Injury Law Blog

Fireworks Safety Tips and the Fourth of July

Juliet@LaBovick.com (LaBovick Law) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:18:32 -0500

We hope that you have a Happy and safe Fourth of July this year.

In an effort to promote Consumer Safety we would like to share a few important facts and safety tips for handling Fireworks from the CPSC:

Read and follow all warnings and instructions
Never allow children to play with or ignite fireworks
Keep other people are out of range before lighting fireworks.
Only light fireworks on a smooth, flat surface away from the house, dry leaves, and flammable materials.
Never try to relight fireworks that have not fully functioned.
Keep a bucket of water in case of a malfunction or fire.

The National Fire Protection Association cites the following statistics:

In 2008, across the country 7,000 people were treated for fireworks-related injuries. 40 percent of the injuries involved kids.
Over half of the injuries were burns to the arms, legs and hands.
One out of five of the injuries nvolved hot debris hitting people's eyes.

Palm Beach County, Deputy Fire Marshall, Jeff Collins sums it up perfectly in a recent interview with the Sun Sentinel:

"Your best bet is to let the professionals handle the fireworks".

Last year, Managing Partner, Brian LaBovick, wrote a wonderful post on How to Avoid Injuries with Fireworks and the importance of the Fourth of July. Enjoy reading the post.

Have a Happy and Safe Fourth of July.

It is Official: Florida drivers must wear seat belts...or face huge fines.. It's the Law

Juliet@LaBovick.com (LaBovick Law) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:20:26 -0500

It is finally here: The Florida Seat belt law officially named the Dori Slosberg and Katie Marchetti Safety Belt Law is now in effect. Drivers in the state of Florida can be pulled over for not wearing a seat belt and ticketed. In Palm Beach County, the ticket will cost drivers $101.00 for not wearing a seat belt. Buckle up or be prepared to pay the fine.

As we mentioned previously on the Injury Law Blog, this law was named after two young teens tragically killed in a car accident that were not wearing seatbelts. It is believed that they would not have died, if they were wearing seatbelts when the accident occurred. Traffic Safety Champion, and former state representative, Irv Slosberg, said in a recent interview "This new law is a major victory on the roads".

Capt. Patrick Kenny, of the traffic division in the Palm beach County Sheriff's Office, is in favor of the new law. According to a recent interview on the new Florida Seat belt law, with the Palm Beach Post, he stated the following:

"It's long overdue. Everybody knows that wearing seat belts, they do save lives. Making it the primary reason for a traffic stop gives us the ability to write more citations and make people aware that they need to wear a seat belt."

Data from NHTSA on Crash Safety Facts, shows that Florida ranked three in the nation, in 2007 with 3,214 deaths due to car accidents. Texas came in at number two with 3363 car accident related deaths and California came in at number one with 3974 car accident related deaths.

Let's hope the passage of this new Florida seat belt law will help cut the numbers of unnecessary car accident deaths down in Florida. It will be interesting to compare our numbers from this year after the seatbelt law goes into place with next year's data. Time will tell if the traffic deaths will continue in a downward direction.

Important facts regarding Florida's seat belt laws:

* At all times, passengers in the front seat must wear a seatbelt.

* At all times, any and all rear passenger under the age of 18 must wear a seatbelt.

* At all times, children ages 3 years and younger must be secured in a child restraint seat that is federally approved.

* At all times, children ages 4-5 years must be secured either by a seatbelt or a federally approved child restraint seat. It is important to note that this can include the use of a booster seat in conjunction with the vehicle seatbelt.

* Drivers of vehicles are responsible for ensuring that children in the vehicle are properly buckled into their seats or using the required restraint devices, there are no exceptions.

To learn more on Florida's new seat belt laws read information provided from the DMV on the subject.

Rollover Safety and New Roof Rule

Juliet@LaBovick.com (LaBovick Law) — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 23:32:00 -0500

New Roof Rule for Rollover Safety

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and regulations with which automobile manufacturers must comply were first enacted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in March 1967 to provide manufacturers with guidelines regarding minimum safety performance requirements. Since 1967, new standards have been added and existing standards have been amended. These changes have been necessary due to the evolution and expansion of automobile manufacturing. In 1973, FMVSS 216 was enacted. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, FMVSS 216 “specified requirements for roof crush resistance over the passenger compartment.” The intent of FMVSS 216 was to provide protection to individuals involved in rollover crashes by ensuring that automobile manufacturers adhered to federal roof standards. In April 2009, FMVSS 216 was amended to provide better protection for those involved in rollover crashes and extended the standards applicability to both heavier trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUV).

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reports that more than 280,000 rollover accidents are reported each year. As a result of these accidents, approximately 10,000 individuals are killed on a yearly basis. Many of these fatal accidents involve SUVs and trucks. Until the 2009 amendment to FMVSS 216, most SUVs and trucks were exempt from federal roof standards. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s Status Report the amendment will begin being phased-in in the year 2012, and all automobile manufacturers will be expected to comply with the amendment by the year 2017. This means that all passenger cars, trucks and SUVs up to 10,000 pounds will be subject to federal roof standards. These standards will apply to both the driver and the passenger side of the vehicle’s roof.

The National Highway Transportation Safety Commission reports that only 2 percent of accidents involve rollovers, but these accidents account for approximately 33 percent of all vehicle related fatalities. In Florida, approximately 25 percent of motor vehicle fatalities were the result of rollover crashes in 2007 according to the Traffic Safety Performance (Core Outcome) Measures provided by the NHTSA. In 2007, Georgia (31%), Alabama (40%), and California (29%) all had higher percentages of rollover fatalities than Florida, and New York (17%), Michigan (19%), and Mississippi (19%) had lower percentages of rollover fatalities than did Florida. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s Status Report predicts that 135 lives will be saved each year by the amendment to FMVSS 216.

The changes that FMVSS 216 will require automobile manufacturers to make in the production of vehicles up to 10,000 pounds will mean that the roofs of cars, trucks, and SUVs will be even sturdier than they have been in the past. Not only will the driver side be able to withstand greater impact but the passenger side will be able to withstand greater impact as well. Proponents of the amendment to FMVSS 216 feel that this change has been long overdue and that by updating and improving the federal roof standards individuals will be more likely to survive a rollover crash.

Woman flees scene of accident after hitting Bicyclist in Port St. Lucie

Juliet@LaBovick.com (LaBovick Law) — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:15:58 -0500

Motorists, please be aware that leaving the scene of an accident prior to the police coming is a crime. Recently a Port St. Lucie woman, Matilda Nunez was arrested and charged with a felony for leaving the scene of an accident that she caused involving a teen Bicyclist.

It is Summer and school is out. This means that more kids and people are on the road riding bicycles. As drivers we should be aware of this and pay careful attention to where we are going, this will help cut down on avoidable bicycle accidents. In the case involving Ms. Nunez, she was distracted by her cell phone, when she injured the teen bicyclist that was crossing the driveway, according to reports in the Palm Beach Post..

Car Accidents sometimes can't be avoided. But in most instances, when drivers are paying attention to driving and not talking on the cell phone or texting while driving, accidents can be cut down tremendously. In an effort to promote roadway safety for Bicyclists we are sharing important stats involving bicycle accidents.

According to the Bicycle Helmet Institute there is extensive data on Bicycle Accident Statistics and motor vehicles. Here are a few statistics parents and Cyclists should be aware of:

There are 73 to 85 million bicycle riders in the US, including 45 million over age 6 who rode more than six times in 2008.
700 bicyclists died on US roads in 2007. Over 90 percent died in crashes with motor vehicles.
The "typical" bicyclist killed on our roads is a sober male over 16 not wearing a helmet riding on a major road between intersections in an urban area on a summer evening when hit by a car.
About 540,000 bicyclists visit emergency rooms with injuries every year. Of those, about 67,000 have head injuries, and 27,000 have injuries serious enough to be hospitalized.
43,000 cyclists were reported injured in traffic crashes in 2007.
There were 1 in 8 of the cyclists with reported injuries had a brain injury.
Two-thirds of the deaths here are from traumatic brain injury.
A very high percentage of cyclists' brain injuries can be prevented by a helmet, estimated at anywhere from 45 to 88 per cent..

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued the following Bicycle Stats in
November, 2008

There were 698 Bicyclist deaths in 2007: (Down from 773 in 2006).
There were 43,000 Bicyclist injuries in traffic in 2007: (Down from 44,000 in 2006).
The average age of a bicyclist killed on the highways was Age 40.
The average age of a bicyclist injured on the highways was age 30.
The number of Bicyclists killed that were 15 years old and under was 107.
The number of Bicyclists injured that were 15 years old and under was 12,000.
The number of Bicyclists killed that were 16 to 34 years old was 163.
The number of Bicyclists injured that were 16 to 34 years old was 16,000.
The number of Bicyclists killed that were 35 to 54 years old was 262.
The number of Bicyclists injured that were 35 to 54 years old was 10,000.
The number of Bicyclists killed that were 55 years and older was 262.
The number of Bicyclists killed that were 55 years and older was 4,000.

In a prior post on the LaBovick Injury Law Blog, we shared "Rules for The Road" and safety tips for cyclists. Here is look at Seven tips ever cyclist should be aware of. It would not hurt drivers to take a look at these tips as well. As a Personal Injury law firm, we want to help make the roadways safer for all, Pedestrians, Drivers and Bicyclists included.

7 Tips and Rules for the Road for Bicyclists

Protect Your Head. Wear a Helmet.
Assure Bicycle Readiness. Use proper size and function of bicycle.
Ride Wisely. Learn and Follow the Rules of the Road.
Be Predictable. Act Like a Driver of a Vehicle.
Be Visible. See and Be Seen at All Times.
“Drive” with Care. Share the Road.
Stay Focused. Stay Alert.

Workers Compensation for injured workers is under attack by FL Legislature

Juliet@LaBovick.com (LaBovick Law) — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 06:54:46 -0500

If an employee is injured on the job do they rights for treatment and compensation of injuries? As a Florida Personal Injury Law Firm that helps injured workers with Workers Compensation issues, our answer is a resounding yes. There are Statutes that cover Workers Compensation issues for most states. In Florida, our Statute covering Labor law is Title XXXI, specifically Chapter 440 applies to Workers Compensation. This chapter outlines protocol for the injured worker and the employer. According to 440.185, F.S:

An employee who suffers an injury arising out of and in the course of employment shall advise his or her employer of the injury within 30 days after the date of or initial manifestation of the injury. Failure to so advise the employer shall bar a petition under this chapter unless:

(a) The employer or the employer's agent had actual knowledge of the injury;(b) The cause of the injury could not be identified without a medical opinion and the employee advised the employer within 30 days after obtaining a medical opinion indicating that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment;(c) The employer did not put its employees on notice of the requirements of this section by posting notice pursuant to s. 440.055; or
(d) Exceptional circumstances, outside the scope of paragraph (a) or (b).

In this week's Palm Beach Post, Columnist and former member of the Editorial Board, Tom Blackburn, wrote the column "Injured workers are crooks (and other wisdom from the Legislature)". I found this article enlightening, especially the following:

"Every few years Florida lawmakers reform the workers' compensation system again. Every time they do, they find something unreasonable to do with it. This year they topped themselves. The reform consisted of taking the word "reasonable" out of the law.Right. We can't be reasonable about insurance against job-related injuries."

I encourage you to read the entire article. Mr. Blackburn integrates humor into this very important topic. Workers Rights to be compensated for injuries at work are under attack by the legislature.

Legal Blogger, Matthew Noyes, Chimes in on this subject with his post "Are Florida Injured Workers Crooks?" .

Videotaping and Trial Preparation - Can it help the Client's testimony?

Juliet@LaBovick.com (LaBovick Law) — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:58:26 -0500

I came across a post by Blogger Barry Barnett for the legal blog, Blawgletter today. The post was entitled Video and Witness Prep. Mr. Barnett shared his views on videotaping and trial preparation for a client. In this post, he shared that if you do not adequately prepare a client with crucial foundation, don't bother with the video.

In an effort to see how a few Personal Injury Attorneys in our law firm viewed witness videotaping, I shared Mr. Barnett's post and the post from Deliberations, entitled "Why your witness did not get better after watching herself on videotape"., and asked for feedback.

I found the comments from my Attorneys insightful and decided to share a few thoughts on the subject from Brian F. LaBovick and Mark A. Greenberg.

Managing Partner, Brian F. LaBovick, provided the the following comments on the subject:

"We all understand ourselves! How many times have you gotten into a fight with your loved one where you said one thing and they heard another? I am sure the answer is plenty. It is the same reason why witnesses who view themselves on video don't get better. We can't judge ourselves because we understand what we said in the first place.

In our firm, we believe training witnesses needs objective help. Objective help can't be the lawyer or his/her paralegal training the client. Objective evidence can be a paid expert; someone who can teach the client how to improve. Objective analysis can include watching yourself on video while at the same time watching mock juror's response to the client. Observing jurors reactions, and or polling them to discuss what they felt during the testimony is the best. It hurts to hear sometimes, but the juror's "truth" is all that counts at trial. It is better to be prepared now, than to be blindsided when the final Verdict is read in court!"

Attorney Mark A. Greenberg added the following comments on the subject of videotaping client testimony for trial preparation:

"As humans, we tend to emphasize our strengths and ignore our weaknesses. We think our kids are great at everything, even if it is not true. Sometimes, the same holds true for our clients.

When preparing a client for trial, simply showing them a videotape of their testimony may not help correct deficiencies in demeanor, body language, or argumentative behavior. Instead, examine the entire picture. Focus on what they do well, and show them later exactly what parts could be improved and explain why. Give examples. Tape their testimony as it improves (hopefully) so they can see the difference. In the end, a client’s testimony is the most critical part of the trial. Taking the time to get it right, rather than just critiquing a video tape can help lead to a just verdict. "

If you are involved in a Personal Injury case or another type of case that is headed to trial, make sure that you discuss videotaping as an option with yourAttorney. If you are an Attorney, be honest with your clients and share constructive criticism. As Brian mentioned, "sometimes the truth hurts". It is best to be prepared.

Teen Driving Statistics and Safety Rules for Teen Drivers

Juliet@LaBovick.com (LaBovick Law) — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:00:12 -0500

The end of school signals the beginning of summer and the time of the year when many young, inexperienced teenaged drivers will be on the roadways. Whether these minor drivers are heading to their part-time jobs or out for a day of fun in the sun, the number of teen drivers on the roads during the summer months increases significantly. Because of their inexperience and risky behaviors behind the wheel, teen drivers are often the victims of devastating car crashes. Even though teen drivers only represent approximately 7 percent of the driving population, teen drivers account for approximately 14 percent of all traffic-related fatalities. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death among teens in the United States.

While teenagers may be inexperienced drivers, this fact does not imply that all teens are unsafe drivers. Teenaged drivers simply need to be more aware of their surroundings and take extra precautions while on the road. Teen drivers should avoid distractions while driving, such as changing the radio, texting while driving, or having too many passengers in the car. Because many accidents involving teens occur at night, teen drivers should safeguard against accidents by paying close attention to all traffic laws, being aware of other drivers, and being free of distractions. Car crashes involving teens not only affect the teens involved in the crash but their families, employers, and society in general. According to studies conducted by the American Automobile Association (AAA), the cost of teen car crashes in 2008 was more than $34 billion for medical bills, property damage, and other related expenses.

In 2003, Florida was ranked number 4 among the 50 states with the worst teen fatal crash rate. In 2008, 4 of the 10 deadliest hotspots for teen fatalities among the 50 largest metro areas were found in Florida. The CDC reports that more than half of all teen car accidents occur on weekends (Friday, Saturday, and Sunday), and approximately half of all teen accidents occur between 3pm and midnight. However, teens do not have to become a statistic over the summer months. By using good judgment and making mature decisions, teens can safely enjoy their summer and their time behind the wheel. Teens should make sure they drive the speed limit, do not drink and drive, do not ride with someone that has been drinking, wear their seatbelt at all times, and limit the number of passengers in their vehicle. By following some simple driving rules and safety regulations, teens may save their lives as well as the lives of others.

Parents have a talk with your teen about driving safety. Take a look at the following list of suggested topics to include in the conversation:

Suggested Safety Rules for Teen Drivers - provided by the NHTSA

Alcohol: Absolutely No Alcohol (No exceptions)
Seat belts: Always Buckle Up! - (In Florida, it is the law June 30th)
Cell phone/texting: No talking or texting while driving (Set an example and use a headset)
Curfew: Have the Car in the Driveway by 10 p.m. (depending upon circumstances)
Passengers: No more than one at all times (this simple rule has saved many lives)
Graduated Drivers License: Follow your state's GDL law
Parental Responsibility: Set your house rules and consequences

FDA recalls popular weight loss Hydroxycut supplements due to increased risk of Liver Damage and Death

Juliet@LaBovick.com (LaBovick Law) — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:50:41 -0500

Don't let the slick, clever misleadind Hydroxycut ad fool you, there’s no real substitute for diet and exercise when it comes to losing weight safely. Every year millions of Americans turn to so-called dietary supplements to aid in reducing pounds and inches from their waistlines. In many cases, these supplements are no more than combinations of vitamins and minerals or herbal remedies that, while they may not actually cause weight loss, do no harm to those taking them. The FDA recalled several Hydroxycut products made by Iovate.

Is it worth the risk, taking a supplement touted as a miracle weight-loss aid, that can possibly cause dangerous, and even fatal, health problems? Many consumers taking the widely popular Hydroxycut products marketed and distributed by Iovate and Muscle Tech are faced with this dilemma.

According to a warning issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration last month, several Hydroxycut products manufactured by these companies have been linked with 23 reports of serious health problems, including jaundice and elevated liver enzymes, potential indicators of the presence or emergence of more serious liver damage which may, in some cases, require liver transplant. In addition to these health problems, the agency also reported one death due to liver failure linked to these Hydroxycut products.

In addition, Hydroxycut users reported other harmful and serious side effects, including cardiovascular problems, seizures, and rhabdomyolosis, a condition in which an individual’s muscle tissue begins to break down, often resulting in severe kidney damage and even kidney failure.

In its statement, the FDA noted that it has not yet determined the dosages associated with injury, and asked consumers to immediately stop using Hydroxycut products, and to see their physician if they experience any of the symptoms which may occur as side effects of Hydroxycut use, including the yellow skin and eyes indicative of jaundice, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, abdominal pain, loss of appetite, itching, light-colored stool, and brown urine.

Hydroxycut products recalled by the FDA include:

Hydroxycut Regular Rapid Release Caplets
Hydroxycut Caffeine-Free Rapid Release Caplets
Hydroxycut Hardcore Liquid Caplets
Hydroxycut Max Liquid Caplets
Hydroxycut Regular Drink Packets
Hydroxycut Caffeine-Free Drink Packets
Hydroxycut Hardcore Drink Packets (Ignition Stix)
Hydroxycut Max Drink Packets
Hydroxycut Liquid Shots
Hydroxycut Hardcore RTDs (Ready-to-Drink)
Hydroxycut Max Aqua Shed
Hydroxycut 24
Hydroxycut Carb Control
Hydroxycut Natural

If you have taken these products and are experiencing side effects, contact your doctor. It is better to err on the side of caution and discontinue use of the product. This could help save your life and prevent fatal results.

Ten Worst Insurance Companies ranked by AAJ (part 1 of 5)

Juliet@LaBovick.com (LaBovick Law) — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 23:04:45 -0500

Do any of these sound familiar? "You are in Good Hands with Allstate", "Like a Good Neighbor State Farm is there", "Better Benefits at work - Unum", "Helping people live healthier lives - United Health. The above mentioned slogans are all from top insurance companies that were listed in the publication Top Ten Worst Insurance companies - How they raise premiums, deny claims, and refuse insurance to those who need it most, ranked by the American Association for Justice (AAJ).

As a Florida law firm, LaBovick & LaBovick, PA handles personal injury claims from accidents. We have worked with most insurance, if not all insurance companies, when working on behalf of our injured clients. This post does not mean to bash insurance companies or suggest not purchase insurance. There have been several instances where a client's Uninsured Motorist policy had to kick in, because the person responsible for the automobile accident, had no coverage or insufficient coverage. It is wise, to have a good insurance agent that you trust and respect, to write an insurance policy. Personally, I have been with my Insurance Agent for 20 years.

Proper coverage is so critical to a driver on Florida's roadways. If you are involved in an accident, and the other party responsible does not have coverage, you will wish that you would have taken out the Uninsured motorist coverage for the extra few hundred a year. It can save you lots of headaches in the future, if you are injured in an automobile accident. Talk to your agent about proper coverage for your vehicle.

All insurance carriers are not equal. Some are better than others and some are worse. The AAJ took a look at several insurance carriers and came up with a list of the top ten worst insurance companies. They investigated court documents, records from the FBI and the SEC, Complaints and investigations from State Insurance departments, testimony and deposition from former agents and adjusters, and new accounts from around the country. The final comprehensive list of the top ten worst include automobile insurers, homeowners insurers, health insurers, life insurers and disability insurers.

There are a few well know advertising insurance companies are absent from the AAJ list they are AFLAC, GEICO, and Progressive. They must be doing something right, if they managed to avoid the list.

Did you know that the insurance industry takes over $1 trillion annually in insurance premiums? The insurance industry also, has more than $3.8 trillion in assets, according to the Insurance Information Institute. One would think that with all of this money, why on earth would the insurance industry have to deny benefits to clients that were entitled to them. There is only one thing that comes to mind and that is corporate greed.

In this five part series, we will look at the insurance industry, discuss companies on the ten worst insurance company list and give readers a fresh perspective as to what the companies are doing to improve public opinion and to service customers.

According to the AAJ, the following companies ranked as the top ten worst insurance companies:

Allstate
Unum
AIG
State Farm
Conseco
WellPoint
Farmers
United Health
Torchmark
Liberty Mutual

Stay tuned for part two of the series on "he worst ten insurance companies" and what every consumer needs to know when choosing an insurance provider.

Read the PDF of the AAJ's "Ten Worst Insurance Companies"

Mattel Settles Lead Toy Suit for $2.3 million

Juliet@LaBovick.com (LaBovick Law) — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 22:04:12 -0500

Mattel Corp. settled the lawsuits brought against the company for bringing and selling unsafe products within the United States. On Friday, June 5th, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) placed a civil penalty against Mattel for violating Federal Ban on the use of lead paint. The company agreed to pay a $2.3 million sum, though both the company and its subsidiary, Fisher-Price, did not admit to any wrong doing. The moneys to be paid out in this settlement are in addition to a previous a previous finding; in 2008, Mattel ended a 15 month legal probe by paying $12 million to 39 states regarding the importing and attempted sale of the contaminated toys.

The lawsuit stemmed from a discovery of unsafe levels of lead paint found in Mattel toy products that were on store shelves between September 2006 and August 2007. According to the CPSC, nearly 100 varied items were included in the lawsuits, representing several million individual pieces. Mattel issued a recall for the products, which included such popular toy brands as Barbie, Doggie Day Care, Dora the Explorer, and Polly Pocket. Other toys that were recalled included items associated with characters from Sesame Street and the movie Cars.

Parents have every right to feel anxiety about high levels of lead in toys. The CPSC says that lead in paint can cause irreversible brain damage, increased blood pressure, decreased muscle coordination, nerve damage, and reproductive harm in both children and adults. Parents who fear that their children may have been exposed to lead based paint should arrange for lead poisoning screening. Early treatments may reverse the effects of lead poisoning, while prolonged exposure to lead or lack of adequate care may cause permanent damage.

Though some parents have vowed to only allow their children to use organic, unpainted toys, this is an effective but unnecessary step at lead exposure prevention. In order to decrease the contact children may have to possible lead based toys, parents should stay abreast of all product recalls. The CPSC keeps an updated list of all recalled toys at on the Consumer Products Safety Commission website under recalls. Parents should check this site regularly if they are at all concerned about possible lead contamination. Parents should also frequently examine toys and remove those that have chipped or peeling paint, as ingested or inhaled lead is the chief cause of damage. Parents should also attempt to keep children from biting or sucking on painted toys.

Florida Seatbelt law becomes reality... Click it or Get a Ticket

Juliet@LaBovick.com (LaBovick Law) — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 16:21:47 -0500

Florida Motorists, mark your calendars, on June 30, 2009, the Dori Slosberg and Katie Marchetti Safety Belt Law will go into effect in the State of Florida.Thanks to the valiant efforts of concerned citizens and organizations such as the Dori Slosberg Foundation and the Katie Marchetti Foundation, this law will finally become a reality. This law is named in memory of two Florida teens that were killed in separate traffic accidents and died as a result of not wearing their seatbelts. This new seatbelt law will have far-reaching implications for those motorists that continue to violate the law by failing to wear their seatbelts either as the driver of or as passengers in a vehicle. While many might argue that every individual should have the right to choose whether or not to buckle up on Florida’s roadways, the state feels that it is in the best interest of public safety to enforce safety rules and regulations regarding seatbelts. Hence, Florida motorists will want to be aware of the new seatbelt law and how it will affect them.

While the percentage of motorists wearing seatbelts has increased over the last several years, Florida’s percentage of those that adhere to seatbelt laws is still below the national average. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that the national percentage of seatbelt use in 2008 was 83 percent. In Florida, the percentage of seatbelt use in 2008 was just under 82 percent. Even though Florida’s seatbelt use percentage is close to the national average, 1 in 5 drivers still do not wear their seatbelts according to the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT). Furthermore, the Florida DOT states that 3 out of 5 motor vehicle fatalities are the result of a failure to buckle up.

Florida joins 28 other states plus the District of Columbia with the passage of th new primary seatbelt law that will allow Florida law enforcement officers to pull over and ticket motorists for simply not wearing their seatbelts. No other type of violation will be necessary under the new seatbelt law for Florida law enforcement officers to make a traffic stop. When the driver or any passengers in the vehicle are not wearing their seatbelts, a Florida law enforcement officer will have a legal right to pull over the car and ticket those not wearing their seatbelts. The state fine for a seatbelt violation will be $30, and each county may impose additional fines and court fees as well.

According to Florida Governor Charlie Crist, "The most important function of government is to protect." With that said, Governor Crist signed into law the Dori Slosberg and Katie Marchetti Safety Belt Law. The Florida Highway Patrol predicts that at least 124 individuals will be saved each year as a result of the state’s new seatbelt law. It is important for drivers and their passengers to be aware of these changes to the state’s seatbelt laws, and drivers should ensure that they and their passengers are buckled up before hitting the Florida roadways beginning June 30.

Check out the Governor's Highway Safety Association website to learn more about the various state seatbelt safety laws.

Roadway safety and Seminole Pratt Whitney Road

Juliet@LaBovick.com (LaBovick Law) — Wed, 06 May 2009 06:53:17 -0500

Two teens leaving Seminole Ridge High School were injured by a vehicle while crossing the very busy Seminole Pratt Whitney Road. The students used the crosswalk to cross the road, but unfortunately, were not protected from being injured by a car traveling northbound on Seminole Pratt Whitney Road.

According to reports, the police is investigating the accident. Several parents are outraged that more is not being done to protect the safety of student pedestrians crossing Seminole Pratt Road. There are two crosswalks on this road, Seminole Ridge Road Cross walk and Sycamore Road crosswalk. But are they effective in making it safe for student pedestrians crossing Seminole Pratt Whitney Road?

The Seminole Ridge crosswalk encourages student pedestrians to cross the highway into an area where there is no sidewalk on the other side.It is dangerous that a student pedestrian must walk several hundred yards on the side of a busy road, before reaching a sidewalk. Some detractors say, "But there is a sidewalk on the other side of the street." However, there is no crosswalk to help pedestrians cross over safely to the other side. Is it safe for a pedestrian to run across busy traffic with no crosswalk?

Governor Charlie Crist signed the Pedestrian Safety Bill (S.B. 154) into law in May 2008, which requires drivers to stop when pedestrian is in the crosswalk. In addition, the Pedestrian Safety Bill (SB 154) amends sections 316.075 & 316.130 of the Florida Statutes and says, “The driver of a vehicle at any crosswalk where signage so indicates shall stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian to cross a roadway when the pedestrian is in the crosswalk or steps into the crosswalk and is upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.”

Since Seminole Ridge is a High School, it does not qualify for a crossing guard or blinking school zone sign, according to the Palm Beach School District. Should there be an exception, since the speed limit is 45 mph on Seminole Pratt Road and nearly 40 of the 100 accidents on Seminole Pratt Whitney Road have occurred in front of Seminole Ridge High School, since 2007.

What will it take for the safety of students crossing this busy intersection to be put first? Many concerned parents and citizens have asked this question. The blame game and excuses are no longer acceptable and something must be done now.

Concerned citizens and parents are working on ways to make it safer for Seminole Ridge High students crossing Seminole Pratt Whitney Road before and after school. It should not take the death of a student to make crossing Seminole Pratt Whitney Road safer for student pedestrians.

The Importance of the Jury Service "From the Courtroom Podcast"

whistleblower@labovick.com (Brian F. LaBovick, Esq.) — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:42:25 -0500

On today's edition of the Podcast "From the Courtroom" Managing Partner Brian LaBovick discusses the importance of Jury Service.

Juror Affadavit and Juror Service

If you have any questions or comments concering today's edition of the "From the Courtroon Podcast, please email them to: Podcast@LaBovick.com.

Tune in next week for another edition of "From the Courtroom" a law podcast series brought to you by the law firm, LaBovick & LaBovick, P.A.

From the Courtroom Podcast - Dangers of Raptiva

whistleblower@labovick.com (Brian F. LaBovick, Esq.) — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 20:38:26 -0500

In today's Edition of From the Courtroom, Managing Partner, Brian F. LaBovick, Esq. discusses the dangers of the Psoriasis drug Raptiva.

The drug maker, Genentech recently announced that is was suspending sales of the psoriasis drug RAPTIVA in the U.S. due to its links to brain infections. It has been associated with an increased risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML).

Raptiva was approved for distribution by the FDA in 2003. Its intended use was to help those who suffered from psoriasis manage the disease more comfortably. For a time, Raptiva proved to be successful, but recent reports have shown that several serious and sometimes grave side effects followed its use.

Raptiva’s Side Effects
After a few years on the market, disturbing reports of side effects believed to have been brought about by Raptiva began to surface. Each of these problems reported are extremely serious.

Bacterial Sepsis
Brain Infection - Encephalopathy
Lymphoma
Viral Meningitis
Invasive Fungal Disease
PML (Progressive Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy)

Several of the side effects allegedly linked to Raptiva may lead to a patient dying because of the drug. There have been three deaths attributed to the use of Raptiva, which prompted the FDA to get involved. In all three deaths, they suffered from PML. The FDA required Genentech, Inc. to label of of the medication with a “Black Box” warning, that clearly indicates the dangers associated with Raptiva.

If you or a loved one have been taking Raptiva, consult your Doctor regarding the possible side effects.

injurylaw.labovick.com/uploads/file/From the Courtroom_Raptiva_BFL(1).mp3

From The Courtroom Podcast - Brian LaBovick

whistleblower@labovick.com (Brian F. LaBovick, Esq.) — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:00:07 -0500

LaBovick & LaBovick, P.A. is pleased to launch the new Podcast series "From the Courtroom". The new Podcast "From the Courtroom" will discuss legal topics and community issues. The shows will be taped in the LaBovick & LaBovick Mock Trial Courtroom, located in the Palm Gardens Headquarters. The shows will feature attorneys from the firm and will periodically interview guests on the show that are community leaders.

The first edition of "From the Courtroom" features Brian F. LaBovick, Esq., Managing Partner.

Listeners are encouraged to tune in weekly to check out the various topics discussed on the LaBovick & LaBovick law blogs:

LaBovick Injury Law Blog
Whistleblower Law Blog
The Law Planet Blog

Please feel free to drop us a line if you want to hear any specific topics discussed on "From the Courtroom" Podcast.

injurylaw.labovick.com/uploads/file/Podcast 04102009-Brian-First_mp3_final_rev.mp3

Traffic highway fatalities decrease to 1960s levels

Juliet@LaBovick.com (LaBovick Law) — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 06:33:27 -0500

A new report shows that highway deaths in 2008 dropped from previous years. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, 37,313 people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes last year. This happens to be 9.1 percent fewer deaths than in 2007, which had 41,059 traffic deaths. It is important to note that this is the lowest number of traffic deaths since 1961, when there were 36,285 deaths.

The high gasoline price tag of $4 gallon and fewer miles driven is only one side of the equation. Effective measures like enforcement of drunken driving laws and the work of advocacy groups, such as the Dori Slosberg Foundation, that encourage safer driving habits, also contribute to the decrease of traffic related deaths and awareness of highway safety.

In addition, increased seat-belt use and states promoting seat-belt usage through law enforcement helps promote highway safety. Currently there are 27 states with a primary mandatory seat-belt law. Arkansas is the most recent state to approve legislation of primary enforcement of the safety belt use law. In Florida, there is only a primary seat belt use law for children under 18, effective since 2005.

We encourage all drivers to use caution when driving on the highway. Always use a seat belt and limit the amount of distractions when behind the wheel, such as texting or talking on the phone while driving.

Leave the need for speed to the actors and Hollywood production crews that create Box office blockbusters, "Fast and Furious".

Click here to read more from the NHTSA on highway traffic statistics.

LaBovick & LaBovick - Interview Congressman Braley for new Podcast series - From the Courtroom

Juliet@LaBovick.com (LaBovick Law) — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:09:36 -0500

LaBovick & LaBovick will interview Congressman Bruce Braley in new Podcast series "From the Courtroom".

Congressman Braley (D) Iowa has been fighting for the rights of people for many years. He is an experienced Trial Lawyer, with twenty three years of practicing law under his belt. He is a past President of the Iowa Trial Lawyers Association and former President of the the Iowa Chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates. Prior to being elected to Congress, Mr. Braley, served on the Boards of the Association of Trial Lawyers (now known as AAJ) and Iowa Legal Aid. He was Board Certified in Civil trial Advocacy by the National Board of Trial Advocacy. In addition, to his legal expertise, he started a scholarship fund for injured workers and their families.

Congressman Braley has been busy in Congress since being elected to represent Iowa's First District in November 2006. He currently serves on the House committee on Energy and Commerce. Mr. Braley is Vice Chair of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee and serves on the Health and the Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection subcommittees.

Congressman Braley introduced, H.R. 985, Whistleblower Protection Enforcement Act of 2007 to the Floor and has been very instrumental in fighting for Whistleblower protections.

We are proud to interview Congressman Bruce Braley for our podcast series "From the Courtroom".

Raptiva linked to deadly rare Brain Infection

Juliet@LaBovick.com (LaBovick Law) — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:33:13 -0500

According to the FDA users of the psoriasis medication Raptiva (efalizumab), have a new issue to think about. Recently, the FDA issued a public health advisory regarding an increased risk factor for Raptiva patients to develop a rare brain infection, known as Progressive Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy (PML). According to the FDA, PML is caused by a virus that affects the central nervous system. This brain infection occurs almost exclusively in patients on immunosuppressive medication. Symptoms include: unusual weakness, loss of coordination, changes in vision, difficulty speaking and personality changes. The FDA stated that possibly four known victims contracted this infection while on the medication Raptiva for over three years. None of the victims were on immunosuppressive medication. Presently, there is no known effective cure or treatment for PML.

Raptiva, marketed in the U.S. by San Francisco Pharma manufacturer, Genentech, is a once-weekly injection approved for adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Approved by the FDA in 2003, the drug showed no cases of PML in clinical trials. Reports indicate that nearly 3,000 patients were treated with the drug during the clinical trials. The medication was administered to 218 people for one year or more, over 900 patients for six months and 2,400 patients for three months. Approximately 46,000 people worldwide have been treated with Raptiva, since 2003.

Late last year, the FDA, approved a Black Box warning label change of the drug Raptiva in October 2008. The new FDA Box warning stated that using Raptiva could increase the risk for infection. Genentech manufacturer of Raptiva, has been ordered by the FDA, to investigate the effects and likelihood of PML being contracted while taking Raptiva.

Since the FDA's recent advisory, Genentech has taken steps to notify users and medical professionals about the risks of taking Raptiva, by outlining specific risks on the website and sending warning letters to patients and health care providers. Unfortunately, all of this is a little too late for the victims that died, possibly due to using Raptiva for treatment of psoriasis. According to reports, they were using Raptiva for at least three years.

The FDA has vowed to “take appropriate steps” to ensure that the treatment benefits of Raptiva outweigh the heightened potential risk of contracting PML. Further, the FDA is informing health care providers what to look for in PML cases. They have issued a warning to physicians that they may see more cases of PML. In addition, they are directly informing Raptiva patients of the risks involved with using the psoriasis medication and describing the symptoms of PML. Hopefully, these proactive measures will help prevent more deaths.

It's about time: Consumer friendly legislative relief

whistleblower@labovick.com (Brian F. LaBovick, Esq.) — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 06:49:23 -0500

After 8 years of attacks and more attacks, we are finally seeing some relief with plaintiff and consumer friendly legislation.

One significant highlight this year is the Supreme Court 6-3 decision in favor of Diana Levine, in Wyeth v. Levine. The Supreme Court decision held that FDA drug regulation does not preempt common law claims for damages under state law. A major step in the right direction.

Additional highlights include three important new bills that were introduced on Capitol Hill:

The Nursing Home Arbitration Act , introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Linda Sanchez (HR 1237) and in the Senate by Sen. Mel Martinez (S. 512). These bills would prohibit binding mandatory arbitration agreements in nursing home contracts, safeguarding the legal rights of an all too vulnerable population.

The Sunshine in Litigation Act , introduced by Senators Herb Kohl and Lindsey Graham (S. 537). The Sunshine in Litigation Act, is a bill to restrict protective orders and secrecy agreements in Federal cases where the result of such agreements would be to withhold public health and safety information from the public.

The Medical Device Safety Act, introduced in the Senate by Senators Kennedy and Leahy (S. 540) and in the House by Representatives Waxman and Pallone (HR 1346). This bill will restore the rights of patients injured by faulty medical devices – a right patients lost last year as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Riegel v. Medtronic.

Although these bills are a step in the right direction, there is much work to be done. We can only hope that it is made clear that Congress does not intend for FDA regulation to preempt claims against device manufacturers.

Last but not least is The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009 introduced by Rep. Hank Johnson (HR 1020) in early February. This bill will eliminate unfair binding mandatory arbitration contracts in consumer agreements.

Let's see what the future continues to hold for consumer friendly legislation.

Supreme Court rejects Pharma giant Wyeth's FDA pre-emption claims in Wyeth v. Levine

Juliet@LaBovick.com (LaBovick Law) — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 22:47:41 -0500

Interesting turn of events today in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court issued a decision regarding pre-emption in the Wyeth v. Levine, product liability case. This was an overwhelming victory for Americans. The 6-3 decision explicitly upheld the ruling that FDA approvals do not provide a defense to pharmaceutical manufacturer Wyeth in product liability tort claims, in the Wyeth v. Levine, No. 06-1249 (slip op., 03/04/09).

According to the 80 page decision that was delivered by Justice Stevens,

Directly injecting the drug Phenergan into a patient’vein creates a significant risk of catastrophic consequences-quences. A Vermont jury found that petitioner Wyeth, the manufacturer of the drug, had failed to provide an Adequate-quate warning of that risk and awarded damages to re-spondent Diana Levine to compensate her for the amputation of her arm. The warnings on Phenergan’s label had been deemed sufficient by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) when it approved Wyeth’s new drug application in 1955 and when it later approved changes in the drug’s labeling .The question we must decide is whether the FDA’s approvals provide Wyeth with a complete defense to Levine’s tort claims. We conclude that they do not.

The majority decision, authored by Justice Stevens, unequivocally rejected the pharmaceutical defendant’s arguments that the FDA regulatory scheme preempted state law failure-to-warn claims and outlined the real world limitations of FDA powers. This decision will have implications in pharmaceutical product liability claims for decades to come. Also joining Justice Stevens were Supreme Kennedy, Sorter, Ginsberg, Beyer, and Thomas. It was not surprising that the three dissenters included, Chief Justice Roberts, Ali to and Scalar.

It is important to note that this Br yer and Thomas clarified their vote by also writing an opinion in addition to Justice Stevens. This solidified their strong belief in their sentiments that manufacturers can't hide behind the FDA approval and not be vigilant in issuing necessary warnings and safety precautions. The Supreme Court held: (1) the FDA’s regulatory scheme exists in harmony with state law failure-to-warn claims; (2) the controversial 2006 FDA preamble regarding preemption is entitled to no deference; and (3) it is the manufacturer, not the FDA, which has the duty to warn consumers about side effects. As the Supreme Court reasoned, “State tort suits uncover unknown drug hazards and provide incentives for drug manufacturers to disclose safety risks promptly.” (Slip op., at 23.)

One does not have wonder too long as to whose side C.J. Roberts and Alito are on after reading the dissenting opinion. Alito states in his dissenting opinion that :

This case illustrates that tragic facts make bad law. The Court holds that a state tort jury, rather than the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is ultimately responsible for regulating warning labels for prescription drugs. That result cannot be reconciled with Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U. S. 861 (2000), or general principles of conflict pre-emption.

Alito goes on to pose the hypothetical question: "is it the FDA or a jury in Vermont— that has the authority and responsibility for determining the “adequacy” of Phenergan’s warnings?"

There is so much to discuss in this 80 page decision. Over the next few days we will go into the decision more on this blog, to highlight more important points in this opinion. As Civil Justice Prosecutors, we are pleased with the Court's decision in Wyeth v. Levine.