Florida Injury Lawyer Blog

I just saw the movie "Puncture," and, as both a Miami dangerous medical device attorney and movie lover, I am not sure how I missed this incredible film. The movie, based on a true story, accurately depicts how two young Houston, Texas personal injury lawyers, Mike Weiss and Paul Danziger, take on a case that is bigger and far more complicated than either could have anticipated.

Mr. Weiss, played by the talented Chris Evans, somehow practices plaintiff's personal injury law while in the throes of a hard core drug addiction. His law partner and long time friend, Paul Danziger, is trying to control both his drug addicted partner and their law practice while undertaking a huge defective medical conspiracy case. Everything goes spiraling out of control.

When the film starts, it appears that Weiss and Danziger have a somewhat typical personal injury law firm, handling mundane car crashes, slip and falls, and the occasional employment dispute. One day, however, they get an inquiry by a local emergency room nurse, who was stuck with a contaminated needle while trying to care for a psychotic patient. Weiss, passionately, begins to look deeper into her case and learns that there is a conspiracy between Hospital Group Purchasing Organizations and pharmaceutical companies to keep a new syringe, with a retractable needle, off the market. This new syringe is designed to prevent healthcare workers from accidentally getting stuck with contaminated needles, which can transmit HIV/AIDs, hepatitis, and other potentially fatal diseases. Both emergency room nurses and doctors support the use of the new syringe, and the National Institute of Health provided a grant to the inventor to refine the device.

The theme of this movie, like most of the cases in our Florida law medical malpractice law firm, is "corporate greed over lives." In "Puncture's" case, it is the very lives of hospital employees who are stuck by infected needles, as well as, the millions who have contracted HIV/AIDs through cross needle contamination.

I think this movie is one that every law student should see. It vividly shows the compassion and fearlessness of an advocate fighting, not just a defendant with unlimited resources and his law partner, but his own demons, in his pursuit of justice for his client. Sadly, Mr. Weiss died at only 32, before the case could be resolved, from an apparent drug overdose. He did not live to see the fruit of his labor but I will not ruin the ending for you.

Another highlight is seeing real life Texas Super Lawyer, Mark Lanier, playing himself. Mr. Lanier creates a striking contrast between his successful litigation style and the out of control life of Mr. Weiss.

I truly wish that Mr. Weiss had been able to beat his addiction, because I have rarely encountered a lawyer of such immense talent and commitment to justice. Mr. Weiss's conduct, outside the courtroom should not be admired, but it can be understood and perhaps even pitied. However, given the weight of his addiction, his work in the courtroom was even more spectacular. I never had the opportunity to meet Mr. Weiss, but I hope that his message inspires others to take on fights, of this proportion, for people, the only thing that really matters.

Continue reading "A Movie Every Law Student and Lawyer Should See" »

I am a North Miami Beach car accident lawyer and I was surprised and a little offended at a recent New York Times article that claimed that women were more likely to get injured in a car wreck than male drivers.

The immediate response to many who read this, was simply that women are worse drivers. But our Florida car accident lawyers believe that the University of Virginia study that was the basis of the research, "Vulnerability of Female Drivers Involved in Motor Vehicle Crashes: An Analysis of US Population at Risk," deserves a closer look.

The analysis consisted of a retrospective cohort with national crash data between 1998 and 2008 to determine the role of driver gender as a predictor of injury outcome when involved in a crash.

The study authored by Dr. Dipan Bose, focused on the the statistical odds, comparing the injuries that a seat-belted female driver sustained compared to a male driver in a comparable crash. The result were that women have a 47% higher likelihood of sustaining a severe injury than male drivers. We believe this is as result of multiple issues more likely attributable to vehicle regulations and safety designs rather than hormones or chromosomes.

For instance, the study found that women are on average 5 ½ inches shorter and 35 pounds lighter than males. In addition, more women drive passenger cars than men. In addition, female drivers are more prone to cervical injuries due to differences in neck strength and musculature in relationship to the positioning of head rests.

Our Coral Springs car safety accident lawyers believe that most cars have been defectively designed products if intended to be purchased and used only by men. This study clearly shows that women desperately need safety features that take their physical differences into account. We recommend that all drivers and passengers use seat belts and properly adjust head restraints for maximum safety.

A a Florida child safety lawyer dedicated to the prevention of childhood injuries I recommend that parents consider the following 5 Halloween Safety Tips and discuss them with your kids before allowing them to go trick or treating.

1. Treats: Warn your kids that they are not permitted to eat any candy until a parent has examined the wrappers to make sure that they have not been tampered with.

2. Costumes: Make sure that your children's costumes are flame retardant and visible at night. Strategically placed reflective tape on costumes and bags will make the difference in visibility.

3. Masks: Make sure that your child can see and breath without restriction.

4. Choosing safe houses. If you are unfamiliar with your neighborhood or unsure of its safety, take your child to a shopping mall or community center. Under no circumstances should they be permitted to enter a stranger's home for any reason.

5. Make sure that knives, swords, and weapons are soft and unable to cause an injury if your child trips or decides to use it to fence with another Zorro.

I do not think that children should be permitted to trick or treat without adult supervision. My daughter is now 12 years old and I am sure she would rather that I stay home and pass out candy to the "kids" that come to our house. Unfortunately, Miami is just not a safe place for an unsupervised 12 year old girl.

If you are expecting trick or treaters coming to your home, our Key West trip and fall law firm suggests that you clear your lawn and driveway of any tripping hazards. In addition, we recommend that you provide ample lighting so that first time visitors do not trip or fall on your property.

Florida Statute 768.075 states that property owners have an obligation to maintain their property in such a manner so that so that vistors are not injured. This applies to "trespasser" who reasonably believe they have an invitation to be on the property. Therefore, as a Florida premise liability lawyer, I recommend that you make your home as safe as possible and leave the haunted houses to the professionals. Setting traps that will cause sudden or unexpected things to jump out to scare visitors might create a hidden danger under Florida law.

As a Miami dangerous product lawyer, I suggest that you do not use an open flame in any of your Halloween displays, that might ignite a costume or cause other injury. The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission has more information about Halloween Safety.

If you simply do not want Halloween visitors, I suggest that you post "no trespassing signs" and remove any Halloween props from your home that would provide someone with the belief that they have been invited on to your property.

Our Florida hip implant law firm is working directly with the DePuy Pinnacle Multidistric Litigation (MDL) Case No. 2244 in Dallas, Texas. My friend and co-counsel, Shezad Malik, is a Dallas Attorney and Medical Doctor and has worked with me on many complex medical malpractice cases as well as the BP Oil Spill claims. The DePuy Pinnacle AcetbabularCup System is a "metal-on-metal" hip implant system very similar to the DePuy ASR system that has been recalled. Patients having received DePuy Hip Implants have experienced abnormally high failure rates, excruciating pain.

Some of our clients have reported dangerously high levels of chromium and cobalt in their blood as a result of the grinding of the implant. The high levels can result in metal toxicity or metallosis. Excessive cobalt level (cobaltism) is known to cause serious organ damage. The consequences of cobaltism are tinnitus, vertigo, blindness, deafness, peripheral neuropathy, headaches, optic nerve atrophy, convulsions, cardiomyopathy, and hypothyroidism.

Many DePuy hip implant patients have required replacement or revision surgeries. For some reason health insurance companies are not agreeing to pay for the revisions without a fight. We are also assisting our clients in filing and obtaining social security disability and lost wages for the time lost at work.

The lawsuits against DePuy claim that the design of the Pinnacle was defective and the company failed to warn patients of the known defects. This goes to the root-cause of the failures which is most likely related to inadequate safety testing. U.S. District Judge, James Kinkeade of the Northern District of Texas, has ordered specific procedures for the litigation.

The FDA has expressed its concern about metal-on-metal implant systems specifically and the risks of all implants systems. Patients who have metal-on-metal implants need to be especially aware of any heart or chest pain, numbness, weakness or change in vision or hearing. In addition, thyroids and kidney function should be monitored carefully. The FDA has also ordered all metal-on-metal hip device makers to immediately study whether implants have caused an increase in patient's blood metal content or metallosis.

According to New York Times investigation the A.S.R or Articular Surface Replacement system also made by Johnson and Johnson's DePuy is one of the most problematic devices on the market accounted for nearly 75f% of all complaints.

Our Miami Pinnacle hip implant lawyers recommend you to contact your physician immediately if you have undergone a hip implant procedure to determine whether you have received a DePuy hip implant. Contact our Florida hip implant law office for more information regarding metal-on-metal hip implants before signing any documents that may affect your rights with DePuy.

As a South Florida broken hip implant lawyer and as the son of a mother who just underwent hip implant surgery there are a number of important things every patient and their family should know.

First determine the kind of implant being used. The DePuy Pinnacle hip implant known as the DePuy Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System has been determined to be defective. It was improperly designed, manufactured and the company did not properly warn patients that there was a serious risk for complications and problems. Many of the DePuy hip recipients required additional surgery and hip replacements.

Many of the lawsuits filed alleged that Johnson and Johnson has been aware of the problems for years and that a DePuy Pinnacle product recall should have occurred years ago.

Johnson and Johnson is also facing lawsuits from many patients who received DePuy ASR hip replacement systems. The DePuy ASR implant has been known to fail at a much higher rate compared to similar products. The problem stems from the DePuy metal-on-metal system.

The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons issued a statement warning doctors about the problems with metal-on-metal hip replacement systems, like DePuy. Further information can also be found on the FDA's Medical Device Recall website.

If you or your parent is facing a hip implant procedure, our Delray Florida dangerous hip implant attorneys strongly recommend that you find out what specific system is being used and do not undergo a procedure utilizing a DePuy Pinnacle Hip implant or the DePuy ASR implant.

As a Miami children's safety and injury lawyer I am amazed at the number of products recalled by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission every month. But like the toothless FDA, the CPSC does no testing or certification of products before they are sold to consumers. Nor does the CPSC recommend brands that are deemed to be the safest. Since 1972 the CPSC has been charged with protecting the public from injury or death from thousands of products. Until last year CPSC did not have the legal authority to require a manufacturer to recall a product. Now manufacturers that violate a mandatory recall notice could face a penalty of up to $100,000. Yet, there is no obligation by a manufacturer or retailer to return a consumer's money if their product is recalled.

Our dangerous product injury lawyers recommend that if you learn of a product that has been recalled that you immediately stop using it and contact the CPSC's toll-free hotline 800-638-2772 and also fill out his online form. While a recalled product does not necessarily mean that other products manufactured by the same company are unsafe, I recommend that you either stop using them or use them only with extreme caution.

In addition to checking the CPSC website frequently, consumers should subscribe to their email subscription link to get same-day notifications.

The CPSC relies upon consumers to report unsafe products, yet many consumers have no idea how. We recommend that you report the unsafe product to the CSPC online as well as the manufacturer and retailer in writing. You may be surprised to learn that others have also reported the same product and can verify this by researching the CPSC injury data bank. Sadly, very few injuries from dangerous products are ever reported.

Continue reading "Dangerous Products You Probably Have in Your House Now" »

Bruce Shemrock
Trial Lawyer, Aronfeld Trial Lawyers

As a law firm that sues drug companies we were surprised to discover the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 23, 2011 that generic drug companies cannot be sued under state law over allegations that they failed to provide adequate label warnings about potential side effects. In the case they heard, the generic drug manufacturers argued that federal law barred these suits because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the subject name brand drugs, and that federal law requires generics to have the same labels as the name brand.

However, in 2009, the Supreme Court ruled that drug regulations do not protect pharmaceutical companies from being sued in state courts over drug labeling and failure to warn consumers of possible side effects. In this year's ruling, the Court agreed with the generic drug manufacturers that, because of the federal labeling law, they had no choice but to put the same labels on their products as the name brand drug manufacturers. Generic drug companies are therefore protected from responsibility for failure to warn of possible side effects if such warnings do not appear on the name brand drug label.

Some argue that this will change the face of drug dispensing. Consumers with good insurance or the ability to pay may now choose to take the name brand to get the extra protection of the possibility of suit should something go wrong. Others opine that prices of generic drugs may fall due to this new-found protection from lawsuits.

Our Florida defective product lawyers advise our friends and clients, to now carefully consider the question, "Is generic okay?" when you have prescriptions filled. Are you willing to forfeit your right to a claim should something go wrong for the sake of saving a few dollars? Theoretically, you could have a viable claim for injuries and a perfect right to assert your claim for injury in court, but such claim is completely barred by this ruling if the drug that injured you was generic.

A recent study published in the North American Spine Society's Spine Journal revealed that a bone growth protein manufactured by Medtronic used in spinal fusions has been linked to an increased risk of male sterility. Our Florida back injury lawyers are particularly concerned because of the growing number of injured men who elect to have fusions after suffering traumatic spine injuries. About 80,000 patients per year undergo spinal fusions in the United States alone. Many of our clients who have sustained back injuries from a car wreck, slip and fall or cruise ship accident have considered having spinal fusion surgery.

Spine fusion surgery is when two bones in the back are permanently joined together to prevent them from moving. Fusions are usually performed with other back surgical procedures such as discectomies, laminectomis or foraminotomies, which remove the discs between the spine before fusion. Some surgeons opt for grafts, which uses bones taken from the patient or a cadaver to hold the bones together.

The Medtronic product in question is called, "Infuse," and was approved by the FDA in 2002. The results of the study show that only men have an increased risk of sterility. Our Broward County defective medical device lawyers recommend that men who are considering having children consult with their orthopedic surgeons regarding the risks and benefits of using the Medronic product and the availability of alternative surgical techniques.

Como firma de abogados especializada en implantes de caderas defectuosas, encontramos en el sitio Web de la FDA, una orden reciente, en la cual se habían hecho estudios posteriores a la comercialización, en los cuales se estuvo bajo observación y vigilancia a los fabricantes de sistemas de cadera " metal en metal".

Lo mas preocupante para mi, como abogado especializado en caderas de reemplazo lesionadas en Miami, es como la informacion se difunde a los consumidores que creen erroneamente que estos productos han sido probados antes de ser aprobados para su uso. Las actuales polizas medicas regulatorias permiten implantes de cadera como las llamadas "metal en metal" aprovadas para la venta, las mismas, sin nungun tipo de pruebas en pacientes. Mas de 250,000 procedimientos de este tipo ( reemplazos de caderas) se realizan anualmente en los Estados Unidos.

La FDA, de manera típica, ha dejado la decisión en cuanto a la evaluación clínica y a la metodología completamente a los fabricantes. Como esencia, sería lo mismo si preguntáramos si un partido de futbol pudiera ser oficiado por los dueños del equipo y no por los árbitros, pero con la diferencia y como consecuencia, la vida.
Por primera vez, la FDA, esta "Pidiendo", no "Requiriendo" que los fabricantes, determinen con qué frecuencia estos dispositivos han fallado.

Nuestros abogados especializados en negligencias médicas en la ciudad de Miami, recomiendan, que cualquier persona que este considerando someterse a un procedimiento de implante de cadera " metal en metal", debe considerar cuidadosamente los beneficios y riesgos de la misma. Paradójicamente, este tipo de implantes, no es para todos, especialmente pacientes con problemas renales, alergias a los metales, sistemas inmunes suprimidos, mujeres en edad fértil o aquellos que reciben altas dosis de corticoides. Así mismo, se han descubierto marcados incrementos en fallas en aquellos pacientes que poseen una estructura ósea pequeña.

Aquellas personas que poseen implantes de cadera "metal en metal" o no están seguros que tipo de implante ya tienen, nuestra recomendación es un seguimiento inmediato con su cirujano, especialmente si está experimentado algunos de los siguientes síntomas: dolor en la cadera, dolor en la ingle, hinchazón local, y adormecimiento o cambios en su habilidad para caminar.

Para más información acerca de la FDA, o si tiene algún otro tipo de preocupación con relación a los implantes de cadera puede consultar las siguientes categorías:

* Acción de Clase / Litigios múltiples Distrito Responsabilidad por Productos Defectuosos
* Caderas Depuy
* Productos Defectuosos

As a defective hip implant law firm, we noted buried deep in the FDA's website a recent order for post -market surveillance studies to manufacturers of metal-on-metal hip systems. This was issued over a year after the UK's equivalent of the FDA, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) issued a similar advisory. The FDA's warning was sent to twenty-one different manufacturers after startling data revealed an alarming number of metal-on-metal hip implants simply fail over time.

What is troubling to me, as a Miami hip replacement injury lawyer, is how the information gets disseminated to consumers who mistakenly believe that the FDA has tested these products before they were approved for use. Current medical device regulatory policies allow implants like metal-on-metal hips to be approved for sale with virtually no clinical testing in patients. Currently in the US alone, over 250,000 hip replacement procedures are performed annually.

In typical FDA fashion, the Agency has left the decision as to clinical evaluation and reporting methodology completely to the manufacturers. This is in essence the same as asking football game to be officiated by the team owners rather than by impartial referees--but with life-altering consequences. For the first time, the FDA is simply "requesting", not "requiring", that manufacturers determine how often their devices fail.

Our Miami medical malpractice lawyers recommend that anyone considering undergoing a hip implant procedure using a metal-on-metal system to carefully consider the benefits and risks. Specifically, metal-on-metal hip implant systems are not for everyone, especially patients with kidney problems, metal allergies, suppressed immune systems, women of childbearing age or those receiving high doses of corticosteroids. There have been marked increases in failures for patients with smaller body frames.

For those who already have metal-on-metal implants or are not sure what kind of hip implant they have we recommend an immediate follow up with your surgeon, especially if you are experiencing any of the following symptoms: hip/groin pain, local swelling, numbness or changes in your ability to walk.

Continue reading "FDA Finally Tells Hip Implant Makers to Study Failures " »

Como abogado de casos de Fosamax de piernas rotas, estoy proporcionando esta actualizacion respecto a la aplicacion de Merck para los litigious multidistritales.
Merck fabricante de Fosemax quiere combinar todos los juicios federales Fosemax de fractura de huesos para los litigios antes del juicio. Mas de 900 demandas de Fosemax contra Merck han sido consolidadas en Nueva York involucrando
reclamos de danos serios en las mandibulas que han sido causados por Fosemax conocidos como "osteonecrosis".

En la actualidad, hay demandas de Fosemax presentadas por personas que han sufrido una fractura de femur o fractura de otros huesos despues de tomar el medicamento para la osteoporosis. El 23 de marzo Merck le pidio al Panel
Judicial de los Estados Unidos crear un nuevo litigio para este tipo de lesions causadas por Fosemax donde los demandantes alegen que el uso a largo plazo de Fosemax aumenta el riesgo de trauma de bajo o ningun traumatismo de fracturas de femur o huesos del muslo.

La FDA agrego advertensias sobre el riesgo de fracturas de huesos de Fosemax y otros medicamentos con bisfosfonatos en octubre 2010, requiriendo a el fabricante de medicamentos que advierta a los consumidores de que deben buscar atencion medica inmediatamente si presentan dolor en la ingle o en el muslo mientras tomaban el medicamento que puede ocurrir semanas o meses antes que una fractura por el uso de Fosamax occura.

Mas de 100 personas han presentado una demanda de fractura por el uso de Fosemax y alegan que Merck no investigo adequadamente sus medicamentos o proporciono avisos adequados antes que ellos sufrieron una fractura de femur o huesos rotos. Los reclamos estan en 36 quejas que se han presentado en al menos 8 diferentes tribunals de distrito federal del los Estados Unidos.

Merck ha pedido que el Panel Judicial de los Estados Unidos centralize y consolide los litigios de Fosemax en la Corte Distrita para el Distrito de Nueva Jersey donde la mayoria de los casos estan actualmente pendiente y donde el fabricante tiene sus oficinas principales. En la alternativa, Merck pidio que el panel transfiera los casos al Distrito de los Estados Unidos para el Distrito Occidental de Luisiana.

Reclamos de fractura de huesos fueron excluidos del inicial litigio de Fosemax, que fue establecido en agosto del 2006 para las reclamaciones presentadas por personas que sufrieron la decadencia de sus huesos de la mandibula por el uso de Fosemax. Los medicos tambien estan viendo mas fracturas de femur en pacientes usando esta droga. Si usted ha tomado Fosamax o su forma genetica Alendronate y cree que usted tiene danos como resultado de su uso, por favor de llenar el formulario aqui debajo para contactar a un encargado de estos casos.

Fosemax es una droga usada para fortalecer los huesos, para muchas mujeres a trabajdo con exito, pero de acuerdo a reportes medicos, mujeres usando la droga por 5 anos estan a riesgo de sufrir fracturas espontaneas.

Our cellphone injury lawyers were deeply concerned by the recent study that revealed that 50 non-stop minutes of cell phone use affects brain metabolism in the brain's region closest to the phone's antenna.

Using PET scans during cell phone use in both the on and then off position showed that metabolism increased in both the orbitofrontal cortex and the temporal pole areas of the brain. Both are areas that are close to where phone's antenna meets the head.

Until more definitive information is known our South Florida dangerous product lawyers recommend using hands-free devices or the speaker-phone mode to avoid direct contact with the head.

As a Florida defective drug device lawyer, I was concerned by the FDA's Class 1 recall of of Axxent Flexishield Mini pads. The pad was designed for use in breast cancer patients who received one dose of radiation after undergoing cancer surgery.

The pads were supposed to shield healthy tissue, but instead have left breast and chest muscles peppered with hundreds of particles of tungsten. While the long-term effects of tungsten are unknown, their presence will interfere with mammogram readings that are especially important for women who have had breast cancer and are concerned with recurrence.

The device is made by Hoag. Lawsuits for Axxent pads are being filed by women who have been exposed and have tungsten particles. Some of the affected women are now considering mastectomies to rid themselves of the particles.

Continue reading "Emergency Urgent Recall By FDA for Breast Incision Pad" »

Our Florida Fosamax injury law firm advises that all women currently taking Fosamax medication to immediately consult their doctors. There are an alarming number of reports of women taking Fosamax suddenly breaking their legs for no apparent reason.

Fosmax and the following drugs Actonel (risedronate sodium) tablets, Actonel with Calcium (risedronate sodium with calcium carbonate tablets), Atelvia (risedronate sodium) delayed-release tablets, Boniva (ibandronate sodium) tablets, Fosamax (alendronate sodium) tablets and oral solution, Fosamax Plus D (alendronate sodium/cholecalciferol) Tablets, Reclast (zoledronic acid) Injections are now required to have clear warning labels regarding low-energy, or low trauma fractures of the femoral shaft (leg bone).

As a Fosamax medication attorney, I suggest discussing this drug with any elderly female friends and relatives as they may be unaware of the current crisis and the FDA's warnings.

Our De Puy Hip Injury law firm is helping patients who were implanted with a DePuy hip replacement devices that have been recently recalled. We allege that the company knew about problems with its products for years before they were finally recalled.

DePuy Orthopaedics and Johnson & Johnson, recalled the ASR XL Acetabular System and ASR Hip Resurfacing Systems in 2010 because these products were than twice as likely to fail as similar hip replacement implants.

The FDA received over 400 reports of DePuy hip replacement devices problems. In England 13% of patients with the acetabular system and 12% patients with the resurfacing system required follow up surgery to fix these implants. Yet, according to DePuy only 5% of hip implants should need to be replaced within five years. The Australian National Joint Replacement Registry recalled DePuy hips in 2009.

Our De Puy Hip failure lawfirm recommends that If you have a DePuy Hip Implant device contact your physician for an immediate evaluation.