product liability

Published on: February 18, 2010

When did Toyota First Find Out About Acceleration Problem?

The NHTSA has said that it will begin examining documents to see when the Toyota first found about the safety problem that has seriously eroded its credibility, damaged its reputation and has had product liability lawyers in Atlanta and around the country, criticizing the manner in which the automaker has handled the issue.If the new NHTSA probe does indeed reveal that Toyota was aware of auto defects contributing to unintended acceleration in its vehicles much before it announced a recall, then the company will be in more trouble than previously thought.

The agency will also look at how quickly Toyota acted to begin a recall after it found out about the problem.If the NHTSA finds that the company delayed informing federal regulators or failed to initiate an immediate recall, it could be fined penalties of up to $16.4 million. The NHTSA requires that any automaker that finds defects in its vehicles reports these to federal regulators within 5 days of finding a defect. The company must also act quickly to initiate a recall.

Toyota already had its credibility tarnished last year when one of its former lawyers alleged that the company concealed important documents during several of its product liability lawsuit proceedings.While those revelations had shocked Atlanta car accident lawyers then, they have taken on a new meaning in the light of the new unintended acceleration episodes that have emerged. If the NHTSA probe shows that the company delayed a recall, it will boost the credibility of the lawsuits that are beginning to stack up. It will also stress what trial lawyers in Atlanta have maintained all long – that in the face of the failure of the NHTSA, it falls on us to hold Toyota responsible for its failings.

Published on: June 19, 2009

Father of Child Injured by Crocs at Atlanta Airport Sues Company

by Robert N. Katz, Esq.

The father of a boy who was injured when his Crocs shoes got caught in an escalator at an Atlanta Airport has filed a lawsuit against the company. The father Clark Meyer, is claiming $2 million in damages for injuries suffered by his son, identified only as “AM”.

According to the lawsuit, Meyer’s son was “severely and permanently injured” in the accident on July 15^th last year. On that day, the boy’s foot was snagged on an escalator at Hartsfield Jackson International Airport. The boy who was four years old at that time suffered at least three broken toes and cuts. In the lawsuit, Meyer alleges that the company was aware of the dangers to children wearing the popular Crocs shoes in 2005, but that didn’t stop the company from marketing the shoes targeting young children.

It is the second such lawsuit filed in Atlanta in 2005 involving children and escalator injuries linked to the popular shoes. Crocs meanwhile has denied that the shoes cause any injuries. The company blames faulty escalator design and the parents for the injuries suffered by children who wear their shoes.

Published on: June 15, 2009

Mattel Settles CPSC Lead Paint Violation Allegations with $2.3 Million Fine

by Robert N. Katz, Esq.

Toymaker Mattel has agreed to pay $2.3 million to settle allegations that it imported and distributed toys that contained lead levels in paints that were in excess of federal standards.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission announced the penalties, the highest ever for importation and distribution regulation violations by the agency, on its website. Mattel and its subsidiary Fisher Price, have been charged with importing toy that contained lead levels that were higher than the .06 percent by weight, mandated by federal laws. Mattel was charged with importing 900,000 toys that were non compliant with the standard, while Fisher Price, according to CPSC allegations imported more than 1.1 million toys that did not comply with those safety standards. With the fines, Mattel has put those allegations to rest.

The lead toy recall crisis of 2007 has had several positive effects – Congress moved to equip the generally-regarded-as toothless CPSC with more powers to prevent such crises. This led to the implementation of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, which sets standards for lead in children’s products including toys, among other standards.

Published on: May 29, 2009

Chrysler Bankruptcy Proceedings Could Leave Product Liability Lawsuits in the Cold

by Robert N. Katz, Esq.

Automaker Chrysler’s bankruptcy proceedings are leaving more than dealers and workers worried. There’s another class of people who have much to lose if the automaker goes under, and little attention has been paid to their plight.

We are talking about the people who have pending product liability lawsuits against the company. These people will find that their dreams of justice are shattered when the spoils are distributed. Plaintiffs who have filed product liability lawsuits against the company fall in the unsecured creditors’ group. While secured creditors include people who have collateral, unsecured creditors include plaintiffs and other corporations. These creditors are low on the pecking order when it comes to payouts. The secured creditors will get first preference, leaving the remainder of the funds to be distributed among the unsecured creditors. Corporations that are included in the unsecured creditors’ group are likely to demand priority for their funds; leaving plaintiffs with peanuts after all other debts are paid.

According to the New York Times, it’s still not clear how these pending lawsuits will be dealt with. They could be sent back to the original courts for a decision, after which the plaintiff who have won or settled may be able to go to the bankruptcy court for their money.

Published on: March 17, 2009

Judges Uphold Right to Sue Drug Makers in Wyeth vs. Levine

by Robert N. Katz, Esq.

Earlier this month, justices of the Supreme Court ruled that patients injured through use of a drug can sue the drug maker even when the drug has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. It’s a landmark judgment, and it promises to offer patients who suffer when a pharmaceutical company is negligent, the right to seek civil justice. .

The ruling upheld the $7 million awarded to musician Diane Levine who lost her arm to gangrene after being injected with Wyeth’s Phenargan medicine.Levine had been prescribed the drug for nausea, and was administered the drug through a method called "IV push."Phenargan is not meant to be administered though this method. Levine filed a product liability lawsuit alleging that the warnings against the IV push method specified on the box, weren’t strong enough. At the time, the drug’s warning label did not include specific warnings against using the IV push method. Levine was awarded damages of $6.7 million, but Wyeth argued that FDA approval should give the company immunity against product liability lawsuits.The SC decision had been eagerly waited by Georgia product liability attorneys and patients who have filed or are in the process of filing personal injury lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies for injuries caused by their drugs. The court in a 6-3 ruling has now ruled in favor of Levine, and the larger patient community.

The decision is one product liability lawyers had hoped for.In the past, the SC has shown a slant towards big business interests, and recent attempts in Georgia to grant immunity to pharmaceutical companies in case of injuries caused by drugs approved by the FDA, had many of us very worried. As expected, pharmaceutical companies aren’t too pleased with the Supreme Court decision, and we don’t blame them.After all, this means that these companies will not be able to use FDA approval for their drugs as a screen to shield them form lawsuits. For thousands of patients around the country who have been waiting for the Wyeth vs. Levine decision to proceed with their lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies, much uncertainty has been lifted with the Supreme Court ruling.

Published on: February 19, 2009

Georgia Introduces Pharmaceutical Immunity Bill

by Robert N. Katz, Esq.

Earlier this month, we reported on Governor Sonny Perdue’s proposed legislation granting immunity from civil liability to pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers if their products had already received FDA approval. Earlier this month, a bill was introduced outlining many of the same proposals that the governor mentioned, and underscoring the fears of patients, civil justice advocate and Georgia product liability attorneys.

The Bill, Senate Bill 101 grants immunity to these companies from any injury lawsuit brought by Georgia residents if the injury was caused by a pharmaceutical drug or medical device that had FDA approval. It’s clearly aimed at attracting Big Pharma investment into the state with civil liability immunity being the Unique Selling Proposition (USP). What it essentially does, however, is sacrifice patients’ rights to hold these companies accountable for injuries or deaths caused by their products. At the risk of sounding dramatic, we believe victims of device and pharmaceutical injury will be at the mercy of these companies.

The bill relies on a foundation that has been found to be increasingly fragile in recent years. FDA approval of drugs and devices has come under the scanner after several drugs and devices were forced off the market when injuries and risks associated with their use came to light. Do the names Vioxx, Heparin and Medtronic defibrillator leads ring a bell?

Published on: January 16, 2009

Eli Lilly Agrees To $1.42 Billion Fine to Settle Zyprexa Litigation

by Robert N. Katz, Esq.

Eli Lilly & Co. has agreed to a settlement with federal regulators that will include a fine of $615 million to settle criminal lawsuits, and a further $800 million to resolve civil litigation related to injuries caused by its anti psychotic drug Zyprexa.That makes the total fine amount to close to $1.5 billion, said to be the largest criminal fine for an American company. The company will plead guilty to one misdemeanor charge, and will not plead guilty to wrongdoing in any civil case.

The punishment is for the company’s indulgence of off-label use of its Zyprexa medication. Off-label use is the promotion of a drug by a company for purposes other than that for which it has been approved.It’s not prohibited for doctors to prescribe drugs for purposes other than that for which it was specified, but pharmaceutical companies are expressly forbidden from promoting such off label use of the drug.

Zyprexa is an anti psychotic drug that is meant for use by patients who suffer from schizophrenia or bipolar mania, but that didn’t stop Eli Lily from promoting the product as a sleep medication for elderly dementia patients. Between 1999 and 2003, thousands of Eli Lilly representatives were urged to promote use of Zyprexa for use in dementia patients.Documents produced in court have shown that the company greedily pushed Zyprexa to treat a variety of disorders that it was never approved for, including aggression, dementia and dementia related to Alzheimer’s Disease.The company began promoting the medication in assisted living facilities and long term care nursing homes. Effects of the medication like weight gain were already becoming evident, but Eli Lilly’s representatives pooh poohed these, saying these were part of the benefits of taking the medication.Representatives were urged to market the drug for symptomatic treatment, even in cases where the drug had not been approved. Incidences of patients dying from heart attacks and infections after using the drug began to surface, and finally in 2006, the FDA ordered the company to have strong warning labels that cautioned patients of the drug’s risk for elderly patients. Since then, the company has paid out $1.2 billion in settlement of at least 32,000 injury claims that were brought against it.This new settlement is in addition to the previous one.

Published on: April 11, 2008

Product Liability Suit Fails Against Anti-Depressant Manufacturer

by Robert N. Katz, Esq.

Drug manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline won a significant ruling this week in the Third Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals in Colaccio vs. Apotex.SmithKline, the manufacturer of the anti-depressants Paxil and Zoloft, defended two separate state tort claims that the manufacturer failed to warn of the risk of suicide from taking the drug.Plaintiffs product liability suits failed.

In a split decision, the Third Circuit ruled that federal regulatory law pre-empted state tort law claims in cases against manufacturers of anti-depressants for failure to warn of the risk of suicide.

Anti-depressants are drugs known as selective serotonin re-upate inhibitors (SSRIs).The drugs block the re-absorption of serotonin into the brain.Serotonin is a natural body chemical that regulates mood, sleep and appetite.By blocking the re-absorption the brain cells get an extra dose of a feel-good chemical.Some experts believe that the increase in serotonin causes a drop in the natural chemical dopamine. Dopamine regulates cognition and behavior.

Published on: January 29, 2008

Product Defects Evident in 2007 Automobile Recalls

by Robert N. Katz, Esq.

Former Mitsubishi President, Katsuhiko Kawasoe, was sentenced in Japan last week for professional negligence for his role in covering up defects in Mitsubishi trucks in cars over a three-year period from 1997 to 2000. Apparently, the auto manufacturer hid defects in its clutch system on several models of trucks and cars. The defect caused the brakes to fail. In some cases, occupants were killed in collisions caused by the faulty system. Wrongful death suits arising from these collisions uncovered the scandal.

Mitsubishi hid reports of defects, choosing to secretly repair the cars when brought into dealerships rather than issue a product recall that would have protected consumers. When news of the cover-up came out, sales plummeted, and company officials were forced out in disgrace. Subsequently, those officials were charged with professional negligence and criminal violations for falsifying reports and failing to take proper recall measures.

In the United States, the National Highway Transportation Safety Association (NHTSA) has issued its 2007 recall report. Automobile recalls increased in 2007 by thirty percent from the previous year. Manufacturers issued 588 recalls, affecting almost 15 million vehicles.