Personal Injury Archive

Tenet Healthcare Katrina Class Action at Tentative Settlement

March 28th, 2011. By LucyC

Six years later and counting—the mess from Hurricane Katrina drags on. This month, one of America’s largest health care corporations was due to go to court over allegations that it is responsible for deaths and injuries at a hospital in the Big Easy during the hurricane.

However, in the middle of jury selection last week, Tenet Health/Memorial Medical Center reached a tentative settlement—the details of which will not be disclosed until it has received final court approval.

The class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of people who were essentially marooned at the Memorial Medical Center during the storm of the century. It alleges that the hospital had insufficient electrical back-up in place to deal with the events, as well as failed plans for patient care and evacuation, which resulted in death and in injuries. The hospital sheltered about 1,800 people during the hurricane.

Memorial hospital was owned by Tenet Healthcare Corporation, but has since been sold, along with the company’s other Louisiana hospitals, interestingly. At the time, Tenet reportedly did not have an emergency command system set up to deal with the catastrophe —but instead instigated a plan during the hurricane. While officials at Tenet lobbied to get federal rescuers to help out—and who ultimately did not—the company, realizing it was on its own, spent something like $1 million Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Hurricane Katrina, Louisiana, medical malpractice, Memorial Medical Center, Tenet Health
Posted in Class Action, Drugs/Medical, Personal Injury | 7352No Comments »2011-03-28+20%3A41%3A36LucyC

PetSmart Settlement: Take a Cue from Barbie and Pick up Poo

March 1st, 2011. By AbiK

This latest settlement—the PetSmart dog poop slip and fall settlement—reminds me of a post we did a while ago where we mentioned the PooTrap. Kind of a ridiculous looking contraption, but if whatever dog it was who pooped on the PetSmart floor had been wearing one of these, well, who knows…

See, back in January, 2009, a patron at PetSmart in Newport News, VA—a Robbert Holloway—apparently took a spill while in the store. A pretty bad spill from the sounds of it—he claimed he injured his back badly, hit his head and knocked out four teeth when he went crashing to the floor after slipping on dog poop.

So, he sued.

His lawsuit against PetSmart—a slip and fall premises liability lawsuit that claimed negligence on the part of PetSmart, sought $1 million in damages. The negligence allegation being due to his charge that the store manager should have protected him from the hazardous condition that allowing pets to poop on the floor creates.

Now, aside from the fact that yes, PetSmart and most other larger pet-centric retail establishments do have pets afoot in store aisles en route to a hair trim, nail clipping or other service—and yes, they pretty much “go” when and where the urge arises—this lawsuit begs the question of not only PetSmart employee roles and responsibilities, but also those of the pet owners who bring in their pooches and parakeets.

Seems to me that while PetSmart sales employees should have a sense of urgency regarding poop and pee pickups in their store aisles, customers-cum-pets also have a responsibility to clean up after their canine and feline charges. How is it that there are pooper scooper laws for sidewalks—as in OUTdoors ‘aisles’—and not the same or greater level of poop removal oversight for a linoleum floor indoors? Why, even Barbie had the sense to have a pooper scooper on hand for walks with Tanner (see video).

While I feel quite badly for Mr. Holloway—let’s face it, the combination of being physically hurt along with non-diminishing aroma of dog poop on your clothes would cause even the most apathetic of individuals to wince a bit—I think it’s time to not only hold PetSmart accountable where they ought to be, but it’s also time for pet owners to pick up after themselves—er, their pets.

Tags: PetSmart, Premises Liability, Robert Holloway, Slip and Fall
Posted in Emerging Issues, Personal Injury, Settlement | 69981 Comment »2011-03-01+20%3A43%3A23AbiK

Perfect Valentine’s Day Gift? Go for Glee with Phthalate Free

February 11th, 2011. By Hunter West

Can we talk?

Okay, Valentine’s Day is coming up on Monday and much as we like to think that the Big Red Day is all about flowers and chocolates, gushy Hallmark cards and little else, sex toy and adult novelty shops do a booming business leading up to Valentine’s Day.

No, you don’t have to close your eyes. It’s not like we have samples. But face it, for some people nothing says ‘I love you’ like a big piece of rubber…even better if it glows in the dark.

Which brings us to health issues. In January the National Post up in Canada carried a story about the Canadian sex toy retail industry crying foul over the fact that Health Canada does not regulate phthalates in adult sex toys in the same fashion as children’s toys.

(We believe the same is true in this country, but of course Canadians are much more randy this time of year than we are—what else is there to do up there when the snow banks are higher than your Honda and it’s ten below zero outside? Ya know why they won all those medals in the Olympics last year, don’t you? All those indoor sports…).

Health Canada, the Canadian health regulator akin to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in this country, announced last month that it was putting new restrictions in place that would lower concentrations of six phthalates by June of this year. Lest you think ‘phthalate’ is a new position you haven’t tried yet, in reality it’s a chemical that is used to make rubber compounds soft and squishy—which is the last thing you want to have happen in the real experience but quite acceptable in sex toys.

All kidding aside, the gurus at Health Canada have a point. Phthalates have been voluntarily removed from pacifiers and baby bottle nipples for some time due to personal injury concerns about the risks associated with phthalates and reproduction and development of children less than four years of age.

To that end, it has been determined, according to the National Post, that objects do not release phthalates merely through touch. However, they can release the vilified chemical into saliva when a child sucks on a pacifier.

Or, for that matter, anything the child is playing with. To that end, a rubber duckie is not designed to go into a child’s mouth. However, putting things in their mouths is what children do—including rubber duckies and anything made of soft rubber into which phthalates are injected to make then soft. (By the way, according to Big Teaze Toys (tagline, “Toys that Play with You”), I Rub My Duckie (shown) is not only phthalate free, but has appeared on The View. And no, this isn’t an endorsement).

Manufacturers thought they were doing the kids a favor by taking out the rigidity of rubber, so Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: birth defects, FDA, Health Canada, Phthalates, Sex Toys
Posted in Defective Products, Emerging Issues, Personal Injury | 6793No Comments »2011-02-11+17%3A05%3A18Hunter+West

Football isn’t Tennis: Brain Injury Lawsuits Brew on Eve of Super Bowl

February 4th, 2011. By Hunter West

: Uh, Maybe Not. (Design: good.kv)

This Sunday’s Super Bowl is not only the biggest night in professional football, but also arguably the biggest spectacle in professional sport. Witness the gate, the viewing audience and the lucrative broadcast and advertising contracts.

When you’re watching the big game this Sunday, look for the guys in the three-piece suits standing on the sidelines. No, they’re not journalists. And they won’t have headsets like the coaches do. But they will have binoculars, and notepads.

Those guys will be the lawyers—working for the teams, the league, and the players association. They’ll be watching every play, every tackle, taking notes.

They will disappear just before the Gatorade starts flying. Unless, of course somebody gets beaned in the head by the Gatorade bucket and incurs a concussion. That will bring the lawyers back for more note taking.

Of course, I’m taking license with reality, here. There will be no suits impeding the pending war between the Steelers and the Packers. But make no mistake: the legal Beagles are catching up with pro football…

As recently reported in publications such as the New Yorker and Slate, the National Football League (NFL) is potentially facing two class-action lawsuits brought by players alleging the NFL knew, or suppressed knowledge of the long-term neurological risks of playing football. The latter stance alleging fraud would be the most aggressive. A lesser position would be one of negligence—to wit, the league was not aware, but should have known of the dangers posed by concussions and how play according to current rules increased the risk.

As this story gains traction, a huge debate will emerge between football purists who agree that ‘football is not tennis’ and anyone who thinks otherwise is not living in reality—and advocates representing players and the medical community who feel the NFL could, and should have been doing a lot more than it has been.

The pro football purists will think the lawsuits frivolous. It’s football, for crying out loud. Of course Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Brain Injury, Concussion, Football, NFL, Super Bowl
Posted in Personal Injury | 6705No Comments »2011-02-04+15%3A11%3A33Hunter+West

Cathy Cruz Marrero: Why’d Security Let Her in Mall to Begin With?

January 20th, 2011. By AbiK

Rhetorical question—but I’ve had enough of this media circus over the mishap fall-into-the-fountain moment of Cathy Cruz Marrero. So yes, I’m going to join right in.

From the video gone viral, Marrero is seen texting while exiting an anchor store in a Pennsylvania mall. She’s distracted, and falls into a fountain dead ahead of her. I didn’t count the seconds elapsed, but she gets out fairly quickly and walks away. It’s not like she was struggling too hard to get out—she even managed to snag her phone as she climbed out. No stooping over to rub her knees. No holding her head. No limping. Ok, maybe she was in shock and a tad bit embarrassed. But with the speed she was moving at, she kind of seemed…ok.

So she was caught on the security camera. And somehow the video clip got from mall security to the internet.

Should someone in security—assuming that’s how the video went public—be given a talking to? Yes. Should they even face possible termination (a report on wfmz.com says the security guard has already been canned)? Sure. For distributing the video. But a lawsuit? And one based on the fact that mall security did not come to Marrero’s aid? Seriously. And mind you, I count at least five or six other people on the video who were in striking distance of the fountain fall and could’ve taken notice or responded. They did not. Nice? No. Worthy of legal recourse? Uh, no.

Having said that, I’m predicting mall security will not come out of this one with a dismissal of charges.

Now, be that as it may,ABCnews reported earlier that Marrero had been charged in October, 2009 with allegedly using a co-worker’s credit cards to rack up charges to tune of $5,000 at such fine establishments as Zales and Target. Sentencing is expected at her next court appearance on April 21st (as reported in the Reading Eagle) and she’s looking at perhaps six months of house arrest and electronic monitoring.

It gets better. ABCnews goes on to share that, according to court documents, Marrero also has “Marrero has convictions for retail theft four times and one other theft in New York from 1997 to 1999 and retail theft in York County in 1999.”

And…

“She also received 12 months of probation after being convicted of a hit-and-run charge in Berks County in 2009.”

Let me get this straight. She been charged most recently with five felony counts, including theft by deception and receiving stolen property. She’s been convicted four times for retail theft. She’s been convicted of another theft. And she’s been convicted of a hit-and-run.

Now, I know it’s innocent until proven guilty–but she’s been proven guilty of various charges several times already. And now she’s playing for public sympathy and some sort of revenge tactic against mall security? This is not some innocent middle-aged woman who’s had a terrible little mishap. And, note, I haven’t even touched on the fact that she, herself, was responsible for texting and walking simultaneously thereby reaping the wet rewards.

Please, this one is just another frivolous lawsuit in which no injury was truly done. What—Marrero’s reputation’s been wrecked? I think a pretty good rap sheet already achieved that, no? A bit of embarrassment? Hell yeah—that’s what happens when you do something stupid. In public.

And so now it’s another lawsuit that will clog up the media and clog up the courts—just as Marrero is about to pass through them again—as a defendant.

Tags: Berkshire Mall, Cathy Cruz Marrero, Fairgrounds Square Mall, Mall Security, Reading PA, Security
Posted in Court of Public Opinion, lawsuits, Personal Injury | 65502 Comments »2011-01-20+23%3A03%3A42AbiK