Orlando Injury Lawyer Blog

An injury lawsuit we recently came across claims that a patient fell off his doctor’s exam table because the staff failed to provide assistance. As Orlando medical malpractice lawyers, this unfortunate incident is a reminder that patient must look after their own interests. In today’s healthcare industry, busy medical practices are not immune from accidents.

Whether this lawsuit fairly seeks to hold the medical clinic responsible is yet to be seen. There are many important facts that have not yet been disclosed. While we have represented patients who were injured when medical or hospital staff failed to protect them from falls, some patients should be expected to step down from an examination table without much difficulty.

Among the relevant issues in these cases are the age of the patient, the general health and condition of the patient, the height of the table, as well as the length of time the patient was lying down before trying to move off the table. Certainly, patients should be able to expect a helping hand or proper supervision where needed.

In this medical malpractice case the patient claims significant orthopedic injury from his fall. Whether there was any fault on the part of the medical staff in this case, the patient went to his doctor for help with one condition and left with many more medical problems.

Posted by Tony Caggiano | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Medical Malpractice

Bookmark:

The last in this series of blogs on federal agency efforts to protect product makers from recklessly hurting consumers, we look at a current case to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Indeed, this case is worthy of all Americans who do not put their absolute faith in the judgment of corporations and federal agencies to protecting public health and safety.

This particular case, Wyeth vs. Levine, involves a professional pianist, Diana Levine, who lost her right arm eight years ago after the prescription drug Phenergan was administered through her vein for a migraine headache. Her lawsuit alleges the manufacturer, Wyeth, was aware that an arterial reaction was a risk in the intravenous technique that was used - but failed to mention it on the drug's warning label.

Levine won a substantial judgment in state court. However, the legal issue before the U.S. Supreme is: Whether the existence of federal regulation pre-empt states from either enacting stricter rules for public health and safety - or even allowing victims to file lawsuits in state courts?

The high court signaled its inclination to side with the federal regulators over the states - and big business over individual rights - with its February ruling against a New York man who was injured when a balloon catheter burst while it was being inserted into an artery. In that case, the court, parsing the intent of Congress in the Medical Device Amendment of 1976, ruled that the fact the device was found safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration pre-empted the right of an injured patient to sue for damages in state courts.

As Orlando injury lawyers, we must wait to see what the court will do in the Levine case. Certainly, consumers deserve protection from dangerous products. However, it is so sad that politics and power so often places the interest of the people on the back shelf.

Posted by Tony Caggiano | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Consumer Products

Bookmark:

In our last blog we discussed efforts by federal agencies to protect product makers from injury lawsuits for selling dangerous products to consumers. This blog includes specific examples of federal agencies seeking to protect corporations from injury lawsuits under state law, including the laws of Florida.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has instituted rules on seat belts, roof-crush resistance and rear-object detection systems - and pre-empts state tort law in the preambles to those rules.

When the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced new flammability standards for mattresses the commission made a last-minute addition to the rule that pre-empts state tort law, the first such move in the commission's 33-year history.

The Food and Drug Administration pre-empts state tort law in coming out with new rules that require drug manufacturers to warn patients when they become aware of new drug risks.
While not involving dangerous products, in the field of railroad safety, the Federal Railroad Administration issued a rule that effectively grants immunity from state lawsuits to railroad companies in the event of a commuter train derailment. Amazingly, this occurred a few days after Congress approved a measure that preserved the right of victims to sue railroad companies in such instances.

Why should these giant companies be able to put innocent consumers at risk and then be protected from the consequences of their reckless behavior? As Orlando injury lawyers, we do not believe they should.

Posted by Tony Caggiano | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Consumer Products

Bookmark:

If you think the prescription drug you took for headaches caused your heart attack, the Food and Drug Administration says you can't sue the maker for injury if it met agency standards. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) says you can't sue a mattress maker if your mattress bursts into flame despite meeting CPSC standards. Companies making sport utility vehicles would get similar protection from suits brought by people injured or the families of those killed in rollovers under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposals for stronger roofs.

These federal agencies assert that their rules override state product liability laws and prevent innocent consumers from holding careless product makers accountable for putting profits over people. Most of these claims are rooted in statements in the introductions or preamble to federal agency rules. This has become a silent form of tort reform since the federal agencies not Congress creates these changes in the law. There is little if any checks and balances on what these agencies put in the preamble to their rules.

This has outraged consumer groups and legislators who find this tactic patently unfair. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, said at hearings last fall that agencies have issued at least a dozen rules to shield drug and other product manufacturers from liability.

Of course, as an Orlando injury lawyer we know that the threat of civil litigation gives corporations a powerful incentive to make their products safer. We will take a further look at this important issue in future blogs. The public has a right to know that its federal agencies are choosing to protect corporate interests to the detriment of innocent consumers.

Posted by Tony Caggiano | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Consumer Products

Bookmark: