Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog

Having handled police chase cases for over a decade, I have yet to see a case in which the police admitted wrongdoing when a high speed pursuit turned out badly. Obviously, when a high speed pursuit ends in tragedy and someone is killed or seriously injured, the police know that immediately. In cases where the pursuit should not have been initiated and/or continued, the wagons are then circled and numerous explanations and rationalizations are provided as to why the police were merely “doing their duty” and were doing absolutely nothing wrong. Many times this is exactly the case. The police were doing their duty and they were doing nothing wrong and had every right to be chasing a dangerous offender who may have committed a forcible felony as an example. However, in many other cases, the police have done something wrong. That is, they were exposing the public to great risk of serious injury or death with virtually no need to chase the offender (such as situations involving missing tail lights or minor petty or misdemeanor offenses) and the pursuit then “turned out badly.” In situations where the police are chasing minor offenders at high rates of speed on congested roadways the danger to the public always will always outweigh the need to apprehend the suspect. And yet, in such circumstances, when the pursuit ends in tragedy, the police will “have done nothing wrong” and were merely “doing their duty.” The wrong was committed by the fleeing suspect, not the police so they will say. But the suspect (a minor transgressor) was no serious danger to anyone until they were chased.

The rationalizations we often see in these cases are that “the pursuit had not begun, we were merely trying to catch up to the suspect.” By offering this rationalization the police hope to convince the public that they did not violate their pursuit policies because they were not actually in a pursuit. Another common defense is that “we were not in pursuit, we are acting in emergency mode attempting to warn the public up ahead of the dangers presented by the motorist.” Another rationalization is “we had no intent to immediately apprehend the suspect,” meaning that if we did not have an intent to apprehend, we could not have been in pursuit but were merely following the vehicle. Indeed, “following the vehicle” or “tailing” the vehicle is another rationalization offered rather than “pursuing the vehicle.” Another defense: “it was the officer’s discretion” under the policy to chase or not to chase. (Therefore, he can never be wrong). Another defense: we had terminated the pursuit and had resumed normal speed. (Videotapes are often missing when this one is used). The rationalizations and explanations are endless but having practiced in this area for many years, the point to be made is that according to themselves the police very rarely do anything wrong, even in those situations where they do.

Regrettably, the natural human instinct to deny wrongdoing when a mistake has been made is what is preventing change in this area. Nothing will change unless the parties who have made the mistakes acknowledge their mistakes and learn from them. As long as rationalizations and explanations are offered necessary change will not occur and the innocent will continue to die. Regrettably, in this particular field, police chases continue unabated with hundreds of innocent people dying annually and thousands of others being seriously injured. Until and unless the law enforcement community is willing to admit that they sometimes have made mistakes, they will never learn from them and the innocent public will continue to pay the price for them.

To err is human. Police sometimes err just as well as we all do. The law enforcement community needs to admit its errors in these cases if lives are to be saved. Otherwise, we can count on more deaths and injuries in needlessly reckless and dangerous police pursuits where the danger presented to the public by the suspect is outweighed by the dangers of the chase itself.

Our personal injury lawyers unfortunately have seen far too many cases involving traumatic amputations. In many of these cases, the tragedy is compounded by infection that sets in shortly after the original trauma. If one loses a leg below the knee, for example, and there is an immediate amputation after the traumatic event, it is not uncommon to see subsequent amputations due to the development of infection. In some cases we have handled, there have been problems with gangrene, which required multiple amputations. The patient may start off with a below the knee amputation and end up with one above the knee.

All amputation cases arising from trauma are serious cases and must be handled with the utmost care and attention to detail. Obviously, the medical professionals have to deal with the complications caused by infections subsequent to the traumatic event but counsel must also be alert to the complicating features of such developments in each case. For example, when one develops an infection shortly after a traumatic event, they are not typically eligible to be fitted with a prosthetic device. The longer the infection lingers and the treatment necessary to treat it, the longer it is before the patient is eligible to receive the prosthesis. Studies have indicated that the length of time from the passage of the original traumatic event to the time when the patient is fitted with a prosthesis is very important because the longer the wait, the greater the difficulty for the patient. Indeed, this is one of the problems with infection because it delays the fitting of the prosthesis and thus delays the patient’s rehabilitation, sometimes with long term effects.

Whether the amputation be to a finger or a limb, the complexities of these cases are always unique to the individual patient and the case. It is imperative that counsel understand the long term sequelae of infection because such infections can have a bearing on a client’s long term prognosis and therefore their long term medical needs and vocational, physical and emotional challenges.

Our Atlanta, Georgia car accident lawyers frequently review cases in which the occupants of cars have suffered severe injuries or death while not wearing seat belts. In many of these cases the injuries could have been prevented had seat belts been in use.

Fatality figures released Monday by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reveal that more than two-thirds of young drivers and passengers killed in nighttime car crashes aren't wearing seat belts.
According to the report, seat belt use actually is rising slightly nationwide. Total belt use rose to 82 percent last year from 81 percent in 2006. Twelve states had rates of 90 percent or better, led by Hawaii and Washington. Only three were below 70 percent: Arkansas, Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

But the news is still disturbing. Sixty-eight percent of drivers and passengers between the ages of 16 and 20 who were killed in car crashes at night in 2006 were unbuckled. During daytime, 57 percent of the young motorists and passengers who were killed were not wearing seat belts.
The problem isn't limited to young people. The percentage of unbuckled drivers and passengers who died at night is well up in the 60s through the age of 44. It declines to 52 percent for people 55-64 and 41 percent for those older than that.

Some young people said peer pressure can sometimes play a role in teens not buckling up.

Traumatically induced electrical injuries are not only a common form of trauma but also complex and potentially devastating to the victim. The physical and emotional manifestations and severity of electrical trauma encompass a wide spectrum of symptoms ranging from a brief unpleasant sensation due to contact with a low intensity household current to instant death and/or massive injury from high voltage electrocution. Unlike a thermal burn, electrical injuries commonly involve multiple body systems and organs which are very difficult to manage and treat. In our serious injury and wrongful death practice we have encountered many such injuries and can attest to the fact that these cases are often complex, both legally and medically.

One of the difficulties for the victims of such injuries is the physical side. Injury due to electricity may include burns to the skin and deeper tissues, heart disturbances, and neurological problems. The higher the voltage involved, typically the worse the injury and the worse the outcome. It is not uncommon for there to be amputations associated with such occurrences.

Our firm has handled wrongful death electrocution cases where workers have been electrocuted on the job due to negligence of third parties. We have also handled serious electrical injuries where the victim survives but is left with a mountain of medical problems and bills, not to mention lost wages. As is true of any serious injury case, it is imperative that competent counsel be engaged at the earliest opportunity to protect the victim’s rights. While the victim will face a long ordeal in recovering from his or her injuries, a prompt and thorough investigation of the incident which caused the injury many times will enable competent legal counsel to provide legal relief for the victim.

The myriad forms in which these injuries can occur defy any general description. Victims can come into contact with high voltage wires, can be electrocuted by equipment and can be injured in a variety of ways while on the job. While workers’ compensation benefits are available to those who are injured on the job, where a third party is involved, in a typical liability case involving third parties, lengthy litigation may be required because an assessment of the past, present and future medical issues and associated lost wage problems necessitates a slower and more prudent approach to the resolution of such claims.

We are continually disturbed when we hear reports of persons injured by unsafe glass--decades after the need for "safety glazing" material (safety glass) was recognized. Our serious personal injury lawyers have delved deeply into the history of glass injuries in representing clients who have suffered what can be life-threatening injuries from unsafe glass, in premises liability cases tried successfully. We hope to share what we have learned about these dangerous products so that future injuries from dangerous glass can be prevented.

For more than thirty (30) years, the dangers of using glass that leaves sharp, jagged edges when it breaks has been known.

In a 1972 opinion, one court discussed the dangers of glass injuries from glass that was not "safety glass": “‘Purposeful footsteps, impact, the harsh, shattering crash of jagged spears of glass falling and disintegrating on the floor, and disabling and disfiguring injuries or death -- this sequence of events is acted out, according to safety experts, in 40,000 American homes annually.’” Moody v. Southland Inv. Corp., 126 Ga. App. 225, 230, 190 S.E.2d 578, 581 (1972) (quoting Wolfstone, “Glass Door Accidents,” 14 Am. Jur. Trials 101, 105).

The 1972 Moody case concerned a patio door made of non-tempered glass that shattered and injured the plaintiff. The Court discussed testimony from experts that “serious injuries are caused by nontempered glass,” and that “[t]empered glass is harder, and it won’t break as easily, and then when it breaks, it doesn’t come in sharp, jagged pieces, where you are liable to get cut.” Id. at 229, 190 S.E.2d at 581. The Court also observed that “tempered glass was available for use on the door [in question] in 1967, when it was first installed.” Id. at 228, 190 S.E.2d at 580.

For many decades, manufacturers, builders, and architects have known that “plate glass” which breaks in a sharp jagged way. Much of this information has been summarized in a Report in one of our cases prepared by Phillip L. Graitcer, DMD, MPH, who has been an Adjunct Professor at the Center for Injury Control, Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University, Atlanta, and is the former Director of the International Unit of the “National Center for Injury Prevention and Control” at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta.

Continue reading "Glass Injuries from Unsafe Glass That Is Not "Safety Glass": How Dangerous Glass Causing Personal Injury and Death Continues to Endanger Unsuspecting Children and Adults" »

According to Healthgrades, an independent health care ratings company, 247,662 patients studied between 2003 and 2005 died from potentially preventable problems. The Institute of Medicine estimates that 1.5 million patients every year suffer from mistakes with medications.

People can sue for damages under state law if they're harmed by drugs and medical products, but the Bush administration argues that states have no right to fault a company for selling a product that has been reviewed and approved by the federal government.

"Blocking such lawsuits, in my view, would do great harm to the public health," Dr. Aaron S. Kesselheim, an internal medicine physician at Brigham & Women's Hospital in Boston and an instructor at Harvard Medical School, said in a statement.

New England Journal of Medicine Editor Gregory Curfman noted the case of Vioxx, a drug used to treat arthritis pain. Vioxx was approved by the FDA in 1998, but people later learned it could cause heart attack, stroke or cardiovascular problems. In 2002, the Vioxx label was revised to reflect those risks and in 2004, it was pulled from the market.

On Wednesday, Curfman said that "preemption of common-law tort actions against drug and medical device companies is ill-advised and will result in less safe medical products for the American people."

Curfman stated that the drugs Avandia, approved by the FDA in 1999 for treating Type 2 diabetes, and Trasylol, approved in 1993 to control bleeding during heart surgery, also show how researchers sometimes find out after the fact what's wrong with the drugs. Avandia remains on the market -- with altered warning labels -- since researchers found in 2007 that it is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events.
"It is essential that a drug's safety continue to be carefully monitored during the post-marketing period, because we know that serious safety issues may come to light only after a drug has entered the market," Curfman said.

In the case of Heparin, Baxter Healthcare made efforts to change the drug's labels after three infants at a hospital in Indianapolis died in September 2006. This was the same mix-up that threatened the life of the twins of actor Dennis Quaid. But Baxter's efforts to warn hospitals and submit label changes to the FDA progressed slowly and Baxter failed to recall the bottles still on the market with the old labels.

"Like many Americans, I believed that a big problem in our country was frivolous lawsuits," Quaid testified before Congress. "But now, I know that the courts are often the only path to justice for families that are harmed by the pharmaceutical industry and medical errors."

In what seems to be a classic case of “do as I say, not as I do,” one-time U.S. Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork, an advocate for limiting the right of ordinary citizens to sue for damages, has settled a $1 million lawsuit Friday against the Yale Club of New York.

Bork sued in Manhattan federal court last year claiming he fell stepping onto a platform to speak. Bork’s lawsuit alleged he injured himself so badly at the June 2006 event that he needed surgery and was left with a limp. He faulted the club for not having stairs or a handrail leading up to the platform.

Lawyers for the Yale Club blamed Bork, saying any injuries he sustained were at least partially his fault for not recognizing potential risks, which the club said were "open, obvious and apparent."

Bork served as a solicitor general and acting attorney general in the 1970s. As solicitor general in 1973, he fired Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox on orders of then-President Nixon.
From 1982 to 1988, he was a federal appeals judge in Washington. In 1987, the Senate denied President Reagan's nomination of Bork for the Supreme Court.

Bork has long been a leading advocate of restricting plaintiffs' ability to recover through tort law. In a 2002 article published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy--the official journal of the Federalist Society--Bork argued that frivolous claims and excessive punitive damage awards have caused the Constitution to evolve into a document which would allow Congress to enact tort reforms that would have been unconstitutional at the framing:

“State tort law today is different in kind from the state tort law known to the generation of the Framers. The present tort system poses dangers to interstate commerce not unlike those faced under the Articles of Confederation. Even if Congress would not, in 1789, have had the power to displace state tort law, the nature of the problem has changed so dramatically as to bring the problem within the scope of the power granted to Congress. Accordingly, proposals, such as placing limits or caps on punitive damages, or eliminating joint or strict liability, which may once have been clearly understood as beyond Congress's power, may now be constitutionally appropriate.”

In our personal injury practice, we have seen evidence here locally of what has been documented to be a growing and national problem. We have seen more and more brain injury cases resulting from traumatic events, typically tractor-trailer accidents, automobile accidents or some other traumatic incident, many times caused by the negligence of a third party. We have also seen these cases in the context of serious on-the-job injuries. What we see here in our practice mirrors the growing nature of this problem. Indeed, according to the Brain Injury Association of America there are nearly seven times more traumatic brain injuries each year than there are breast cancer and HIV/AIDS cases combined. This is a staggering statistic that is not appreciated by the public and yet the numbers are compelling in demonstrating the significant nature of this problem.

In Georgia, the typical cause of traumatic brain injuries are accidental falls, motor vehicle crashes or being struck by an object. Violence accounts for another ten percent (10%) of the problems. When one suffers a traumatic brain injury typically, they have long term neurological and cognitive problems. The impairments caused by these injuries can be permanent and result in partial or total disability. Because the consequences of such injuries are often life altering, it is obviously necessary that medical care be made available immediately to those who are unfortunate enough to have suffered such an injury. Without prompt medical attention, the problems caused by these injuries can become complicated and can actually worsen over time. As we have written before, the problem caused by a traumatic brain injury is bad enough, in and of itself, but is only complicated and made much worse by the unavailability of appropriate medical care.

Our Atlanta personal injury lawyers constantly hear calls from doctors and politicians to limit the rights of recovery of innocent patients injured by medical negligence. Often, the rights of these innocent patients are sacrificed for the monetary benefit of physicians and big insurance companies. One need look no further than the so called “tort reform” package passed by the Georgia legislature in 2005 and later signed into law by Governor Perdue.

Doctors are quick to support this erosion of rights for patients until it happens to them or their loved ones.

An example is a Charleston, West Virginia physician who has filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against two other doctors and a hospital, alleging negligence and improper treatment when he needed abdominal surgery.

The physician, a gynecologist, was admitted to the hospital in April and underwent abdominal surgery, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit contends that the hospital and physicians failed to provide adequate, proper and safe medical care, advice, assessment, monitoring and treatment; and, they also failed to perform an appropriate and safe surgical procedure.

The lawsuit alleges that after surgery, the physician developed an infection. His condition deteriorated to the point where he developed severe and debilitating abdominal pain, decreased consciousness and overwhelming septic shock, according to the complaint. It further alleges that his physical condition was allowed to deteriorate to a point where he required mechanical ventilation and additional surgeries.
According to the complaint the physician suffered severe physical injury, incurred medical bills, suffered physical and mental pain, emotional distress and will suffer those in the future, as well as permanent disfigurement and disability, and lost income.

On our blog, we have written numerous articles about the dangers associated with high speed police chases. Our firm has handled numerous wrongful death and serious injury cases arising out of these very dangerous pursuits.

By and large the public does not appreciate just how dangerous police chases are. Indeed, more people are killed each year from police chases than are killed as a result of police firearm incidents. Over the last ten (10) years more people have died in police chases than were killed in 9/11. Over the last ten (10) years, the number of those killed an injured as a result of police chases approximate the number of those killed and injured in the Iraqi war.

And yet, one of the reasons that this problem is unappreciated by the public-at-large is the random nature of these events. One police chase occurs in one rural area in one state and someone is killed or injured and there may be some local publicity attendent to that event but it is not connected to another incident of an almost identical nature that occurs across the country in another state and another locale. And yet, national statistics bear out that approximately 500 people each year are killed and thousands and thousands of others are injured as a result of these very dangerous police practices.

One person who is making a difference in educating the public about the need for enlightened policies and procedures by the law enforcement community in general relative to these police chases is Ms. Candy Priano, the Director of Voices Insisting on Pursuit Safety. Voices Insisting on Pursuit Safety is a non-profit organization formed by Ms. Priano in response to the death of her own daughter, who was killed as a innocent third party in a high speed police chase case. Ms. Priano lost her daughter because the police were chasing another teenager for driving her mother's car without permission. That teenager’s vehicle crashed into the Priano family vehicle, resulting in the death. After that tragedy, Ms. Priano learned that she was not alone in suffering the loss of a loved one as a result of an unwise police chase. She later learned that the national statistics relative to this problem are staggering. Ms. Priano also learned that many of the victims of police chase cases are completely and totally innocent as was her daughter and simply are people at the wrong place at the wrong time who get caught up in a chase where the police are pursuing a suspect (many times for a minor traffic offense). In far too many cases, she has learned that while these chases are occurring, innocent third parties are killed or injured, typically when their vehicle is crashed into by the fleeing suspect or they are run over while riding their bike or walking along the side of the road. Indeed, if one goes to the website Voices Insisting on Pursuit Safety, one can read many stories about the many tragedies that have been experienced across this country as a result of unregulated and unwarranted high speed police chases.

The solution to the problems caused by high speed police chases is education of the law enforcement community and the public in general. The public understandably wants the police to chase violent offenders who are a danger to the public because the dangers associated with chases are worth it in such matters because otherwise a violent felon may go free and harm someone through their criminal acts. However, it makes little or no sense to expose the public to grave dangers when someone has committed a traffic or other minor offense. The best policies are those which restrict police chases to those involving violent felonies. If no violent felony has occurred, the police should not chase the offender, particularly in congested traffic areas where members of the public could be exposed to the dangers attendant to such chases.

Once the public fully appreciate the significant nature of the danger associated with these chases, typically they are more receptive to restrictive police policies which forbid chases in contexts where the danger to innocent members of the motoring public is greater than the need to apprehend the suspect. In cases where the danger to the motoring public is greater than the need to apprehend the suspect, simply stated, there should be no chase. Voices Insisting on Pursuit Safety is an organization that is trying to get this message across and Candy Priano is working hard to educate the public in this regard.

One person can make a difference as is demonstrated by the tireless efforts of Ms. Priano. The best evidence that can be offered in support of this assertion is an examination of her website and the work that is being done by her organization. Through her public outreach Ms. Priano is literally saving lives by helping to restrict these dangerous chases to situations where they are necessary to protect the public. We commend her for her efforts.

The saddest personal injury cases we see in our serious injury law practice often times involves those who have suffered traumatic brain injury resulting from an automobile, tractor-trailer collision or some other traumatic event, with these tragedies being seriously compounded by the unavailability of insurance. While there has been some media attention on the number of uninsured individuals in this country who have no available health insurance coverage, the impact of this problem is not really seen or appreciated until one is confronted with overwhelming medical needs and there is a complete lack of medical coverage available to meet those needs.

One case we are currently handling involves a Hispanic gentleman who suffered permanent and irreparable brain damage. He was taken by life flight to the hospital where he was stabilized. Once he was stabilized, however, the hospital that had been treating him free of charge (because he had no health insurance) discharged him. After discharge, he no longer has the ability to seek appropriate medical treatment because he has no health insurance coverage and being from another country does not qualify for Medicaid or Medicare. His medical needs are overwhelming and yet he has no access to medical care in the richest country in the world.

This individual’s problem is no different in many ways from American citizens who are the victims of traumatic brain injury and do not have health insurance coverage. Oftentimes, the individuals involved may or may not qualify for Medicaid or other assistance. It takes years to qualify for Social Security disability benefits. In the meantime, after the traumatic brain injury has incurred and the patient is stabilized, the necessary ancillary services to a recovery, such as rehabilitation services, vocational and physical therapy and others are typically completely unavailable to the uninsured because they are not affordable and there is no way to get such treatment.

In these very tragic and sad cases, many times the only possibility of recovery for the injured individual is litigation against the party responsible for the traumatic event. While such cases can result in a financial settlement several years after the event, due to the cost and delay of litigation, nonetheless, sometimes its too little and too late for those who are in need of immediate medical care to address their injuries and insure a recovery.

The American Medical Association needs to take a hard look at whether it is doing enough to make medical care available to those who cannot afford it. While there are many clinics and other local, state and federal government facilities, those who have been seriously injured many times do not have access to the type of care that he needs. We even see this with our returning veterans from Iraq, much less the uninsured. This problem is a national problem and needs to be addressed at the local, state and federal level.

Federal regulators are sounding a warning about dangers associated with the use of insulin pumps by children and teenagers. Insulin pumps are used by tens of thousands of young people worldwide with Type 1 diabetes.

The Food and Drug Administration is warning parents to be vigilant in watching their children's use of the pumps. They are not advising against using the pumps, but suggested further study to address safety concerns in teens and even younger children who use the popular pumps.

Researchers found that in the last ten years there have been 13 deaths and more than 1,500 injuries connected with the pumps. Some of these were the result malfunctioning pumps, but at other times, teenagers were careless or took risks..

The researchers found that some teenagers were not instructed how to use the pumps correctly, dropped them or didn't take good care of them.
The insulin pumps are popular because they allow young people to live more normal lives. They account for $1.3 billion in annual sales around the world, and demand is growing.The pumps are used for those with Type 1 diabetes, which accounts for about 5 to 10 percent of all diabetes cases and used to be called "juvenile diabetes." The more common form is Type 2, which is often linked to obesity and more often affects adults.

Insulin pumps are the size of a cell phone and worn on a belt or pocket. They send insulin into the body through a plastic tube with a small tip that inserts under the skin and is taped in place. They cost about $6,000 and supplies run $250 a month. Most health insurers cover much of the cost.

MRSA is a staph becteria which has been in the news in recent years as serious problems have been reported in hospitals and other health care facilities. Staph bacteria, even those that aren't resistant to antibiotics, have long caused serious infections.

In the 1960s, the first reports surfaced of staph infections that had stopped responding to the antibiotic methicillin. Over the decades, those strains have spread, and the germs have developed resistance to other drugs, largely in hospitals where they infect patients weakened by disease or made vulnerable through surgical wounds and catheters.

MRSA still poses the greatest threat in hospitals, where strains are usually genetically different and, because of antibiotic use, more difficult to kill than those circulating out in the community. About 85 percent of life-threatening, invasive MRSA infections involve people who have been hospitalized, lived in a nursing home or been treated in some other health care facility.

During the 1980s, doctors began finding cases of MRSA in people who hadn't spent time in health care settings. Unlike the strains found in hospitals, MRSA in the community tended to cause skin infections — pus-filled pimples and boils.

Community MRSA still responds to a wider range of antibiotics, and it is unusual for community infections to become life-threatening. However, a study reported last year that more life-threatening community infections occur than previously thought.

The study, estimated MRSA infections in health care facilities and the community killed nearly 19,000 Americans in 2005. Another 94,000 had life-threatening infections.

However, the study found that 85% of life-threatening MRSA infections involved people who have been infected while hospitalized or living in a nursing home. Only about 15 percent happened in the community.
People 65 and older are most likely to suffer invasive MRSA infections of all types, the study found. Black people had invasive MRSA at nearly twice the rate of whites.

The important thing to remember is that those who seek help from a doctor usually are successfully treated. One should not ignore these problems.

Victims of the wrongful death of their loved ones testified this week before Congress concerning adulterated supplies of Heparin. One of the largest suppliers of this drug, which is used in kidney dialysis and various other surgeries to prevent dangerous blood clots, is Baxter International, Inc. Not only did the victims of families who have been damaged by this product testify before Congress, representatives from Baxter were also subpoenaed by the Energy and Commerce Committee which is reviewing the Food and Drug Administration’s response to this scandal.

While the evidence is still unclear, it appears that the Heparin product manufactured by Baxter International, Inc. was derived from factories in China that had not been properly audited and inspected. There is also evidence that a particular sulfate product used in the manufacture of Heparin was deliberately substituted because it was less expensive to use than a safer sulfate ingredient. Regardless of the final results of Congress’ investigation, it was clear from victim testimony that the lack of oversight by Baxter relative to the activities of its foreign operations has lead to a tremendous amount of suffering for the victims’ families.

To date, 81 people have died from using contaminated Heparin. One gentleman who testified before Congress not only lost his wife but also his son who were undergoing kidney dialysis in Ohio. This man’s wife and son died within one month of each other. Thus, the wrongful deaths caused by this dangerous product clearly are deserving of congressional scrutiny so that other unwitting victims of products imported from abroad will be spared similar fates.

We have written before on this blog about dangerous products that harm the American public. This seems to be yet another example of where the U. S. Food and Drug Administration has failed the American public in failing to insure that medical supplies are safe for public use and consumption. Not only may Baxter International have failed the American public, the government itself in its oversight role, may have also contributed to these tragedies. Even though Baxter, which had supplied about half of the U. S. Heparin market recalled most of its products in February of this year, the fact remains that 81 deaths have occurred and tremendous suffering which could have been avoided has been experienced as a result of the failure of proper oversight for these dangerous products.