Articles Posted in Personal Injury

Published on:

iStock-1281240685
In premature infants, both Enfamil, a baby formula manufactured by Mead Johnson, and Similac, a baby formula manufactured by Abbott Laboratories, can cause necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC). This gastrointestinal condition, necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), is severe and causes intestinal tissue death. It may even be fatal in as many as 50% of cases. In addition, the intestinal inflammation caused by this horrible condition may cause holes in the intestine. It is even possible for bacteria from the intestinal tract to leak into the abdomen or blood, causing severe illnesses or deadly blood infections. The condition can also cause severe health issues like sepsis, intestinal strictures, developmental problems, and cerebral palsy.

A study in Lancet, 1990, found that this horrendous condition NEC was up to 10 times more likely in premature infants given formula. In recent years, several studies have linked cow’s milk-based formula to an increased risk of NEC in premature infants, based on cases filed against baby formula products.

Similac and Enfamil manufacturers are facing lawsuits from parents because they were aware or should have been aware that their baby formula products could cause necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in premature infants. In addition, these companies did not warn parents or medical providers about the risk. According to the parents who sued, Enfamil and Similac failed to indicate that NEC is a possible side effect of their baby formulas or provide proper instructions or guidelines on using the product. As an added concern, these companies marketed their baby formula products as safe and beneficial for premature infants despite potential risks. 

Published on:

iStock-1321458945
You might be wondering what Necrotizing enterocolitis or NEC is. It is a common and severe intestinal condition among premature infants. It occurs when tissue in the large or small intestine is injured or inflamed. When the tissue gets damaged or inflamed, it may lead to the death of intestinal tissue and, sometimes, a hole (perforation) in the intestinal wall.

When an infant has NEC, the intestine can no longer hold waste. This may cause bacteria to find their way into the bloodstream and cause a deadly infection. In addition, waste could potentially enter into the infant’s abdomen and cause the infant to get critically ill. Because of all the damage sustained to the intestines, sections may die and need to get removed. 

Symptoms of this potentially deadly disease include but are not limited to an unstable and low body temperature, apnea (pauses in breathing), being lethargic or less active, constipation, trouble feeding, and diarrhea. 

Published on:

iStock-1311426758
Bringing new life into the world is one of the most joyous occasions an individual can experience. When someone becomes a parent, the world changes instantly and all prior priorities fade. That means that when something tragic happens to a baby, the pain is beyond description.  

In recent years, several baby formulas have been linked to birth defects, especially in premature babies. One of the most commonly developed conditions is a serious gastrointestinal illness known as Necrotizing Enterocolitis [NEC]. According to the U.S. National Library of Medicine, 40% of babies with NEC die from it. 

If your child is suffering from NEC, you may be eligible for a baby formula lawsuit. It is vital to contact the Carabin Shaw NEC attorneys as soon as possible.   

Published on:

pexels-joshua-santos-9083235-150x150In many situations, those who suffer injuries at a public location because of another’s negligence may claim recovery under Texas’ premises liability laws. However, like most tort laws, premises liability is rife with exceptions and immunity clauses. The exceptions largely hinge on the classification of the property or business owner and the injury victim. As such, these cases tend to be complex and require an extensive understanding of Texas negligence laws.

Premises liability cases stemming from sporting events, such as baseball games, prove challenging for many accident victims. While many spectators bring a baseball glove in the hopes of catching a foul ball, many do not realize the dangers of a foul ball. However, the Major League Ball (MLB) assumes that spectators understand the potential risk of being struck by a foul ball.

In many situations, spectators can catch a foul ball or avoid serious injuries; however, the force of a foul ball slamming into an unsuspecting fan’s head can have a devastating impact. Spectators can suffer traumatic brain injuries, bruising, broken facial bones, skull fractures, and similar injuries. A foul ball could even kill a spectator. For example, the parents of a young child who was hit by a foul ball at a Houston Astros game finally settled with the team.

Published on:

pexels-skitterphoto-17605-150x150Recently, an appellate court issued an opinion in an accident lawsuit involving a Texas resident. The victim’s joined his church group on an out-of-state wilderness expedition trip. The church hired a company to arrange the group’s activities. The company required the participants to complete a “registration form” and “medical form.” On the first day of the trip, the victim participated in a rappelling course. However, during the course, he became inverted, fell, and died. The victim’s wife filed a lawsuit against the rappelling company.

In response to the lawsuit, the company moved for summary judgment arguing, amongst several issues, that Texas law did not apply to the case. Cases involving Texas residents suffering injuries in another state can pose many challenges to plaintiffs. The law provides that in diversity actions, the court should apply the conflict-of-laws rules of the forum state. This also applies in contract language dispute matters.

In this case, Texas laws require liability releases to be “adequately conspicuous,” which is a stricter standard than Colorado law. As such, the plaintiff contended that because her husband signed the release in Texas, Texas law should apply. However, the magistrate judge concluded that Colorado law controlled the matter. On appeal, the appellate court explained that Colorado law applies because diversity actions require courts to apply the conflict-of-laws rules of the forum state.

Published on:

pexels-kampus-production-6300862-300x200San Antonio, Texas:  It’s back to school and back on the roads in Texas, make sure your children are safely buckled up or strapped in for trips in the car.

Motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death among children. While most people believe their children are properly buckled up, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) points out that 59% of all car seats are misused. The best way to keep young children safe in your vehicle is to make sure they’re properly buckled up in a car seat. That means selecting a car seat that’s appropriate for a child’s age and size and installing it correctly.

“We encourage parents to take advantage of car seat safety checks available during Passenger Safety Week (September 19-25th).  With proper car seat, car seat installment, and seat belt placement, children are far safer during a motor vehicle collision,” said Carabin Shaw Attorney Carla Dixon. “Knowing the guidelines for height and weight for your children is also extremely important to ensure your child is in the proper car seat or booster seat.  Serious injuries can be greatly reduced as well if we place children rear-facing car seats until ages 2-4.”

Published on:

https://www.texasinjurylawyersblog.com/files/2021/07/Screen-Shot-2021-07-19-at-12.33.10-PM-1024x730.pngTexas’ year-round warm climate combined with vast open spaces make the state home to an array of theme parks, amusement parks, and outdoor recreational parks. While these locations are a great place for couples and families to spend a day together, they also pose many risks to park-goers and employees. While serious injuries at a Texas amusement park are uncommon, they occur and can result in lifelong consequences.

For example, The New York Times recently reported on chemical exposure at a Texas amusement park. In late July, 26 people suffered exposure to bleach and sulfuric acid at a Six Flags amusement park. Park officials became aware of the incident when nearly 60 people began experiencing burning and breathing problems while in the shallow end of a children’s pool. Authorities evacuated the park and had the affected individuals wash their eyes under the fire truck’s hose. However, nearly half of the individuals were taken to the hospital, and one person remains in critical condition.

The children’s pool should maintain a pH balance of 7. However, testing revealed that the pool contained a combination of 35 percent sulfuric acid and approximately 12 percent bleach. While investigators do not believe the contamination was intentional, they are unsure how the event occurred. The chemicals found in the pool are the typical chemicals that the park uses every day to clean and sanitize the pool. However, they are investigating the system that injects the chemicals to determine whether the system malfunctioned. Safety logs indicated that safety officials inspected the park about three weeks before the incident. A County Judge closed down the park until the investigation is complete. Further, the Judge indicated that the park should have been recording the pH balance levels; however, they have yet to discover whether that log exists.

Published on:

https://www.texasinjurylawyersblog.com/files/2020/04/Screen-Shot-2020-04-22-at-7.17.42-PM-150x150.pngThe Supreme Court of Texas recently issued an opinion in a lawsuit against an insulation products company. According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiffs built a home in Texas and purchased products from a spray foam insulation company. The insulation was designed to make the home quieter and energy efficient by sealing areas where air loss occurs. Shortly after the installation, the family began suffering from various ailments, including coughing spells, burning eyes, allergies, and headaches. The company advised the family that the spray foam smell would dissipate over time. The company then sent an “independent contractor” sales representative to inspect the property; however, the family never received the inspection results.

In response, the family filed a lawsuit against the spray foam company, alleging various claims, including products liability and negligence. They argued that their injuries arose from the sale and installation of the spray foam used in their home. In response, the company contended that because the company never sold or advertised any of the products in Texas, the state did not have jurisdiction over the matter. Further, they argued that they did not have any involvement with the company that inspected the property. The appeals court agreed, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish that Texas had either general or specific personal jurisdiction over the defendants.

Under Texas law, a court must have subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the parties to issue a judgment. Texas courts can assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident if the state’s long-arm statute permits exercising jurisdiction and comports with federal due-process guarantees. Specific jurisdiction applies when the defendant’s contact with the state is purposeful, and the cause of action arises from those contacts.

Published on:

https://www.texasinjurylawyersblog.com/files/2021/07/Screen-Shot-2021-07-12-at-11.36.51-AM.pngHot air balloon rides and other similar in-air recreation activities are a unique and thrilling experience for many participants. While these excursions provide the public with a special vantage point, there are inherent risks in participating in these activities. Texas hot air balloon accidents can pose many challenges to victims and their loved ones. The public is urging lawmakers to push for more protections for balloon riders. This push stems from the Federal Aviation Administration’s failure to implement regulatory changes following a devastating 2016 hot air balloon accident.

A recent investigative news report highlighted the frustration the Texas hot air balloon accident victims’ families are experiencing nearly five years after the accident. A woman lost her daughter and granddaughter in a hot air balloon accident in 2016. According to reports, the women were two of the 16 people who died when the hot air balloon flew into a power line. The hot air balloon pilot had reportedly taken a combination of various prescription medications before the flight. The woman is working with lawmakers on legislation that would require commercial balloon operators to take medical and physical exams before licensure. However, as the fifth anniversary of the accident passed, the Federal Aviation Administration is yet to implement any of the rules or regulations. However, even with oversight, hot air balloons continue to pose serious risks to operators and passengers. Recently, five people died in a New Mexico hot air balloon accident. The hot air balloon hit a power line and separated the balloon from the gondola where the passengers stand.

Despite regulations, hot air balloons continue to pose significant risks to passengers. There have been about 20 hot air balloon accidents every year and about 26 fatalities in the last twenty years. Although hot air balloon fatalities seem low, the statistics should be looked at relative to the number of people who ride these vessels. There are many reasons these accidents occur, and the majority involve some degree of negligence. The leading causes of hot air balloon accidents are:

Published on:

CS-San-Antonio-9-300x300The Supreme Court of Texas recently issued an opinion finding that a trial court abused its discretion in denying a defendant’s discovery request. The case arose after the plaintiff suffered injuries in a Texas car accident with a tractor-trailer driven by the defendant’s employee. After the accident, the parties took photos, exchanged identifying information, and drove away without reporting injuries. A few days after the accident, the plaintiff sought medical treatment and underwent several surgeries on his spine and shoulder. His medical providers charged him over one million dollars for the surgeries and treatment. The plaintiff did not pay for the care. His attorneys notified the healthcare providers that they would protect the healthcare providers’ interest if they settled the underlying personal injury lawsuit. However, they specified the settlement would only include reasonable and necessary medical charges.

During the trial, the defendants served subpoenas on the plaintiff’s healthcare providers. Specifically, they wanted information related to the providers’ billing practices and rates. Three of the providers filed motions to quash the subpoenas, and the trial court granted the motions. The defendant narrowed the requests, but the healthcare providers responded that the narrowed requests contained the same defects.

Under the rules of evidence, evidence is “relevant” if it has “any tendency” to make a fact more or less probable. For pre-trial discovery, evidence that may not be admissible at trial may still be permitted, so long as it’s “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” In the context of personal injury lawsuits, medical records and bills reasonably related to a party’s injuries or damages are typically relevant.

Contact Information