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.

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.

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.

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.

This action comes as many states call for federal authorities to beef up inspections of toys to prevent lead problems. Congress is considering legislation directing the Consumer Product Safety Commission to improve toy monitoring, but supporters of state legislation believe states should not simply wait for Congress to act. We certainly agree. Of course, the toy industry does not. The Toy Industry Association has taken the position that the federal government alone should regulate toy safety. Fortunately, dozens of states appear determined to help keep dangerous toys away from innocent children.

With this in mind, in our injury cases we try to illustrate that the injury to our client was not only avoidable, but that the hazard should be addressed to prevent future harm to other patrons. Whether injury results from lack of security or poorly designed stairs, ramps or walkways, we try to reasonably demonstrate simple, cost-effective alternatives that would benefit the hundreds and thousands of future patrons. It makes no sense for a corporate defendant to have to pay for our clients’ injury and remain at risk once the hazard and a reasonable solution has been identified.

Interview-Just as you would with any other professional, interview your doctor. Make an appointment to meet and chat with a doctor that you are considering to care for you or your family. Or go for a first visit that involves a minor problem “to see what you think.” You do not want to be blindly choosing a doctor when you have a serious medical condition.

Check them out on the Internet-People can easily Google or Yahoo! Any doctor they are considering. Within a few minutes you may find the doctor’s website, news stories about him, good or bad, and there are websites with objective information, including medical malpractice information. Evaluate his training and board certification at the American Medical Association’s website. Several Web sites such as RateMDs.com and HealthGrades.com also have doctor ratings.

Check out the staff- Remember, you're not just choosing a doctor. You're choosing his staff as well. They're more important than you might think. When you're feeling desperately ill, you're at their mercy to squeeze you into a packed schedule. A good doctor who has a rude receptionist, sloppy nurse, or careless assistant spells trouble and frustration.

Recently, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld a state law Thursday that limits how much a person
injured by a defective product can collect in non-economic damages, reversing its stance. The lawsuit involved the Ortho Evra Birth Control Patch made by New Brunswick, N.J.-based Johnson & Johnson. The woman who brought the lawsuit claimed the product caused her permanent physical damage and threatened her ability to have children, and her lawyer argued that limits on damages were unconstitutional.

The majority opinion in the 5-2 ruling, written by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer, said the Ohio law did not violate the constitutional rights of injured parties to trial by jury, to a remedy for their injuries or to due process and equal protection. Of course, the decision has been praised by The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers and the National Federation of Independent Business Legal Foundation who had joined in urging the court to uphold the law. Obviously, corporate interests want to protect profits and not the people who may be harmed by dangerous products.

Recently, an Orlando circuit court judge found these limits in medical malpractice cases to be unconstitutional. However, it will take some time for Florida appellate courts to consider this issue. Meanwhile it is interesting to note that few Floridians are aware of these limitations or that organizations such as the exist which have spent decades backing state and federal legislation to prevent innocent injury victims to have a jury consider the real value of their injury claims.

According to legal scholars the pendulum is moving even more pro-defendant in recent years. This of course is happening because big corporations, the insurance industry and the medical associations have used scare tactics to take away the people’s right to full and fair justice. Unfortunately, as Orlando injury lawyers, we know that corporate America will continue to work to deprive citizens of their right to hold corporation accountable; rather, than working harder to keep people safe in the first place.

Sadly, our government has not done enough. In fact, the federal government continues to warn that further recalls are likely so we know more dangerous toys are still on the shelves of retail stores throughout Florida and elsewhere. Parents and grandparents can no longer ask themselves if a toy is simply fun. They must determine if the toy is safe.

Perhaps the recent tragic injury and death to innocent children will finally motivate our federal government to take necessary steps to prevent future harm. Despite efforts by individual store owners and the continuing stream of recalls, the toy industry says shoppers are not avoiding the 80 percent of toys made in China. We must stop foreign manufacturers with poor standards, if any, to continue to stock our store shelves with dangerous toys.

The patient underwent emergency surgery when her dentist was unable to remove the drill bit. Following the surgery, the woman continues to suffer facial swelling, nerve damage and has chronic infections because of the bacteria that seeped into her sinus cavity.

This dental malpractice case began when the patient went to her dentist for pain in a molar started getting worse. An exposed nerve made it sensitive to heat and cold and a root canal had been ruled out as a possible option, according to her lawsuit. The dentist gave her some novocaine and while he was drilling to break the molar into quadrants before the extraction, the patient heard a snapping sound. All the while according to her lawyer, the dentist was dancing to the beat of the song on the radio in the dental office.

If this was not injury enough, the woman had been undergoing chemotherapy at the time of the pharmacy injury. The stroke required her to stop her chemotherapy and led to the spread of her breast cancer to her lungs and killed her.

A pharmacy malpractice jury found against Walgreens and awarded significant compensation. However, after the trial, Walgreens’ lawyers disagreed as to the amount of the award, but did not appear to deny the improper filling of the prescription.

The importance of this injury and death case is to remind consumers that a pharmacy can make fatal mistakes. That is especially true, where a young pharmacy technician is involved. So next time you go to a Walgreens Pharmacy or a CVS Pharmacy, double check the information on your prescription with what you are given by the pharmacy. By taking a few minutes to check and, if necessary, to question those at the pharmacy, you may prevent a similar tragedy from happening to you or your family.