Orlando Injury Lawyer Blog

Injury lawyers recognize the damage which can result when privacy rights are violated. However, Florida law has restricted recovery for emotional damages where the injury victim does not suffer a physical injury. Recently, the Florida Supreme Court has ruled that a person or company that discloses the results of HIV testing in violation of a patient's privacy rights can be sued for damages.

In Florida Department of Corrections v. Lisa Abril, the court carved out an exception to Florida’s impact rule. This rule states that "emotional distress suffered must flow from physical injuries the plaintiff sustained in an impact" in order for a plaintiff to recover damages for emotional distress caused by the negligence of another. In finding this exception, the court explained that emotional distress is the only type of injury stemming from the release of "highly personal, sensitive information." In addition, the court said that violation of a state statute may be used as evidence of negligence.

This decision reinstated Abril's negligence claim against the Department of Corrections after a lab that performs work for the department released confidential information about the results of her HIV test. Abril, a nurse at the Hendry County Correctional Institution, feared she contracted HIV after giving unprotected mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to an inmate who was infected with Hepatitis C and potentially HIV.

Hendry's chief medical officer submitted a blood sample from Abril to a laboratory that provides HIV testing services for inmates under a contract with the state. Although the HIV test results were supposed to be hand-delivered, they were allegedly faxed to an unsecured machine at Hendry's business office and to a fax machine at a Department of Corrections' office. As a result, a number of people learned that Abril's HIV test results came back positive.

Although these test results were later found to be incorrect and Abril was HIV negative, she sued the Department of Corrections, which was vicariously liable for the laboratory's missteps, for mental anguish and emotional distress over the negligence in ensuring the confidentiality and privacy of her test results. Certainly, these circumstances can cause real harm and emotional damage. Unfortunately, the court did not go further and eliminate the impact rule altogether. Indeed, several justices likewise argued for the abolition of the impact rule.

Posted by Tony Caggiano | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In:

Bookmark:

Injury lawyers have sued Merck & Co., claiming that the drug maker should pay for one-time medical tests of people who might unknowingly have suffered heart damage by taking the painkiller Vioxx. Now that the pharmaceutical giant has withdrawn Vioxx from the market, the case for medical monitoring is getting serious attention.

Attorneys representing the plaintiffs, both of whom took Vioxx for years but don't have any obvious heart symptoms, asked the New Jersey Supreme Court to certify a class action for their lawsuit after mixed rulings in lower courts. The case seeks to have the drug company pay for medical exams for some of the 20 million people who used the former blockbuster arthritis pill to see if any have had a "silent heart attack," The Star-Ledger of Newark reported on its Web site Monday.

Merck, one of the world's biggest drug companies, pulled Vioxx from store shelves three years ago after research showed the popular arthritis treatment doubled the risk of heart attacks and strokes. Yet, lawyers for Merck told the judges that the company should not have to bear the cost of medical monitoring for people with no clear sign of injury.

While it may not seek the usual relief, under these circumstances it will be interesting to follow the court’s decision. Certainly, there is arguably a compelling need to discover whether the risks of taking the drug have, in fact, materialized. In addition, the plaintiffs argue that a typical EKG to test heart function only costs about $150-a small price to pay if it saves lives.

Merck currently faces about 26,600 lawsuits representing 47,000 plaintiffs, and about 265 potential class action cases. In the product liability trials that have reached verdicts, Merck has won 10 cases and lost five.

Posted by Tony Caggiano | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Consumer Products

Bookmark:

In an injury lawsuit involving pharmaceutical drugs, a jury ordered Wyeth to pay a $134.5 million. The product liability lawsuit was brought by three women who claimed the company's hormone replacement drugs caused their breast cancer. It was the largest award to date against the New Jersey-based pharmaceutical company, which faces about 5,300 similar lawsuits across the country in state and federal courts.

The jury deliberated for two days before announcing its verdict late yesterday in favor of the plaintiffs who were 75, 67, and 64 years old. The same five-man, two-woman jury will be considering punitive damages against the drug maker.

During the four-week trial, the plaintiffs testified that they started taking Premarin, an estrogen replacement, and Prempro, a combination of estrogen and progestin, to help offset menopausal symptoms, but were taken off the therapy when they developed breast cancer. In defense, Wyeth lawyers argued the company sponsored or participated in a list of studies on the risks of breast cancer, and identified the risks on warning labels included with each bottle of the drug. The drug maker also focused on the fact that its drug was approved the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and remained on the market.

As the verdict reveals, the jury found those excuses unpersuasive. Consumers are entitled to safe pharmaceutical drugs and where necessary, adequate warnings. Hopefully, this verdict will have a positive impact on the pharmaceutical giants.

Posted by Tony Caggiano | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Consumer Products

Bookmark:

Injury due to negligent or unsafe conditions in Orlando area stores is commonplace. Whatever the reason, as Orlando injury lawyers, we have seen too many individuals harmed due to careless business practices in popular retail establishments.

Many of our clients never spoke with an injury lawyer or considered an injury lawsuit before the incident that brought them to our office. These are hardworking people who suddenly, due to no fault of their own, suffer injury, see medical bills mounting and have no hope to return to work anytime soon. Their only avenue is to pursue a legal claim to hold accountability the business that thought too little of customer safety.

These people are reluctant to bring a legal claim. They, like many, believe that people should take care of themselves. Unfortunately, these people discover that customers can not always avoid injury when businesses fail to take the most basic safety precautions.

For example, how can a customer prevent being stuck on the head by a falling object? Should customers innocently walking down aisles have to protect against a store clerk high above them dropping a heavy object? Likewise, should customers have to constantly monitor the floor for hazards? In one case, a home improvement store had holes in its concrete floors that existed for months. Due to the lighting and the manner of displaying products, the defect was easy to miss. A hardworking carpenter who was there to pick up supplies never saw the holes and fell. His orthopedic injury prevented further employment as a carpenter; and, without health insurance he was unable to afford the necessary surgery for his injury.

We must all be accountable for our actions. We teach our children this principle and it should apply to retail stores as well.

Posted by Tony Caggiano | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In:

Bookmark: