Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog

Gas Can or Flame Thrower?

August 14, 2012 | John Suthers

Many of us keep plastic gas cans in our garage or storage sheds. Unfortunately, most plastic gas cans are made without a safety feature known as a flame arrestor. The lack of a flame arrestor on a plastic gas can creates a dangerous condition, which could result in the gas exploding.

In a widely reported case, 3 year old Landon Beadore was helping his mother pick up toys in a storage cellar when he accidently knocked over a plastic gas can like the one pictured here. Vapors from the gas can went along the floor, and the pilot light on a nearby water heater ignited the fumes. The gas fumes flashed back to the nozzle of the gas can, causing it to explode and burning Landon over 47% of his body. Landon’s shoes literally melted onto his feet.

Tragedies similar to Landon’s have occurred more than 75 times across the United States, burning and killing children, teenagers and adults. Nearly 40% of the victims were children. Manufacturing experts and victims’ lawyers in these cases believe that a small part known as a flame arrestor, which costs less than $1, could have prevented these horrible injuries. Regrettably, despite evidence that these plastic gas containers are more prone to explosions, the manufacturers of the containers and the Consumer Product Safety Commission have not required the installation of flame arrestors on plastic containers or warned consumers of this potentially dangerous defect. Ironically, as far back as 1973, Consumer Reports magazine wrote: “Should fumes outside the gas can ignite as you pour or fill, a flash back fire is possible that could ignite the contents of the can itself. Such accidents can be prevented by a flame arrestor, which we think should be legally required in all openings like these.”

These tragic situations have come to light recently, but for a different reason than you would expect. A series of attacks have been launched by big business and tort reformers against victims’ lawyers and their clients as part of a propaganda campaign. Blitz USA, America’s largest plastic gas can manufacturer, recently announced that it is closing its factory after nearly 50 years in operation. The reason, the company claimed, is unwarranted products liability litigation. Blitz USA and other companies in the gas can manufacturing industry are blaming victims for their “ignorance” in causing or contributing to the cause of plastic gas can explosions. They cite “consumer misuse” as the main cause of these types of accidents. Rob Jakobe, another victim, disagrees. Mr. Jakobe was walking with a Blitz gas can on a crisp day in Oregon when a static electric discharge from his body caused the can to explode. Chad Funchess, another victim, was filling up his chainsaw when his Blitz gas can erupted and engulfed him in flames. William Melvin, yet another victim, was refueling his lawnmower when his Blitz gas can exploded and hurled him through his barn.

It’s regrettable that big business, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, is standing behind Blitz USA and other manufacturers of similar plastic gas cans despite the horrific burning injuries and deaths of more than 75 citizens. How many more people will be burned or killed before these gas cans are pulled off the market? In the meantime, consumers should consider buying a gas can with a flame arrestor. These cans are sometimes called “safety cans,” and are normally made of metal rather than plastic. Additionally, never forget how dangerous it is to use or store gasoline. Consider the following safety tips:

– Keep gasoline out of sight and secured away from children.

– Do not let children handle gasoline.

– Store gasoline in a safety can outside the home, such as in a detached garage or storage shed.

– Do not use or store gasoline near potential ignition sources, such as electrical devices or any device that contains a pilot light or spark.

– Never use gasoline inside the home or as a cleaning agent.

– Do not use gasoline to accelerate a flame on a charcoal grill, wood stove, brush fire or campfire.

– Do not smoke when handling gasoline.
Continue reading ›

1 Out Of 5 Nursing Home Residents Fall During First Month

June 26, 2012 | John Suthers

A study published recently in the Journal of the American Geriatric Society concluded that 1 out of 5 newly admitted nursing home residents falls within one month of their admission. The study also found that the higher the levels of staffing with certified nursing assistants (CNAs), the lesser the risk of falling. The study examined data from both Medicare and Medicaid on more than 230,000 new residents admitted to approximately 10,000 nursing homes throughout the United States. 21% of those residents sustained at least 1 fall during their first 30 days in the nursing home. The authors of the study also examined risk factors that contribute to falls, and found that fewer falls occurred in those nursing homes with higher ratios of CNAs to residents.

These findings support what those of us who represent victims of abuse and neglect in nursing homes have known all along; that is, almost all injuries in nursing homes can be linked to staffing. The majority of the time, problems in nursing homes can be traced to not having enough staff to adequately care for the number of residents in the facility. Other times, problems can be traced to inadequately trained staff. One explanation for fewer falls occurring in nursing homes with higher staffing ratios is the fact that CNAs provide many of the hands-on resident care during activities where the risk of falling is high, such as dressing, toileting, and generally moving around. Most nursing home residents need, at least, some assistance with these so-called activities of daily living. Often, nursing home residents will press “call” buttons to request assistance. When the staff does not respond promptly, the residents attempt to perform these tasks on their own. This can lead to falls and fall-related injuries, especially in individuals who are living in a new place and are not yet familiar with their surroundings.

Many newly admitted nursing home residents are there for short-term rehabilitation with the ultimate goal of sending them back home. A fall and resulting injury, such as a fractured hip or closed head injury, can delay or prevent altogether the resident from ever being able to return to his or her home. Falls can result in disability, functional decline, a decreased quality of life, and increased mortality. A fall or series of falls can lead to a fear of falling, which can cause more loss of function, depression and social isolation, all of which are detrimental to a person’s overall well-being.

Ethicon Recalls Pelvic Mesh Products

June 6, 2012 | John Suthers

Ethicon, Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson and manufacturer of pelvic mesh products, advised the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) this week that it is recalling four of its mesh, pelvic floor repair products. Additionally, Ethicon is asking the FDA for 120 days to “cease commercialization” of its products, notify customers, and allow physicians and hospitals time to choose different treatments for patients. Ethicon also plans to stop or change its marketing materials and revise its product labeling, limiting the use of certain products to abdominal procedures. These devices, many of which were made of synthetic polypropylene, have been used previously to treat women with conditions known as pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Our law firm has filed lawsuits on behalf of women who suffered injuries after being surgically implanted with such devices, alleging that these devices were ill-suited for use in a woman’s pelvic floor area. Ethicon’s decision to recall four of its devices and stop marketing them for use in treating pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence is an important step for thousands of women who have suffered injuries and continue to suffer because of these products.

Lawsuits on behalf of women who were injured by transvaginal mesh products have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia before Judge Joseph R. Goodwin for pretrial proceedings. You can read the letter notifying the Court of Ethicon’s decision to recall its products. This litigation is what is known as multidistrict litigation (MDL), in which similar cases pending throughout the U.S. against a manufacturer or manufacturers are consolidated in one Federal Court for purposes of coordinating pretrial discovery and achieving consistency of rulings on evidentiary issues. The Court appoints a Steering Committee on behalf of the Plaintiffs and Defendants, who work together on resolving issues that come up during the course of the litigation. If an individual’s case is not settled or tried by a jury while it’s pending in the MDL Court, that individual lawsuit can be referred back to the United States District Court in the state where the Plaintiff resides or where the injury occurred, and be tried before a jury there.

Suthers & Thompson represents clients in pelvic mesh lawsuits against various manufacturers, including American Medical Systems, Inc. (AMS), C.R. Bard, Inc. (Bard), Boston Scientific, and Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary, Ethicon. For more information regarding the pelvic mesh lawsuits, please see the Transvaginal Mesh and Bladder Slings page at our website.

Antipsychotic Drug Overuse in Nursing Homes

May 1, 2012 | John Suthers

The Boston Globe recently published a series on the overuse of antipsychotic medications in nursing homes. Those of us who represent victims of abuse and neglect in nursing homes refer to this as a form of “chemical restraint.” Many nursing homes use antipsychotic drugs to control combative behavior and agitation in nursing home residents who have not been diagnosed with a condition for which such drugs are recommended.

The Boston Globe’s investigation yielded a number of findings including:

(1) In 21% of U.S. nursing homes for the year 2010, at least one-fourth of the residents received antipsychotic medications despite the fact that they did not have illnesses or conditions for which such medications are prescribed.

(2) The use of antipsychotic medications was linked to staffing levels within the nursing homes. The facilities that used antipsychotic drugs for conditions not recommended by physicians had lower staffing levels than facilities who did not rely heavily on the use of antipsychotic medications.

(3) The use of antipsychotic medications by nursing homes tended to correlate with facilities whose residents were deemed by the nurses and staff to have behavioral problems, such as being verbally or physically abusive to staff, resisting care, or wandering.

Antipsychotic drugs are typically used to treat some of the most severe mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia. They are powerful sedatives with potentially harmful side effects. The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has issued so-called “black box warnings” about the dangers of giving antipsychotic medications to patients with dementia or Alzheimer’s disease. These drugs can increase the risk of infections and cardiovascular complications in elderly individuals. Additionally, they can cause a sudden drop in blood pressure, dizziness, and blurred vision, any of which can lead to falls and serious, fall-related injuries.

Antipsychotic drugs are overprescribed in nursing homes because the nurses and staff either don’t have the time to deal with a resident’s behavioral problem, or they don’t take the time to investigate the underlying cause of a resident’s combative behavior. A resident with Alzheimer’s or dementia, for example, can become confused, frightened or anxious simply because of a change in their environment. By redirecting these residents to an area or environment that is more familiar or comforting to them, the anxiety or combative behavior can often be lessened or eliminated. However, it can take longer to redirect the resident than it takes to administer a sedative or antipsychotic drug that will knock the resident out for hours at a time.

Efforts are underway to encourage nursing homes to care for residents with Alzheimer’s or dementia without resorting to the use of antipsychotic medications. Nursing homes are encouraged to have lots of activities and try various types of interventions rather than using the quick fix of prescribing an antipsychotic. Federal regulations that govern nursing homes provide inspectors the authority to issue citations, known as “deficiencies,” if nursing homes are found to have engaged in “unnecessary medication use.” Additionally, federal regulations require nursing homes to try to gradually reduce the resident’s dose of antipsychotic drugs at least once a year, but facilities sometimes neglect to do so.

If you believe that a loved one in a nursing home is being given unnecessary antipsychotic medications or is being overmedicated, you should ask for a list of all medications that are being administered to the resident and the doses. A simple internet search or a review of sources commonly found in public libraries, such as the Physician’s Desk Reference, will provide you with the information you need regarding the medication, including what it is used for, the recommended dose, and potential side-effects. If you believe that the administration of antipsychotic drugs is causing or contributing to a decline in the resident’s condition, report your concerns to the nursing home administrator and ask to speak with the nursing home’s medical director.
Continue reading ›

Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants: Adverse Consequences

March 23, 2012 | John Suthers

Many of our readers may recall that DePuy Orthopaedics, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, voluntarily recalled two models of its hip replacement products in August of 2010 because of high failure rates. Since the recall of the DePuy ASR devices, approximately 5,000 lawsuits have been filed against DePuy Orthopaedics on behalf of individuals who were surgically implanted with the recalled DePuy ASR hips. Many of these individuals have had to undergo further surgery to have the recalled products removed and replaced.

These metal-on-metal hip prostheses began to grow in popularity in the early 2000s. Manufacturers claimed they have greater advantages and fewer limitations than the typical polyethylene-on-metal hip implants. One of DePuy’s biggest selling points was that the metal-on-metal devices had superior wear properties, meaning that they would last longer than the conventional devices and thus, have to be replaced less often. This led to greater use of the metal-on-metal devices, especially in younger individuals who were undergoing hip replacements. It has been estimated that as many as 500,000 individuals worldwide have all-metal hip prostheses. The DePuy ASR metal-on-metal devices were surgically implanted in 93,000 people worldwide between 2003 and 2010.

Studies have shown a significant number of metal-on-metal hip prostheses have failed due to accelerated wear of the articular surface (the metal ball and metal socket). Imagine rubbing two pieces of metal together for anywhere from 16 to 24 hours a day. Eventually, the metal surface begins to wear and debris is released. Likewise, accelerated wear of the metal ball and socket in an all-metal hip prosthesis causes metal debris to be released into the body’s soft tissue surrounding the hip joint. Eventually, the metal debris works its way into the bloodstream. Many of the individuals who were surgically implanted with the DePuy ASR hip replacement devices were found to have elevated levels of cobalt, chromium and other metals in their bloodstream, a condition known as metallosis.

Hundreds of thousands of patients may have been exposed to toxic chromium and cobalt particles as their metal-on-metal hip implants wear, according to a joint investigation by the British Medical Journal and BBC Newsnight. The all-metal implants, including the DePuy ASR and one model of the DePuy Pinnacle product, Smith & Nephew’s Birmingham hip and Zimmer’s Durom hip, release particles of their chromium-cobalt alloy as the metal ball and socket wear against each other, causing tissue and bone death and possibly exposing patients to an increased risk of developing some forms of cancer. There is still uncertainty about just how much metal in the bloodstream constitutes a health threat. It is increasingly apparent, however, that many patients with metal-on-metal hip implants showed blood levels of ions higher than normal. As a result of the heightened awareness of the potential adverse effects of increased levels of cobalt and chromium in the bloodstream, physicians and scientists around the world are conducting ongoing investigations to learn more about the long-term consequences of defective metal-on-metal hip replacement devices.

The FDA has decided to gather and review all available information about currently marketed metal-on-metal hip replacement systems, including information related to adverse events that may be associated with increased levels of cobalt and chromium in the bloodstream. In May of 2011, the FDA issued a statement and wrote to 21 manufacturers, informing them that it was invoking a rule requiring post-marketing studies in cases where a hip implant’s failure could have serious consequences. Among other things, companies would be expected to take blood samples from patients to measure metal ion levels.

Symptoms of hip implant failure can include pain, inflammation or swelling in the area of the hip implant, a clicking or grinding sound coming from the hip area, and difficulty walking. Any person who has had a hip replacement should contact his or her surgeon to determine whether they received a metal-on-metal hip replacement device. If your orthopedic surgeon does not have this information, you should be able to obtain the information from the hospital where the surgery was performed. You can contact the medical records department at the hospital where the surgery was performed, give them the approximate date of surgery, and request a copy of your “implant log” or “sticker log.” This is the record in your hospital medical chart that shows the manufacturer and model of the device that was surgically implanted in you.
Continue reading ›

Hospital Acquired Infections

February 22, 2012 | John Suthers

4 - surgeon with instruments.jpg Hospital acquired infections (HAI), also known as “healthcare-associated infections” or “nosocomial” infections, are infections that patients get while undergoing medical treatment in healthcare facilities. They are infections that are not present and without evidence of incubation at the time the patient is admitted to a healthcare facility. Most infections that become clinically evident after 48 hours of a patient’s hospitalization are considered hospital acquired. These infections occur in all types of medical facilities, including hospitals, outpatient surgical and care centers, and long-term care facilities, such as nursing homes and rehabilitation centers.

For example, consider the case of a patient who is admitted to the hospital to undergo orthopedic surgery, such as a hip or knee replacement. The surgery is successful from an orthopedic standpoint. However, while recovering in the hospital, the patient develops a life-threatening Staph infection. Or, consider the case of a patient who undergoes successful surgery to remove a benign growth from her body, only to develop an infection caused by a contaminated surgical instrument. In both cases, the surgeries were considered a success, but the outcomes were dramatically and negatively impacted by the hospital acquired infections. In its February 22, 2012 broadcast, the Today show on NBC featured a story entitled TODAY Investigates: Dirty surgical instruments a problem in the OR, reporting on other, real-life victims of hospital acquired infections.

Hospital acquired infections are among the leading causes of preventable deaths in the United States.1 HAIs cause more deaths in the U.S. each year than automobile accidents, fires and drownings combined. Such infections lead to extended hospital stays and result in substantially increased medical costs. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published a study in 2009 which concluded that the medical costs to the U.S. of hospital acquired infections ranges from $28 billion to $34 billion annually.2 Considering the extraordinary costs of HAIs to the public and the government, one would hope that a greater emphasis would be placed on preventing such infections.

Nursing Home Or Assisted Living – Which Is Right For Your Family?

February 1, 2012 | Suthers Law Firm

As our population continues to age, most of us will eventually face the prospect of placing a loved one into institutional care. Traditionally that has meant a nursing home. In the last ten to fifteen years, however, the growth of the assisted living industry has created an alternative to nursing home placement. So which is right for you and your family?

First, I would like to point out that, at least officially, Georgia does not license “assisted living facilities”. Georgia law, and the applicable regulations, use the term “personal care home” instead. While the terms are, for all practical purposes, synonymous, I mention the difference so anyone wishing to perform research on this issue will have the most accurate search terms possible.

A nursing home is a skilled nursing facility that is licensed to provide nursing care to its residents. They can administer medications, provide nursing assessments and order interventions to prevent injury. Nursing homes can provide physical, occupational and speech therapy. They can care for residents with feeding tubes and they can provide wound care. None of these services can be provided by an assisted living facility.

Georgia Judge Punishes Trucking Company For Destroying Evidence

January 31, 2012 | John Suthers

A Georgia judge struck a trucking company’s defense in a lawsuit after it was discovered that the trucking company had destroyed evidence. In the case captioned Alegria v. Howard and AAA Cooper Transportation, Inc., pending in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia, Judge Courtney L. Johnson ruled that AAA Cooper Transportation had denied the existence of evidence from a so-called black box recording device on one of its tractor trailers that was involved in a wreck, and that the company destroyed the recording device. Among other things, black box recording devices can show whether a truck driver was speeding when a crash occurred and whether the truck had problems with braking.

The legal term for the destruction of evidence is “spoliation.” It constitutes an obstruction of justice. The issue of spoliation comes up often in cases involving collisions with tractor trailers or trains. Typically, experienced trucking accident attorneys will send what is known as a spoliation letter to the company that owns or has control over the tractor trailer or train involved in a collision, instructing them to preserve evidence that is crucial to the case. Such evidence includes data or printouts from on-board recording devices and the recording devices themselves. In the lawsuit in question, Mr. Alegria’s attorneys had sent a spoliation letter to the trucking company’s risk manager thirteen days after the wreck. Judge Johnson ruled that the trucking company destroyed the black box recording device despite having received the spoliation letter.

The lawsuit arose when one of AAA Cooper Transportation’s tractor trailers collided with a pick-up truck that had spun out on a rain soaked road and was sitting in the middle of the highway. The driver of the pick-up alleged that he saw the tractor trailer coming, but could not get his door open in time to exit the pick-up truck. He rolled down his window and waived his arms frantically at the driver of the tractor trailer before the tractor trailer crashed into the driver side of his pick-up truck. As a result of the collision, the driver of the pickup truck, Mr. Alegria, suffered an amputation of his leg and a separated shoulder. Mr. Alegria then sued the trucking company, alleging that its driver was negligent in driving too fast for the existing conditions and in failing to avoid the collision.

Actos and Bladder Cancer

January 23, 2012 | John Suthers

Actos Packaging.jpg Manufactured by Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited and co-marketed in the United States by Eli Lilly and Company, Actos is a medication that is prescribed with diet changes and exercise to help regulate blood sugars for patients suffering from Type II diabetes. Prescribed in a daily 15 mg, 30 mg or 45 mg dose, Actos helps the body to be more efficient in its production, breakdown and absorption of blood sugars. When a person has too much blood sugar, the blood may become toxic to the organs, which are unable to use the sugar as fuel. Actos helps the muscles use insulin to absorb the needed sugar and keeps the liver from overproducing sugar. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a warning, however, that “use of the diabetes medication Actos (pioglitazone) for more than one year may be associated with an increased risk of bladder cancer.” The FDA also stated that the Actos label and patient Medication Guide must be changed to reflect the potential risk of bladder cancer. This announcement in the U.S. followed a more aggressive approach taken in France and Germany, which have both suspended sales and prescriptions of Actos.

The bladder is located in the center of the lower area of your belly, and is the part of your body that holds and releases urine. Symptoms of bladder cancer can include abdominal pain, painful urination, blood in the urine, urinary frequency, incontinence, fatigue and weight loss. Because there are many other conditions and diseases that can cause similar symptoms, it is important to see a doctor in order to rule out other possible causes. After performing a physical examination, your doctor may order diagnostic tests, such as an abdominal CT scan and a cystoscopy, which is a way to examine the inside of the bladder with a camera. Depending upon what is observed, a bladder biopsy may also be performed during the cystoscopy procedure. Additional diagnostic tests may include a urinalysis and a pelvic CT scan. If these tests confirm that you have bladder cancer, additional tests will then be done to determine whether the cancer has metastasized or spread. These tests are done to stage the cancer, as staging determines future treatment.

Bladder cancer is often treated with what is known as immunotherapy. A vaccine, known as Bacille Calmette-Guerin (commonly known as BCG) is generally used during immunotherapy for bladder cancer. It is administered through a Foley catheter directly into the bladder in an effort to trigger your immune system to attack and kill the cancerous cells. Treatment may also include surgery to remove the cancerous tumor, surgery to remove part of the bladder, or surgery to remove the entire bladder. Chemotherapy is also part of the treatment, sometimes in conjunction with radiation. Painful and unpleasant side effects can accompany all of these treatments. Like many forms of cancer, how well a patient does depends on the initial stage of the cancer and the patient’s response to treatment.

Idaho Teen Killed In Wreck After Updating Facebook

January 18, 2012 | Suthers Law Firm

As reported by the Idaho Press Tribune, eighteen year old Taylor Sauer was killed on January 14, 2012 when she rear ended a slow moving semi-trailer. Just minutes before the collision, she posted on her Facebook page “I can’t discuss this matter now. Driving and facebooking is not safe!” Idaho State Police recovered Taylor’s phone and are trying to determine whether Taylor was distracted by the phone at the time of her accident.

As we discussed in our blog on December 28, 2011, “distracted driving” is a leading cause of automobile accidents, particularly in younger drivers. According to the Idaho Press, Ms. Sauer’s automobile did not leave any skid marks. This would likely indicate she never saw the truck. While it has not been officially determined that Ms. Sauer was distracted by her phone, all indications are this was an accident that could have been avoided.

According to her uncle, Brad Warr, this was not the first time she had been involved with distracted driving. A news story on www.ksl.com quotes Mr. Warr as saying “Taylor had done that in the past and we know, as a family, that probably or may have contributed to the accident.”