Emerging Issues Archive
Army Corps of Engineers gets “F” for Katrina
November 19th, 2009. By AbiK
The folks who lived through Katrina probably have a few other “F’s” to toss in the direction of the Army Corps of Engineers as well. But the “F” I’m talking about is for “Failure”—failure to prevent devastation…failure to properly maintain the navigation channel that flooded…failure to take action when they knew damn well there was a problem and it was inevitable that a disaster like Katrina would happen.
Judge Stanwood R. Duval Jr’s ruling that the corps’ failure to properly maintain a navigation channel thereby leading to massive floods came with some harsh words:
“It is the court’s opinion that the negligence of the corps, in this instance by failing to maintain the MR-GO properly, was not policy, but insouciance, myopia and shortsightedness.”
Take that, ACOE.
I had the pleasure of meeting one of the lawyers involved in the case at Mass Torts Made Perfect in Las Vegas—John Andry. I have to admit, it had been a while since I really thought about Katrina or its victims—heck, I live on the other side of the country and well, as with most disasters (and most people), if it hasn’t affected you directly, you sadly forget. And you never really understand first-hand what the victims must have endured. So that’s why this lawyer, John Andry, intrigued me. You couldn’t help getting swept up in how he was describing the way things happened with Katrina…how it was a disaster waiting to happen.
Andry drew diagrams for me, explained the devastation, shared the stories of family and friends he personally knows who lost everything. See, Andry’s a local boy—not some out-of-towner who just comes in on a ego trip because he knew the case would generate a lot of press. No, this guy actually teared up as he was telling me and my colleague, Michelle, about the case. With him, this Katrina disaster is personal—and it shows.
Talking with Andry was a good reminder that those who were affected by Katrina are still living with Katrina—and always will be. This ruling, while a landmark one and one that will clear the way for others to seek damages, will never take away their loss. But at least now there is finally some accountability.
Online Pharma Advertising…can’t wait
November 17th, 2009. By AbiK
Actually I can. You know how drug advertisements look in magazines—it can be like 3 pages of text (aka “product disclosure”) that runs on and on and interrupts whatever you’re reading. Heaven help you if you’re reading Reader’s Digest where 3 pages suddenly becomes 5 due to the smaller format. And if you do take a moment to glance at the ad, you’ve got to be thinking that something that takes that much explaining maybe shouldn’t be taken at all. Be that as it may, enter the brave new world of online advertising…
Well, there’s just no room online to be putting all that junk. Those tightly designed banner ads would become full-page ads with all the disclosure notices included and I guarantee that after coming face to face with a few “impressions” of those, you’ll never click on that website again.
And don’t the drug companies know it. But they need to be pushing their wares online—that’s where all the “growth” is these days. So now, get this—the drug industry’s big guys like Eli Lilly and Pfizer are turning to the FDA for guidance on how to push their goods online. Why? The current FDA guidelines for advertising in traditional print media (magazines, newspapers) or t.v. require all that disclosure information is shown prominently. But there aren’t really any guidelines set for new media—so everyone’s playing by the rules of traditional media, and clearly that’s not good.
Not good for who? Big pharma, but also the bigger online media companies. See the online
What’s in Your Kid’s Favorite Drink? (Big Brother wants to know…)
November 16th, 2009. By LucyC
College kids, caffeine and alcohol. How many red flags does that sentence raise for you? Well, it’s raised a few at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), specifically, is adding caffeine to alcoholic beverages legal, and is it safe from a health perspective? Short answer: the Agency isn’t sure…or at least that’s how it appears.
So, last week the FDA issued a press release alerting the public about its latest course of action on this issue—which by the way is not new. The Wall Street Journal wrote a piece on this in August, stating “Last year, [2008] about a dozen attorneys general secured settlements with beer giants Anheuser-Busch InBev NV and MillerCoors LLC, which agreed to remove caffeine, guarana and other stimulants from drinks such as Sparks.”
But that’s another story. I digress. The FDA press release informed the public that it has issued letters to 30 manufacturers of caffeinated alcoholic beverages—basically putting them on advisement that the whole issue is under investigation. The crux of the matter is:
“Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, a substance added intentionally to food (such as caffeine in alcoholic beverages) is deemed “unsafe” and is unlawful unless its particular use has been approved by FDA regulation, the substance is subject to a prior sanction, or the
Verizon Wireless New $350 ETF Fee
November 12th, 2009. By AbiK
I’d been focusing on November 16th—the day the Arbiter 6 report is due on Zetia and Niaspan—but November 15th will be quite a day for Verizon Wireless customers. It’s the day their new Early Termination Fee (ETF) goes into effect.
The old Verizon Wireless ETF fee: $175
The new Verizon Wireless ETF fee: $350
Now, according to a Verizon spokesperson as reported by PCMagazine online, it’s only on “advanced devices”. What’s that mean? Well, “a combination of advanced capabilities that combined increase the cost of the device.”
Now in English:
“These capabilities can include a premium HTML browser; high-resolution MP camera with optical zoom; dual processor chipsets; WiFi; very high display resolution, and operating systems such as Blackberry, Windows Mobile, Palm, or Android.”
I was ok until we got to the “Blackberry, Windows Mobile….” part. Who doesn’t have any of
Quaid Twin Fiasco: It’s All in the Label
November 12th, 2009. By Hunter West
This past September Hospira was approved for a heparin product that features, according to its web site, an ‘enhanced label design.’ Among the features of the label design are, “vibrant label colors to each strength, simplified text and increased font for dosing information, and differentiated warning labels”.
Sounds pretty basic. A hospital is a high-stress environment. Decisions have to be made quickly and accurately with split-second timing. Often there are parents, or loved ones in the room panicking. And while doctors and nurses are trained to focus on the task at hand and resist becoming distracted by any outside force that may take away from the direct relationship between practitioner and patient, the fact remains that people are human and things can get confusing.
Thus, the labeling of medication in such an obvious fashion as to ensure that the wrong medication, or strength is not fed to the wrong individual seems pretty obvious. In a quiet room without distraction a practitioner has the opportunity to carefully size up the vial and the label before injecting the substance into his patient.
However hospitals—and especially the ER—are far from quiet. There are a thousand-and-one things going on at once as you reach for that vial. Did I check the label? Oh, I’m sure I did. This is the right stuff…
For Kimberly and Dennis Quaid, it turned out to be the wrong stuff.
Links
Emerging Issues
Personal Injury
Quick Links
Archive by Category
- Airlines (RSS)
- Asbestos Mesothelioma (RSS)
- Class Action (RSS)
- Court of Public Opinion (RSS)
- Defective Products (RSS)
- Drugs/Medical (RSS)
- Emerging Issues (RSS)
- Employment (RSS)
- Financial (RSS)
- Food Illness (RSS)
- Insurance (RSS)
- Lex Levity (RSS)
- Personal Injury (RSS)
- Pleading Ignorance (RSS)
- Settlement (RSS)
- Week Adjourned (RSS)
Tags
