Personal Injury and Social Security Disability Blog

AstraZeneca Sets Aside $430 Million for Lawsuits

The Wall Street Journal reports, "AstraZeneca said it has set aside provisions of $430 million in relation to various federal and state investigations and civil lawsuits, relating to the company's marketing and pricing practices. It said the sum represents a 'reasonable estimate of the losses expected' from these investigations and lawsuits." The company "has disclosed that the various investigations and lawsuits it is facing involve a number of its drugs, including the heartburn drug Nexium and the schizophrenia drugs Seroquel."

From the American Association for Justice news release.

Friday Fun

My 90-year-old father loves working jigsaw puzzles online at JigZone, and I have to admit that I think it's fun too. Here's the description from the site:

JigZone is an online Jigsaw Puzzle where you choose the level of difficulty from a simple 6 piece cut to a challenging 247 piece cut.

Food Safety Bill Defeated in House

The AP reports, "The House defeated a far-reaching food safety bill Wednesday after farm-state lawmakers complained it would be too invasive and others said it was pushed to the floor too quickly." The measure "was considered under a suspension of House rules and needed a two-thirds vote for passage. The 280-150 vote was just a few shy of that threshold." Majority Democrats "quickly scheduled another vote on the bill -- under normal House rules, in which only a simple majority is needed -- for Thursday."

The Wall Street Journal notes that "the legislation would allow the FDA to order recalls of tainted foods, set production standards to prevent contamination and tell companies how to keep records so outbreaks of food-borne illnesses can be traced more easily. The measure would also require many food companies to register with the FDA, pay an annual $500 fee, and give the FDA access to their records during routine inspections." The Senate, meanwhile, "isn't expected to act on a similar bill until the fall, after it finishes work on healthcare legislation."

NYTimes endorses bill. In an editorial, the New York Times urges the House to approve the Food Safety Enhancement Act, even if "the bill does not solve all of the problems of food safety, of course. There will still be a patchwork of federal inspection programs done by a variety of different agencies. In the future, one food agency that works for consumers and food producers makes more sense. Right now, the FDA has the responsibility for 80 percent of the nation's food supply, and this bill would give it a lot more of the muscle it needs to do that job."

Spine Surgeon Failed to Disclose Payments from Medtronic

On the front of its Marketplace section, the Wall Street Journal reports that, according to documents "provided by Medtronic to Sen. Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican who has been scrutinizing the relationship between academics and industry," a University of Minnesota spine surgeon, David Polly, failed to disclose that he "was paid $1.14 million" by the devicemaker "for consulting services from 2004 to 2007." Polly appeared before "a Senate committee" in May 2006 to testify for funding for "research into the severe arm, leg and spine injuries suffered by soldiers in Iraq and elsewhere." Polly and his colleagues later "received a $466,644 Department of Defense grant for a two-year study beginning in February 2007 to evaluate" Medtronic's Infuse "bone growth product" in "cases where an injury is also infected." The documents show that "in total, Dr. Polly billed Medtronic for more than $50,000 in lobbying-related costs." For its part, "Medtronic said it was not aware that Dr. Polly hadn't disclosed his ties to the company when testifying."

From the American Association for Justice news release.

Texting Auto Drivers Are 23 Times More Likely To Crash

ABC World News (7/27, story 5, 2:05, Gibson) reported, "There's a new study out today that shows that texting while driving is by far the most dangerous driving distraction. The 18-month study was conducted with long-haul truckers but researchers said the high risk associated with texting applies to all drivers." Researchers found that while texting, drivers "are 23-times more likely to crash."

NBC Nightly News (7/27, story 8, 2:15, Williams) added that "14 states and the District of Columbia now ban texting while driving. But it could be tough to enforce." Other "studies have shown that reaction time and steering ability were worse while texting than while the drivers were actually drunk. But a new survey of drivers by AAA reveals while almost all of them see texting as just as frightening on the roads as drunk driving, more than one-fifth still do it anyway."

In a front-page story, the New York Times explains that the study, performed by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, followed drivers in "the cabs of long-haul trucks with video cameras over 18 months." The study is currently "undergoing peer review and has been submitted for publication in the Journal for Human Factors." It "also found that drivers took their eyes off the road for around five seconds when texting." The New York Times also describes the study's methodology in a text bar.

Meanwhile, the AP compares the 23 times greater risk of collision while texting to a six-fold increase while "dialing a cell phone or reaching for an electronic device." Researchers "recommended that texting should be banned for all drivers, and all cell phone use should be prohibited for newly licensed teen drivers. Fourteen states do ban texting while driving."

Jackson: Texting while driving should be banned. In a column in the Boston Globe, Derrick Z. Jackson writes, "Studies since 2003, such as the one that says that driving while talking on a cellphone is like driving drunk, are persuasive enough for [President] Obama and [Transportation Secretary Ray] LaHood to announce far more serious policies. Currently the Highway Traffic Safety Administration merely suggests that drivers "refrain" from talking on cellphones. The science cries out for a nationwide ban.

From the American Association for Justice news release.

Cell Phone Use Is A Driving Hazard

This falls into the "What's New?" category, but many of us forget just how dangerous it can be to drive while talking on a cell phone. The Philadelphia Inquirer summed it up so well in an editorial that I'm going to take the liberty of repeating it here. Please, don't talk and drive if you can avoid it.

The device most motorists first knew as a "car phone" is wreaking havoc on the nation's highways - where a person yakking on a cell phone behind the wheel is just as dangerous as a drunken driver.

Deep in conversation, many motorists are unaware as they blow through red lights and swerve across traffic lanes. Government officials, public health experts, and the driving public should be alarmed by the dangers.

But instead, federal officials since 2003 have suppressed reams of data on the highway risks of cell phones. That may explain why the nation lags so far behind in regulating this deadly driving hazard.

In a climate of don't tell, can't ask, neither citizens nor policy- makers can be expected to make informed decisions on cell-phone risks.

Two consumer groups, the Center for Auto Safety and Public Citizen, unearthed evidence that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) withheld "hundreds of pages of research and warnings about the use of phones by drivers," the New York Times first reported.

The highway agency also decided not to pursue its own researchers' recommendation for a massive study to nail down the risks.

It's no surprise the bureaucrats' chief fear was that a cell-phone safety warning would anger the Republican-led Congress, triggering funding cuts. Under then-President George W. Bush, regulation of all types was out of vogue.

The price for that inaction, however, was paid by motorists and bystanders killed and injured in thousands of accidents attributed to drivers distracted by phones and other devices. Not to mention the higher insurance premiums passed on to all drivers to cover the cost of the wrecks.

Any other safety hazard so clearly identified as the cause of 2,600 annual traffic deaths and 330,000 accidents would have triggered demands for regulation. But just a few states, including New Jersey, ban hand-held phones in favor of hands-free devices. Even fewer states are considering a ban on the more scary practice of drivers texting.

Since recent research has revealed that dialing drivers are four times as likely to crash, the federally chartered National Safety Council rightly called for a ban on motorist calls.

That may be an uphill battle with drivers so attached to these gadgets amid constant industry sales pitches. But NHTSA finally could alter those views with a concerted safety push.

Just as motorists were persuaded to embrace seat belts, they can be won over in preventing the dangers of driving while distracted by a "car phone."

Cash for Clunkers Government Program

Surely everyone knows about the Cash for Clunkers program by now — the federal government will give you up to $4500 for trading in an old car that gets poor gas mileage, for a new car that gets good gas mileage. The program starts today.

Two good sources for details are the official government Web site at CARS.gov, and a recent Dallas Morning News article. This is a great deal if you qualify and you're interested in getting a newer car. Here are answers to three of the most common questions, taken from the Dallas Morning News article:

Q: Which vehicles qualify?

A: Cars and trucks must be 1984 models or newer to be eligible for a trade-in rebate. They must get 18 miles per gallon or less in combined highway/city rating - based on the "Estimated New EPA MPG" ratings available at http://www.fueleconomy.gov . The vehicle needs to be drivable, insured and licensed for at least a year - so forget about buying a clunker this summer for $500 and "flipping" it through the program. Violators face penalties if they submit false information.

Q: How do I qualify for the incentives?

A: For passenger cars, consumers can get $3,500 if the new vehicle gets at least 4 mpg more than the trade-in and $4,500 if the new vehicle gets at least 10 mpg more than the trade-in. For sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks or minivans, owners can get a $3,500 rebate if the new vehicle gets at least 2 mpg higher than the old vehicle. The rebate improves to $4,500 if the new vehicle gets at least 5 mpg higher than the trade-in. Large work trucks weighing at least 6,000 pounds can also qualify for rebates of $3,500 to $4,500.

Q: Can I buy any kind of vehicle through the program?

A: This won't subsidize a new Ferrari. The new vehicle needs to meet the fuel-efficiency requirements and have a manufacturer's suggested retail price of less than $45,000. It can be a domestic or foreign model. Used car purchases are not allowed under the program.

Current Claims Against GM "Not Worth Pursuing"

The Kansas City Star reported, "When the 'new' General Motors emerged from bankruptcy earlier this month, consumer groups praised the agreement reached to ensure that the automaker would assume liability for future lawsuits over vehicle defects." But "those with claims pending against GM would have to seek compensation through the bankruptcy court process, an avenue that most lawyers and experts agree would at best yield 10 cents on the dollar," making them "not worth pursuing."

From the American Association for Justice news release.

Friday Fun

Hangman is another great iPhone Word game from the good people at Mobilityware. It's almost as addicting as Word Warp, previously mentioned here. And it's free! Check it out.

Investigation Reveals iPod Fire Threat

KIRO-TV Seattle, WA reported on its website, "An exclusive KIRO 7 Investigation reveals an alarming number of Apple brand iPod MP3 players have suddenly burst into flames and smoke, injuring people and damaging property." It took "more than 7-months for KIRO 7 Consumer Investigator Amy Clancy to get her hands on documents concerning Apple's iPods from the Consumer Product Safety Commission because Apple's lawyers filed exemption after exemption. In the end, the CPSC released more than 800 pages which reveal, for the very first time, a comprehensive look that shows, on a number of occasions, iPods have suddenly burst into flames, started to smoke, and even burned their owners." Earlier this year "a lawsuit against Apple was filed in Cincinnati because, [a] lawyer claims, an iPod Touch, one of Apple's newest edition of iPods, also powered by a lithium ion battery, exploded and caught fire while in a teenager's pocket. The suit claims the boy suffered second-degree burns to his leg, and that the iPod was off at the time. This incident is not included in the CPSC's file."

From the American Association for Justice news release.