DZWL Blog

$1,000,000.00 SETTLEMENT OF COMMERCIAL TRUCK WRECK AS REPORTED BY VERDICT SEARCH

DSC_8700

Pictured from left to right: Tab E. Lawhorn, Daryl L. Derryberry, Guy I. Wade, III and Craig D. Zips “Keeping Your Community SAFE One Case At A Time”

 

On July 2, 2014, our client, was operating a 10-wheeler truck on Interstate 20 West in Harrison County, Texas. The defendant¬†was operating a Ford F-350 pickup truck, hauling a load of drill pipe on a flatbed trailer¬†for an oilfield service company. The defendant¬†negligently rear-ended our client, whose in-cab video camera recorded the violent jarring of the impact. The defendant’s¬†truck burst into flames and our client pulled the defendant¬†from her burning vehicle.¬†The truck the defendant¬†was operating was owned by or leased to an oilfield service company.

Our client hired our firm to¬†sue¬†the defendant¬†for negligently failing to keep a proper lookout, driving too fast and following too closely. He also sued the oilfield service company¬†under respondeat superior (being responsible for the negligent acts of the defendant)¬†and for violating its policies by failing to conduct a post-accident drug test of the defendant;¬†by failing to investigate the wreck; and by providing the defendant¬†a company truck to drive even though she had five (5) prior convictions for moving violations under Texas law. The oilfield service company’s¬†policy prohibited giving a company vehicle to anyone convicted of more than three (3) moving violations.

Our client also alleged that the defendant was a distracted driver (using her cell phone constantly for 44 minutes before the violent wreck and at the time of the wreck) and that the distracted driving caused the wreck. During that 44 minute period, her cell phone records showed 194 calls or text messages to or from a single number.

The defendant testified that she accepted responsibility for failing to control her speed and rear-ending our client. However, she also testified that she was not using her cell phone in any manner at the time of the wreck. Our client believes the cell phone records unequivocally showed that she was being untruthful in that regard.

Our client’s¬†injuries included herniated discs and facet tears in his neck and back, as well as sustaining other injuries, harms and losses.

The wreck was in the afternoon, and our client¬†sought medical treatment the next morning. He initially treated through workers’ compensation, but he felt that he was not receiving adequate care, and he sought treatment outside of the worker’s compensation system, including seeking treatment from a neurosurgeon. Our client¬†tried physical therapy, but found it too painful. ¬†Our client also underwent lumbar epidural steroid injections (ESIs) and, in April 2015, he had a discogram done as well.

In the summer of 2015, a neurosurgeon performed a posterolateral fusion in his back with placement of hardware (pedicle screws on the left). The neurosurgeon opined that our client’s¬†neck and back injuries were caused by the wreck.

The oilfield service company¬†and the defendant¬†had $1,000,000.00 in liability insurance coverage and the entire policy limits were paid to our client to settle the case. ¬†After payment of attorney’s fees ($400,000.00), expenses ($35,599.34) and medical bills ($160,429.31) the client netted ($403,971.43).

TO STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE LATEST LAW NEWS, BE SURE TO FIND US ON FACEBOOK AT https://www.facebook.com/dzwlaw AND FOLLOW US ON TWITTER AT https://twitter.com/DZWLAW and https://twitter.com/URHURT

DERRYBERRY ZIPS WADE LAWHORN, PLLC http://www.dzwlaw.com and http://www.urhurt.com 

 

TYLER TEXAS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEYS DZWL OBTAIN SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT

Pictured from left to right:  Tab E. Lawhorn, Daryl L. Derryberry, Guy I. Wade, III and Craig D. Zips "Keeping Your Community SAFE One Case At A Time"

Pictured from left to right: Tab E. Lawhorn, Daryl L. Derryberry, Guy I. Wade, III and Craig D. Zips “Keeping Your Community SAFE One Case At A Time”

Derryberry Zips Wade Lawhorn, PLLC successfully negotiated a substantial confidential settlement in the high six figures for our female client who was involved in a violent rear end wreck with a  large oil field service truck in Corpus Christi, Texas.  The oil field service company hired a 23 year old employee and allowed him to permissively operate a company truck without performing any background check on him or providing him any driver training. A simple check of his driving record would have revealed a prior conviction for driving while intoxicated less than two (2) years prior to the company hiring him.  The young employee violently slammed into the back of our client’s vehicle as a result of being distracted while driving the truck.  Additionally, his cell phone records contained information indicating he was likely on the phone at the time of the violent wreck.  This violent wreck caused our client to sustain significant injuries and and also resulted in her vehicle being declared a total loss.  Our client sustained injuries, including a broken arm, injuries to her thighs, mild traumatic brain injury and herniated disks in her neck for which her treating neurosurgeon recommended surgery.  She had not had the surgery at the time the case was resolved in July, 2015.

TO STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE LATEST LAW NEWS, BE SURE TO FIND US ON FACEBOOK AT https://www.facebook.com/dzwlaw AND FOLLOW US ON TWITTER AT https://twitter.com/DZWLAW and https://twitter.com/URHURT

DERRYBERRY ZIPS WADE LAWHORN, PLLC  http://www.dzwlaw.com and http://www.urhurt.com 

VERDICT SEARCH REPORTS THAT THE PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEYS OF DERRYBERRY ZIPS WADE LAWHORN, PLLC OBTAINED A $550,000 SETTLEMENT FOR THEIR CLIENT IN AN 18 WHEELER CRASH

Accidents involving 18 wheelers can cause serious injuries because of the size and weight of the tractor and trailer.

On May 18, 2014, plaintiff Lisa M. Brewer (“Brewer”),52, was driving a 2005 Chevrolet 1500 pickup north on State Highway 80 in Luling, Texas. Gerardo Sandoval (“Sandoval”) was southbound in a 2007 Freightliner owned by Downing Transportation Inc. Sandoval suddenly and unexpectedly attempted a left turn in front of Brewer, and the vehicles collided. Sandoval was cited for failing to yield the right of way in connection with the wreck. Brewer was not issued any citations.

Sandoval’s employer was Downing Transportation, Inc. (“Downing”) and he was driving the truck in the course and scope of his employment for Downing or its subsidiary, G&D Trucking Inc.(“G&D”).

Brewer sued Sandoval for failure to yield the right of way and making an unsafe left turn. She sued Downing and G&D on a theory of respondeat superior because Sandoval was employed by one or both of the Defendants and was driving the truck in the course and scope of his employment.

The electronic control module (ECM) download from Brewer’s vehicle showed that she was traveling at an appropriate speed at the time of the wreck. ¬†The Defendants¬†did not contest that the wreck was Sandoval’s fault.

Ms. Brewer’s injuries included herniated discs at C5-6, C6-7, L4-5 and L5-S1. ¬†Ms. Brewer also sustained injuries to her head, arm and shoulder. Ms. Brewer was transported by ambulance to Brackenridge Hospital in Austin, Texas where she underwent extensive testing and treatment on the date of the wreck.

Ms. Brewer underwent conservative treatment for her injuries, including attempting physical therapy.¬† However, the physical therapy caused her pain and her pain management doctor ordered her to stop it.¬† She underwent a series of ¬†epidural steroid injections (“ESIs”) and follow up MRIs of her cervical and lumbar spine were performed at Brio MRI in San Antonio.¬† Her pain management doctor, Dr. Gutierrez, then referred her for a surgical consult with noted neurosurgeon Karl Swann, M.D. in San Antonio. Dr. Swann recommended she undergo¬†an anterior cervical discectomy and cage interbody fusion with allograft and anterior plating at C5-6 and C6-7.¬† This surgery was performed by Dr. Swann on May 13, 2015.

Ultimately, at the request of Defendants, an informal settlement conference was held at Defendants’ attorneys’ office in San Antonio, Texas and the case was resolved.

TO STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE LATEST LAW NEWS, BE SURE TO FIND US ON FACEBOOK AT https://www.facebook.com/dzwlaw AND FOLLOW US ON TWITTER AT https://twitter.com/DZWLAW and https://twitter.com/URHURT

DERRYBERRY ZIPS WADE LAWHORN, PLLC  http://www.dzwlaw.com and http://www.urhurt.com 

What do I do if I am injured by a defective product?

Top 10 things to do if you are injured by a product:

by Daryl L. Derryberry, Member of Derryberry Zips Wade Lawhorn, PLLC

Defective tires de tread frequently and can cause serious injuries or death to the occupants of the vehicle.

  1. Contact a lawyer immediately to prevent the product from being destroyed or disposed of.  An attorney can send a spoliation letter to preserve the product for inspection which is crucial to your case.   Do not sign any documents prior to consulting with an attorney. 
  2. Obtain the name of the product manufacturer and the make and model number of the product.
  3. Send all worker’s compensation forms, if any, to your lawyer before signing.
  4. Take photographs of your injuries if possible.
  5. Take photographs of the scene of the incident if possible.
  6. Do not give any written or recorded statements to any insurance company or company representative without consulting with an attorney.
  7. Immediately seek medical attention at a hospital or from a doctor if you are injured.  If you do not seek medical attention, then the insurance company and/or product manufacturer will contend that you delayed in treatment and are not injured.
  8. If you do not have health insurance, contact an attorney.   We may be able to assist you in obtaining medical care.
  9. Prepare a brief summary of the incident.   Our memories fade about the details of an accident as time passes.  This is helpful later in jogging your memory of the details of the incident.
  10. Obtain a police report if one is available.

Daryl L. Derryberry is one of the two founding partners of the firm now known as Derryberry Zips Wade Lawhorn, PLLC (the “Firm”).¬† Daryl and Craig Zips started the Firm in May, 2002 and have enjoyed great success since the Firm’s inception. Daryl’s legal career spans two decades and includes successfully securing jury verdicts and settlements on behalf of his clients in oil rig accidents, 18 wheeler wrecks, medical negligence, products liability, broker malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty and other cases.

TO STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE LATEST LAW NEWS, BE SURE TO FIND US ON FACEBOOK AT https://www.facebook.com/dzwlaw AND FOLLOW US ON TWITTER AT https://twitter.com/DZWLAW and https://twitter.com/URHURT

DERRYBERRY ZIPS WADE LAWHORN, PLLC  http://www.dzwlaw.com and http://www.urhurt.com 

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC LOSES ITS FIRST FEDERAL TRIAL AND IS ORDERED BY A FLORIDA JURY TO PAY FOUR VICTIMS OF ITS VAGINAL MESH PRODUCTS A TOTAL OF $26.7 MILLION

Boston Scientific Loses First Federal Trial Over Mesh

Jurors in federal court in Miami deliberated about four hours yesterday before finding Boston Scientific officials defectively designed their Pinnacle pelvic-organ implants and failed to properly warn doctors and their patients about the device’s risks, Joseph Osborne, a lawyer for one of the women, said in an interview.

The verdict is the first in a federal case against Boston Scientific over the Pinnacle inserts and the first to combine more than one plaintiff’s claims.

“Boston Scientific better start giving serious consideration to doing a global settlement of these vaginal mesh cases,” Carl Tobias, who teaches product-liability law at the University of Richmondin Virginia, said in a phone interview. “This verdict reinforces the substantial liability they are facing and it’s growing with each verdict.”

Four Awards

Jurors awarded Amal Eghnayem, Osborne’s client, more than $6.7 million. The panel also awarded Margarita Dotres and Mania Nunez, two other women who got Pinnacle implants, more than $6.7 million each. Juana Betancourt, the final woman in the group, was awarded more than $6.5 million, Osborne said. The panel awarded only compensatory damages, he added.Female-Patient-Doctor

Kelly Leadem, a Boston Scientific spokeswoman, said the company disagreed with the jury’s findings that the Pinnacle inserts suffered from design flaws and that company officials didn’t warn about the implants’ risks.

“We believe we have strong grounds to overturn the verdict on post-trial motions and on appeal,” she said in an e-mailed statement.

“The evidence we presented showed that the company completely mishandled this product, and I think the jury’s damage award reflects that,” Osborne said.

The women’s lawyers argued yesterday that Boston Scientific officials ignored internal calls for more testing of the pelvic-organ implant and hurried the device along to counter competitors’ products.

In September, a state court jury in Texas ordered Boston Scientific to pay $73 million in damages to a woman who blamed one of its incontinence implants for her constant pain. That verdict was cut to $34.6 million by the trial judge. The company has won other cases that have gone to trial in state court in Massachusetts.

23,000 Suits

The Natick, Massachusetts-based company, the second-largest maker of heart-rhythm devices, faces more than 23,000 suits over its vaginal implants in U.S. state and federal courts, as well as in Canadian and U.K. courts, according to filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Boston Scientific pulled Pinnacle from the U.S. market in 2011.

Many of the cases against Boston Scientific have been consolidated before U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in Charleston, West Virginia. Others have been filed in state courts in Delaware,New Jersey, Missouri, Texas and California.

Goodwin, who’s overseeing all the vaginal-mesh suits filed in federal courts against Boston Scientific, presided over the trial of the four women’s claims.

Substandard Materials

Women contend the inserts are made of substandard materials and often erode once they are implanted, causing pain and organ damage, and making sex uncomfortable.

The women’s lawyers presented evidence showing the mesh used in the Pinnacle insert hadn’t been approved for use within the human body by the company that made it.

Boston Scientific’s lawyer told jurors in the Miami case the mesh used in the inserts has been relied upon for years by doctors and engineers properly designed the devices.

“There’s no such thing as a risk-free surgery,” Hildy Sastre, one of the company’s lawyers, told jurors. “Because somebody develops a complication, which they’ve been clearly warned of, that doesn’t mean there’s a defect with the product.”

Boston Scientific is expected to face closing arguments Nov. 17 in another multi-plaintiff trial in federal court in West Virginia.

The Florida case is Eghnayem v. Boston Scientific Corp., 14-cv-24061, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida (Miami).

To contact the reporter on this story: Jef Feeley in Wilmington, Delaware at jfeeley@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net Andrew Dunn, Peter Blumberg

TO STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE LATEST LAW NEWS, BE SURE TO FIND US ON FACEBOOK AT https://www.facebook.com/dzwlaw AND FOLLOW US ON TWITTER AT https://twitter.com/DZWLAW and https://twitter.com/URHURT

DERRYBERRY ZIPS WADE LAWHORN, PLLC  http://www.dzwlaw.com andhttp://www.urhurt.com 

VERDICT SEARCH REPORTS THAT THE PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEYS OF DERRYBERRY ZIPS WADE LAWHORN, PLLC OBTAINED A WRONGFUL DEATH SETTLEMENT FOR THE INSURANCE POLICY LIMITS OF $1,000,000.00 WITH THEIR CLIENTS RECEIVING $555,494.39

On May 21, 2011, seventeen year old Martin Blea, Jr. entered the business premises of The Pussycat Lounge, an after-hours BYOB establishment located in Odessa, Texas.  The Pussycat Lounge was located less than a half mile from an adult cabaret known as Jaguars Gold Club.  The Pussycat Lounge and Jaguars Gold Club essentially had the same owners and operators on May 21, 2011 and in the years leading up to May 21, 2011, such that the owners and operators of The Pussycat Lounge knew that dangerous and violent people were in the area and frequently visited The Pussycat Lounge

Martin Blea, Jr. went to The Pussycat Lounge with his older sister, among other individuals. At some point, his sister went to the restroom.  As she was returning from the ladies’ room, a man, who was unknown to the sister (and has never been fully identified) but who had previously been seen conversing with a man named Steve Uresti and other patrons of the Pussycat Lounge, approached the sister and grabbed her in a sexually provocative manner.  When the sister rejected these advances, the unidentified man punched the sister in the face and knocked her to the ground.  The man then jumped on top of her.  Martin Blea, Jr. was dancing on the dance floor at this time and saw his sister in distress.  He went to pull the unidentified man off of his sister and a fight broke out.  While Martin Blea, Jr. was attempting to aid his sister, Steve Uresti pulled out a 9 millimeter handgun and fired several shots into the air.  Mr. Uresti then fired several more shots, one of which hit Martin Blea, Jr. in the face and killed him.  Mr. Uresti’s gun had made its way into The Pussycat Lounge despite the fact that a policy was in place where patrons entering the premises were required  to be screened with a hand held metal detector wand and patted down as part of an effort to keep dangerous weapons out of the club..

After being shot, Martin Blea, Jr. fell to the floor of The Pussycat Lounge where he struggled to breathe until the paramedics arrived. An ambulance transported Martin Blea, Jr. to a hospital in Odessa, Texas, where he was pronounced dead from his gunshot wound.  On November 29, 2012, a jury in Ector County, Texas, convicted Steve Uresti of manslaughter in connection with the death of Martin Blea, Jr. and sentenced him to 20 years of confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections.

The parents of Martin Blea, Jr. retained DZWL to investigate the viability of, and potentially prosecute a wrongful death and survival action against persons determined to be potentially civilly liable for the death of Martin Blea, Jr. Our clients asserted that the owners/operators of The Pussycat Lounge controlled the security and safety of The Pussycat Lounge on May 21, 2011, and owed a duty to protect people visiting the club, such as Martin Blea, Jr., from the criminal acts of third parties if they knew or had reason to know of an unreasonable and foreseeable risk of harm to people visiting the club..  In that regard, the evidence revealed that the owners/operators knew or should have known that in the approximately three-year period immediately prior to May 21, 2011: a) the Odessa Police Department had been repeatedly called to the Jaguars Gold Club, a stone’s throw from The Pussycat Lounge, for numerous and repetitive instances of violent criminal conduct at Jaguars Gold Club involving, among other things, armed robbery,  assault, gunshot victims and shots fired; b) the Ector County Sheriff’s Office had been repeatedly called to the premises of The Pussycat Lounge (as well as the business previously operated at those premises which was also owned and/or operated by the same persons) for numerous and repetitive instances of violent criminal conduct at those premises, involving, among other things, assault, aggravated assault, assault with bodily injury, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, deadly conduct, robbery and a subject with a gun; and, c) the Ector County Sheriff’s Office had been repeatedly called to the Jaguar’s Gold Club for numerous and repetitive instances of violent criminal conduct at Jaguar’s Gold Club involving, among other things, assault, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, aggravated assault, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated robbery, shots fired, deadly conduct, stab victim, man with a gun and prohibited weapon.  Therefore, our clients asserted that the owners/operators of The Pussycat Lounge knew or should have known of the risk that persons in the immediate vicinity of The Pussycat Lounge who visited  the Defendants’ two business establishments in that locale might foreseeably injure other people visiting the The Pussycat Lounge, such as Martin Blea, Jr., and Defendants had a duty to protect persons, such as Martin Blea, Jr., from the imminent, probable and foreseeable harm posed by other patrons of Defendants’ establishments.  Our clients asserted that their son died as a result of Steve Uresti’s foreseeable act of firing a gun that had been brought into the Pussycat Lounge as a result of the inadequate security measures employed by Defendants at The Pussycat Lounge on May 21, 2011.

The Estate of the deceased, Martin Blea, Jr., incurred funeral and burial expenses of $11,423.06 and medical expenses of $1,193.50. The parents sought to recover damages under the Survival Statute for the alleged conscious pain and suffering endured by Martin Blea, Jr. between the time he was shot and the time he was pronounced dead.  The parents also sought to recover for damages to the parent-child relationship, including loss of affection, solace, comfort, companionship, society, assistance, emotional support and love, loss of pecuniary value of the services of Martin Blea, Jr. and past and future mental anguish, grief and sorrow.

            Despite the various contentions of the owners/operators, their insurance company paid our clients the insurance policy limits of $1,000,000 to settle their claims. The net recovery for our clients, after payment of attorneys’ fees and case expenses, was $555,494.39.

TO STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE LATEST LAW NEWS, BE SURE TO FIND US ON FACEBOOK AT https://www.facebook.com/dzwlaw AND FOLLOW US ON TWITTER AT https://twitter.com/DZWLAW and https://twitter.com/URHURT

DERRYBERRY ZIPS WADE LAWHORN, PLLC  http://www.dzwlaw.com and http://www.urhurt.com 

 

GM HALTS TRUCK SALES- AIR BAG ISSUES

GM Halts Pickup Sales While Searching for Air-Bag Fix

The issue affects an undisclosed number of 2015 Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon midsized pickups. The air bags were wired incorrectly, which will disrupt the firing process, the company said in a statement yesterday.

“GM is working to validate the correction for the condition,” Alan Adler, a spokesman for the Detroit-based automaker, said in the statement. “Once that service procedure is released to dealers, customer deliveries can resume.”

The largest U.S. automaker is trying to move beyond a year in which it has recalled almost 30 million cars and trucks in North America. Chief Executive Officer Mary Barra faced four separate congressional hearings over the handling of an ignition-switch recall now tied to 23 fatalities.

GM introduced the Colorado at the Los Angeles Auto Show in November, when it touted the vehicle’s capacity to tow greater loads than Toyota Motor Corp.’s Tacoma model. The Canyon, which sold 11 models in September, is the GMC version of the truck. Colorado sales totaled 36 that month. “The volumes are low and there are very few cars in customer hands,” said John Krafcik, president of TrueCar Inc., an auto-buying website based in Santa Monica, California.

Recall Planned

“It comes down to when sales can start again. They’ve started marketing the car, so if a consumer comes in and can’t buy one, then it becomes an inefficiency,” Krafcik said in a phone interview yesterday.

GM is preparing to conduct a safety recall for the trucks, meaning it will notify U.S. regulators and repair the vehicles for free. The company doesn’t know of any crashes, injuries or fatalities connected to the error, Adler said. The automaker has recalled about 26.4 million cars in the U.S. this year. That eclipses Ford Motor Co. (F)’s single-year record of 23.3 million in 2001.

Customers are being notified by overnight letter as well as being contacted by phone to bring their trucks to a dealer as soon as possible, Adler said. Free loaner vehicles will be provided.

To contact the reporter on this story: Jeff Plungis in Washington at jplungis@bloomberg.net  To contact the editors responsible for this story: Jamie Butters at jbutters@bloomberg.net Niamh Ring, John Lear

TO STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE LATEST LAW NEWS, BE SURE TO FIND US ON FACEBOOK AT https://www.facebook.com/dzwlaw AND FOLLOW US ON TWITTER AT https://twitter.com/DZWLAW.

DERRYBERRY ZIPS WADE LAWHORN, PLLC  http://www.dzwlaw.com

Texas Worker Safety is the Worst

Workplace Deaths Decline, But Texas Still Fares Worst

Hurting for Work


How disdain for government regulation sparked a “Texas miracle” economy — while tearing down protections for the workers who built it.

Texas saw a decline in the number of people killed on the job in 2013, but the state still leads the nation in workplace fatalities, according to preliminary government data released Thursday.

There were 493 fatal work injuries in Texas in 2013, compared with 536 a year earlier, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported. That represents a decline of about 8 percent. The 2013 figures are considered preliminary and will be revised in the spring.

As the Texas Tribune reported in its Hurting For Work series this summer, Texas has led the nation in worker fatalities for seven of the last 10 years. That trend held firm with the release of the 2013 data. Stretching back to 2000, Texas has experienced more job fatalities than any other state for 10 of those 14 years.

Other large U.S. states had significantly fewer workplace fatalities last year: California had 385, while Florida had 234 and New York had 160. (It’s worth noting that Texas has experienced comparatively high employment over the last decade. Since 2003, a third of the net new jobs created in the United States were in Texas).

While fatalities fell overall nationwide last year, deaths among Latino workers went up 7 percent nationwide between 2012 and 2013 — or 797 last year compared to 748 the year before. Texas has a large Hispanic workforce, particularly in the construction industry, but racial and ethnic breakdowns by state weren’t available Thursday.

Transportation accidents, accounting for 213 deaths, caused the most workplace fatalities in Texas, followed by contact with objects and equipment, 76; falls, slips and trips, 73; violence by persons or animals, 66; fires and explosions, 32; and exposure to harmful substances or environments, 31.

Heavy truck and tractor-trailer drivers proved to be the most dangerous occupation in Texas in 2013, accounting for 104 incidents, the data shows.

TO STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE LATEST LAW NEWS, BE SURE TO FIND US ON FACEBOOK AT https://www.facebook.com/dzwlaw AND FOLLOW US ON TWITTER AT https://twitter.com/DZWLAW.

DERRYBERRY ZIPS WADE LAWHORN, PLLC  http://www.dzwlaw.com

Mesothelioma Verdict of $18.6 Million for Worker at Kelly Springfield/Goodyear Plant in Tyler, Texas

Tyler Morning Telegraph – Family gets $18.6M Goodyear mesothelioma case

The family of a Tyler man, who died after contracting mesothelioma after years of exposure working at the Kelly Springfield/Goodyear plant, was awarded $18.6 million by a Dallas County jury last week, and attorneys for the plaintiff said the amount was warranted.

Christopher J. Panatier, of the Dallas-based law firm Simon Greenstone Panatier and Bartlett, said Goodyear plainly ignored standards set in place in 1972 by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

“Carl Rogers worked at the plant for 30 years before being diagnosed with mesothelioma, a deadly cancer caused by exposure to asbestos fibers. Jurors found Goodyear grossly negligent for allowing Mr. Rogers’ continued exposure to asbestos,” he said.

Mr. Rogers worked as a tire builder at the Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. in Tyler, a Goodyear subsidiary. He worked with Goodyear machines that exposed him to asbestos on a constant basis. He was further exposed to asbestos-wrapped piping while maintenance work was happening at the plant. Mr. Rogers was diagnosed with mesothelioma in August 2008 and died in September 2009.

Panatier said the verdict, which was handed up in the Dallas County Court At Law 5, includes $2.7 million in non-economic damages, $900,000 in economic damages and $15 million in punitive damages.

“Mr. Rogers’ family just wanted a jury to hear the story of their husband and father. He did nothing wrong and still died because his employer did not protect him,” he said. “Goodyear plainly ignored OSHA standards to protect workers from asbestos disease and never dealt honestly with them.”

Panatier said Goodyear admitted during the trial that the levels of asbestos were 10 to 100 times greater than the average person would breathe outside of the plant.

He said three other former workers at the plant have been diagnosed with mesothelioma.

“The mesothelioma rate is usually one case per million people, so to have four at one plant is about a 900 percent increase to those having the disease,” he said.

Panatier said he believes there may been an appeal filed in the case, but that could take up to six months.

Written by Kenneth Dean, kdean@tylerpaper.com

TO STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE LATEST LAW NEWS, BE SURE TO FIND US ON FACEBOOK AT https://www.facebook.com/dzwlaw AND FOLLOW US ON TWITTER AT https://twitter.com/DZWLAW.

DERRYBERRY ZIPS WADE LAWHORN, PLLC  http://www.dzwlaw.com

Verdict for 73 Million against Boston Scientific by Dallas County, Texas Jury

Great News for Victims of Vaginal Mesh Products!

Boston Scientific Corp. (BSX) was ordered to pay $73 million to a woman who said a defectively designed vaginal-mesh implant left her in constant pain, in the first award against the device maker over its incontinence slings.

Boston Scientific is liable for Martha Salazar’s injuries, which she blamed on the company’s Obtryx sling, jurors in Texas state court in Dallas said yesterday. They awarded her about $23 million in compensatory damages and $50 million in punitive damages, according to a court filing.

Boston Scientific had won the first two cases to reach trial over the Obtryx sling. The Natick, Massachusetts-based company faces more than 12,000 lawsuits in which women contend its vaginal mesh implants, including the slings, erode within the body. Organs may be damaged and pain can result, requiring surgery to remove the device, according to patients who sued.

“This woman was seeking help with minor urine leakage and wound up with a catastrophic, life-altering injury that required four major surgeries,” Salazar’s lawyer Dave Matthews said in a telephone interview. “It’s a tragedy that these slings are still on the market.”

Matthews said his client, a former property manager, can no longer sit comfortably or walk or exercise normally as a result of her injuries. Boston Scientific disagrees with the verdict and will appeal, saidKelly Leadem, a company spokeswoman.

FDA Order

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration ordered Boston Scientific, Johnson & Johnson (JNJ)and more than 30 other vaginal-implant makers in 2012 to study rates of organ damage and complications linked to the products. Many of the cases against Boston Scientific, J&J and C.R. Bard (BCR) Inc. have been consolidated before U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in Charleston, West Virginia. Others have been filed in state courts in Delaware, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Missouri, Texas and California.

Boston Scientific and other makers of vaginal inserts targeted in suits had talks this year about settling cases over the devices, according to people familiar with the discussions.

Endo International Plc (ENDP) agreed in April to pay $830 million to resolve about 20,000 lawsuits alleging its vaginal-mesh inserts eroded in some women and left them incontinent and in pain.

Gross Negligence

Juries in New Jersey and West Virginia over the past year have ruled that J&J and Bard implants caused women’s injuries and ordered the companies to pay a total of more than $13 million in damages.

In Salazar’s case, the Dallas jury returned with a verdict the same day it began deliberations, finding Boston Scientific’s sling suffered from a faulty design. The panel also found company officials failed to properly warn patients and doctor’s about the insert’s health risks.

Jurors said Boston Scientific’s handling of the slings amounted to gross negligence, which Mathews said allowed the jury to award punitive-damages.

During the two-week trial before Texas District Judge Ken Molberg, Matthews said he asked the jury to award Salazar $14 million for her injuries and her pain and suffering.

As part of the evidence in the case, Matthews presented an August 2000 e-mail from Alex Robbins, a Boston Scientific executive, in which he tells salespeople to ignore a company-funded study raising questions about the sling’s safety.

“I certainly wouldn’t hand this out to any physicians,” Robbins said in the e-mail.

The case is Salazar v. Lopez, No. DC-1214349, District Court for Dallas County, 95th Judicial District of Texas (Dallas).

To contact the reporter on this story: Jef Feeley in Wilmington, Delaware atjfeeley@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net David E. Rovella, Sophia Pearson

TO STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE LATEST LEGAL NEWS, BE SURE TO FIND US ON FACEBOOK AT https://www.facebook.com/dzwlaw AND FOLLOW US ON TWITTER AT https://twitter.com/DZWLAW.

DERRYBERRY ZIPS WADE LAWHORN, PLLC http://www.dzwlaw.com;

 

Derryberry Zips Wade Lawhorn, PLLC Announces A $400,000 Settlement of A Commercial Truck Wreck Case as Reported by Verdict Search

Our client, age 52, and employed as an inventory specialist, was turning into her employer’s parking lot from a two-lane road in Tyler, Texas. Austin Gray, in a Ford F-350 pickup, attempted to pass her on the right, and the vehicles collided. Our client was in a mid-size sedan. Gray was in the course and scope of his employment with LCR-M, L.P. He received a ticket for passing unsafely on the right and did not contest the ticket.

Our client sued Gray for passing unsafely on the right and causing the wreck. She also sued LCR-M under respondeat superior. Our client testified that Gray actually entered the parking lot to pass her on the right and that the impact occurred in the parking lot.  Gray and LCR-M contended that our client was stopped in the middle of the road without her turn signal on and that the wreck occurred on the road.

Our client went to the ER later the night of the wreck and again the next morning.  She sustained an internal disc disruption at L4-5. She tried physical therapy, but testified it did not provide her any relief from the constant pain. She underwent pain management with injections and then, on 4/16/13, an anterior lumbar fusion and posterolateral lumbar fusion at L3-4 and L4-5  was performed on her.

Our client’s paid medical bills were about $90,000. She also claimed past and future loss of household services, past and future loss of earning capacity, past and future disfigurement, past and future physical impairment, and past and future physical pain and mental anguish.

Our client had been working full time and making $13 an hour. The Social Security Administration declared plaintiff completely disabled as a result of the injuries she sustained in the wreck.

The Defendants contended that the impact was minor and that our client’s back injury could not have been caused by the wreck because the vehicle photos showed little damage to either vehicle.

The Defendants also contended that our client’s lower back problems were related to injuries she sustained in a rollover wreck around 1989. In that wreck, our client sustained compression fractures at L3 and L4, and the Defendants argued that this prior injury necessitated her surgery, not this wreck.

The Defendants further argued that our client’s earnings history was insufficient to support her claim for future lost earning capacity. And,¬†the Defendants disputed our client’s need for any future surgery or other future medical treatment.

Finally, the Defendants note that our client’s workers’ compensation carrier determined that our client’s lower back injury was a preexisting injury related to the 1989 rollover and not related to this wreck. ¬†Despite this contention, ¬†our firm was able to negotiate a $400,000 settlement of this case for our client at mediation as reported by Verdict Search.

 

Vaginal Mesh Manufacturers May Resolve All Claims– Great News for Women Who Had These Products Implanted

From Bloomberg News:

C.R. Bard Inc. and four other makers of vaginal-mesh implants accused of injuring women are in talks to settle thousands of lawsuits, people familiar with the discussions said.

Lawyers for Bard, Endo Health Solutions Inc. (ENDP), Boston Scientific Corp. (BSX) and two other companies making vaginal inserts to support women’s pelvic muscles and treat incontinence have begun talks about settling all suits over their products, the people familiar with the matter said. Johnson & Johnson, which also faces suits over the inserts, isn’t involved in the talks, said the people, who asked not to be identified because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly.

Boston Scientific said in an August regulatory filing it faces more than 12,000 suits over its vaginal devices. Photographer: JB Reed/Bloomberg News

Patients’ lawyers want U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in Charleston, West Virginia, who is overseeing federal suits targeting the implants, to appoint a settlement committee, the people said. The group would include plaintiffs’ lawyers Henry Garrard, lead counsel on the Bard cases, and Joe Rice, a lawyer who helped negotiate a $246 billion tobacco-litigation accord on behalf of state attorneys general, the people said.

“I know you all are considering settlement protocols and the possibility of resolutions,” Goodwin said at a Sept. 18 court hearing. He noted the talks were going on “behind the scenes.”

The discussions are aimed at resolving more than 30,000 implant suits already filed that have been consolidated before Goodwin for pre-trial information exchanges, the people said. The talks also include insert makers Coloplast A/S (COLOB) and Cook Medical Inc., they said.

50,000 Claims

The total number of suits could swell to more than 50,000 as more claimants seek to join the potential settlement, the people said.

“The liability seems pretty clear on these cases, so settlement makes sense,” Carl Tobias, who teaches product-liability law at the University of Richmond in Virginia, said in an interview. “Given how serious the injuries are and the number of cases, when you do the math, you can easily come up with a multibillion-dollar settlement.”

Scott Lowry, a spokesman for Murray Hill, New Jersey-based Bard, didn’t return a call and an e-mail seeking comment on the settlement talks. Ulla Lunhus, a Coloplast spokeswoman, said she couldn’t comment on the talks.

Following Process

“We are following a process that is in accordance with U.S. law,” she said in a phone interview. “As long as that process is ongoing, we are not able to make any comment about it.”

Marsha Lovejoy, a spokeswoman for Bloomington, Indiana-based Cook; Peter Lucht, a spokesman for Natick, Massachusetts-based Boston Scientific; and Blaine Davis, a spokesman for Malvern, Pennsylvania-based Endo declined to comment on the talks.

Bard’s implants have been targeted in more than 12,000 cases while Boston Scientific said in an August regulatory filing it faces more than 12,000 suits over its vaginal devices.

Endo’s American Medical Systems Inc. unit faces about 13,500 vaginal-mesh claims between state and federal suits, Davis said in an interview. Coloplast and Cook face about 1,000 claims combined, the people added.

J&J faced 12,250 pelvic mesh claims through June 30, according to a regulatory filing. Sheri Woodruff, a spokeswoman for the Ethicon unit of New Brunswick, New Jersey-based J&J, said it would be “inappropriate” to discuss litigation involving other manufacturers.

‘Possibly Unfounded’

“Ethicon is now focusing on trying to efficiently manage thousands of unverified and possibly unfounded complaints,” Woodruff said in an e-mail. The company will “request dismissal of meritless claims, including claims with no compensable injury, claims barred by the statute of limitations, misfiled claims, and improperly filed claims.”

Some manufacturers, such as Bard and Endo, already have settled some suits over the devices. Earlier this year, Endo officials paid $54.5 million to settle an unspecified number of cases alleging the company’s vaginal-mesh inserts were defective.

Coloplast, based in Humlebaek, Denmark, is the furthest along with talks to settle all of the more than 600 cases it faces over its vaginal implants, the people said. The company is aiming to resolve all litigation over the devices by the end of the year, they added.

Trial Losses

Bard officials also have settled some vaginal-mesh cases after losing two trials over the devices. A California state court jury last year found Bard liable for a woman’s injuries related to an Avaulta implant in the first case to go trial in a U.S. court. Jurors said the company should pay $5.5 million in damages. Bard is liable for $3.6 million under that state’s law.

Goodwin presided at the first federal trial of claims over Bard’s Avaulta Plus vaginal mesh in August. A jury ordered the company to pay a total of $2 million in damages to a Georgia woman who said the device damaged her organs.

Bard officials pulled the Avaulta implants off the market last year after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ordered all makers of the devices to study rates of organ damage, infection and pain during sex linked to their products.

Bard faces more than 8,000 federal claims over Avaulta, which women allege can cause organ damage and make sexual intercourse painful when the devices erode.

J&J, which opted out of settlement talks, has battled court claims against its withdrawn line of vaginal implants. A New Jersey jury ruled in February the company must pay $11.1 million in damages to a woman who blamed J&J’s Gynecare Prolift for her injuries. It was the first case over the devices to go to trial.

J&J Sales

Officials of J&J’s Ethicon unit told Goodwin last year they would stop selling some vaginal implants after suits over the devices. The company’s executives have declined to participate in settlement talks, the people said.

“I expect Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) to discuss settlement when they think the time is right,” Adam Slater, a New Jersey lawyer who won the February verdict against the company over vaginal devices, said in an interview. Slater said he is preparing for his next trial in March 2014.

Goodwin said in the September hearing that he’s struggling to find ways to move the “mountain” of vaginal-mesh cases through the federal courts and is considering combining multiple plaintiffs’ claims for trial.

“I’m going to keep the bulldozer moving to deal with these cases,” he said.

Settlement Architect

Lawyers for women suing over the inserts have recommended that Goodwin tap plaintiff lawyers Garrard, Rice, Bryan Aylstock of Florida and Clayton Clark, a Texas-based litigator, for a settlement committee empowered to conduct talks with all mesh manufacturers, the people said.

Rice, one of the architects of the 1998 tobacco settlement, is known for his ability to put together accords in high-profile cases. Last year, the 59-year-old lawyer helped negotiate a now $9.6 billion settlement of suits against BP Plc (BP/) over the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. He declined to comment on his role in the vaginal-mesh talks.

The vaginal-mesh litigation poses a challenge for Rice and other settlement negotiators because they are faced with cases over more than 50 different implants manufactured by six different companies, the people said. Some of those products have been pulled from the market while others are still being implanted, they added.

Rice is focusing his attention first on cases involving American Medical Systems’ inserts, the people said. Ellen Reisman, a Los Angeles-based lawyer representing the device maker, was one of BP’s lawyers in Gulf oil spill settlement announced last year, they noted. Reisman was at the Sept. 18 hearing in West Virginia.

The Bard consolidated cases are In re C.R. Bard Inc. (BCR) Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, 10-md-02187, U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia (Charleston). The J&J consolidated cases are: In re Ethicon Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, 12-md-2327 U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia (Charleston).

To contact the reporters on this story: Jef Feeley in Wilmington, Delaware atjfeeley@bloomberg.net; David Voreacos in Newark at dvoreacos@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net

 

Protecting Your Criminal History In A World of Misinformation

By Tab E. Lawhorn

Last year, I authored an article on how criminal background checks are used and what you can do to make sure yours is as clean as possible. One of the aspects of that article mentioned how third party data collection companies are profiting from selling background checks on individuals to employers, apartment managers, dating sites, and even schools.

Recently, I challenged an old arrest for a client of mine that was unique for one reason: even after getting a signed order from a judge removing the arrest, the old arrest still continued to appear on her criminal history. Not to be defeated, I challenged the Texas Department of Public Safety to properly remove the arrest according to the judge’s order. To my surprise, the TDPS explained that the arrest, in fact, was properly removed from the records of TDPS.

So why was the employer background check still showing an old arrest on my client’s criminal history? The results of my investigation were quite shocking.

The Texas Department of Public Safety, along with many other states, actually sell your information to third party data collection companies. These companies pay a hefty premium to offer “name” based background searches to anyone willing to pay their fee. No new news here. The problem is that if the database that was purchased is an old one, that is, if it doesn’t reflect any new changes to your criminal history, the third party company only has the rights to publish the old criminal history (unless they pay TDPS another fee for an updated database).

TDPS does send orders that expunge or make old arrests/convictions non-disclosable to these third party companies, but it usually takes months or even years for the companies to update their records on their own.

Even more alarming is that if these companies have sold their databases to other companies, there is no guarantee that they have forwarded any orders from the court or DPS to those purchasing companies.

The best way to ensure that an old arrest or conviction is removed from these subsequent third party data collection agencies is to send them each a certified copy of the court’s order directly, either from the clerk’s office or from your attorney’s office. Although it is time consuming and a little more costly, it is the most effective way to clean up your criminal history.

Tab Lawhorn¬†is a criminal lawyer and partner at¬†Derryberry Zips Wade Lawhorn, PLLC.¬† He lives in Tyler, Texas with his wife Zoe, his two loving dogs, Noodle and Fathead, and Mancat, his not-so-loving cat.¬† For a decade, he has fought for the rights of those individuals who¬†have needed to clear up their past from¬†criminal arrests and convictions.¬† He has carried his briefcase into courts from Los Angeles, California to Ben Wheeler, Texas (Population-400)–ensuring that people have clean records so they can live their lives accordingly.¬† He has founded¬†YOURENOTGUILTY.COM¬†and has been an active donor and community volunteer in East Texas ever since.

Bard Settles Second Bellweather Vaginal Mesh Case

Bard settles second bellwether mesh case after plaintiff verdict in first trial

Female-Patient-Doctor

By Courtney L. Davenport

Following a plaintiff verdict in the first transvaginal mesh bellwether trial in a federal MDL against C.R. Bard, Inc., the device maker settled the second bellwether case shortly after jury selection. About 4,400 suits are pending in that MDL, and about 25,400 federal suits are pending in MDLs against other mesh manufacturers. (In re C.R. Bard, Inc., Pelvic Repair Sys. Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 2187 (S.D. W. Va. Aug. 23, 2013).)

Last month, a jury awarded Donna Cisson and her husband $2 million, including $1.75 million in punitive damages, against Bard after transvaginal mesh implanted to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) eroded, causing bleeding, pain during intercourse, and bladder spasms and requiring additional surgeries. The Cissons alleged Bard defectively designed the mesh and failed to warn doctors when it learned of the risks.

Less than two weeks later, Bard settled with Wanda Queen and her husband for an undisclosed amount. Queen’s specific injuries were not disclosed in the complaint, but attorneys said that despite six corrective surgeries, her injuries are permanent.

Harry Bell of Charleston, W. Va., coliaison counsel in the MDLs, said the Cisson verdict may have prompted Bard to settle with the Queens because Queen’s case was even more egregious. But he does not know what impact the positive resolutions will have on the two remaining bellwether suits or the other MDL plaintiffs.

“From the perspective of the manufacturer, how’s it going to look to the public to have two adverse verdicts back to back and with the verdict amounts increasing? They made the decision they couldn’t take that risk,” he said. “Whether Bard makes the decision to settle [the others], one never knows. Bard has to be considering settlement considering the cases it is losing.”

Transvaginal mesh is surgically implanted in the vagina or abdomen to treat POP—in which the bladder, bowel, or other pelvic organs protrude into the vagina—and stress urinary incontinence. But shortly after it became popular in the late 2000s—in 2010 alone, mesh was implanted in 300,000 women—the FDA started receiving reports of serious injury when the mesh eroded, scraping tissue and protruding into the vagina or other organs, causing chronic pain, incontinence, infection, pain during intercourse, and other problems. Sufferers often require multiple surgeries to remove all of it. In 2011, the FDA warned that serious complications are “not rare” and advised that transvaginal mesh should not be used to treat POP, because it had not proved to be more effective than safer alternatives.

Thousands of mesh recipients and their families sued Bard; Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Ethicon, Inc.; American Medical Systems, Inc.; Boston Scientific Corp.; Coloplast Corp.; and Cook Medical, Inc. The suits allege the manufacturers did not test the defectively designed mesh before putting it on the market, nor did they properly train physicians. Federal MDLs were established against each defendant. State lawsuits are also pending against many of them, and at least two plaintiffs have obtained jury verdicts.

In July 2012, a California state court jury awarded Christine Scott—who suffers fecal incontinence and chronic pain and cannot have sexual relations after mesh eroded into her colon and vagina—and her husband $3.61 million against Bard. (Scott v. C.R. Bard, Inc., No. S-1500-CV-266034 (Cal., Kern Co. Super. July 24, 2012).) Earlier this year, a New Jersey court jury awarded Linda Gross and her husband $11.11 million against Ethicon. Gross underwent 18 surgeries to remove eroded mesh and permanently suffers such severe pain in her legs and pelvis that she cannot sit comfortably, be active for more than a few minutes, or have sexual intercourse. (Gross v. Ethicon, Inc., No. Atla-L-6966-10 (N.J., Atlantic Co. Super. Feb. 25, 2013).)

Bard asked that the court stay the other bellwether trials or certify an interlocutory appeal of an order in Cisson that excluded evidence of the FDA 510(k) device-approval process and the FDA’s decision not to recall Bard’s mesh devices. The judge has denied the request, holding that “I remain unconvinced that Bard is likely to succeed on the merits of any appeal related to the 510(k) issue” and that Bard will not be irreparably injured by waiting for the outcome of the remaining bellwether trials, the first of which is set to begin Oct. 8.

Derryberry Zips Wade Lawhorn, PLLC Announces the Settlement of Two Drunk Driving Cases

We obtained a settlement for a man and his 14 year old son who were hit by a drunk driver. The drunk driver’s insurance company paid the maximum policy limits that were available to settle the case. The drunk driver attempted to flee the scene of the wreck but our client, and a good Samaritan who witnessed the wreck, followed the drunk driver until the police could pull him over and arrest him. The drunk driver pled guilty to DWI, his second DWI.

We obtained another settlement for a man who was hit by a drunk driver. Our client’s vehicle was hit head on by the drunk driver and our client’s vehicle rolled over several times. The drunk driver’s insurance company paid the maximum policy limits that were available to settle the case. The drunk driver pled guilty to DWI.

Derryberry Zips Wade Lawhorn, PLLC continues to work each day to protect members of the community by holding responsible and accountable those individuals and corporations that violate safety rules that are designed to protect all members of a community.

Derryberry Zips Wade Lawhorn, PLLC Announces the Settlement of a Wrongful Death Case in May, 2013

Type of Case: Wrongful Death- Hospital Medical Negligence-Malpractice

A 28 year old young lady died as a result of the negligence of a hospital and its employees, including the nurses and hospital administrators. We were able to obtain a substantial confidential settlement for the young lady’s 4 year old son and her parents. The young lady suffocated to death because the nurses and hospital administrators ignored the doctor’s orders that a sitter be at her bedside at all times. Instead, she was left alone, rolled onto her stomach and was unable to turn back over onto her back. A hospital employee found the young lady lying face down and non-responsive. Autopsy results confirmed that she suffocated to death, an event which would not have occurred if the doctor’s orders had been followed by the nurses and hospital administrators.

We will continue to serve our clients and pursue those individuals and businesses that needlessly endanger all members of the community by violating basic safety rules that are designed to prevent harm to all members of the community.

Fosamax Fracture Trial Begins

Merck Knew of Fosamax Bone Risk in ’90, Lawyer Tells Jury
By Erik Larson – Apr 9, 2013 1:18 PM CT

Merck & Co. (MRK) was aware its Fosamax osteoporosis treatment might cause brittle bones and increase fracture risks years before the drug was made available to the public, a lawyer told a jury at the start of a lawsuit trial.

Starting in 1990, five years before Fosamax won approval by U.S. regulators, consultants began warning Merck that the drug could lead to spontaneous fractures in some users by preventing bones’ natural daily repair of so-called micro-fractures, Paul Pennock, the lawyer for plaintiff Bernadette Glynn, said today in federal court in Trenton, New Jersey.

‚ÄúThis company should have warned of the problems that they saw coming,‚Äù Pennock said in his opening statements to the jury, while holding a life-size replica of a thigh bone. ‚ÄúThe company should have warned of the problems they learned actually were happening — that‚Äôs an obligation of the company.‚Äù

Merck, based in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, faces about 3,300 femur-fracture suits. Glynn, 58, may the first such claimant to get a jury verdict, after an earlier lawsuit ended in mistrial last month. The case may be a bellwether revealing litigation strategy and potential damages awards.

The trial before the jury of three men and five women chosen yesterday is scheduled to last three weeks and will hear from medical experts on both sides of the dispute.

‘Theoretical’ Warnings
The second-biggest U.S. drugmaker denies the claims. Its lawyer, Chilton Varner, said the consultants’ early warnings were “theoretical” and that early studies showed people who took Fosamax instead of a placebo had fewer fractures.

Glynn, an elementary school worker from Cohoes, New York, who regularly takes long bike rides and yoga classes, claims Fosamax weakened her femur over a seven-year period, causing the leg bone to snap in April 2009, when she bent over in her garage to pick up a frog-shaped lawn ornament while gardening.

Glynn’s leg was repaired with surgery and the use of rods, according to her complaint. She and her husband, who sued in September 2011, appeared in court today with their children. She has never had osteoporosis and was prescribed the drug due to low bone-mass density, her lawyer said.

Merck claims Glynn‚Äôs fracture was the result of her bone condition, and that tests showed Fosamax had helped. Merck also claims Glynn broke her leg after tripping over a chain saw in her garage and falling down — a description Merck says she gave to emergency workers on the day of the accident.

‘Spontaneous Fractures’
‚ÄúYou might think from what you‚Äôve heard this morning that Fosamax causes these spontaneous fractures,‚Äù Varner said in her opening statements. ‚ÄúSuch fractures occur in people who have never taken Fosamax as well as people who have — such fractures have occurred long before Fosamax.‚Äù

Merck also denies claims that doctors and patients weren‚Äôt properly warned when the company learned of reports that Fosamax could cause so-called atypical femur fractures in some people — a warning that went on the drug‚Äôs label in 2009.

Merck also says that regardless of what was on the label and when, Glynn’s fracture wasn’t atypical, because the break was spiral in nature instead of straight across, the bone broke into more than two pieces, and the wound healed quickly. Varner also said that Fosamax doesn’t accumulate in the part of the bone that fractured in Glynn’s case.

Strongest Bones
Pennock said femurs, as the strongest bones in the body, usually only break in high-force incidents, such as car accidents, and not from falling down. Because Fosamax is designed to repair daily bone damage by stopping the natural clearing of old bone, the process results in micro-fractures building up instead of being naturally replaced, he said.

‚ÄúThe evidence is going to show you that it wasn‚Äôt a surprise — it wasn‚Äôt coming out of the blue,‚Äù he said of Merck‚Äôs discovery of Fosamax‚Äôs possible fracture risks. ‚ÄúThey looked for it and studied it — when all the information starting coming in, they did nothing about it.‚Äù

The company faces another 1,230 cases alleging Fosamax caused similar fractures in jaws.

The case is Glynn v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., 3:11- cv-05304, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey (Trenton)

To contact the reporter on this story: Erik Larson in federal court in Trenton, New Jersey, at elarson4@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net

Jury finds for Plaintiff in J&J vaginal mesh trial

J&J Failed to Warn of Vaginal Mesh Risks, N.J. Jury Rules

By David Voreacos – Feb 25, 2013 10:28 AM CT.

Johnson & Johnson (JNJ)’s Ethicon unit failed to properly warn of the risks of a vaginal mesh implant and made fraudulent misrepresentations to a South Dakota nurse who sued, a New Jersey jury ruled.
Jurors ordered J&J to pay $3.35 million to Linda Gross, the nurse, and her husband. Linda Gross, 47, had 18 operations after the device was implanted.
The jury ruled that J&J, the world’s biggest seller of health-care products, didn’t defectively design the mesh and didn’t make fraudulent misrepresentations to Gross’s doctor.
The verdict in state court in Atlantic City came in the first of more than 2,100 lawsuits to go to trial over claims that Ethicon’s Gynecare Prolift injured women.
Gross claimed that J&J failed to warn her and her doctor of the risks and made fraudulent misrepresentations to her. Her lawyers said company documents and e-mails showed Ethicon knew the mesh would cause pain and harm women. She blamed the mesh for constant pain that makes it hard to sit and for subsequent operations to remove mesh that hardened.
“We’ve established during this trial that this is something that never should have been sold,” Gross attorney Adam Slater told jurors in his summation on Feb. 15. “You had the words of the people at the company saying it shouldn’t have been sold. You saw them talking about that before it ever went on the market, that it was unreasonably dangerous.”
J&J claims the Prolift is safe and effective and it warned of the risks.
“Our position is that the Prolift is a safe and effective product, that Ethicon adequately warned doctors of the risks, that doctors knew of the risks,” J&J attorney Christy Jones said in her closing arguments.
Gross sought $3.38 million for lost earnings and past and future medical expenses. She also sought unspecified damages for pain and suffering.
The case is Gross v. Gynecare Inc., Atl-L-6966-10, Superior Court of Atlantic County, New Jersey (Atlantic City).
To contact the reporter on this story: David Voreacos in Atlantic City, New Jersey, at dvoreacos@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net

JUVENILE LAW

The Basics Every Parent Should Know.

(Some text forwarded from a State sponsored website.)

Juvenile cases may include charges that a child is delinquent, dependent, or in need of supervision. A delinquent child is a one who has committed an offense which, if that child were an adult, would be considered a crime. A dependent child is a one who is orphaned, neglected, or abused and in need of care. A Child in need of supervision (CHINS) is one who committed an act which, if the child was an adult, would not be classified as a crime, but is in need of care or rehabilitation. A child in need of supervision may be habitually truant, disobedient to his parents, or a runaway. A serious juvenile offender is a child adjudicated to be delinquent and the delinquent acts charged in the petition would be similar to an adult committing a Class A felony, a felony resulting in serious physical injury, or a felony involving physical force, a deadly weapon, or a dangerous instrument. A child adjudicated to be a serious juvenile offender must be committed to the Department of Youth Services for a minimum of one year. A multiple needs child is one coming to the court’s attention who is at risk of being placed in a more restrictive environment because of emotional or mental problems, dependency, delinquency, or alcohol or drug dependency and whose needs require the services of two or more state agencies. These children are referred by the court to the county children’s services facilitation team for evaluation and recommended service plan. The court may accept or modify the service plan if the court determines it is in the best interest of the child to do so and order the provision of the services.

How do Juvenile Cases Get Filed?

An individual, including a law enforcement officer, a parent, a relative, or a neighbor, who has knowledge that a juvenile has committed a delinquent act, is in need of supervision, or independent, may file a complaint with the juvenile court. A juvenile intake officer will review the complaint to ensure that it is sufficient and that the court has venue and jurisdiction and will decide whether a normal petition will be filed with the court. The intake officer will notify the parents of the child’s detention and advise the child and parents of their rights, including the right to have an attorney present at all proceedings.

One of the most important decisions made by the intake officer is whether or not a child should be released to the custody of the parents or placed in a licensed juvenile detention facility or, in the case of dependency and CHINS cases, placed in the care of the Department of Human Resources under what is termed “shelter care.” Any time a child is detained, a hearing must be held within 72 hours in order that the juvenile judge can determine whether the child should remain in detention or in shelter care or be released into the custody of the parents.

Juveniles committing certain minor and first-time offenses may be handled without judicial action. The intake officer may withhold the filing of a formal delinquency or CHINS petition, and may attempt, with the consent of the child and the parents, to make a satisfactory informal adjustment. Under an informal adjustment, the child and the parents voluntarily agree to abide by conditions established by the intake officer. Such conditions may include counseling, curfew, required attendance at school, or other reasonable conditions. The informal adjustment process cannot continue beyond a period of six months. If the juvenile and the parents abide by the terms of the informal adjustment agreement, no petition will be filed and the charges against the child will be dismissed. If the juvenile or the parents violate the agreement of the informal adjustment, the intake officer may proceed with the filing of a formal petition.

Once the petition is filed, the juvenile case will be set for trial, which, in the juvenile court, is called an adjudication hearing. At any time after the filing of a petition in a delinquency or a need of supervision case and before the holding of the adjudication hearing, the juvenile case may be handled by a consent decree. The consent decree is an agreement between the youth, the parents or guardians, and the judge. Under a consent decree, the proceedings of the court are suspended and the juvenile is placed on probation in accordance with terms and conditions agreed upon by all parties. If the juvenile complies with all conditions of the consent decree, the petition will be discharged. If the juvenile fails to abide by the terms and conditions of the decree, the petition will be reinstated and the case will proceed to adjudication.

The Adjudication Hearing

All juvenile proceedings are confidential, and juvenile trials or adjudication hearings are heard by a judge without a jury. The hearing is closed to the public. Present at the hearing will be the juvenile, the defense attorney, parents or guardians, the district attorney who will represent the state, the victim(s) of the crime, the juvenile probation of officer, and, in dependency cases, a representative of the Department of Human Resources.¬† At the adjudication hearing, the judge will explain to the parties their rights, the substance of the petition and the specific allegations, the nature of the adjudication hearing, and the alternatives that are available to the court should the allegations be admitted or proven. The court will then inquire of the juvenile whether he or she admits or denies all or some of the allegations contained in the petition. An admission of the allegations is similar to a plea of “guilty” in adult court; a denial of the allegations is similar to a plea of “not guilty.” If a juvenile fails or refuses to admit any of the allegations, the judge will enter a denial.

If the juvenile denies the allegations of the petition, the hearing will continue and the testimony of witnesses will be taken. The procedures for conducting the adjudication hearing are similar to those of a civil bench trial, that is, a trial by a judge without a jury.

At the close of the hearing, the court shall find that either (1) the facts alleged in the petition are true and the child is dependent, in need of supervision, or delinquent and in need of care or rehabilitation or (2) the facts alleged in the petition are not true and the child is not in need of care or rehabilitation, in which event, the petition must be dismissed.

The Disposition Hearing

Following the adjudication hearing, the court will hold a disposition hearing which may be conducted immediately or held at a later date. In delinquency and CHINS cases, the court can transfer legal custody, require public service, place the youth on probation, and/or require restitution. In delinquency cases, the youth may be committed to the Department of Youth Services. The period of time a youth is required to stay with the Department of Youth Services is determined by the department and not by the judge.

Where a child has been found dependent, the court will address the issue of the custody of the child and whether or not the child’s custody should be placed with the parents or with other guardians, or whether the child should be made a ward of the state. In those cases where the custody of the child is removed from the parents, hearings will be held periodically to review the custody issue. This process of judicial review will continue until the child is returned to the custody of the parents, until parental rights are terminated and permanent placement is made, or until the child reaches 21 years of age.

The juvenile court may at any point in the proceedings, make parents or guardians parties in juvenile cases and require the parent or guardian to perform reasonable acts necessary to promote the best interests of the child, such as attending counseling sessions or submitting to random drug screens.

Transfer to Criminal Courts

When a child 14 years of age or older commits an act which would constitute a crime if it were committed by an adult, the district attorney may petition the juvenile court to transfer the youth to the adult court for criminal prosecution.

When a petition for transfer is filed, the juvenile court conducts a hearing to determine whether it is in the best interest of the youth or the public to grant a motion to transfer. If, after hearing all the evidence, the court finds that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the allegations against the youth are true and correct, and further finds that the youth is not amenable to the services provided through the juvenile court, the court may grant the motion to transfer the case.

A conviction or youthful offender adjudication of a child transferred and tried as an adult terminates the jurisdiction of the juvenile court over pending and future offenses. This is referred to as “once transferred, and convicted, always transferred.”

Appeals

Any aggrieved party, including the state or any subdivision of the state (except in criminal cases, delinquency cases, and CHINS cases), may appeal a decision of the juvenile court. An appeal from the juvenile court is taken to one of the two intermediate appellate courts if there is an adequate record or if the parties stipulate that only questions of law are involved. In cases involving minors or adults, the right to a trial by jury must be waived before an appeal can be made directly to the intermediate appellate courts. If these qualifications are not met, the appeal must be taken to the circuit court where the case will be heard de novo.

Appeals are filed in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in those cases where a child is adjudicated delinquent or where a motion seeking to transfer a child to the criminal court has been granted. All other cases involving children, including CHINS and dependency cases, are appealed to the Texas Court of Civil Appeals.

 Jurisdiction and Exceptions

Juveniles 16 years of age or older who are charged with a capital offense, a Class A felony, a felony which has as an element the use of a deadly weapon or causing the death or serious physical injury of another or a felony using a dangerous instrument against certain officials, or trafficking in drugs are expressly excluded from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. These juveniles must be tried as adults and, if convicted, may not be tried as juveniles for any subsequent offenses.

Venue in Juvenile Cases

In delinquency and in need of supervision cases, the proceedings are held in the county where the acts constituting the alleged offense occurred. In dependency cases, however, the proceedings are held in the county where the child resides or in the county where the child was present when the proceedings began.

Cases involving Minors and Adults in the Juvenile Court

The Juvenile court primarily exercises jurisdiction over children. However, in some instances, minors and adults may come under the jurisdiction of the court. For purposes of determining the juvenile courts jurisdiction an adult is defined as an individual 19 years of age or older. A minor is an individual who is under the age of 19 who is not a “child,” i.e., an 18 year old. Cases involving minors and adults include charges that a minor or adult contributed to the delinquency, dependency, or need of supervision of a child; proceedings to establish paternity of a child; charges of desertion and non-support; and proceedings for the commitment of a mentally ill or retarded minor. The court, after making a preliminary investigation, may try to resolve the issues through informal adjustment, without prosecution. If the issue cannot be resolved informally, the case would be tried in the same manner as any similar case in an adult court, but without a jury.

Tab Lawhorn is a criminal lawyer and partner at Derryberry Zips Wade Lawhorn, PLLC.  He lives in Tyler, Texas with his wife Zoe, his two loving dogs, Noodle and Fathead, and Mancat, his not-so-loving cat.  For a decade, he has fought for the rights of those juveniles who have been wrongfully accused of criminal activity.  He has founded YOURENOTGUILTY.COM and has been an active donor and community volunteer in East Texas ever since.

FEDERAL DRUG CHARGES, CONSPIRACY, AND GUN CHARGES

Dealing with the Federal Government.

By Tab Lawhorn, Member of Derryberry Zips Wade Lawhorn, PLLC

A rule of thumb with federal drug crimes is that if you have been contacted by the FBI then you have been the target of an investigation for at least a year. Drug crimes can be violations of both state and federal law.  When the US government is prosecuting a drug case, they will not only use the DEA and FBI to investigate the crime, they can also work with state and local law enforcement agencies to gather evidence of a drug conspiracy.  It would not be unusual for the ATF or DPS to aid an ongoing federal investigation.  For instance, a simple traffic stop by a state trooper could result in a drug seizure that could be included in a federal investigation.

I am often asked why double jeopardy doesn’t prohibit the federal government for prosecuting the same conduct that would be punishable under state law.  It’s a good question.  However, because the federal government is a separate and distinct jurisdiction from the state, then defendants can be prosecuted (and punished) under both state and federal law for drug crimes without violating double jeopardy.

Conspiracy is one of the most powerful tools that the US attorney has to prosecute crimes. If you are charged with a drug conspiracy in federal court, this means that you are not only responsible for the drugs you allegedly possessed, but you are also responsible for the drugs that other co-conspirators possessed(even if it is someone you never met).  The result can make a defendants guideline range for punishment astronomical. Conspiracy counts usually show up as Count 1 in a federal indictment with multiple co-defendants.  It is number one for a reason.

Gun crimes in federal court can complicate even the simplest of drug cases.„ÄÄMany times a drug crime also involves a weapon.„ÄÄDepending on the use of the gun and the status of the defendant, federal law imposes strict prison time minimums that can even be imposed consecutively (stacked) to any time received on the drug charges.

All is not lost if you are facing one or any combination of these charges. Although the federal system can seem more complicated, it’s not. In fact, the thoroughness of a federal drug investigation sometimes presents more opportunities to defend someone from the charges.  The Federal Sentencing Guidelines leave little to the imagination of the court or prosecutors such that there are uniform punishment ranges regardless of the court, defendant, or venue.  The key to surviving these guidelines is using a lawyer that is highly proficient in using the evidence and the guidelines to your maximum advantage.

Tab Lawhorn is a criminal lawyer and partner at Derryberry Zips Wade Lawhorn, PLLC.  He lives in Tyler, Texas with his wife Zoe, his two loving dogs, Noodle and Fathead, and Mancat, his not-so-loving cat.  For a decade, he has fought for the rights of those individuals who have been wrongfully accused of federal drug crimes, conspiracy, and federal gun charges. He has founded YOURENOTGUILTY.COM and has been an active donor and community volunteer in East Texas ever since.

First Transvaginal Mesh trial against Johnson & Johnson set to begin week of January 7, 2013

http://www.dzwlaw.com/mesh/

Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) is set to face its first trial over its vaginal mesh implant in a case brought by a South Dakota woman who blames the product for constant pain and 18 subsequent operations.

The lawsuit by Linda Gross, 47, is the first of 1,800 in state court in New Jersey to go to trial today over whether J&J’s Ethicon unit adequately warned of the risks of the device. Several manufacturers, who make the devices to shore up pelvic muscles, face lawsuits by women who blame them for organ perforation, pain, scarring and nerve damage.

“She can no longer sit comfortably for more than a few minutes without having to either stand up or lay down to try to reduce the level of pain,” Gross’s attorneys said in court papers filed in Atlantic City. “She requires various daily medications to treat her severe chronic pain.”

J&J, based in New Brunswick, New Jersey, denies Gross’s claims for failure to warn of the risks, defective design and negligence.

In August, the company stopped selling four mesh devices in the U.S., including the Gynecare Prolift that Gross had implanted on July 13, 2006. The former nurse claims her pain ruined her quality of life and keeps her from working.

J&J, the world’s biggest seller of health-care products, denies Gross’s allegations, according to an Ethicon spokesman,Matthew Johnson.

“The evidence will show that Ethicon acted appropriately and responsibly in the research, development and marketing of pelvic mesh products to treat debilitating conditions affecting many women,” Johnson said in an e-mail.

Jury Selection

Jury selection began today when more than 100 potential jurors began filling out questionnaires. Lawyers will select a jury panel Jan. 9, with opening statements expected the next day. The trial is scheduled to last more than a month.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration told J&J, C.R. Bard Inc. and 31 other manufacturers last January to study rates of organ damage and complications linked to implants. Doctors implanted more than 70,000 mesh devices in U.S. women in 2010, threading them through incisions in the vagina to fortify pelvic muscles that failed to support internal organs.

J&J said in June that it would end sales worldwide based on their commercial viability, not their safety and effectiveness.

Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee has wrestled in recent days with what lawyers for Gross and J&J can tell jurors about how the company introduced the Prolift device in March 2005.

No Application

J&J began selling the Prolift without filing a newapplication under the agency’s so-called 510(k) application process, which requires companies to show that a device is“substantially similar” to others on the market.

The company determined on its own that it was substantially similar to the Gynecare Gynemesh, one of the company’s devices already approved by the FDA, J&J said last year in an e-mail.

The FDA disagreed with J&J’s interpretation and required a new application in August 2007, saying Prolift sales began“without appropriate” clearance, an agency spokeswoman, Morgan Liscinsky, said last year in an e-mail.

J&J has said it began sales after citing an agency guidance document, “Deciding When to Submit a 510(k) for a Change to an Existing Device,” according to Liscinsky and Johnson.

The company faced no sanctions because the FDA determined that it applied the guidance in good faith and promptly complied when the agency required a new application, Liscinsky said. The FDA cleared the device in May 2008 after nine months of negotiations with J&J.

Addressing Jury

Higbee heard arguments Jan. 4 about what jurors could hear about the device’s regulatory history.

“We’re entitled to say they were required to get 510(k) clearance, and they didn’t get it,” Gross’s attorney, David Mazie, told Higbee.

“We continually hear that we marketed the device without clearance,” William M. Gage, J&J’s lawyer, told the judge. That’s not true. We marketed it under the guidance.”

“If they’re going to go in and say we didn’t get clearance, we’ve got to be able to say we did get clearance,”Gage said.

Higbee barred Adam Slater, the lawyer who will give an opening statement for Gross, from using words like “fraud,” “illegal” and “similarly inflammatory language” in addressing the jury.

‘Mental Illness’

On Jan. 3, Mazie argued that J&J should not be allowed to let a psychiatrist testify that Gross suffers from a “serious mental illness” that contributes to the excruciating pain she’s suffered. The doctor would testify that Gross refused to go a pain management center and wants to “hold on to her pain” so she can continue to claim disability, Mazie said.

At the hearing on Jan. 4, Higbee said jurors can hear about Gross’s various medical problems.

“I don’t foresee that defense counsel is going to stand up there and say this woman is responsible for her injuries,”Higbee said. “I have very little doubt that that would be a mistake.”

Possible witnesses for Gross include Alex Gorsky, who became J&J’s chief executive officer last April and was elected chairman Nov. 30.

Gorsky joined J&J’s Janssen unit in 1988 as a sales representative, according to a company biography. He left the company in 2004 to join Basel, Switzerland-based Novartis AG (NOVN), where he headed North American pharmaceuticals.

Four years later, he returned to J&J. He was named global chairman of the devices and diagnostics groups in 2009.

The case is Gross v. Gynecare Inc. Atl-L-6966-10, Superior Court of Atlantic County, New Jersey (Atlantic City).

To contact the reporters on this story: David Voreacos in Newark, New Jersey, at  dvoreacos@bloomberg.net; Jef Feeley in Wilmington, Delaware, at  jfeeley@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at  mhytha@bloomberg.net.