West Palm Beach Personal Injury Lawyer

How Many Dads Have Died Due to Avandia?

Brenda Fulmer — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:15:50 GMT

February is always a hard month for my family. My beloved father, John Miller, died in his sleep on February 7, 2001, at the age of 55. He left behind a devastated family who are still grieving his loss and all of the wonderful moments that he missed – attending the wedding of his son, watching his first granddaughter grow into a beautiful teenager, enjoying his retirement and travel with his wife of 36 years, and meeting his daughter-in-law and second granddaughter.

Sadly, my loss is one that has been shared by far too many families and brittle diabetics with heart disease. Over the years, as my father and his brother endured amputations, blindness, heart attacks, neuropathy, and many other complications, my family closely monitored each new diabetes drug in hopes that one might offer hope. We closely watched for press releases, news from financial markets, announcements of clinical trials, medical articles, etc. in hopes of being the first in line for a new treatment. We researched every new drug, therapy, and even islet cell transplants in search of something to buy us more time. Even today, with nearly a dozen members of my family suffering from the disease, we continue to search for new treatment options, but sadly with a great deal of trepidation.

Avandia has been an extremely successful drug for GlaxoSmithKline. It is estimated that more than 20 million patients in the United States have purchased this new drug in hopes of staving off the ravages of diabetes. Many patients like my father were hopeful that Avandia, which helps to sensitize the body to insulin, would fulfill the promises where its predecessor Rezulin (Pfizer’s diabetes drug which was recalled in 2000 due to liver toxicity) failed.

As early as 1999, adverse event reports began to pour in from patients and healthcare providers who suspected that Avandia was causing more harm than good. In particular, there were a number of adverse event reports relating to fluid retention, congestive heart failure, and heart attacks. Some of these same adverse events had been reported in pre-approval clinical trials, but the findings in those trials were deemed insufficient to prevent approval of the drug. Subsequent studies have also shown an increased risk of cardiovascular events in patients who use Avandia, but, time and again, the drug manufacturer has contended that such results were unreliable or inadequate to present a safety signal.

In an effort to answer serious questions regarding the safety of Avandia, the New England Journal of Medicine published a meta-analysis in May of 2007, which is essentially a pooling of a number of studies (in this case 42 studies) in hopes of obtaining statistically significant results regarding risk. The meta-analysis did show a slight increase in the risk of heart attacks and cardiovascular deaths in patients using Avandia over other diabetics, yet the study was still subjected to much debate and criticism. While this scientific debate is important, such debate should not be used to quiet critics or prevent patients from receiving adequate warning regarding risks. Diabetics already face staggering risks of developing cardiovascular disease, heart attacks, and sudden cardiac death. Given this susceptibility, it is inconceivable that patients would choose to take a drug that would further increase their cardiac risks, yet, time after time, drug manufacturers have preyed on our desperation for treatment options to hawk their wares. Sadly, until the drug’s warnings were enhanced in May of 2007, a number of diabetics unknowingly ingested Avandia and likely suffered unnecessary heart attacks or died. My father may have been one of those patients. More than 13,000 others are currently pursuing lawsuits against GlaxoSmithKline in state and federal courts, primarily in Philadelphia.

Just this week, yet another chapter is being written with regard to Avandia. The American Diabetes Association will soon publish a study from Harvard researchers that notes that patients taking Avandia from 2000 to 2006 suffered twice as many heart attacks as diabetics who took the competing drug Actos. This was a large study that included 26,735 patients with diabetes. A second study, sponsored GSK, found that its Avandia caused 35 to 40% more heart attacks than were observed in patients taking Actos. Based upon all of this data, one can only wonder why Avandia is still on the market? How many more families need to suffer the loss of their loved ones or dashed hopes for treatment that might bring more benefit than harm?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brenda Fulmer

FDA Announces February Public Meeting

Cal Warriner — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:22:25 GMT

The FDA recently announced plans to hold a public meeting entitled “Strengthening the Center for Devices and Radiological Health’s 510(k) Review Process.” The FDA is hoping to use this meeting to ask non-FDA persons what actions the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) can consider to ensure safety and strengthen the premarket notification process for review of medical devices, also known as the 510(k) process. The FDA is making a public request for comments, either in person, by mail, or by e-mail, in connection with strengthening the premarket notification process for review of medical devices.

The public meeting, set for February 18, hopes to discuss the current concerns of the FDA’s 510(k) framework. Questions have been raised over the past few years about the program’s validity and if it achieves the intended goals of the FDA - to make available medical devices to consumers that are safe and effective, while continuing to promote innovation in the medical device industry.

According to the FDA’s federal register, the “FDA commissioned the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to conduct an independent review of the program and, if necessary, to recommend administrative, regulatory, and/or statutory changes.”

The objective of the meeting according to the FDA’s federal register is to “focus on four areas: 1. Issues related to predicate devices, 2. issues related to new technologies and scientific evidence, 3. issues related to practices the CDRH as adopted in response to a high volume of 510(k) submissions, and 4. issues related to post market surveillance and new information about marketed devices.”

We repeatedly witness manufacturers of medical products and drugs pushing new products through the process in an effort to save testing and evaluation costs. In an industry where profits are calculated in the billions and, sometimes, in the hundreds of billions, keeping a check on safety over profits is important and we need a strong regulator in this role.

A prime example of manufacturers deciding on profits over safety might be pain pumps and their resulting devastating joint damage. In those cases, manufacturers intentionally ignored FDA regulators and conducted no real studies to determine safety. Instead, they rushed to market, quickly generated substantial profits and, since, has tried to use their lack of scientific studies as a shield to push judges into dismissing viable lawsuits against manufacturers.

We consumers can only hope these actions will strengthen the FDA to provide leadership and careful regulation of a high profit motivated group of industries.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Cal Warriner

FDA Under Fire ---- Again

John Hopkins — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 17:07:57 GMT

Once again, we are faced with another potential drug regulation blunder, this time with the prescription drug Savella, also known as milnacipran, for treatment of fibromyalgia. Fibromyalgia is a disorder characterized by a variety of pain-related symptoms including muscle pain and headaches. The cause for fibromyalgia is unknown and the Public Citizen’s group claims that the risks of Savella far outweigh its benefits.

Public Citizen states that the benefits of Savella on test groups were marginal:

“Because Savella is a drug that produces only a marginal effect on pain, the main problem for which patients seek treatment, and has the potential to be quite dangerous, it is clear that it should not be sold. The FDA never should have approved Savella for fibromyalgia and should now immediately order the drug company to remove it from the market before large numbers of people suffer serious harm,” Wolfe said.

Studies have shown that as many as 20% of users of Savella have a 50 percent greater chance of developing high blood pressure, hypertension, increased heart rate, and increased suicidal thoughts.

The FDA has a moral and professional responsibility to make sure drugs released to the general population are safe and well tested. The FDA’s own statistical reviewer, who wrote “there is no evidence…that milnacipran is associated with improvements in pain or improvements in function at three months of therapy.”

Forest Laboratories and Cypress Bioscience, Inc. co-market the drug and little is known on how much funding the companies have invested into the FDA to push its drug through quickly. With limited studies and test groups, Savella was approved in January 2009. It is important to note that European Medicines Agency (EMEA), refused to approve the drug in July 2009, after the FDA approved the drug in the United States, stating that Savella’s benefits were not worth the risks associated with the medication.

So who is to blame for yet another drug entering the hands of doctors and consumers that is rendered unsafe? Right now, more than 250,000 prescriptions have been written for Savella, and doctors continue to prescribe this drug every day. We need an FDA that is able to take a more careful look at what drugs it allows into doctors and consumers hands. We also need to hold manufacturers more accountable for the studies they conduct for determination of drug efficacy and safety. If manufacturers manipulate data for the sake of profit, they should be held accountable. We cannot afford to lose another life and risk the health of consumers to carelessness and greed on the part of the drug manufacturers.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by John Hopkins

Chemical content + secrecy = Danger in Government

Steve Smith — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:34:08 GMT

When I first became aware of the secrecy provisions existing under the 1976 Toxic Substances control Act, I was reminded of the quote by our former Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld when discussing terrorist activities.

“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.” Donald Rumsfeld

That quote applies beautifully to the present day situation when it comes to the chemical makeup of thousand of domestic products used daily by American consumers.
Of the 84,000 chemicals in commercial use in the United States -- -- nearly 20 percent are secret, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, their names and physical properties guarded from consumers and virtually all public officials under a little-known federal provision.
The policy was designed 33 years ago to protect trade secrets in a highly competitive industry. But critics -- including the Obama administration -- say the secrecy has grown out of control, making it impossible for regulators to control potential dangers or for consumers to know which toxic substances they might be exposed to.

Here’s the kicker. Under the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, manufacturers must report to the federal government new chemicals they intend to market. But the law exempts from public disclosure any information that could harm their bottom line. Aha! Now you know why you don’t know what you don’t know.

Government officials, scientists and environmental groups say that manufacturers have exploited weaknesses in the law to claim secrecy for an ever-increasing number of chemicals. In the past several years, 95 percent of the notices for new chemicals sent to the government requested some secrecy, according to the Government Accountability Office. About 700 chemicals are introduced annually.

Of the secret chemicals, 151 are made in quantities of more than 1 million tons a year and 10 are used specifically in children's products, according to the EPA.
The identities of the chemicals are known to a handful of EPA employees who are legally barred from sharing that information with other federal officials, state health and environmental regulators, foreign governments, emergency responders and the public.

Now that we have gained some knowledge of the “unknown”, we can be comforted somewhat by the efforts being made to lift that veil of secrecy enjoyed for the past thirty years by industrial interests. Steve Owens, assistant administrator for the EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, has ended confidentiality protection for 530 chemicals. In those cases, manufacturers had claimed secrecy for chemicals they had promoted by name on their Web sites or detailed in trade journals.

"People who were submitting information to the EPA saw that you can claim that virtually anything is confidential and get away with it," Owens said.
Pressure is building on lawmakers to make it more difficult for manufacturers to cloak their products in secrecy. Congress is set to rewrite chemical regulations this year for the first time in a generation.

With all due respect to the previous quote, it is time for the American consumer to let lawmakers know that you want to know what you don’t now know.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Smith

Has the FDA Fallen Ill?

Brenda Fulmer — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:53:27 GMT

The FDA: our government-run watchdog out to protect us from harmful drugs and medical devices. But is that still the case?

After great public scrutiny and numerous discoveries of one shocking drug safety problem after another, the government is stepping in to try and save this 102 year-old agency from complete catastrophe. Critics of the FDA say it’s “the best agency the pharmaceutical industry can buy.”

Many of the nation’s leading doctors, scientists, and lawmakers agree that the FDA is, and has been, in crisis. Critics say the FDA learns of dangers too late and then moves slowly to remedy them. Insiders say the agency is poorly underfunded, dangerously understaffed, and torn apart by internal tensions. Other issues include sloppy record keeping, where crucial facts are being missed and most complaint reports arrive via paper fax and have to be sorted by hand. Report analysts staff state they only have eight minutes to read even the most serious complaint cases. Problems also include conflicts of interests with the drug companies, and muzzled experts. One FDA doctor reported that he was ordered to soften his assessment of a drug he thought should be withdrawn because it could cause liver failure or death.

Pressures from drug manufacturers to speed up decisions and soft-peddle problems also make the FDA vulnerable to poor decision making. When the FDA approves a drug or medical device, staff scientists must make a judgment call about its safety. They are relying on industry studies that usually follow only a handful of people, often over just a few months. These small clinical trials are designed to measure the drug’s safety and effectiveness in a targeted group of patients, not the dangers the drug might pose when it’s taken by people with a wide variety of backgrounds and health conditions.

Most of the FDA’s problems lie with a large portion of the agency’s budget coming from drug companies; a complete conflict with the public’s best interest. The danger is the easiest way to make deadlines for drug approval is to not raise too many questions and just accept what the drug company says about the safety. The FDA cannot realistically look at the thousands of new drugs waiting for approval with a fine-tooth comb, and consumers will pay the price with their health, or worse, their lives.

The most recent example of the FDA’s shortfalls is the background of litigation over Yaz, Yasmin and Ocella birth control products, which have been proven to increase the risk of blood clots, stroke, injury to gall bladders and other injuries. About 300 women have filed lawsuits against the drug manufacturer, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, in federal and state courts throughout the United States. All of the lawsuit allegations claim that the drug manufacturer failed to conduct appropriate research and testing of their birth control pills or to properly warn about the increased risk that women using Yaz, Yasmin and Ocella may suffer.

The FDA’s response was to conduct more investigation into the safety of Yasmin and Yaz and a warning letter was sent to Bayer Healthcare setting forth that the companies’ television ads were misleading. The FDA was of the opinion that the ads minimized and obscured the serious risks associated with the use of Yaz.

But would all this have been prevented if the FDA wasn’t rushed to approve new medications by drug companies?

A recent report by the FDA’s own advisory Science Board describes an organization nearly out of control. “We were shocked at the appalling state of science at the FDA,” says Garret FitzGerald, MD, chairman of the pharmacology department at the University Of Pennsylvania School Of Medicine and an advisor on the report. “The analogy is Katrina,” FitzGerald adds. “But we have to fix this before the hurricane hits.”

So what is being done to rescue the FDA? Not nearly enough. But Congress did increase the FDA’s drug safety budget, the Obama administration recently put new leaders into place, and safety became an issue of importance again. It is not perfect, but under the new administration, the agency did increase its early communications, expanded enforcement of fake or dangerous products, and managed bogus swine flu remedies, defective nasal sprays, and steroid-containing supplements. The issue with drug review has also been addressed and a hiring boom at the FDA has improved review timing with estimates at 85 percent on-time according to the FDA.

With the right leadership and stronger funding and tools, we can restore the FDA to what it once was – a highly respected agency of medical professionals, untouched by political and corporate pressures.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brenda Fulmer

Texting while driving- just like driving drunk? Some say even worse.

Brian Denney — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:43:45 GMT

You see it every day. Maybe you are one of them. People driving their cars, talking on their cell phones, or even worse, texting, while every-now-and-then glancing up at the road. The scenario is not only a recipe for disaster, but it soon may be against the law.

The issue of texting while you drive has earned a national profile and the Florida Legislature has taken note. In 2008, the Florida Highway Patrol reported 15 deaths and 1,400 injured because of distracted drivers. The state currently does not track how many accidents specifically involve texting, although the FHP is reformatting their reports to include that information.

Studies have concluded that talking and/or texting on a cell phone while driving is as dangerous as driving drunk and those drivers are four times as likely to get into serious crashes. The National Safety Council reports that 80 percent of all car accidents are caused by inattention, and the American Automobile Association found that 46 percent of teen’s text while driving.

Most of us wouldn’t dream of riding in a car without our seat belt on, or allowing our young children to go without their car seats. We know that seatbelts save lives and we should also be aware that texting while driving is just as much of a danger, if not greater, to us and our families. Driving is the most dangerous thing we do every single day, however, it is easy to feel safe in our huge wagons of steel. But what about the pedestrians and the children riding their bikes to school? Are they safe from our inattentiveness on the road?

Recently, Representative Doug Holder, R-Sarasota, filed a bill for the 2010 legislative session to prohibit texting and driving. He says that cell phone companies support the bill and that the opposition was mostly due to the difficulty in enforcing the law. Similarly, a group of Democrats in the U.S. Senate announced plans to begin denying funding of federal highway money from states that don’t ban texting on the roads. The number of casualties caused by mobile devices while driving has also prompted the Obama administration to considering imposing restrictions on usage of these devices while driving.

While we all know that we should keep our hands on the wheel and our eyes on the road, have our lives really become that complex that we must risk our own lives and that of others to send an e-mail or check your Facebook status while we drive our cars? Is that message you must text so important that you can disregard the safety of others as well as your own?

The bottom line is this: attentive driving saves lives. So put down the phone or pull over to do your e-mails or texting. The messages you need to send are not as important as the lives you may save.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brian Denney

Wyeth Documents Confirm Failure to Accept Corporate Responsibility for More than 30 Years

Brenda Fulmer — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:46:15 GMT

The court has now released documents produced in the Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) litigation. Wyeth had aggressively resisted the release of these documents in the past.

The documents are startling.

As early as 1975, the relationship between drugs such as Premarin and various cancers became known to Wyeth and other drug companies. The FDA held hearings in which they expressed concern to manufacturers about the relationship between cancer and HRT drugs, even questioning the adequacy of the clinical trials and scientific research conducted by manufacturers such Wyeth and Ayerst prior to selling the synthetic hormones to millions of unsuspecting women.

In December of 1975, Ayerst Laboratories sent out a "Dear Doctor" letter in an effort to calm any fears that women and their doctors might have regarding the safety of hormone replacement therapy. In that letter, the drug company attempted to downplay legitimate concerns by casting doubt on the "interpretation of data.” Interestingly, the letter admits that the drug manufacturer had a responsibility (one that was never met, resulting in more than 13,000 lawsuits filed by women who developed breast cancers as a result of ingesting Prempro, Premarin, Provera, and other synthetic combination hormone replacement therapy products):

"We accept a responsibility to continue investigations in this area. We accept a responsibility to continue investigations in this area with the view to shedding additional light on this diverse, emotional and serious problem."

In response to the December of 1975 letter, the FDA said:

The letter is a "misrepresentation of scientific data presented…"
The letter was viewed "as borderline from the standpoint of violation of laws…"
The letter, according to the FDA was "warped in tone and is intended to obfuscate the issues rather than to highlight new information related to risk. This letter is borderline in terms of violating…" the law.
The FDA "does not trust Ayerst's ability to write a reliable letter" or an "accurate statement to the medical profession".

Lawyers for Ayerst countered that their letter wasn’t intended to downplay the risks associated with their blockbuster drugs, but instead fueled by "their reluctance, because of legal implications, to be more explicit regarding warnings and risks associated with Premarin."

I can’t imagine a drug company having “legal implications” from providing too much information about the risks associated with its product. Then again, it is well known that prominent cancer warnings tend to destroy sales, especially for a drug that is more of a lifestyle medication than one that saves lives (more on this issue in future blogs – as it is was only through over-promotion of potential lifesaving benefits that Wyeth was able to continue to sell Prempro and Premarin once independent researchers began to sound the alarm regarding the breast cancer risk).

This blog is one in a series of blogs that highlight some of the most important documents that have been shown to juries considering product liability cases against Wyeth and Pfizer. More than 13,000 women have filed lawsuits against these and other drug manufacturers for failure to provide adequate warnings regarding the risks of hormone replacement therapy (promotion of breast cancers, ovarian cancer, stroke, heart attacks, Alzheimer’s, etc.) while grossly overstating the benefits of these synthetic products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brenda Fulmer

Now is the Perfect Season -- Take Time to Care

Laurie Briggs — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:45:22 GMT

The holidays are a time of reflection that inspires many of us to reach out to those who are less fortunate. In a year where many are struggling to make ends meet, in part due to economic recession, it is more important than ever to take the time to care about those less fortunate.

Charitable giving has been down this holiday season as it was in 2008 according to the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University in Indianapolis. Melissa Brown, associate director of research for the Center on Philanthropy says that many charities are reporting lower donations and charities may be more vulnerable to economic weakness, as are corporations. “The way the economy goes determines how charity goes,” comments Brown.

Surveys of the largest 100 United Way Associations in December 2008 and January 2009, pointed to a decline of 5.6 percent in giving and 82 percent of charities are anticipating higher rates of uncollectible pledges this year. For some, the downturn may not have hit yet. The Salvation Army, the nation’s second largest charity, says internet donations were up 25 percent from 7.9 million in 2008 to 10.1 million this year. However, the organization states that even though more people seem to be giving, the size of the donation is going down, noting that the average donation dropped about $40 less from last year.

The recession has hindered the American’s ability to support their favorite charities resulting in the biggest drop in charitable giving in the last fifty years. Even if the economy continues to improve, it will likely take many months for charitable giving to rebound. That is bad news for charities that rely largely on end-of-the-year donations.

So this holiday season, give what you can, but make sure you are confident in the charities on the receiving end of your generosity.

Seek out charities with capable leaders that are reasonably paid. Look for a charity with passionate leadership and an executive who has held the position for a while.
Look for financially strong charities. Investigate the charity’s outcomes. Learn about their accomplishments, goals, challenges, and how much of your donation will be used to help the cause. You can do this by searching their website or talking with staff. They should be able to tell you about the quality and depth of their results as well as their ability to get results.
Check for evidence of questionable ethical practices.
Consider gifts to human services charities. Charities that provide direct services to people in need experienced the largest drop in donations last year. Yet, these charities also experience the greatest increase in demand for their services during a recession.

Visit websites such as The United Way to find a local charity in your area or learn how your contributions can help those in need this holiday season and into the New Year.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Laurie Briggs

Taking Time to Care About Others

John Hopkins — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 09:11:00 GMT

Scrooge sits in his darkened office counting his gold, while poor Bob Cratchett sits freezing without coat and without heat. This is the image often conjured up about banks and bankers.

Times are tough for everyone. Charitable donations are down and the ability for donors to give is limited and getting tighter.

In Palm Beach County, the Big Brothers – Big Sisters program recently announced it will have to close its operations because they simply do not have enough contributions to cover their overhead. This extinguished a worthy program with demonstrated success in guiding some of our most vulnerable kids.

With this bleak back drop, I was happy to see a major banking power who has not forgotten about the need to reinvest in communities. Wells Fargo is based in San Francisco and yesterday they had invited several nonprofit groups to a “thank you” breakfast.

As it turned out, Wells Fargo demonstrated there are corporate citizens who still understand that, while it is still about profits; investing in communities does give you a return that often translates goodwill to long term profits. My mortgage is with Wells Fargo and I can tell you that simply based on this news article I would be hard pressed to leave them.

Yesterday Wells Fargo gave away $6 million in surprise donations to San Francisco area non-profits. In addition, Kendall Alley, Wells Fargo president in the Charlotte, NC region asked for money to donate to Charlotte area organizations and Wells Fargo found another $4.6 million.

I often criticize the greed and avarice demonstrated by Big Corporations in America. Although I am still of the opinion that Big Corporations who care only about profits are in the majority, perhaps this is a small light in that darkness.

When you see corporate responsibility demonstrated by a company like Wells Fargo, it deserves recognition. Perhaps Wells Fargo should be an inspiration for all of us.

Thank you Wells Fargo.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by John Hopkins

Profit Over Safety -- A $20 Decision

John Hopkins — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 10:04:27 GMT

A 46 year old woman is paralyzed when her sport utility vehicle rolls over and the roof collapses onto her. The manufacturer knew their SUV was prone to rollovers and in the event of a rollover, the roof was insufficiently reinforced to prevent the very injuries suffered by the woman. In the case, the woman alleges that a fix to the roof stability would have cost the SUV maker approximately $20 per vehicle.

This story sounds a great deal like a car prone to catching on fire and exploding when rear ended at relatively low speeds. In those cases, the auto maker consciously chose not to spend the money to recall and retrofit the vehicles. That decision unnecessarily cost many lives.

Oh, yeah, in both instances it was Ford. In the earlier case it was a little car called the Pinto and in this most recent case, a little SUV called the Explorer.

It boils down to making “business decisions” in the best interest of stock holders is what Big Corporations say. They are forced to weigh their overhead against the need for design modifications. They are charged with answering to stockholders who have hitched some portion of their financial future to these very decisions.

It boils down to making decisions that do not place profits over safety is what I say. Sorry Corporate America, but it should not be acceptable to place the public in peril of life or limb for $20. In fact, it should not be OK with anyone to have a 46 year old woman and mother of two children who will never walk again because it was not expedient or economical to either, first design or second retrofit a product to make it as safe as possible.

When Ford was hit with this jury verdict amounting to over $350 million for both compensatory and punitive damages, they appealed. The courts reduced the jury verdict to $82 million, for both compensatory and punitive damages. Ford cried foul and appealed; arguing that they made reasonable judgments in the design of the SUV and they should not be responsible for punitive damages.

When Corporate America demonstrates a conscious disregard for the safety of consumers, punitive damages are appropriate. When an industry makes billions marketing a 3000 pound object that moves at 70 mph “reasonable judgments” that include the failure to spend $20 additional for safety most certainly justifies these damages.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by John Hopkins