Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog

The Associated Press is reporting that yet another massive recall of Chinese-made toys has been issued. Toys and child necklaces made in China were recalled Wednesday because they contain dangerous levels of lead. The recalled toys contained high levels of lead on their surface paint and the necklaces and jewelry sets contain excessive lead in some of their metal parts.

Under current regulations, children’s products which contain more than .06% of lead accessible to users are subject to a recall. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has urged parents to make sure that children are not playing with or using any of the recalled toys.

This is the second recall from Thomas and Friends product line. The parent corporation announced a recall of $1.5 million wooden railway toys in June of this year. The company is recalling five items totaling about 200,000 toys in all.

The recalls include the following:

1. About 23,500 necklaces, bracelets and pendants imported by TOBY NYC
of New York. These products were sold at T.J. Maxx, Marshals, A.J. Wright, Cracker Barrel and Shopko stores across the United States from August 2006 through August 2007.

2. About 850 children’s Spinning Wheel Necklaces produced by Rhode Island Novelty. These items were sold across the United States from November 2006 through May 2007.

3. Happy Giddy gardening tools and Sunny Patch Chairs, imported by Target Corporation. This recall involves about 350,000 of the toys. These items were sold across the United States from August 2006 to August 2007.

4. About 200,000 Thomas and Friends wood railway toys and 800 Brittan’s “Knights of the Sword” toys. The Thomas and Friends items were sold across the United States from March 2003 through September 2007. The Knights of the Sword toys were sold at specialty toy stores across the United States from April 2004 through March 2006.

5. About 16,000 children toy rakes imported by Jo-Ann Stores, Inc. These rakes were sold only at Jo-Ann Fabric and Craft Stores from January 2007 through September 2007.

6. Approximately 10,000 Floor Puppet Theaters produced by Guidecraft, Inc. These items were sold nationwide from June 2006 through August 2007.

If you believe your children have any of these toys, you should remove them immediately and contact the manufacturer.

Our firm was recently retained to represent a gentleman who almost died after he consumed a meal at a restaurant in south Georgia. It seems like our food supply is not as safe as it used to be. Time and time again we hear and read about horrific food poisoning injury cases, some resulting in death.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture reported this week that a New Jersey-based meat processor has voluntarily recalled 331,582 pounds of frozen ground beef products that may be contaminated with the potentially deadly E. coli bacteria. A product sample reportedly tested positive for E. coli during an investigation into a number of illnesses in the northeast region of the United States. The recalled ground beef products were shipped to food service institutions in the New York City area and to retailers across the country. The labels on the products subject to recall bear the establishment number "Est 9748" inside the USDA mark of inspection. All of the products involved have 2008 sell-by dates of June 22th, July 12th or July 23rd.

Escherichia coli (E. coli), is one of many species of bacteria living in the lower intestines of mammals, known as gut flora. When located in the large intestine, it assists with waste processing, vitamin K production, and food absorption. When food is contaminated with this bacteria and consumed by the public it can result in serious illness and even death. Children, the elderly and people with compromised immune systems are the most susceptible.

In an analysis made public this week, Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports Magazine, compared data compiled by the Federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services showing compliance with infection control measures for hospitals in Maryland and Virginia.

Consumers Union is advocating a bill before Congress that will require hospitals to publish their infection rates. The analysis determined that the hospitals in both states generally performed about as well as hospitals nationwide. But, according to the study, the hospitals in each state varied greatly in their adherence to three measures of practice quality. The three infection control measures are:

1. How often preventative antibiotics are given in the hour before surgery;

2. How often the right antibiotic is chosen; and

3. How often the drug therapy is halted within 24 hours.

It has been shown that giving patients an appropriate antibiotic in the hour before surgery reduces infection risk. Yet, not all hospitals perform such preventative measures with consistency. For example, one hospital in Virginia reported that it gave 97% of its surgery patients preventative antibiotics in the hour prior to their operations. At the other extreme, another Virginia hospital reported that it gave patients antibiotics in only 22% of its cases.

According to Consumers Union, ending antibiotic treatment on time is equally critical. Studies have shown that therapy that lasts longer than a day can breed antibiotic resistant bacteria, making any infection that does occur more dangerous. The study reported that in Maryland, one hospital ended antibiotic therapy within the appropriate time in 90% of its cases. At the other extreme, another Maryland hospital ended the therapy appropriately in only 20% of its cases.

Hospital-related infections are a major problem in this country. An estimated 1.7 million hospital patients develop infections each year. According to the latest results from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 99,000 Americans die each year from hospital-related infections. The actual numbers are unknown because hospitals are not required in most states to report infections.

Many of us who have handled serious personal injury cases, including those involving brain injury have seen MRI’s performed using various contrast agents for years. One of those agents does not appear to be as safe as once thought. Gadolinium, or gadodiamide, is a contrast agent which allows an MRI to define normal tissue from abnormal tissue in the brain and body. The FDA declared Gadolinium safe for use in contrast MRI’s in 1988.

In June 2006, the FDA first notified health care professionals and the general public about the risks of a potentially fatal disease known as nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF) associated with the use of gadolinium. Patients with NSF develop thickening of the skin and connective tissues that inhibits their ability to move and may result in broken bones. Other organs are at risk of thickening as well. The cause of NSF is not known and there is no consistently effective treatment of this condition.

More recently, on May 23, 2007, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) asked manufacturers to include a new boxed warning on the product labeling of all gadolinium-based contrast agents which are used to enhance the quality of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

The requested warning states that patients with severe kidney insufficiency who receive gadolinium-based agents are at risk for developing a debilitating, and a potentially fatal disease known as nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF). In addition, it states that patients just before or just after liver transplantation, or those with chronic liver disease, are also at risk for developing NSF if they are experiencing kidney insufficiency of any severity.

People need to be aware of the potential dangers associated with this contrast agent and the contraindications for its use to avoid catastrophic consequences.

Avandia was approved by the FDA in May 1999 for use in improving control of blood sugar levels in Type 2 diabetics. Since its approval, Avandia, which is manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, has been used by more than seven million people worldwide and is, today, being used by over one million Americans.

According to a study on Avandia conducted by the Cleveland Clinic which was published on May 21, 2007, by the New England Journal of Medicine, the popular drug is linked to a greater risk of heart attack and, in some cases, death. The study, which compiled data from 42 studies involving 15,560 patients who took the drug and 12,283 patients given other medications or a placebo, showed a 43 percent higher risk of heart attack and other heart-related adverse events while taking Avandia.

The FDA is continuing to analyze the data and to investigate the increased risk of heart attack linked to Avandia. Although the FDA has not reached any conclusions and its analysis of the drug is ongoing, on May 21, 2007, the FDA advised patients using Avandia, especially those who have underlying heart disease or who are at high risk of heart attack, to consult with their physicians about this new information.

For those of us who know people who have Type 2 diabetes it is important that we make them aware of the dangers of this drug.

The Composix® Kugel Mesh Patch is used to repair inguinal, ventral and laparoscopic hernias. The purpose of the patch is to keep the intestines in the abdominal cavity. The patch is typically placed behind the hernia defect by means of an incision. The patch is then held open by a memory recoil ring.
The Composix® Kugel Mesh Patch was recently recalled by its manufacturer, Davol, Inc., a subsidiary of C.R. Bard, Inc., after it was discovered that the memory recoil ring can break under stress and perforate internal organs. Patients who have had a hernia repair using the patch have been urged by the FDA to contact their hernia surgeons to determine if the recalled Composix® Kugel Mesh Patch was used in their hernia repair.

The defect involving the Composix® Kugel Mesh Patch can lead to serious, life threatening injuries including, bowel perforation, bowel obstruction, chronic intestinal fistulae, serious infection, or death.

Symptoms of a ring defect include unexplained or persistent abdominal pain, fever, tenderness at the site of implant or other persistent and unusual symptoms.

Many people we have represented in serious personal injury cases whether they workplace accidents, trucking accidents, automobile accidents or dangerous products have asked whether settlement proceeds or payments made to an injured party as aresult of a jury verdict are taxable. The general rule is that those payments are not taxable.

The Internal Revenue Code provides, “Except as otherwise provided", gross income for the purpose of calculating Federal income tax includes "all income from whatever source derived". Sec. 61(a). This definition is sweeping in scope, and exclusions from income are to be narrowly construed. However, Section 104 provides for an exclusion from gross income for certain payments received as compensation for injuries or sickness. Specifically, section 104(a)2 provides in part:

SEC. 104. COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES OR SICKNESS.

(a) In General. -- Except in the case of amounts attributable to (and not in excess of) deductions allowed under section 213 (relating to medical, etc., expenses) for any prior taxable year, gross income does not include --

* * * * * * *
(2) the amount of any damages received(whether by suit or agreement and whether as lump sums or as periodic payments) on account of personal injuries or sickness;

The regulations under section 104 provide that the term "damages received (whether by suit or agreement)" means "an amount received (other than workmen's compensation) through prosecution of a legal suit or action based upon tort or tort type rights, or through a settlement agreement entered into in lieu of such prosecution." Sec. 1.104-1(c), Income Tax Regs. In the case of Commissioner v. Schleier, 515 U.S. 323, 328 (1995)., the U.S. Supreme Court established a two-prong test for determining whether a taxpayer is eligible to exclude income under section 104(a)(2). The taxpayer must demonstrate (1) that the underlying cause of action giving rise to recovery is based upon tort or tort-type rights, and (2) that the damages were received on account of personal injuries or sickness. Id. at 336-337.

A word of caution is in order. Although payment made in satisfaction of a judgment for compensatory damages in personal injury cases is not taxable, any payment made in satisfaction of a verdict or judgment for punitive damages is now taxable

In Georgia, the driver of a vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury to or death of any person or property damage to an apparent extent of $500.00 or more shall immediately, by the quickest means of communication, give notice of such accident to the local police department if such accident occurs within a municipality. If such accident occurs outside a municipality, such notice shall be given to the office of the county sheriff or to the nearest office of the state patrol.

In addition to what the law requires, you should ask people around the accident site if they observed the accident and if you can, get their name and telephone number, so they could be a witness for you if you should need a witness later on. Get as many witnesses as possible, because a person may move or change phone numbers or may not want to be a witness for you later on. If you or anyone that was in the car with you has been injured you should get medical treatment right away.

If you have been injured, do not discuss your injury or the way it happened with any insurance company adjuster, investigator or representative until you have consulted a lawyer. These statements might be incomplete or taken out of context and be harmful to your claim at a later date. Do not sign any papers or agree to any settlement, as this may affect your right to pursue your claim. Always seek competent legal advice first! The sooner your attorney gets involved the better he or she is able to protect your rights. If you have any visible injuries take photographs of your injuries as soon as possible, as well as photographs of the damage to your car. Another important reason to involve a competent lawyer as soon as possible is so that the lawyer can do whatever additional investigation is necessary to protect you.

Regrettably, something we have seen recently, which is very troubling, are cases where fly-by-night trucking companies which have failed to register with either state or federal authorities operate nonetheless with minimum insurance coverage insufficient to protect the rights of the innocent motoring public. The state and federal regulatory scheme is such that all commercial motor carriers for hire are required to register with state and federal authorities. The reasons for this are obvious. By registering with the state, the state can make sure that all commercial motor carriers are financially responsible should they cause damage to the public. Also, by registering with the state, the state can collect taxes and other fees and also regulate the safety of the motor carrier’s operations. The same is true on a federal level. The problem emerges, however, when the commercial motor carrier fails to register at all. In this context, in order to get business, such a carrier typically will still have to have an insurance certificate from an insurance company certifying to their client/customer that they have insurance coverage. The problem is such insurance coverage is typically inadequate to protect the needs of the public and also creates legal problems in the event of a subsequent claim.

If a motor carrier fails to register with either the state or federal government, then typically the insurance company also fails to file required certificates of coverage also required by such authorities. On a state level, motor carriers are required to file a Uniform Bodily Injury Certificate of Insurance (usually in the form of a Form E filing) which indicates that the insurance company for the commercial motor carrier has issued a liability insurance policy to the motor carrier. Unless a Form E is filed, however, in many states, there is no automatic liability of the insurance carrier for the negligent acts of the commercial motor carrier. Thus, we have the anomalous situation where those who comply with the law, that is those who register with the state and file certificates of insurance are in a position to protect the public whereas those who disobey the law are benefitted thereby because the insurance companies can then claim that having filed no Form E with the state, they have no liability to the public. This unjust result obviously needs to be addressed by legislatures nationwide and yet the problem continues to exist.

Not only is this a problem on a state level, this is also a problem on the federal level. Commercial motor carriers for hire who operate in interstate commerce are required to file with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration a Form MCS-90 which again certifies that they have adequate insurance coverage to protect the public in the event of a accident involving personal injuries. For those carriers that fail to register with the federal government but nonetheless operate in interstate commerce, the same problem emerges. The insurance company does not file the MCS-90 because they have not been requested to do so. The insurance company nonetheless has information to believe that the insured for which it has provided coverage is operating commercially in interstate commerce. Nonetheless, by virtue of not filing a MCS-90 form with the federal government, the insurance company can make the argument that it has no duty to the public in the event of a subsequent claim for personal injuries. Again, those who violate the law benefit from their violation whereas those who comply with the law are required to provide insurance coverage for the public in the event of a motor vehicle accident. Again, this anomalous result which still exists today, needs to be addressed by Congress.

It has been our unfortunate experience that when fly-by-night carriers cause great damage to our clients, regrettably, collecting under their insurance policies has proven to be exceedingly difficult. While we will continue to do everything we can to represent our innocent clients most of the legal problems encountered in such cases could be easily addressed by state and federal authorities. We can only hope that this loophole in the law will be corrected before other innocent people needless suffer from the acts of fly-by-night motor carriers operating in intrastate and interstate commerce.

Hotels and motels are beginning to be held liable in tort for their negligence in failing to protect customers from known bed bug infestations. Bed bugs are making a comeback in the United States for several reasons which include, increasing international travel, more conservative use of pesticides and the failure of hotels and motels to take appropriate and effective steps to eliminate known infestations. The conduct of some hotels and motels amounts to gross negligence.

I recently read a U.S. Court of Appeals (7th Cir) decision affirming a punitive damage award of $196,000.00 each to a brother and sister against a hotel chain. The facts of the case were egregious because the management of the 200 room hotel knew they had a serious infestation, did little to eliminate the problem and continued to rent rooms that had been put on their “Do Not Rent” list. The Court held the hotel’s failure to either warn guests or take effective measures to eliminate known bedbug infestation amounted to fraud.

Our lawyers recently completed a case in which the driver of a heavy truck which caused a collision with serious injuries was found to be disabled and medically unable to be operating the vehicle. For many years, The National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, has been pushing for increased regulations to prevent medically unqualified drivers from operating commercial vehicles such as tractor trailers and heavy trucks.

Based on investigations of accidents involving drivers with serious medical conditions, the NTSB determined that serious problems exist in the medical certification process for commercial vehicle drivers. According to the NTSB, these problems can lead to increased highway deaths and injuries for commercial vehicle drivers, passengers, and the motoring public.

The NTSB study found that many commercial vehicle drivers who have serious medical conditions which are known to their employers, physicians, or others, are never reported to the appropriate board or motor vehicle licensing authorities. Enforcement authorities cannot in most instances determine the validity of a medical certificate during safety inspections and other routine stops, because of the absence of procedures or information sources to validate the medical information on the driver’s certificate. According to the NTSB, in the absence of a mechanism to track all medical certification examinations, a commercial driver with a serious medical condition who is denied a medical certificate by one examiner, may be able to obtain a medical certificate from another examiner. This bypasses the purpose of the medical certification process and can endanger the motoring public.

According to the NTSB, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which has authority over commercial drivers, is working too slowly to complete directives from Congress that it, the FMSCA, ensure that medical examiners are qualified and know what to look for in conducting examinations on commercial drivers, track all medical certificate applications, enhance oversight enforcement in valid certificates, and provide a comprehensive mechanism for reporting medical conditions.

According to the NTSB, once these recommendations are implemented by the FMSCA, there should be a decrease in danger to the motoring public from medically unqualified drivers.

A recent study reported in the Archives of Internal Medicine has concluded that reports to the Food and Drug Administration of dangerous side effects and deaths from widely used medicines almost tripled between 1998 and 2005. The number of deaths and serious injuries from prescription and over-the-counter drugs climbed from 34,966 to 89,842 during the time period.

Powerful narcotic painkillers such as Oxycontin, were among 15 drugs most often linked with deaths in the study. Other drugs such as insulin, the arthritis drugs Vioxx and Remicade, and the antidepressant Paxil were frequently linked to serious nonfatal complications.

The report adds to recent criticism of FDA oversight on drug safety, including its handling of serious problems connected with Vioxx, which was removed from the market in 2004. "This growing toll of serious injury shows that the existing system is not adequately protecting patients and underscores the importance of recent reports urging far-reaching legislative, policy and institutional changes," the authors said.

A disproportionate number of complications occurred in elderly patients. Women were more often victims than men, 55.5 percent compared to 45.5 percent. Children were involved in 7.4 percent of the problems.

Sen. Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican and frequent FDA critic, said the report is another indication that the FDA's review of drugs already on the market "must be rigorous and timely."

Any trial lawyer who has ever handled a closed head injury case knows that brain damage can occur even if there is no direct blow to the head. Quite literally, the brain is like a bowl of Jell-O. If the head is shaken, the brain moves within the skull and due to acceleration and rotational forces, not necessarily direct blows, the brain can be damaged. Nor does an injury have to be severe to cause lasting brain injury. In short, a closed head injury without any skull fracture can result in more serious injuries than can an injury where a skull fracture has occurred.

Almost 20 years ago at the University of Virginia Medical Center in Charlottesville, a study of 424 people who had been hospitalized for 2 days or less revealed that after discharge, 79% complained of headaches, 59% of memory problems and 34% had not yet returned to their jobs 3 months later. Seventy-seven head injury patients who had been hospitalized for less than 24 hours and discharged with “normal” findings showed that a third later had difficulties with memory, attention span and concentration. In short, the data has been publicly available for years demonstrating that a closed head injury can cause serious long term complications for those unfortunate enough to have such an injury. Indeed, recovery from a brain injury, however minor it may seem, can last for years earmarked by periodic improvements over time.

In our practice, we have seen numerous symptoms of subtle brain damage. These often include a person who loses interest in their family or hobbies, people that have short attention spans or are unable to do their job, difficulty with relationships, trouble learning new things, sexual problems, etc. Many times, there is a lack of self-confidence and a lack of drive. In short, the brain is a very complicated organ, of course, and while the medical profession is still dealing with its attempts to understand closed head injuries, the fact remains that people who experience head injuries often times are not properly diagnosed initially and many times suffer from the side effects of such injuries for years.

Closed head injuries have been described in the past as a “silent epidemic.” As one expert has previously stated: “Someone in an accident is not necessarily fine just because they didn’t hit the windshield with their head.” Like any other medical problem, once a closed head injury is diagnosed, its causes and consequences can be better understood. And of course, a problem must be identified before rehabilitation techniques can be applied that may ease or correct the difficulty. While head injuries can oftentimes be fatal causing approximately 100,000 deaths a year in this country, about 7 times that number of individuals suffer non-fatal head injuries severe enough to require hospitalization. Some languish in comas, as has received much attention in recent years, but most suffer silently from the long term consequences of having their brain injured by trauma, sometimes only minor trauma.

While our lawyers know that these are tough cases, nonetheless, individuals who have sustained such serious injuries deserve not only good medical care but good legal representation.

According to an article that appeared in the U. S. News and World Report on September 10, 2007, the number of serious “adverse” drug events more than doubled between 1998 and 2005 in the United States as did a number of related deaths. Adverse event reports are filed when a doctor or hospital realizes that a patient has suffered a serious drug event that has resulted in death, hospitalization and/or other life threatening complications which requires medical intervention to prevent harm. Between 1998 and 2005, the number of reported serious adverse drug events increased from 34,966 in 1998 to 89,842 in 2005. During the same period, the number of deaths related to drug usage increased threefold from 5,519 in 1998 to 15,107 in 2005.

Critics of the federal government contend that the U. S. Food and Drug Administration have relaxed regulations to the point that many drugs are being approved which have not yet been proven to be either efficacious or safe for the public’s use. The statistics seem to bear out this criticism. Because of increased bio-technology and the pressure of the market to introduce drugs prior to comprehensive clinical trials, the reported data seems to indicate that we need a more aggressive government “watchdog” agency than we currently have in the FDA.

Hopefully, these statistics will motivate the government to do a better a job in protecting the public from unsafe drugs. At present, many drugs are causing serious damage to the consuming public. Unfortunately, “the cure is often worse than the cold” when it comes to drugs prematurely rushed to market. These statistics clearly demonstrate that the profit motivated rush to market should be suspended while more emphasis is placed upon safety considerations for the public.

Our lawyers frequently review cases in which cars sustain side impacts which result in serious injury and death. Beginning in the 2013 model-year all new passenger vehicles will be required to provide head protection for side crashes. New regulations, announced by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, are designed to reduce deaths and injuries of motorists who are struck by another car or truck along the vehicle's side

The safety upgrades, which have been under review since 2004, could save more than 300 lives and prevent more than 400 serious injuries annually through the installation of side air bags that protect the torso and side curtain air bags that guard the head. Side-impact crashes killed 9,200 people in 2005, the most recent figures available, or about 29 percent of motorists killed in passenger vehicle crashes. A study reported last year by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that driver deaths were reduced by 52 percent in sport utility vehicles equipped with head-protecting side air bags, while the same air bags reduced driver deaths by 37 percent in passenger cars.

The auto industry has voluntarily agreed to install side air bags in all new passenger vehicles by September 2009 and the safety equipment, including air bags that provide more protection in rollover accidents, is becoming more widely available. Under the government's plan, automakers will be required to phase-in the head protection in 20 percent of passenger vehicles in the 2010 model year, 50 percent by the 2011 model year, 75 percent in 2012 vehicles and in all passenger vehicles for 2013 models. All new passenger vehicles will need to comply by September 2012.

The new rules do not require specific types of technologies to meet the new standards, but automakers will likely use side curtain air bags and air bags that protect the chest and abdomen. About 47 percent of 2008 model year vehicles already have the combination of side curtain air bags and side air bags that protect the torso according to government data.

Automakers will be required to test vehicles with a test that simulates a vehicle striking a tree or a pole in the driver's side. They will also have to conduct crash tests using dummies the size of a small woman and a more technologically advanced male dummy of average height.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) adverse event and reporting program has issued a warning that medications containing codeine given to breast-feeding mothers who rapidly metabolize codeine into morphine may cause adverse effects in their infants.

Codeine is generally considered safe for use in nursing mothers; however, last year, a healthy 13-day- old breast-fed infant died from very high levels of morphine received through breast milk. The mother was taking codeine at a dose lower than that usually prescribed for post delivery pain. However, testing revealed that the mother was an ultrarapid metabolizer of codeine.

According to the FDA, depending on ethnicity, approximately anywhere from 1 to 28 per 100 individuals rapidly metabolize codeine. Unfortunately, genetic testing is the only way to determine whether someone is a rapid metabolizer.

All women who are breast feeding their infants should be extremely cautious in using codeine or products containing codeine. The FDA recommends that breast-feeding mothers be made aware of the signs of morphine overdose. They should be instructed to contact their doctor if a baby shows signs of increased sleepiness (ie, sleeping for more than 4 hours at a time), limpness, or difficulty nursing or breathing.

While reviewing cases involving falls in skilled nursing facilities our lawyers have determined that there are several causes of falls that we see frequently. The first involves patient’s characteristics. Dementia associated with “sundowner” syndrome or nighttime confusion is a common occurrence. In this situation, the patient may awake in the middle of the night not knowing where he or she is, experience a drop in blood pressure from arising too quickly, and have a momentary dizzy spell. This almost invariably leads to a fall.

Another frequent cause involves vision disturbance, where a patient simply cannot see well enough to guide his or her steps. Arthritis or other orthopedic problems that compromise the ability to walk also lead to falls. Old strokes can lead to weakness or partial paralysis which can in turn lead to a loss of balance resulting in a fall.

Many medications can cause drops in blood pressure, lack of positional compensation with rising, sleepiness, lack of awareness, and balance.

Environmental factors can also play a part in falls. These include such things that are easily remedied, such as slippery floors, uneven surfaces, blind corners, insufficient lighting and improperly placed beds and rails.

Our lawyers are frequently asked to review cases involving patient falls in skilled nursing home facilities. Due to the physical and mental conditions of many infirm and elderly patients, it is impossible to prevent all falls. However, in many instances falls can be prevented or greatly reduced by the implementation of proper procedures.

Patients who are long term residents in skilled nursing homes are by definition in a compromised state of health, usually from multiple chronic medical problems. These patients are often weak, are subject to lightheaded spells, become confused and have significant deficiencies of mobility and balance. Falling, sometimes frequent falling is thus a common occurrence for these patients.

The consequence of these falls can range from simple bruising to severe complications such as broken bones and brain injuries. Even relatively simple additional stresses imposed on an already debilitated patient can have severe long term effects on a patient's overall medical condition. For example, statistics show that patients who sustain a fractured hip have much higher 6 month death rates even after the fracture has healed and baseline mobility has been re-established.

Mattel issued another major recall today involving Chinese-made toys which contain excessive amounts of lead. These include locomotive toys and accessories for the Barbie brand dolls.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission reported that Mattel is recalling almost 800,000 toys. Mattel reported that it discovered the use of lead-based paint as part of an ongoing investigation of toys it imports from China. The Company is recalling 675,000 Barbie accessories, 8,900 Big World 6 in-1 Bongo brand toys and about 90,000 Geo Trax locomotive toys. These products were sold from September 2006 until last month.

It has been proven that excessive amounts of lead are linked to behavioral and developmental problems in children. The Consumer Product Safety Commission bans paint with more than .06% lead.

This is the third major recall of toys by Mattel this summer. Last month, Mattel recalled 18 million toys which contain lead and/or magnets which when swallowed could cause intestinal problems to children.

Mattel blamed the use of the lead-based paint on its Chinese contractors and said consumers should expect more recalls in the future as the company continues to investigate its suppliers. About 65% of Mattel’s toys are made in China.

In light of our lawyers' recent recovery of 3.25 million dollars in a tractor trailer collision case in which the truck driver was found to be under the influence of illegal drugs, we are repeating pertinent information contained in a previous entry.

Our lawyers are frequently handling cases in which the driver of a heavy truck is under the influence of illegal stimulents, such as methamphetamine.

Despite Federal regulations that limit the hours they can drive in a single day, truck drivers are constantly looking for ways to stay awake longer, drive farther, and make more money. Seventeen out of 20 truck drivers inter-viewed by the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) said that methamphetamine is easy to get at truck stops. The National Institute on Drug Abuse says that people in occupations (such as long-haul truckers) that demand long hours, mental alertness, and physical endurance, have been using methamphetamine at increased rates.

The use of stimulants by truck drivers to combat fatigue is fairly common. Surveys and roadside tests indicate that about one in five drivers use stimulants on at least some trips.

.

Our lawyers have successfully litigated many cases involving defective household products which have caused fires and serious personal injury or death. Recently, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with GE Consumer & Industrial has announced a voluntary recall of 2.5 million GE Dishwashers. The recall advises consumers to stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

A defect in the dishwashers has the potential to allow liquid rinse-aid to leak from the dispenser onto the dishwasher's internal wiring which can cause an electrical short and overheating, posing a fire hazard to consumers.

According to the recall, GE has received 191 reports of overheated wiring including 56 reports of property damage. There were 12 reports of fires that escaped the dishwasher. Fire damage was limited to the dishwasher or the adjacent area. No injuries have been reported.

The recall includes GE built-in dishwashers sold under the following brand names: Eterna, GE, GE Profile™, GE Monogram®, Hotpoint®, and Sears-Kenmore. The dishwashers were sold in white, black, almond, bisque and stainless steel. The brand name is printed on the dishwasher's front control panel. The model and serial numbers can be found inside the dishwasher tub on the front left side of the dishwasher. These dishwashers were sold through department and appliance stores from September 1997 through December 2001 for about $400.

For a complete list of the model and serial numbers subject to the recall, consumers should contact General Electric toll-free at (877) 607-6395 from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. ET Monday through Saturday, visit the firm's Web site at www.geappliances.com, or visit the Consumer Product Safety Commission Web site at htttp://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07190.html .

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled dishwashers and contact General Electric for a free repair, a $150 rebate towards the purchase of a new GE dishwasher, or a $300 rebate towards the purchase of a new GE Profile or GE Monogram dishwasher.