Articles Posted in Product Liability Cases

Published on:

In some Texas personal injury cases, it is difficult to know which theory of recovery to pursue. In Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation v. Mansfield, a manufacturer appealed from a judgment in a product liability case that on the surface might have looked like a slip and fall. A jury had found that the product, which was a bag of frozen chicken, had a manufacturing defect when it was sold to a retail grocer.

While shopping at the retail grocer, a customer slipped and fell on liquid that leaked through the defective bag of chicken. The store manager helped her get up, and she stated she thought she was okay and wouldn’t need an ambulance. The manager filled out an accident report on the store form, noting that the customer had slipped on blood that came through a leak in the bag of chicken while she was pushing her grocery cart.

At trial. the store manager testified that he noticed there was a trail of liquid spots behind the plaintiff’s cart just after the accident, and that he’d inspected the bag as well. He took the bag to the meat department, noticing that the bag was open, not just torn or cut. The meat department manager and his assistant also noticed that the corner of the bag was unsealed. The manager testified there was an opening at the bag’s seam, a defective seal, which allowed the liquid to leak.

Continue reading →

Published on:

WEDGWOOD FIRE UPDATE

It is now understood that the fire loss that occurred at Wedgwood Apartments on December 28, 2014, will go down in history as one of 20 worst high-rise fire tragedies in U.S. History.

We now also understand that the extent of the injuries and death at Wedgwood could have been avoided, if specific and somewhat relatively basic precautions would have been made, by management or the owners of Wedgwood.

Published on:

In Texas, to prove a product liability case, a plaintiff must show the product was defective, the product reached the plaintiff in a defective condition, the defect made the product unreasonably dangerous, and the defect caused the plaintiff’s damages. In a 2014 products liability case, a deceased woman’s estate appealed a summary judgment in favor of the company Respironics.

The case arose when the woman contracted Lou Gehrig’s and became paralyzed. She needed a respirator to breathe. The woman’s husband bought a home respirator and hired a nurse through a nursing service. In 2004, a nurse was caring for the woman and allegedly adjusted a valve on the respirator incorrectly.

The deceased woman’s husband sued the medical staffing agency for negligence. The plaintiff’s third amendment joined Respironics, which designed, manufactured, and sold the respirator. He claimed the ventilator was designed and manufactured to allow a patient to suffer respiratory arrest without sounding an alarm. He also claimed the ventilator was marketed with inadequate warnings that there would be no alarm for respiratory arrest. Continue reading →

Published on:

In re Zimmer, Inc., a recent Texas appellate decision, considered a product liability lawsuit brought by a plaintiff. The plaintiff argued he was hurt because of the Zimmer Periarticular Distal Medial Tibial Locking Plate, a metal plate used to provide internal stabilization when a patient has serious fractures in his or her lower leg. The plaintiff argued the metal plate had design defects. The plate was first placed in the plaintiff’s leg after a motorcycle accident. It failed within about a year. A second plate was implanted and also failed within about a year. The plaintiff sued the manufacturer, claiming he was permanently disabled because the two implants had failed.

The jury was selected after jurors answered a written questionnaire that asked if jurors had ever had a serious physical injury. The defense attorney also questioned the jury about the experience their family members might have had with injuries. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant challenged a juror for cause based on an answer related to injuries. One juror who was seated had responded “none” to the question about physical injuries.

The jury found for the defendant Zimmer. The juror who had responded “none” had voted for the defendant. The plaintiff moved for a new trial, claiming misconduct by the jury and arguing that the verdict went against the weight of the evidence. He submitted affidavits from the jurors who dissented. These detailed incidents of alleged juror misconduct. Zimmer responded but didn’t offer counter affidavits.

Continue reading →

Published on:

A Texas military veteran recently brought a lawsuit against a medical device company after the plate in his leg broke for the second time. Sergeant Don Gustafson, a veteran of the Marine Corp and Navy Reserve, sued Zimmer, Inc. in state court in Collin County, claiming that the medical device company created an unsafe product and lied about it. Zimmer, Inc. sells devices ranging from knee to hip devices and generates earnings of $4 billion per year worldwide.

The situation began back in 2007, when Gustafson broke both bones in his lower leg in a motorcycle accident. He had a plate installed to stabilize the leg that was manufactured by Zimmer, Inc. Sometime later, the plate broke and Gustafson was forced to have a new one installed. He contacted the company to let them know what happened, and was allegedly told that there was nothing wrong with the product. Gustafson believed the company’s claims, and so he had the same type of plate installed in his leg. One year later, after suffering pain in that location, Gustafson had an X-ray, which showed that that plate was broken as well.

Gustafson claims that as a result of the plate being broken, he suffered so much damage in his lower leg, his doctors discussed amputating it prior to his third surgery. His complaint came to the attention of the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which requires that companies like Zimmer, Inc. report every device failure within 30 days of it taking place. Gustafson claims that Zimmer, Inc. was not reporting every device failure. Instead, the company allegedly sometimes waited months to report a problem (like Gustafson’s), and its employees operated under the belief that they did not need to report every problem, just the ones reported to them by a physician.

Continue reading →

Published on:

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as of October 17, 2013, a total of 338 individuals from 20 states and Puerto Rico have been infected with seven outbreak strains of Salmonella Heidelberg linked to Foster Farm’s Chicken. Forty percent of those infected have been hospitalized, with approximately 75 percent of the victims residing in California. Nine ill persons have been identified in Texas. Salmonella Heidelberg is the country’s third most common strain of Salmonella, which can result in foodborne illness if not destroyed by proper cooking and safe handling. Notably, this is not the first time in recent months that the CDC has reported an outbreak strain of Salmonella Heidelberg. In July 2013, the CDC reported that 134 individuals had been infected with the same strain also linked to Foster Farm’s chicken.

Earlier this month, officials from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA-FSIS) issued a public health alert due to concerns that illness caused by Salmonella Heidelberg was associated with chicken products produced at three Foster Farm’s facilities in California. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) thereafter threatened to shut down these facilities, citing a risk to public health. While Foster Farms has not initiated a recall, the company is complying with the USDA’s requests to mitigate issues at the facilities tied to the outbreak. The investigation by the USDA-FSIS is ongoing.

How to know if you’ve been infected

The symptoms of the illness caused by Salmonella include high fever, diarrhea and abdominal cramping. While most of all persons infected with Salmonella develop diarrhea, fever, and abdominal cramps (usually within 12 to 72 hours after infection) that require little medical treatment, if any, some elderly individuals, infants, and those with impaired immune systems can suffer severe illnesses or death. The outbreak strains involved in these cases are resistant to several commonly described antibiotics, which means there may be an increased risk of hospitalization or possible treatment failure in infected individuals.

Continue reading →

Published on:

A 48-year old mother of seven recently passed away after taking the dietary supplement, OxyElite Pro, for several weeks. In fact, over the past 6 months, OxyElite Pro has been linked to 24 reported cases of acute hepatitis and liver failure in Hawaii. As a result, on October 10, 2013, the Hawaii Department of Health issued a request that OxyElite Pro be voluntarily removed from stores across Hawaii. That same day, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) requested the product be removed from stores. According to the CDC, the most commonly reported symptoms reported include loss of appetite, fever, nausea, light-colored stools, dark urine, and jaundice.

Shortly after the Hawaii Department of Health’s request, USP Labs, LLC, the manufacturer of OxyElite Pro products based in Dallas, Texas, reported that it would cease the nationwide manufacturer and distribution of the products associated with liver failure cases. Unfortunately, that does not mean the product, meant to increase energy, concentration, and metabolism, will be pulled from shelves nationwide. Rather, it is up to the retailers who purchased the products from USP Labs whether to pull the products from the shelves.

This is not USP Labs and OxyElite Pro’s first warning from the government. In 2012, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned companies, including USP Labs, to stop using the geranium extract known as DMAA after it was linked to cases of increased blood pressure, shortness of breath, chest tightening, cardiovascular problems and even heart attacks. More specifically, the FDA concluded that DMAA is not a dietary ingredient and, as such, is not eligible to be used as an active ingredient in a dietary supplement. In early 2013, USP Labs agreed to settle a DMAA class action lawsuit for $2 million. Then in April 2013, USP Labs agreed to phase out products containing DMAA.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Every year thousands of infants sustain injuries or are wrongfully killed by dangerous and defective products. In addition, deaths, injuries and property damage from consumer product incidents in general cost the nation more than $900 billion annually. Unfortunately, many of these injuries are caused by the negligence or recklessness of manufacturers and distributors, meaning that many of these injuries and deaths could be avoided.

Infants are particularly vulnerable to dangerous and defective products, including but not limited to toys, clothing, and even drugs. According to a 2011 report produced by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSIA), among children younger than 5 years of age, there were an estimated 74,100 emergency department-treated injuries, associated with, though not necessarily caused by, nursery products in 2011. In addition, for the 3-year period from 2007 through 2009, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) received reports of 341 deaths, associated with, but not necessarily caused by, nursery products among children younger than age 5. Several recalls relating to products used by infants have been reported in the past few months, including but not limited to the following:

HALO SleepSacks Recalled

On August 21, 2013, the CPSC issued a recall of approximately 27,000 HALO SleepSacks Wearable Blankets sold exclusively at Babies R Us and babiesrus.com from December 2011 through July 2013. Citing a risk of a choking hazard to infants, the CPSC advised consumers to stop using the product immediately. The recall was issued after the CPSC received six separate reports of a pink satin flower on the blankets becoming detached from the blankets. In one case, the report complained that an infant was discovered gagging on the detached petal.

Continue reading →

Published on:

According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, a generic drug is a drug product that is comparable to brand/reference listed drug product in dosage form, strength, route of administration, quality and performance characteristics, and intended use. Although generic drugs are generally cheaper, since the FDA requires that the warning labels of generic drugs be identical to their brand-name counterparts, generic drugs have essentially been granted immunity to civil action resulting from the use of their drugs.

Unfortunately for consumers of generic drugs, a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision furthered strengthened this generic drug manufacturers’ immunity, finding that design defect law claims in state courts based on the adequacy of a drug’s warning are pre-empted by federal law. As explained below, the ruling not only creates an inconsistency in product defect law, but it also all but ensures that generic drug makers will not be held accountable for product defects, marking a victory for both drug industry and the FDA.

In Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. Inc. v. Bartlett, Ms. Bartlett suffered a severe reaction to the generic pain reliever drug, sulindac, made by Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. Inc. (“Mutual”). Even though Ms. Bartlett’s doctor prescribed her the brand name of the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), Clinoril, for shoulder pain, her pharmacist dispensed the generic form of the pain reliever instead. The drug caused her to develop toxic epidermal necrolysis (TENS), which led to 60 to 65% of her skin to either burning off or becoming an open sore. The condition left Bartlett disfigured, disabled and nearly blind.

Bartlett thereafter filed suit against Mutual in federal court in New Hampshire alleging that the generic drug, sulindac, had a design that made it dangerous for use. Like Texas law, New Hampshire law imposes a duty on manufacturers to ensure that the drugs they market are not unreasonably unsafe. A drug’s safety is evaluated in part by the adequacy of its warnings. Notably, at the time that Bartlett was prescribed the drug, sulindac’s label did not specifically refer to TENS or Stevens-Johnson Syndrome, another form of TENS.

The New Hampshire state court agreed with Bartlett, finding the generic drug was unreasonably dangerous and awarded Bartlett $21 million in damages. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed. Nonetheless, focusing on the fact that Bartlett was provided the generic version of the drug, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act preempts state-law design defect claims against manufacturers of generic drugs. As a result, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. If, however, Bartlett had been dispensed the brand name version of the drug, she would have had a cause of action against the brand name drug manufacturer, and would have been able to recover damages for her injuries.

Continue reading →

Published on:

In 2012, about 16.2 million car and truck owners received notification that their vehicles had safety problems and were being recalled. However, despite the high number of recalls, according to the Center for Auto Safety, changed auto recall accounting methods are raising questions about the productivity of defect investigations. Additionally, according to John Claybrook, former head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”), investigations by the agency are taking longer than they should, meaning many drivers could be driving unsafe vehicles without being aware of it.

The Department of Transportation’s NHTSA has the authority to issue vehicle safety standards and to require manufacturers to recall vehicles that have safety-related defects or do not meet Federal safety standards. Recalls are necessary when a vehicle or vehicle equipment (including tires) does not comply with a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard or when there is a safety-related defect in the vehicle or equipment.

While manufacturers voluntarily initiate many recalls, auto companies are required to tell the NHTSA about claims they receive about serious injuries and deaths in their vehicles, so that NHTSA can then investigate the claims. Owners may also submit complaints to the NHTSA, prompting investigations.

Recall Accounting Methods Raises Safety Concerns

Due to budget issues, 28 NHTSA investigators handle every inquiry and complaint brought to the agency–meaning 28 individuals are responsible for investigating every automaker, truck maker or parts supplier.

In a recent New York Times article, David Strickland, current NHTSA administrator, argues that the limited number of investigators are sufficient due to new tools for data analysis, which allow the investigators to work more efficiently. Strickland added that NHTSA investigations resulted in 134 vehicle recalls in 2012, the second highest number since 1966.

According to the executive director of the Center for Auto Safety, Clarence Ditlow, however, the total number of recalls does not accurately measure the agency’s productivity since one inquiry can generate dozens of recalls. Specifically, federal auto safety regulators are counting what used to be considered multiple recalls as one recall. For example, 61 of the 131 recalls reported in 2011 resulted from one investigation involving aftermarket sunroofs–any car dealership or business that installed a sunroof was listed as a separate recall. As a result, the number of investigations actually being carried out is far fewer than expected based on the number of recalls.

Defect Investigations Taking Too Long and Kept Secret

In 2011, the U.S. Transportation Department reported that not all investigations were being completely in a timely fashion. At that time, the Transportation Department reported that 40% of those cases investigated missed the deadline by an average of six months. More recently, however, NHTSA’s investigations into possible defects and safety issues have been taking much longer than the agency’s own 12 months guideline. According to Claybrook, a safety investigation into 2002-2005 Ford Explorers and Mercury Mountaineers took 42 months–well over the agency guidelines of 12 months.

Perhaps even more concerning, is the fact that information about the investigations is only available to the public and news media through a Freedom of Information Act request. Even then, carmakers can still request the information they submit to the NHTSA be kept confidential. This means that car buyers may not learn the vehicles they own or are thinking about buying have raised safety concerns at NHTSA and among auto manufacturers.

Continue reading →

Contact Information