West Palm Beach Personal Injury Lawyer

Pennsylvania Attorney General Tough on Joe Camel

John Hopkins — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:02:56 GMT

The Daily & Sunday Review reports that Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett is one of eight attorney generals preparing to sue RJ Reynolds for violating an agreement that was part of the 1998 settlement between Big Tobacco and various states.

As a part of the agreement, Big Tobacco promised not to use advertising that appealed to youth. That seems like a reasonable and moral request. Big Tobacco agreed and, yet, it has continued to use icons such as Joe Camel in advertising. Furthermore, that advertising has been placed in at least one publication that tends to target a youthful audience--Rolling Stone magazine. A four page insert with Joe Camel was included in the November issue of Rolling Stone.

Big Tobacco just can not seem to stay out of the limelight. Now, they face the heat in Florida known as the "Engle" tobacco victims. Thousands of Big Tobacco victims must file lawsuits no later than tomorrow. This should be a burning year for Big Tobacco!

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Defective and Dangerous Products.

Big Tobacco Loses Again

John Hopkins — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:01:27 GMT

Big Tobacco had sought a transfer of all cases currently filed in federal courts, to a Multi-District Litigation Panel that would be located in the Middle District or Southern District of the federal court system in Florida. Today the United States Multi-District Litigation Panel issued an order that denied Big Tobacco's request for transfer and ruled that the cases can be properly handled where they are currently situated.

What does this mean for thousands of Florida victims of smoking? It means a victory of significant proportions. Big Tobacco had hoped to force the federal cases into multi-district litigation and then attempt to assert control over the state court actions by arguing that the state courts should not control the discovery process. Rather, Big Tobacco wanted to force all the conduct of discovery into the control of the federal court.

The thought of fairer minds is that Florida residents injured by Big Tobacco's manipulation and marketing of cigarettes should be allowed to litigate their cases in state court, before their own state court judges. Big Tobacco, on the other hand, preferred the hope of slowing the process down and being able to assert more control over how quickly injured victims can have their day in court.

Today, the courts spoke out for the injured victim.

Smokers Have Until Jan. 11, 2008 to File Suit

Courtney Mills — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:02:27 GMT

The deadline to file suit is getting closer for plaintiffs who suffered from illnesses related to smoking. Last year the Florida Supreme Court overturned a class action civil damage award of $145 billion spread among 700,000 decided in 2000, requiring instead that each smoker show that cigarettes caused the damages. Although the Supreme Court dealt a major blow to plaintiffs by overturning the award and decertifying the class, the court opened the door for plaintiffs to sue as individuals.

According to the Miami Herald, about 50 suits had been filed in Broward Circuit Court and 66 in Miami-Dade Circuit Court as of last week. (The Miami-Dade figure came from a list of product-liability lawsuits filed against tobacco companies this year.)

Potential plaintiffs have until January 11 of next year, which is when the deadline runs.

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Defective and Dangerous Products.

Big Tobacco May Find the Florida Climate Much Too Hot

John Hopkins — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:23:14 GMT

Last year, the Florida Supreme Court appeared to have done Big Tobacco a favor iwhen it ruled that the $145 billion punitive damage verdict would have to be vacated and the "Engle Class" would have to be disbanded. Ruling that plaintiffs would have to proceed in individual trials against Big Tobacco. In fact, many on Wall Street saw it as a a huge victory for Big Tobacco.

So, did Big Tobacco really win? Let's say they won the battle, but the war is only beginning. This situation may well be a "beware of what you wish for my friend, for surely you shall receive it" for Big Tobacco. Big Tobacco's scorched earth defense is well known and has left many a bloodied plaintiff in its wake; but, as we say down here in Florida, "we don't care how you did it up north"!

For the first time, Big Tobacco will face thousands of plaintiff's and many of the toughest trial attorneys in the country, all launching multiple assaults, all at the same time. Also, in Engle, the Supreme Court may have done the worst possible thing for Big Tobacco when they set forth the conclusions they did. Once again, for the first time, Big tobacco may very well hear the trial judges tell the jury that, as a matter of law, you should assume that the plaintiff's injuries are the result of smoking cigarettes.

The juries that Big Tobacco will be appealing to are unlikely to be all that different than the Engle jury. When interviewed, the foreman for the Engle jury, an assistant principal of an elementary school, said, "For them, Big Tobacco, this trial was all about money. For us, it was all about people's lives." The foreman went on to state that the jury had a message to send to Big Tobacco and it was that the good citizens of Florida will not "tolerate fraud and misrepresentation".

My bet is that even Joe Camel is going to find Florida a very hot place to be.

Big Bird Weighed Down by Lead

John Hopkins — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 08:43:11 GMT

Fisher-Price is recalling 83 types of toys -- including the popular Big Bird, Elmo, Dora and Diego characters -- because their paint contains excessive amounts of lead. CNN reports that more than 967,000 toys have been recalled.

This is a unique recall since Mattel, the parent company to Fisher Price, maintains very high quality control standards and have had only one previous recall of a product. To their credit, Mattel apparently discovered the lead paint problem through an internal quality control inspection. Many manufacturers have such lax or non-existent quality standards that dangerous defects are either not discovered by the manufacturer or not reported by the manufacturer once discovered.

This is simply one of a series of product problems to come out of Chinese manufactured goods.

I am happy to see, however, a manufacturer such as Mattel who at least on the surface has demonstrated corporate responsibility in trying to protect a product even when they must disclose production problems.

Its Not Just China--Castleberry Recalls 75 Brands

John Hopkins — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:58:21 GMT

China was criticised for bad pet food, poisoned toothpast and tires that they forgot to glue together. But, not to be outdone, enter Castleberry Food Company. They have issued recall of 75 different products; all apparently suspected of being contaminated with botulism.

Botulism contamination of canned, processed foods, in the US is extremely rare. That said, botulism can cause a severe, debilitating and sometimes fatal illness. The botulism latches on to certain proteins in the nerve endings and cause severe paralysis.

The diagnosis of botulism poisoning can be difficult; since the illness mimics several other different diseases and ilnesses. Treatment often includes respiratory support, surgery, gastric lavage and enemas.

Symptoms include blurred vision, double vision, slurred speech, difficulty swallowing, and muscle weakness.

The recall includes the following products:

1. 12-pack of 15-ounce cans of "Austex Beef Stew."
2. 15- and 19-ounce cans of "Austex Chili with Beans."
3. 12-pack of 15-ounce cans of "Austex Chili No Beans."
4. 12-pack of 19-ounce cans of "Austex Chili No Beans."
5. 15-ounce cans of "Best Yet Chili with Beans."
6. 15-ounce cans of "Best Yet Corned Beef Hash."
7. 15-ounce cans of "Big Y Chili with Beans."
8. 15-ounce cans of "Big Y Chili no Beans."
9. 15-ounce cans of "Big Y Corned Beef Hash."
10. 15-ounce cans of "Black Rock Chili with Beans."
11. 24-pack of 10-ounce cans of "Bryan Hot Dog Chili Sauce."
12. 24-pack of 15-ounce cans of "Bryan Corned Beef Hash."
13. 24-pack of 10-ounce cans of "Bryan Chili No Beans."
14. 24-pack of 15-ounce cans of "Bryan Chili No Beans."
15. 24-pack of 15-ounce cans of "Bryan Chili with Beans."
16. 10-ounce cans of "Bunker Hill Chili no Beans."
17. 10-ounce cans of "Bunker Hill Chunky Chili no Beans."
18. 10-ounce cans of "Castle Chili No Beans."
19. 15-ounce cans of "Castleberry's Beef Stew."
20. 15-ounce cans of "Castleberry's Brunswick Stew."
21. 10-ounce cans of "Castleberry's BUNKER HILL, ORIGINAL Chili NO BEANS."
22. 15-ounce cans of "Castleberry's CHILI WITH BEANS."
23. 12-pack of 15-ounce cans of "Castleberry's Chili No Beans."
24. 15-ounce cans of "Castleberry's Corned Beef Hash."
25. 10-ounce cans of "Castleberry's HICKORY SMOKED, OVEN ROASTED, WITH SKINS, BARBECUE PORK IN BARBECUE SAUCE."
26. 12-pack of 15-ounce cans of "Castleberry's Hot Chili with Beans."
27. 10- and 14.5-ounce cans of "Castleberry's BBQ Pork."
28. 10-ounce cans of "Castleberry's Sausage Gravy."
29. 10-ounce cans of "Castleberry's Chip Beef Gravy."
30. 15-ounce cans of "Cattle Drive Beef Stew."
31. 15-ounce cans of "Cattle Drive Chili with Beans."
32. 15-ounce cans of "Cattle Drive Chili no Beans."
33. 15-ounce cans of "Cattle Drive CHILI WITH BEANS."
34. 8-pack of 15-ounce cans of "Cattle Drive Chili with Beans."
35. 15-ounce cans of "Cattle Drive Chicken Chili with Beans."
36. 15-ounce cans of "Firefighter Chicken Chili."
37. 15-ounce cans of "Firefighter Chicken Chili with Beans."
38. 15-ounce cans of "Firefighter Chili with Beans."
39. 15-ounce cans of "Firefighter Chili no Beans."
40. 15-ounce cans of "Food Club Chili with Beans."
41. 15-ounce cans of "Food Club Corned Beef Hash."
42. 15-ounce cans of "Georgia Hash."
43. 10- and 15-ounce cans of "Goldstar Chili."
44. 15-ounce cans of "Goldstar Tex Mex Chili."
45. 15-ounce cans of "Great Value Chili with Beans."
46. 15-ounce cans of "Great Value Hot Chili with Beans."
47. 15-ounce cans of "Kroger Beef Stew."
48. 15-ounce cans of "Kroger Chili with Beans."
49. 15-ounce cans of "Kroger Chili no Bean."
50. 15-ounce cans of "Lowes Chili no Bean."
51. 15-ounce cans of "Lowes Chili with Beans."
52. 15-ounce cans of "Lowes Corn Beef Hash."
53. 15-ounce cans of "Meijer Chili with Beans."
54. 15-ounce cans of "Meijer Chili no Beans."
55. 15-ounce cans of "Meijer CORNED BEEF HASH."
56. 12-pack of 15-ounce cans of "Morton House Chili with Beans."
57. 15-ounce cans of "Morton House Corned Beef Hash."
58. 10- and 15-ounce cans of "Paramount Hot Dog Chili Sauce."
59. 15-ounce cans of "Paramount Chili no Bean."
60. 15-ounce cans of "Paramount Chili with Beans."
61. 15-ounce cans of "Piggly Wiggly Chili with Beans."
62. 10- and 15-ounce cans of "Piggly Wiggly Chili no Bean."
63. 15-ounce cans of "Piggly Wiggly Corned Beef Hash."
64. 12-pack of 15-ounce cans of "Prudence Corned Beef Hash."
65. 15-ounce cans of "Southern Home Chili with Beans."
66. 10- and 15-ounce cans of "Southern Home Chili no Bean."
67. 15-ounce cans of "Southern Home Corned Beef Hash."
68. 10-ounce cans of "Steak N Shake Chili."
69. 15-ounce cans of "Thrifty Maid Chili with Beans."
70. 15-ounce cans of "Thrifty Maid Corned Beef Hash."
71. 15-ounce cans of "Triple Bar Chili with Beans."
72. 12-pack of 15-ounce cans of "Triple Bar Chili with Beans."
73. 15-ounce cans of "Triple Bar Chili no Beans."
74. 12-pack of 15-ounce cans of "Triple Bar Chili no Beans."
75. 15-ounce cans of "Value Time Chili with Beans."

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Defective and Dangerous Products.

China's Version of the FDA--Tough Place to Work

John Hopkins — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:56:36 GMT

China has certainly suffered its share of setbacks in the export of products to the rest of the world. They have allowed tainted toothpaste to leave their country and deadly dog & cat food to be exported. Most recently, it was discovered that Chinese tires were manufactured without including the material that binds the belts together.

China's response to this event has been essentially two-fold. They blame foreign media for over blowing the whole thing. They especially point to the West's media for concentrating on what they claim are isolated incidents:

"Some foreign media, especially those based in the U.S., have wantonly reported on so called unsafe Chinese products. They are turning white to black," said Li Changjiang, minister of the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine.

If we consider the numbers of recalled products in the U.S., one might agree that we live in a crystal palace" and, perhaps, throwing rocks in this instance is a bit hypocritical. Our FDA allows the marketing of products repeatedly that are later found to be dangerous or not to meet expectations. These problems often stem from manufacturers' failure to fully test products or to misrepresent test findings, but those faulty products still end up in the stream of commerce.

When faced with product problems, the Chinese government investigated and they represent findings of corruption in their version of the FDA. In the U.S., the response to findings like that might be to form a committee to investigate. In China, their response to product defect and corruption findings? They executed the former head of its drug regulation agency. I would say China's drug agency is a much tougher place to work than the FDA.

For more information on this subject matter, please refer to the section on Defective and Dangerous Products.

What is the Solution?

Armand Rossetti — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 09:42:30 GMT

Most strains of Acanthamoeba will survive exposure to AMO's Complete MoisturePlus, Alcon's OptiFree Express and B&L's ReNu MultiPlus. Under testing conditions that reflect the "real world," none of those solutions are stellar performers, and only one is effective under certain conditions.

Recently, Complete Moisture Plus has been shown to be seven times more likely to have caused the most recent contact lens related Acanthamoeba outbreak, but just how much less effective is AMO's Complete than B&L's ReNu MultiPlus or Alcon's OptiFree Express solution?

Although Acanthamoeba keratitis (AK) is not a new phenomenon, it is a fairly recent one. The first AK cases were recognized in 1973. However, before soft contact-lens wear became popular, AK was extremely rare. As soft hydrogel lenses became more prevalent, exposure to Acanthamoeba led to an epidemic that began in the early 1980s, and the number of AK cases increased dramatically beginning in 1984.

By 1985, investigators had established a connection between AK infections and the use of contact lenses. As early as 1987 further studies revealed that AK occurred more commonly among men, as well as in contact-lens wearers who failed to disinfect their lenses as frequently as recommended, swam while wearing lenses, or used homemade instead of commercially prepared saline solution.

In January 1997, the CDC conducted a retrospective survey of 22 ophthalmology centers across the United States to determine whether the infection rate was increasing nationwide. By March 2007, the CDC had determined the existence of widespread, culture confirmed cases of AK, and that the most recent increase in cases had begun in 2004 and continued through 2007.

On March 16, 2007, the CDC began a multistate investigation to look for AK related risk factors. It was at this time that use of AMO's Complete MoisturePlus emerged as being most closely connected with the latest rise in contact lens related AK.

The most recent increase in the number of contact lens related AK cases raises certain questions: Why has this phenomenon occurred? Why is AMO's Complete MoisturePlus mostly to blame? Are other no-rub solutions connected with the outbreak, and to what extent? Is there anything that can be done to alleviate the AK problem?

Although the foregoing questions are broad, open ended, and cannot be answered without substantial investigation (certainly not in a blog), consider the following observations:

NOT ONE, SINGLE NO-RUB SOLUTION CAN CLAIM TRUE EFFICACY IN COMBATING AK, AND OF THREE NO-RUB SOLUTIONS RECENTLY TESTED, COMPLETE MOISTUREPLUS PLACED LAST

In its March 2007 edition, Optometry and Vision Science contained an article by Megan Shoff, et al. The Shoff article compared the variable responses of 14 different Acanthamoeba strains to three no-rub solutions, namely, MultiPlus (B&L), Complete (AMO, a spin off of Allergan) and OptiFree Express (Alcon). The investigators subjected each of the two sets of 14 strains to each of the three solutions to test survival rates at 3, 6, and 24 hours of exposure. One set was Acanthamoebae in the more vulnerable trophozoite stage, and the other set was Acanthamoebae in the much less vulnerable encapsulated cystic stage. The results were surprising.

According to graphs contained in the study, over 90% of exposed trophozoite Acanthamoeba withstood a 3 hour and 6 hour exposure to AMO's Complete (a less than 10% kill rate). ReNu was able to achieve only 12% in three hours and 14% in 6 hours. OptiFree was the stellar performer under these testing conditions, with a 31% kill in 3 hours and 42% in 6 hours. It took a 24 hour exposure for Complete to approximate a less than efficacious 6 hour exposure to ReNu MultiPlus.

Turning to the cystiform Acanthamoeba results, It took a 24 hour exposure for Complete to achieve an approximate two (2) % kill; this was a very poor result. The best that OptiFree could achieve was 18% kill in 24 hours (not 3 or 6 hours). Three and six hour exposure using Complete resulted in zero (0) % kill. Complete's performance contrasted with an equally paltry 2 - 7% kill range for ReNu MultiPlus and OptiFree Express. The results speak for themselves, but let's play fair and analyze the testing methods.

SOLUTION MANUFACTURERS HAVE USED EFFICACY TESTING THAT HAS NOT ACCURATELY REFLECTED "REAL WORLD" AK INFECTION FACTORS

The method that most manufacturers use to report their results is based on the decimal kill rate. Manufacturers will defer to the FDA, indicating that log reduction is the gold standard for testing. Until the advent of one step solutions, that may have been the case. However, solution manufacturers are considered experts in the field of eye care. And as experts, manufacturers may have to transcend and/or educate regulatory agencies that a different approach to testing solution efficacy might be necessary. For example, the Shoff study has used the 100% inactivation method, which purportedly had the following advantages over log reduction:

1. The method was rapid and allowed for a screening of a wider range of strains.

2. The investigators were able to separate the trophozoites from the cysts, yielding more accurate and comparative analyses. Inadvertently including cyst forms with trophozoites could seriously undermine experimental results.

3. The test actually mimicked the response to Acanthamoeba attached to a surface (which would better represent microbial attachment to contaminated contact lenses). Acanthamoebae colonizing a contact lens are buried in biofilm that might afford better protection from cleaning solutions.

4. The present testing method did not disturb cells by centrifuging or vortexing them. For example, centrifugation might not affect the survival of cysts, but might damage sensitive trophozoites.

5. The Acanthamoebae were not starved. They were tested while growing on bacteria, making them more challenging, which is more "real world."

In addition, the Shoff study was able to show that testing axenically cultured strains of Acanthamoeba, the way that manufacturers usually do, has two important limitations:

1. The axenic strains are selected in the laboratory and may not represent the "hardiness' of bacterized wild strains.

2. It is likely that Acanthamoeba on contact lenses are surviving in the biofilm on the lens surface, where you can find components such as; tear film, proteins, mucins, lipids and bacteria. This is a very different environment than is found in a "squeaky clean" axenic system.

The Shoff study also restated the truism that some strains of Acanthamoeba are harder to kill than others, and that it would be prudent to choose a harder strain of Acanthamoeba, before undertaking solution sensitivity testing.

As previously mentioned, older testing methods do not mirror actual contact lens wearing conditions. The Shoff study has stated that the inability to kill more than 20% of any strain of Acanthamoeba is disturbing. This important observation should foster the necessary research to find more effective and less toxic chemical disinfectants or to encourage an effort to formulate more effective solutions. The Shoff study sould also lead authorities to question the validity of current axenic testing methods, and to find acceptable alternative methods.

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Defective and Dangerous Products.

AMO Urges Consumers to Dispose of Evidence

John Hopkins — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:54:15 GMT

The OCRegister reported that AMO and the FDA are "...urging people to dispose of Complete Moisture Plus Multi-Purpose solution...", which the CDC and FDA have linked to a rare and unusual eye infection. Acanthamoeba is an organism commonly found in water. Although most acanthamoeba infections occur in contact lens wearers, it is extremely rare; affecting only one or two wearers in every million contact lens users.

Although AMO persists in blaming the consumers for their own infections, it seems pretty clear that the Complete solution was not up to standards in resisting infection.

So, why do I raise the issue regarding AMO recommending that consumers dispose of the solution and their cases? The disposal of the solution and the cases reaps a potential benefit to AMO. I suspect that one of the things that AMO will expect from plaitiffs is to prove they used the solution; but, without consultation with an attorney, the public is being encouraged by AMO to destroy the very evidence that AMO will later expect the plaintiffs to produce in order to validate their claims.

Reports indicate that AMO may have known about the problems with the Complete solution ofr as long as two years and did nothing to warn the public. Should we trust that AMO is simply now looking out fo rthe best interests of the consumer by encouraging disposal of the evidence? I think not.

For more information on this subject matter please refer to the section on Defective and Dangerous Products.

Family Awarded $5.5 Million in Duragesic Patch Suit

Jenny Albano — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 09:37:24 GMT

The father of a man who died while wearing a Duragesic patch was awarded $5.5 million on Tuesday by a federal jury in West Palm Beach. The jury decided that the drug's company was liable for Adam Hendelson's death.

The Hendelson family sued Johnson & Johnson subsidiaries Janssen Pharmaceutica Products and the Alva Corporation over their son Adam's death in 2003. Adam died of an overdose of fentanyl, a powerful painkiller, when the Duragesic patch he wore for hip pain leaked onto his skin. When he was found he had three times the lethal dosage in his system.

This case was only the second Duragesic case to go to trial, and the first to make it to federal court. In 2006, a Houston woman was awarded $772,500 by Johnson & Johnson because he mother died after wearing the patch. Now dozens of other files have been claimed against the companies. Gulas & Stuckey, the Hendelson's attorneys, have eight cases pending trial.

The Duragesic patch has had problems in the past. In February, 2004 Janssen issued a recall of one manufacturing lot because the patch might leak on one side. In April of the same year five lots were recalled, which included around 2.2 million patches. These recalls spurred a 2005 investigation by the FDA of 120 deaths of patch users.

According to the manufacturer, these patches "contain a strong opiate in the form of a gel" and "overexposure may cause potentially life threatening complications".

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Drugs, Medical Devices, and Implants.