury (TBI) can lead to long-lasting neurological problems, including confusion, chronic headaches, depression, loss of cognitive function and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.

According to its authors, the study published in the May issue of the Journal of Neuroscience, is designed to help researchers and health care professionals find improved ways of treating patients who suffer from a traumatic brain injury. Specifically, the researchers have expressed hope that their findings will help doctors better understand the underlying structural and functional changes that take place in the brain following a head injury.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that 1.7 million Americans suffer a traumatic brain injury each year. Approximately 75% of these injuries result in a concussion or another mild form of TBI. Traumatic brain injuries are the cause of approximately one-third of all injury related deaths occurring the U.S. annually. By age, children aged 0 to 4, teens aged 15 to 19 and individuals aged 65 or older are most likely to suffer a traumatic brain injury

Head and brain injuries frequently occur as the result of car crashes and other accidental injuries. A recent report issued by The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and State Farm Insurance indicated that approximately 30% of teen drivers sustain a head injury as the result of a car accident. Head injuries are also common among motorcyclists and bicyclists who are involved in collisions with other vehicles.

When a car accident, bicycle accident or motorcycle accident leads to a traumatic brain injury, it’s important that the victim and their family understand their legal rights. In some cases, brain injury sufferers may be entitled to compensation for medical bills, lost wages and pain and suffering. When a traumatic brain injury occurs, its’ recommended that you contact an experienced California brain injury lawyer as soon as possible to discuss your case.

Dog Attacks: What Happens To The Dog Following An Incident?

Victims of Dog Attacks May Wonder

Being the victim of a dog attack can be a life changing event. Unfortunately, man’s best friend can be just as dangerous as he is loyal and loving. Dog attacks can lead to serious disfigurement, serious injury, and in some cases, even death. When an attack occurs and the victim chooses to file a lawsuit regarding the incident, many may wonder what happens to Fido after the case is concluded.  For most victims, they don’t want the dog to be harmed following the accident, however, some may simply wonder. In each state there are different laws in place for dogs who attack and how they are handled following an incident resulting in injury. In this article I will use Denver, Colorado as the example state.

What Constitutes a “Dangerous Dog”

In Denver county, Colorado, a dangerous dog can be one of two things: A dog with a demeanor which indicates that he may attack without provocation to cause injury to others; others can be people, or other domestic animals, and, any dog that has a tendency to bite or attack others. According to state and county law, dogs of either one of these types, need to be confined. Confined indicates that the animal(s) are kept in an enclosure that has containing walls of at least eight feet high and are secure, as well as a secure top. This enclosure is also required to have a bottom which is attached to the sides of the structure and embedded into the ground no less than one foot deep. This enclosure is also required to be constructed of a material that the dog cannot destroy or escape from. Dangerous dogs may also be contained within the owner’s home. An owner of a dog of this nature is required to keep the dog confined, unless it is muzzled and leashed when traveling away from the enclosure that the dog is usually kept in. The only exception to the muzzle and leash requirement, is if the dog is part of a dog show; in this case, the dog may not be muzzled, but must be leashed.

For the owner of a dog of this nature, it is imperative that they use the appropriate amount of control for other people’s safety, as well as the dog’s safety. The owner may not allow the dog to bite or harm anyone who is not on their property, or otherwise trespassing. This does not apply to the owner’s business or any other location that is considered public, if the dog is being contained in a location that is open to the public, there is a requirement for appropriate signage, indicating that the dog is contained within the building. This legality is dissolved if the dog attacks someone who is trespassing, robbing, or otherwise committing an act of violence at the said location. Likewise, if the dog is with the owner at a business or public establishment that is not owned by the dog owner, the owner may not allow the dog to bite or attack other people. The only exception to this rule applies to law enforcement officials when engaged in law enforcement activities.

What Happens To A Dog Who Offends?

If a dog happens to bite or otherwise injure someone in Denver county, in the state of Colorado, there are no laws stating that the dog will be destroyed. The law stands that if a dog is considered dangerous, it must be confined in an enclosure to the specifications stated above. The city of Denver does have other regulations, including a ban on pit bulls as a specific breed. They also have a vaccination requirement that all dogs must be vaccinated for rabies. This is only the case in Denver county, Colorado. In other states the laws are more strict, and dogs that offend or repeat offenses, may need to be destroyed, or put down.

If you’ve been injured by a dog, and need legal consultation, McCormick & Murphy P.C. is here to answer any of your questions and concerns that need to be directed to a Denver dog bite attorney. Consultation is free, and we’re available to help you with any and all of your legal concerns.

Whiplash claims cost insurers more than £2 billion last year

Whiplash injury claims cost insurance companies more than £2 billion, with £90 being added to the cost of an average insurance policy according to new research by the AA, reported in the Telegraph last week.

Director of AA Insurance, Simon Douglas said ”I hope that today’s Government announcement will see a tight timescale applied to reform of the civil litigation which at present, encourages people to make a claim regardless of how serious their injury is or even if they have not suffered injury at all.

”Importantly, we need reforms that clamp down on cold-call claims management and personal injury firms who have contributed to the growth of claims.” He added ”The present dysfunctional system has also spawned a fraudulent multi-million-pound ‘cash for crash’ industry.”

Karl Tonks, President of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL), said: “Whiplash injuries are real, they can be long term, and must not be trivialised.”

”Before it announces a raft of propositions which risk barring genuinely injured people from bringing legitimate claims, the Government must have a wider debate about the real issues, and it must also hold the insurance industry to account.

”I’m really concerned that in all the latest populist rhetoric about whiplash claims, everyone is being tarred with the same brush.”

Back in January 2012 APIL also released a statement saying “the priority must be for innocent victims of genuine injury, including whiplash injuries, to have access to the full and fair compensation they need. Whiplash injuries can be extremely painful and can often linger, leaving some people with chronic conditions. It must be remembered that the burden of proof lies with the victim. The defendant has every right, and opportunity, to challenge medical opinion if it is thought to be wrong.

Any measures which risk blocking people from making valid claims will leave injury victims and taxpayers effectively subsidising the insurance companies who have already accepted our premiums. It is time for the needs of vulnerable injured victims to take precedence over those whose negligence causes needless injury in the first place.”

Symptoms of whiplash (sp) should be consulted before bringing a claim and you should note that the law differs in this area in Scotland and in England & Wales. Compensation can often be lower depending on the forum in which you bring your claim.

Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke said that the Government’s plans to reform the injury claims system will make it ”quicker, cheaper and easier for valid injury claims to be dealt with through the small claims court”. One of the proposals to be outlined later in 2012 will be to introduce independent medical panels, which would replace assessment by the claimant’s own GP or other medical expert.

Read the Telegraph’s full coverage of this news for further information.

If you’d like to publish legal articles regarding personal injury claims please do register and submit your posts.