Philadelphia Top Injury Lawyer Blog

As a Philadelphia accident lawyer, I handle many cases of auto accidents. In the majority of auto accident cases, one or both drivers caused the crash by negligently failing to pay attention or make good decisions. But every now and then, a case comes along in which the fault lies with the automobile itself, or one of its parts -- which means real responsibility for the crash can be assigned to the company that made the defective part. That was the allegation in Bender v. Mazda Motor Corp., a decision from the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Peggy Bender of Alabama alleged that a defective airbag in a Miata caused the death of a family member. Mazda attempted to remove the case to federal court on diversity grounds, but the federal court denied the motion and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. In this ruling, the Eleventh says an intervening decision did not change its mind.

For federal courts to have diversity jurisdiction, the amount of money being asked for must exceed $75,000. In opposing the motion to remove the case, Bender alleged that there was no evidence that the amount in controversy reached that much. In its answer, Mazda cited a similar case, Roe v. Michelin North America, in which the federal court found that even if the amount in controversy was not pleaded in court, it was "clear" and "readily deductible" that it would exceed $75,000. Mazda asked the district court to follow this ruling, or in the alternative, stay the case until an Eleventh Circuit ruling in Roe. The district court denied this and moved the case back to state court. After the Eleventh Circuit's ruling in Roe, which ultimately stayed in the federal courts, Mazda moved in district court to reconsider in light of the new decision. The district court denied this on the grounds that the case was out of its hands, remanded back to state court. Mazda appealed.

Before the Eleventh Circuit, Mazda argued that under a 1987 Eleventh Circuit case, Ritter v. Smith, the district court should have granted its motion to bring the case back to federal court. Bender counter-argued with another Eleventh Circuit case, 1992's Harris v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Alabama. The Eleventh found Harris most persuasive. That case cited 28 USC sec. 1447, which says in part that orders to remand are not reviewable on appeal or otherwise. In Harris, the Eleventh expressly found that district courts may not review their own remand orders. This trumps the motion to reconsider filed by Mazda, the appeals court found. The appeals court further found that the outcome of Roe did not matter in this case. Even if the remand to state court was legally erroneous, it said, review by the district court or the Eleventh Circuit is still barred by sec. 1447: "The case has been removed to state court, and that is where it will stay." Thus, it affirmed the district court's refusal to reconsider.

As a Philadelphia personal injury lawyer, I am familiar with cases in which large, well-funded companies pull out all the legal stops to avoid liability. This is common because large companies generally have the money to fight cases all the way up to federal appeals courts, when necessary. Because facing legal liability can be very expensive in the long run -- and because fighting a case in appeals courts is expensive for individual litigants like Bender -- it actually does make sense for defendants with a lot of funding to fight small issues to death. This tactic does not give defendants a better argument on the facts, of course -- it helps defendants dodge legal liability by removing facts from consideration.

Continue reading "Court Rules Wrongful Death Case Involving Defective Car Allegations Belongs in State Court - Bender v. Mazda Motor Corp." »

As a Philadelphia accident lawyer, I was saddened to read about a ruling against a family struggling with a serious brain injury. In Covell v. Bell Sports Inc., David W. and Margaret Covell of Philadelphia sued a helmet manufacturer on behalf of their adult son, David F. Covell. The younger David Covell was riding a bicycle to his job as a schoolteacher when he was hit by a car at the entrance to the school's parking lot. He suffered such serious brain injuries that he is now disabled and his parents have been appointed as his legal guardians. On his behalf, they sued Bell Sports, the maker of his bicycle helmet, alleging that it was defectively designed and defectively failed to warn users about the risks of a blow from the edge of the helmet.

The appeal turned in part on the instructions given to the jury. Many states use a privately published standard called the Restatement of Torts, a collection of caselaw that states can voluntarily adopt in order to keep current with new decisions. Pennsylvania uses the Second Restatement of Torts, which was published in the 1950s. However, the law on products liability -- the cause of action in the Covells' case -- has seen so many changes since then that a Third Restatement of Torts: Products Liability was published in the 1990s. Importantly for this case, the Third Restatement allows manufacturers to defend themselves by arguing that their products meet applicable standards. Pennsylvania has not formally approved the Third Restatement, but the judge in the Covells' trial instructed the jury according to the Third Restatement.

On appeal, the Covells argued that the judge should not have used the Third Restatement, since it has not been adopted in Pennsylvania, and that federal safety standards for bicycle helmets were in any case inadmissible. The Third Circuit disagreed on both counts. In 2009, the Third decided in Berrier v. Simplicity Manufacturing Inc. that Pennsylvania will eventually apply the Third Restatement, making that the correct standard. It declined to overturn that, dismissing an argument the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's dismissal of a relevant case means it does not intend to take up the Third Restatement. The Third then addressed the Covells' other argument, that federal bicycle helmet standards used at trial are not admissible because they are not described in the admissible portions of the Third Restatement. Again, it disagreed, saying that the federal standards described issues like testing and labels that are within the admitted part of the Third Restatement. Thus, it affirmed the district court's judgment and ended the Covells' case.

At oral arguments in this case, the Legal Intelligencer reported, Third Circuit judges acknowledged that the situation is not at all settled for Pennsylvanians involved in products liability cases. That's why, as a Philadelphia injury lawyer, I would be very interested in clear input from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is supposed to adopt or not adopt new standards, but the Third did it in Berrier because the state high court expressly declined to. Thus, it's possible that the court will ultimately come to the opposite conclusion, which would mean the Covells could have won their case if they had brought it later.

Continue reading "Court Did Not Err in Ruling Against Philadelphia Family in Defective Helmet Case - Covell v. Bell Sports Inc." »

As a Philadelphia accident lawyer, I was disappointed to see a recent federal appeals court ruling denying an injured man a chance to pursue fair compensation from the company he says is to blame. In Roth v. Noralfco, David Roth sued a chemical supply company for various causes of action claiming it had a duty to design safer acid tank cars. Roth had a job at a York, Penn. paper company that included unloading tanks of sulfuric acid sent by Noralfco by rail. He suffered chemical burns to his face in 2004 when he attempted to unload a tank that was under pressure. The federal trial court granted summary judgment to Noralfco, saying the bulk of the claims are expressly preempted by the federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990, and the Third Circuit affirmed.

The HMTA regulates interstate commerce involving hazardous materials, giving buyers and sellers uniform regulations even between states. A section of the HMTA explicitly says that "Unless authorized by another law of the United States, a law... of a State... that is not substantively the same as a provision of this chapter... is preempted." It then goes on to list the areas of regulation that are preempted, which include what is a hazardous material, how the materials are packed and labeled, their shipping documents, notice of any spills and their shipping containers. The Third Circuit found that all of Roth's tort claims fall under the HMTA's purview, and were thus expressly preempted by the law. It dismissed Roth's arguments that his job was not "in commerce" and thus the HMTA did not apply, saying unloading is expressly part of the HMTA. Thus, it upheld the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment to Noralfco.

This decision is disappointing, because it means Roth cannot pursue compensation for what sound like some very serious injuries. In making this ruling, the Third Circuit did not rule on the merits of the case; it simply said there was no case because federal law has taken away the state-law remedy available to him. This leaves Roth and anyone else involved in shipping hazardous materials without recourse if they happen to be injured by dangerous materials like sulfuric acid while they are at work. As a Philadelphia injury lawyer, I believe our society can and should do better for the people who do this kind of dangerous job and rely on supervisors, colleagues or suppliers to stay safe.

Continue reading "Third Circuit Rules Workplace Accident Lawsuit Preempted by Federal Law - Roth v. Noralfco" »

More than one thousand lawsuits have been filed against Philadelphia area company Johnson & Johnson according to reports. These law suits are all filed against the company for its hip replacements. Due to the high number of cases, the FDA's interest has been peaked.

According to a May 11th report, the US Food and Drug Administration asked Johnson & Johnson as well as 20 other replacement part makers to study whether implants raise the level of metal in patients' blood to dangerous levels.

The worldwide hip replacement market is a huge one and one that is expected to grow by at least 3.2% this year from 5.28 billion in 2010. Could it, however, be an industry that is putting Philadelphia patients and patients all over the world at risk?

Patients who underwent a hip replacement surgery and received a DePuy hip replacement system have complained of symptoms including swelling and problems walking nearing the five year mark after their surgery.

According to an FDA statement, "a small number of patients in which high levels of metal ions in the bloodstream may have caused other types of symptoms or illnesses elsewhere in the body, including effects on the heart, nervous system, and thyroid gland."
If you or a loved one has suspects they have suffered injury due to a bad hip replacement or a dangerous surgical procedure, contact a Philadelphia injury lawyer or a Pennsylvania malpractice lawyer today.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has announced that Terumo Cardiovascular Systems Corporation (TCVS) has finally signed a consent decree of permanent injunction. According to reports, the consent decree was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and the Department of Justice, Office of Consumer Litigation, and the United States Attorney's Office.

The consent decree will prohibit the manufacturing, sale, and distributing of two heart-lung bypass systems and other cardiovascular devices to new customers. The decree was filed after an FDA inspection spanning from January through March 2010 that surprisingly uncovered numerous cGMP and MDR violations at the company's Ann Arbor manufacturing facility.

These violations could cause serious injuries to patients in the Philadelphia Pennsylvania area and across the country. Violations included deficiencies in processes for corrective and preventive action, nonconforming product, complaints, purchasing, process validation, design controls, and adverse event reporting.

This decree is meant to protect residents of Philadelphia and hospital patients across the country. It is one of many in recent years that has stopped the sale of defective medical devices. If you or a loved one has suffered injury due to a faulty medical device or has been the victim of medical malpractice, contact a Philadelphia injury lawyer or a Philadelphia injury lawyer today.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has just announced that Terumo Cardiovascular Systems Corporation (TCVS) has just signed a consent decree of permanent injunction. Two of the company's officers, Mark A. Sutter, president and CEO Mark Lincoln Vice President of Quality Assurance and Operations have had to personally sign the decree.

The consent decree will be filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan y the Department of Justice, Office of Consumer Litigation, and the United Sates Attorney's Office. It will prohibit the manufacturing, sale, and distributing of two heart-lung bypass systems and other cardiovascular devices to new customers.

A January through March 2010, FDA inspection revealed numerous cGMP and MDR violations at the company's Ann Arbor manufacturing facility. The violations included deficiencies in processes for corrective and preventive action, nonconforming product, complaints, purchasing, process validation, design controls, and adverse event reporting.
TCVS has previously profited $35 million for the sales of the devices. This amount will now be paid to the federal government. Additional disgorgement amounts will be charged should it fail to comply with the provisions of the consent decree in a timely manner.

The decree will protect residents of Philadelphia and hospital patients across the country. If you or a loved one has suffered injury due to a faulty medical device or has been the victim of medical malpractice, contact a Philadelphia injury lawyer or a Pennsylvania Medical Malpractice lawyer today.

A bill was announced in Washington D.C. last December that would fine merchants who knowingly sell defective, recalled toys and would ban their use in day care facilities next year. Defective toys and dangerous toys are often the cause of injury to children and, in some cases, can also result in death.

The new bill aims to help reduce the number of defective toy injuries in children in Washington D.C., and throughout the country. The bill was announced by Brian Moran under the name Del. Brian Moran's Toy Safety Act. At first, specifically, it would direct the common wealth of Virginia to develop standards for toys sold in Virginia stores. Bills like this could come to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and elsewhere.

Del. Moran stated that "no parent should worry about their child going to the emergency room because of a toy they received Christmas morning. The federal government has failed to provide needed protection for our families."

After the holidays and after children's birthdays, many injuries due to dangerous toys or defective products occur. If you feel that your child has become injured as a result of a defective toy, contact a Philadelphia injury lawyer right away. In lieu of many government regulations currently in place to protect children from unsafe toys, a Philadelphia Injury lawyer is a best defense.

Recent concerns about elevated mineral oil levels contained in food packaging made of recycled cardboard have caused several food companies to begin testing and even changing their packaging.

Originating in Europe, this concern involves companies all over the world including the UK, Switzerland, and the United States. Some researchers feel that the elevated levels of mineral oil in recycled cardboard packaging could be transferring into the food that is packaged in it, leading to possible unsafe consumption levels of mineral oil for those in Philadelphia and around the world.

According to a recent BBC report, a scientist from Switzerland has suggested foods like pasta, rice and breakfast cereals might contain up to 100 times more mineral oil than the limit agreed for food safety.

According to the same BBC report, Dr. Koni Grob, who leads a government run food safety laboratory abroad says "exposure to mineral oils has been linked to inflammation of internal organs and cancer.

Neither the Foods Standards Agency in the UK nor the FDA in the United States has yet ruled on this issue. In the mean time, this is certainly one product safety issue people all over the world will want to keep an eye on. Philadelphia Injury lawyers not that If you feel that you been the victim of injury due to a product safety issue or have suffered wrongful injury, contact a Philadelphia injury lawyer today.

Senator Charles Schumer has called for an investigation on the popular canvas shopping bags that have been offered by several grocery store chains in Philadelphia and throughout the US in recent years. The bags have been marketed as reusable environmentally friendly ways to carry groceries plastic free.

The investigation began this winter when Mr. Schumer became concerned about the levels of lead existing in the painted imprints that are often placed on the bags. Lead is known to cause lowered IQ in children and food contamination, a special concern given the bags frequent use for grocery shopping.

Senator Schumer is calling on the federal government to launch an investigation on the bags. Private investigative reports by the Tampa Tribune found "elevated levels of lead" in canvas bags offered by the Winn-Dixie, Wal-Mart, Sweetbay, Publix, and Target shopping chains. This situation is one of many concerning products manufactured in China which, due to poor quality, have been known to cause dangers to consumer health in recent years.

If you feel that your health has been put at risk by products, toys, or a home contaminated by high levels of lead, contact a Philadelphia injury lawyer to find out what you may be able to do about it. A Philadelphia injury lawyer will be able to help you understand your rights and help you to obtain any reward you may be entitled to.

A Philadelphia injury lawyer will see many unfortunate cases of personal injury and possibly even death due to defective products and product recall during his career. Sometimes the very products that are meant to improve our health condition or save our lives fail us. Sometimes medical devices installed years ago or drugs that were taken years ago will go on to harm patients years later. This has been the case in the recall of the Kugel Hernia Mesh Patch in recent years.

From December 2005 to January 2006, maker of the Kugel Mesh Hernia Patches, Davol, recalled the patched issues due to memory recoil ring breaks. In certain patients, the breaks have been the cause of bowel perforation problems, memory recoil ring breaks that have migrated through the abdominal wall, bowel obstruction, and even death cause by septic shock, blood clotting. Patients were even at risk of acute heart attack due to surgery to repair bowel fistulas caused by perforation from the broken memory recoil ring.

In one December of 2006 in one lawsuit filed against Davol, maker of the patch, the plaintiff claimed problems of the surgical mesh patch resulted in severe pain. The plaintiff had to have bowel dissection surgery to remove the patch, which was found to result in chronically inflamed bowels.

Unfortunate medical malpractice or defective products personal injury cases occur in Philadelphia and across the country several times each year. Contact a Philadelphia injury lawyer if you or a love one has been affected by the Davol Hernia Mesh Patch or any other defective product.

According to recent research out of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, emergency records show that at least 92 people have been hurt from playing the Nintendo Wii, a gaming system that encourages active participation in games via motion controlled game controllers.

Although the idea of a Philadelphia injury lawyer (or 20) getting involved in the regulation of videogames may seem absurd, statistics suggest that something needs to be done to protect players before more people get hurt. Complaints that places like Children's Hospital of Philadelphia have witnessed include: cuts and bruises, foot and ankle injuries, shoulder dislocations, bystander injuries (for instance, someone getting hit in the face with a Wii remote wielded by another player), repetitive stress injuries from spending too much time playing games, and other hand and wrist injuries.

One famous Nintendo Wii accident clip shows a kid swinging a Wii baseball bat - accidentally losing his grip and hurling the bat into a large TV, shattering the screen.

If you or someone you care about has been injured playing a video game or using essentially any product or toy - your Philadelphia accident lawyer will investigate to determine whether the company that made or designed the product was in some respect negligent or careless. In some cases, the company may not be to blame - rather the individuals involved in the activity might be to blame. For instance, if a bunch of college kids start playing the Wii while under the influence of alcohol or drugs and then get rowdy - and then one accidentally smashes his friend in the nose with a Wii baseball bat and breaks his nose - the Nintendo Company probably couldn't be held liable for the damage... but the negligent, drunk individual might be liable.

In other words, product liability and injury cases can get quite complicated. Most people understand that a case taken on by a Philadelphia medical malpractice lawyer -- for instance, suing an oncologist for making an incomplete diagnosis -- will be complicated. But every injury case takes effort, strategy and investigation to put together.

Continue reading "Dozens of Philadelphia Injuries from Nintendo Use. Is an Epidemic Brewing?" »

A jury in New Hampshire awarded 51-year-old Karen Bartlett $21 million in conjunction with a Philadelphia personal injury claim. Bartlett, a New Hampshire native, suffered a terrible burn reaction as a side effect of taking a drug produced by Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, a Philadelphia-based corporation. The drug, sulindac, is an anti-inflammatory. Bartlett took it to deal with recurring shoulder pain.

Two weeks after she began a course of the drug in January 2005, Bartlett began noticing irritation near her eyes and spots on her face. She checked into the hospital in February after developing a feeling like there were "pebbles" behind her eyelids. Doctors diagnosed her with toxic epidermal necrolysis and Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS/TEN), a potentially life ending disease that literally burns the skin and mucous membranes. All told, Bartlett was transferred among five different hospitals. 65% of her skin got literally burned off - "inside and out," as her lawyer put it. Even after undergoing 12 operations on her eyes, Bartlett became legally blind. Her attorneys asked for $4.5 million to address her medical bills and lost wages as well as $20 million to $30 million on top of that for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of her life. The $21 million verdict was record setting - $8 million more than a 1993 case in New Hampshire pertaining to an accident at a construction site.

Not all Philadelphia personal injury or medical malpractice cases are this dramatic. But the side effects of prescription medications can cause serious damage to patients. Generally, in order to prove a case of Philadelphia personal injury from a pharmaceutical, a claimant has to show that a drug was unreasonably hazardous and caused significant and serious harm to the patient.

If you or anyone close to you has been injured due to pharmaceutical side effects, it may behoove you to consult a Philadelphia personal injury attorney ASAP to review your rights and obligations under PA law. Building a case against a major drug company, hospital, or medical group can be quite complicated and technical, so it's essential that you get good guidance as you pave the way to make a claim.

Continue reading "Philadelphia Personal Injury Lawsuit Nets a $21 Million Verdict for Women Blinded by Drug" »

In a personal injury product liability verdict that product safety advocates hope will spark government restrictions on defective Chinese drywall, a Florida jury awarded a Miami couple $2.4 million in damages last week. It was the first of what promises to be many product liability suits in Philadelphia and across the nation targeting defective drywall produced in China and sold in the United States. U.S. drywall distributor Banner Supply Co. which supplied the drywall purchased and installed by the Florida couple has been named in thousands of similar product liability lawsuits involving defective Chinese drywall.

According to reports, the Florida couple installed Chinese-manufactured drywall supplied by Banner Supply Co. in their Miami home. Shortly thereafter, the couple was forced to vacate their dream home because of the foul odor and noxious fumes emitted by the drywall. Chinese-manufactured drywall has come under investigation by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Testing at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California revealed that some Chinese drywall brands emit as much as 100 times more hydrogen sulfide than U.S.-produced drywall. CPSC investigations of more than 3,300 complaints about Chinese drywall have attributed hydrogen sulfide emissions to corrosion of appliances, air conditioning coils and other metals. The drywall with the highest level of hydrogen sulfide emissions was produced in China four to five years ago.

Thousands of homeowners in Philadelphia and across the country may be affected by the defective drywall. In typical experience, homeowner claims to insurance companies have been denied. Many builders and rehabbers have refused to respond to consumer complaints. Only one Chinese company, Knauf Plasterboard Tinanjin, has even acknowledged U.S. complaints. Frustrated homeowners are turning to Philadelphia personal injury lawyers to assert their product liability claims, recoup their losses and force replacement of this noxious, defective product in their homes.

If you believe you are the victim of defective Chinese drywall, contact a Philadelphia defective product attorney today about your rights.

Toyota, now facing more than 327 defective product and personal injury lawsuits in the U.S., is not the only automobile manufacturer placing Philadelphia drivers are risk. Chrysler has just recalled in excess of 600,000 vehicles in Philadelphia and across the country, including all Jeep Wranglers manufactured from 2008 to 2010. Three different safety recalls that have the potential to cause car accidents resulting in serious personal injury target defective brakes, defective doors and defective accelerator pedals in various Chrysler models.

• A brake defect on Chrysler's Jeep Wranglers causes excessive wear on brake tubes that can cause brakes to leak and lose power.
• A defective wire harness in the sliding doors of Chrysler Town and Country and Dodge Grand Caravan minivans can wear through and catch fire.
• Echoing Toyota's problems, sticky accelerator pedals on Dodge Caliber and Jeep Compass crossovers can cause unexpected acceleration.

Toyota's dismal response to auto safety issues and the legal fallout precipitated by the company's failure to act responsibly about defective products appears to be driving a surge in proactive auto recalls, although heightened government oversight certainly plays a role. In issuing the recent recalls, Chrysler noted that it had received no reports of accidents or personal injuries related to the product defects,

Chrysler is not alone in increasing product liability oversight. GM last week recalled 1.5 million vehicles in Philadelphia and worldwide to fix a defective heated windshield-wiper fluid system that could catch fire. Five fires have been reported in GM vehicles that include the defective wiper system. Toyota also continues to experience problems, recently recalling 3,600 Lexus LS sedans sold in Philadelphia and other U.S. cities because of a defective steering system.

If you own an automobile involved in a recall, see your Philadelphia auto dealers promptly for recall repairs. If you are involved in a Philadelphia car accident, talk to a Philadelphia personal injury attorney about your rights. Defective auto parts often cause or contribute to vehicle accidents.

Hamburger giant McDonald's is recalling millions of Shrek-themed drinking glasses sold at its fast-food restaurants in Philadelphia and across the U.S. Philadelphia parents are warned that the toxic metal cadmium has been discovered in the painted designs on the glasses. McDonald's recall of 12 million of the collectible glasses expands concern about the use of cadmium in consumer products. High cadmium levels in metal costume jewelry marketed to children have been the source of several defective product recalls issued since the first of the year. Unlike recalled cadmium-tainted jewelry manufactured in China, the McDonald's glasses were made in Millville, New Jersey. Cadmium can be added to paint pigments to create red and yellow.

In announcing the voluntary recall early this morning, the Consumer Product Safety Commission warned consumers to stop using the Shrek glasses immediately. There is concern that the cadmium in the painted designs could contaminate Philadelphia children and adults who handle the glasses. The 16-ounce glasses were being sold at McDonald's for $2 each to promote the hit movie Shrek Forever After. McDonald's said refund instructions would be posted on its website next week.

Highly toxic, the metal cadmium is a known carcinogen. Prolonged exposure can cause irreparable damage to kidneys and bones and can adversely impact brain development. Because their bodies and brains are still developing, young children are particularly at risk, warn Philadelphia personal injury lawyers. Repeated handling of painted glasses containing cadmium could allow the toxic metal to adhere to a child's hand and be ingested when the child touches his mouth. Over time, paint flakes from repeated washings could also cling to the inside of glasses, contaminating beverages placed inside.

Manufacturers and distributors have a responsibility to provide Philadelphia consumers with safe products. If you believe you or a member of your family has suffered personal injury related to use of a product, contact a Philadelphia personal injury attorney.