Orlando Injury Lawyer Blog

As Orlando injury lawyers, we receive many inquiries relating to cruise ship passenger injuries. Cruise ship passengers have brought claims after family members have died from drowning, pool accidents, gastrointestinal flu and allergic reactions to shellfish, as well as after having been killed during on-shore excursions. Other lawsuits against cruise lines involve injury arising from stray golf balls, malfunctioning sliding glass doors, falling bunk beds, coconut cocktails that have been thrown across a room, snapping mooring lines, open hatches and spider bites.

Recently, cruise lines received immunity from lawsuits involving medical malpractice committed by the ship's doctors. As I wrote, this decision by the Florida Supreme Court effectively makes it almost impossible for cruise ship passengers to obtain relief for malpractice injuries or death. No longer can passengers hold the cruise lines responsible for injuries caused the ship's doctor.

Florida cruises leaving from Brevard County, Broward County and Dade County's Port of Miami, are extremely popular. With more than 12 million people taking cruises each year, and an ever greater number of people cruising into their golden years, death has become more common on the high seas. For seniors, it is certainly a good idea to get a clean bill of health before setting sail. Also, it is a good idea to inform the cruise line of any medical conditions in the case of an emergency. Of course, everyone should be aware of security issues onboard cruise ships. While it may seem like paradise, there have been too many tragedies not to remain vigilant.

We recently met with another victim of food contamination in Orlando. Unaware of the recall, unsuspecting parents were making snacks for their small child from Great Value jars of peanut butter. Fortunately, they learned that the Center for Disease Control (CDC) reported that ConAgra Foods' Peter Pan and Great Value brand peanut butter has salmonella contamination. The CDC formally reported the presence of the dangerous germ in peanut butter from opened jars from people sickened in New York, Oklahoma and Iowa. All three tested positive for salmonella.

ConAgra Foods Inc. earlier this month recalled all Peter Pan and Great Value peanut butter made at its Sylvester, Georgia, plant after federal health officials linked the product to a salmonella outbreak that has sickened at least 329 people from 41 states since August.

The Oklahoma Department of Health reported recovering seven peanut butter jars from 11 cases confirmed by the state, and found the strain of salmonella in at least one. Iowa's Department of Health positively matched a peanut butter jar from one of the state's six confirmed cases. At least 51 people were hospitalized with symptoms of the disease between August 1 and February 2, with 60 percent of illnesses beginning after Dec. 1, according to the CDC.

Salmonella, which commonly originates from the feces of birds and animals, sickens about 40,000 people a year in the United States and kills about 600. It can cause diarrhea, fever, dehydration, abdominal pain and vomiting.

Government and industry officials have said the contamination may have been caused by dirty jars or equipment. Peanuts are usually heated to high, germ-killing temperatures during the manufacturing process. The only known salmonella outbreak in peanut butter -- in Australia during the mid-1990s -- was attributed to unsanitary plant conditions.

The Sylvester plant is the sole maker of the nationally distributed Peter Pan brand, and the recall covers all peanut butter produced by the plant since May 2006. Shoppers are being asked to toss out jars having a product code on the lid beginning with "2111," which denotes the plant. The jars or their lids can be returned to the store where they were purchased for a refund. Great Value peanut butter is a Wal-Mart Stores Inc. house brand made by several manufacturers. Great Value peanut butter that does not have the "2111" code is not included in the recall.

.

After two years of soaring property insurance rates, Floridians may get a break on their auto insurance. Some auto insurers say they will lower premiums for most drivers if the state's no-fault accident system expires as scheduled in October. The move could save Florida drivers hundreds of dollars a year in auto insurance premiums.

State Farm, Florida's largest auto insurer with 2.7 million policies, already has filed to reduce rates an average of 16 percent. The company estimates an annual savings of $360 for a typical two-car household, a statewide total of $435 million a year.

Florida's largest car insurers claim that No-fault has been plagued with legal loopholes and fraud and has become too expensive and gotten out of control. The no-fault system requires drivers to carry $10,000 in personal injury protection (PIP). It covers medical bills for drivers and their passengers' injuries regardless of who's at fault in an accident.

In 1972, Florida became the second state to adopt no-fault, which was designed to limit lawsuits by eliminating minor injuries from the tort system. In return for medical benefits, the No-fault law restricts people's right to sue if they are hit and injured in an accident. Today, only 12 states retain the no-fault medical provisions.

Some auto insurers want to retain the No-fault law. GEICO, Florida's third-largest auto insurer, supports improvements to the current no-fault system. Likewise, the Florida Justice Association and the Florida Chiropractic Association support re-enactment of PIP. In addition, the Florida Hospital Association says PIP should remain or be replaced with another mandatory medical coverage. Florida trial lawyers favor mandatory bodily injury coverage, now required in 47 states, to make at-fault drivers pay for injuries.

Florida drivers pay the sixth-highest auto insurance rates in the country, according to the Insurance Information Institute. New Jersey is No 1. The annual Florida premium averaged $1,062 compared with $838 nationwide in 2004, the most recent year measured.

As Orlando injury lawyers, we have championed the rights of children, adults and seniors. The recent efforts of pharmaceutical drug giant, Merck & Co. has directly called into question the rights of both children and their parents to make very personal and private decisions.

Fortunately, this product maker has confronted strong challenges to its recent campaign.

Bowing to pressure from parents and medical groups, Merck & Co. is suspending its lobbying campaign to persuade legislatures to mandate that adolescent girls get the company's vaccine against cervical cancer as a requirement to attend school. The drug maker, which disclosed the change had been soundly criticized for quietly funding the campaign, via a third party, to require 11- and 12-year-old girls get the three-dose vaccine in order to attend school.

Some had objected because the vaccine protects against a sexually transmitted disease, human papilloma virus, which causes cervical cancer. Vaccines mandated for school attendance usually prevent diseases spread through casual contact, such as measles and mumps.

"Our goal is about cervical cancer prevention and we want to reach as many females as possible with Gardasil," said Dr. Richard M. Haupt, Merck's medical director for vaccines .
"We're concerned that our role in supporting school requirements is a distraction from that goal, and as such have suspended our lobbying efforts," Haupt said, adding the company will continue providing information about the vaccine if asked by officials.

Merck began selling Gardasil, the first vaccine to prevent cervical cancer, in June. Sales totaled $235 million through 2006, according to Merck. Last month, the AP reported that Merck was channeling money for its campaign through Women in Government, an advocacy group made up of female state legislators across the country.

When damage limits in medical malpractice cases went into effect, Floridians lost the right to fair compensation for debilitating injury and death due to medical negligence. The insurance industry and their allies in the Florida Medical Association told the people of Florida that unless they got these restrictions, doctors would be forced to flee the state, stop practicing or not carry insurance at all.

In return, Florida doctors were supposed to see lower rates and more malpractice insurance availability. As the Florida Justice Association has reported, one of those goals has been accomplished. Since 2004, more than 18 new companies have started writing new business in Florida. They are entering Florida for one reason -- business is booming. You need only scan an insurance industry trade publication to see that "times are good" in Florida's medical malpractice market. Flushed with cash and facing fewer claims, many insurance companies have announced dividends and aggressive stock repurchasing plans.

While insurers and their investors are reaping excessive profits and flouting the intent of the Legislature, Florida doctors have seen little or no savings. When the FMA declared a crisis in 2003 and asked lawmakers to slash patient rights for the promise of decreased premiums, their intention was not to enrich the insurance industry. But four years later, only token rate decreases have been submitted, following years of double digit increases.

This year, doctors should receive the relief promised. Certainly if the people must give up their rights to fair compensation, the doctors should be the ones to benefit. The Florida Justice Association is correct that the focus should be on the interest of doctors to pay reasonable premiums for medical malpractice insurance and on restoring patients' rights to receive full compensation for damages.

Handing injury lawyers a huge defeat, the U.S. Supreme Court threw out a nearly $80 million punitive damages ruling against Philip Morris. The damages had been awarded in a product liability lawsuit brought by the family of an Oregon man who died from a smoking-related disease.

The case, Philip Morris USA v. Williams, tested the power of juries to impose large punitive awards against tobacco and other well-heeled corporations in product-liability cases. In their ruling, the justices decided to follow recent precedent that punitive damages should, in most cases, match "actual" damages.

An Oregon jury had ruled in favor of the estate of building custodian Jesse Williams, who died in 1997 after having smoked as many as three packs per day for 47 years. A jury awarded his estate $800,000 in compensatory damages in 1991 and almost 100 times that amount, $79.5 million, in punitive damages.

In arguments before the justices in October, a lawyer for Philip Morris USA argued that juries can punish a tobacco company by awarding damages to a smoker's widow but not to other smokers. Attorney Andrew Frey argued that the family of a longtime smoker deserved compensation based only on individual harm, not harm to the public at large.

The justices had seemed torn over how to apply past precedents limiting punitive damages against Big Tobacco and other deep-pocketed corporations in product-liability cases to the case of Williams. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter. Dissenting were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens and Clarence Thomas.

The Central Florida family of a teenager killed last summer in a motorcycle crash is trying to prevent underage drinking. By suing the motorcycle driver and the couple who hosted a "going-off-to-college" party before the wreck, the family may help protect injuries to others. For certain, this personal injury lawsuit is fueling efforts by local lawmakers and the advocacy group Mothers Against Drunk Driving to create stiffer penalties for those who host house parties that include underage drinking. This case involves the death of 19-year-old Jaclyn Bien, of Bradenton, and left driver Ricky Lee Rowell, 20, in critical condition. According to information, before the crash, Rowell was drinking at a house party in the area. Rowell's blood alcohol level was above the legal .08 limit to drive in Florida, according to Florida Highway Patrol. The parents of Jaclyn Bien filed the suit against Rowell and the Librizzis in Manatee County Florida. According to the complaint, the Librizzis "willfully furnished or negligently made alcoholic beverages available to decedent, Jaclyn Bien, and to many other persons" including Ricky Rowell. It further alleged that the Librizzis hosted the party and knew all the party's guests were not old enough to drink. Unfortunately this is another example of underage drinking taking the innocent lives of so many of our children and young adults. Perhaps lawsuits like this will bring more needed attention to this growing problem in our community. For its part, MADD is working with legislators to create steeper punishments for those who provide alcohol to minors at parties. Currently, serving alcohol to minors at an open house party in Florida constitutes a second-degree misdemeanor. That means a person convicted of the crime can spend no more than 60 days in jail. That may change, in part, due to this tragedy.

Florida Medical malpractice lawyers seek to protect the rights of victims of medical malpractice to hold careless doctors and hospitals accountable for devastating injuries. Unfortunately, over the past years victims’ rights have been sacrificed. While it was not the intention of voters or perhaps well-meaning legislators, the outcome has been simply more profits for the insurance industry. Liability insurers continue to get richer at the expense of innocent medical malpractice and personal injury victims.

Now, FPIC Insurance Group, Inc. has improved its earnings in 2006 by 47 percent compared to a year earlier. Indeed, both insurance company profit and medical malpractice rises while fewer and fewer victims can successfully hold reckless health care providers accountable. In every way FPIC has benefited from the legal and economic climate. The company earned $51.2 million, or $5.02 per share, compared to $35 million in 2005, or $3.43 per share.

FPIC Insurance Group Inc. (NASDAQ: FPIC), based in Jacksonville, provides medical professional liability insurance for doctors, dentists and other health care providers. Over the years, along with other medical malpractice insurers, they have lobbied our state legislators to institute unfair tort reform. Obviously it is difficult for most busy people to understand that insurers already have an advantage in medical malpractice cases. Future victims of medical malpractice do not know who they will be and therefore may not consider the important rights that these insurers have been attempting to strip away. Yet, we are seeing more and more people begin to understand that our civil justice system is tilted in favor of insurers and those who they defend.

Despite increasing difficulties we will continue to proudly represent innocent injury victims and their families. There has never been a more important time for fellow colleagues to join together to fight back against attempts to deprive our citizens of protection from careless doctors and hospitals.

During our current cold snap in Orlando, I have been reminded of the risk of injury and death to our children from their clothing. As personal injury lawyers, we know that dangerously designed clothing causes injury and death to small children in Florida and elsewhere. Despite safety guidelines from the Consumer Product Safety Commission, an agency of the federal government, children’s clothing manufacturers continue to sell dangerous clothing to unsuspecting parents and grandparents.

The other day, I saw a small child in our community wearing a hooded sweatshirt with pull-strings. That kind of clothing is known to get caught in playground equipment and can lead to the strings tightening around the child’s neck. If the child is climbing or on a slide, he or she can be left dangling until help arrives. That horrific situation can lead to strangulation.

As a parent, I have become acutely aware of these hazards and I share these risks with my friends and family whenever it comes to mind. Unfortunately, many parents have no idea of the risks. I wish I could get this information to every parent of little ones. Recently, the CPSC sent out a recall relating to hooded sweatshirts and jackets with neck pull-strings. Amazingly, there are thousands of these pieces of children’s clothing out there putting children at risk.

For your guidance and for those you know with small children, I am providing this link to the CPSC guidelines for drawstrings on children’s clothing. This guideline was developed in 1996 and includes drawings which illustrate what happens if a string gets caught and the child loses his or her footing. While we all do our best to properly supervise our children and keep them safe, children’s clothing manufacturers must do their part. That includes complying with federal guidelines for safely making children’s clothing.

The multidistrict litigation over the antipsychotic drug Seroquel has been consolidated in Orlando for evidence-gathering and pre- trial hearings. The federal lawsuits against AstraZeneca, the drug maker, are consolidated as In re Seroquel Products Liability Litigation, MDL-1769, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida (Orlando). This includes claims by more than 7000 plaintiffs.

In their complaints, patients claim that AstraZeneca did not adequately warn of possible side effects, including severe weight gain and risk of diabetes. Many of the suits contend that the company promoted the drug for unapproved uses, contrary to U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations. Seroquel, approved for use for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, was marketed for off-label uses, including insomnia, depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder and Alzheimer's.

As personal injury and medical malpractice lawyers we have seen total disregard for consumer safety by various industries and product makers. However, it is difficult for us to imagine a larger scale of “profit over people” than with pharmaceutical drugs. Here, the drug victims claim that the astronomical growth in sales of Seroquel from $66 million in 1998 to $2.75 billion in 2005, was spurred by AstraZeneca's aggressive, improper marketing of Seroquel. Sadly, thousands of Seroquel victims claim pancreatitis, diabetes or severe exacerbation of existing diabetes from using this drug.

Perhaps, these lawsuits against AstraZeneca Plc, the U.K.'s second- largest drug maker, will deter similar conduct. While no guarantee, we believe that the risk of large punitive damage awards may help focus industry giants a bit more on consumer safety and well-being. From our standpoint these lawsuits appear similar to previous claims filed over injuries from the antipsychotic drug Zyprexa against Eli Lilly & Co. To date, more than 28,000 cases over Zyprexa have settled for approximately $1.2 billion.

In our Florida car accident cases, we routinely inquire about cell phone use during client interviews and discovery. As personal injury lawyers, we have seen first hand evidence to support those studies which have shown that distracted drivers, especially those who talk on cell phones, pose a hazard. According to one study talking motorists are four times as likely to be involved in accidents.

In that study, sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, cameras and sensors were placed in 100 vehicles that were tracked for about a year. In that time, more than three-quarters of the 69 crashes and two-thirds of the 761 near-misses involved driver distraction, usually involving a cell phone conversation. A University of Kansas study found that drivers engaged in a conversation are less likely to respond to visual cues because too much of the processing power of their brain is already in use for them to adequately focus on the road. Because of this, the study said, hands-free devices do not lower the risk of crashes.

As a father of three teenage drivers that concerns me a lot. While we can prohibit our children from driving and using their cell phones, we cannot control every other driver out there. That's alarming today when you consider that the number of cell phone subscribers has risen to more than 230 million according to the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association. And according to a recent Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. survey, at least 73 percent use them while in the car.

These statistics have generated action by several local governments. Four states and the District of Columbia have passed laws criminalizing the use of hand-held cell phones while driving; several others have passed restrictions on young drivers' cell-phone use while behind the wheel. More than 40 countries have enacted outright bans. In Florida there is presently no such regulations to address this growing concern for the safety of the traveling public.

In a major defeat for Florida medical malpractice lawyers and those they represent, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that cruise lines cannot be held liable for medical malpractice by shipboard doctors. In Carnival Corp. vs. Darce Carlisle, the court stated that when deciding questions of U.S. maritime law, Florida courts must follow uniform precedents established at the federal level. Finding that federal courts have generally held that cruise line operators do not exercise control over the doctors’ medical practices, the Court held that there was no cruise line liability for any medical malpractice.

This case arose from a medical malpractice lawsuit filed in April 1998 by the parents of teenager Elizabeth Carlisle, who was diagnosed with flu while aboard the Carnival Corp. liner Ecstasy in 1997. When the family returned home, Elizabeth was found to have suffered a ruptured appendix. As a consequence, she was left sterile.

Elizabeth's parents sued Miami-based Carnival and Dr. Mauro Neri for medical malpractice in Miami-Dade Circuit Court, claiming the doctor was an agent of the cruise line. But the trial court granted summary judgment for Carnival. However, the case was reinstated by the Third District Court of Appeal, which found that a shipboard doctor is under the cruise line’s direct supervision and is not an independent contractor.

The Supreme Court determined that the District Court ignored a longstanding principle of uniformity in federal maritime law when it reinstated the Carlisle family’s suit against Carnival. The United States Supreme Court will be asked to review this decision and overturn existing federal precedent.

As a practical matter, I believe that without being able to hold the cruise lines responsible for medical malpractice by ship doctors, there is little chance of recovery for victims of medical malpractice. We all know that ship doctors hail from many foreign countries and would be difficult to locate and serve with a lawsuit. Of course, there would also be the challenge of collecting from a ship doctor with no medical malpractice insurance or assets that can be reached to satisfy a Florida judgment. Inasmuch as Florida cruise lines attract citizens from all over the United States, the impact of this decision is far-reaching.

As a specialist in Florida personal injury and medical malpractice cases, I am always striving to better communicate with our juries. For more than twenty years, I have worked with jury consultants to pre-try our cases to mock juries. Having participated in mock trials involving car accidents, defective products and medical malpractice, I find it helpful to test my case issues on impartial observers.

Now, with the aid of TrialJuries, www.trialjuries.com, injury lawyers can test their case issues before a panel of jurors using the Internet. Unlike traditional mock juries, which are too time-consuming and costly for minor injury cases, TrialJuries provides mock juries at a greatly reduced cost. Unlike traditional mock juries, which can cost tens of thousands of dollars, the cost to use TrialJuries internet mock juries ranges from $1500 to $2500 per case, depending on the type of presentation (text, audio or video) the attorney chooses to make to the jury. The basic cost also includes up to 5 Exhibits, 15 jurors, 5 Verdict Questions and 5 Feedback questions.

Obviously, internet mock juries have limitations and can not provide the free flowing exchange between jurors or counsel. However, using this internet approach to pre-try your case will allow you to get helpful feedback from real people. Learning how your case is perceived by others is always valuable. Over the years, we have often formed our own focus groups in a convenient, cost-effective manner. Now with the advent of internet mock juries, we will begin to consider this option in our injury law practice.