Trial Lawyer Resource Center

Betty Nestlehutt: Why Medical Malpractice Caps are Wrong

Mark Zamora — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 21:44:12 -0500

Watch this video:http://vimeo.com/9943651

This is a video that discussed Atlanta Oculoplastic Surgery v. Nestlehutt, which challenges the provisions of Senate Bill 3, passed in 2005 by the Georgia General Assembly, that caps noneconomic damages that a jury may award to a victim of medical malpractice at $350,000.00.

The case arose from a medical malpractice claim filed by Adam Malone and Frank Ilardi on behalf of their clients Betty Nestlehutt and her husband Bruce Nestlehutt in the Fulton County State Court in October of 2008. Married for over 50 years, the Nestlehutts raised two children and they shared a real estate business. Bruce handled the behind-the-scenes work, and Betty, a people-person by nature, focused on client and public interaction. Competition was tough and as Betty aged she found that more and more clients seemed to prefer younger agents. So, at seventy-one years of age, Betty Nestlehutt, after much thought and consideration, sought consultation with Dr. Harvey P. Cole of Atlanta Oculoplastic Surgery, P.C. concerning bags under her eyes and lines around her mouth. Dr. Cole recommended she undergo several surgical procedures including a simultaneous CO2 laser resurfacing and full facelift.

Having both the CO2 laser resurfacing and full facelift done together is well-known by practicing cosmetic surgeons to be risky, as the chance of damaging the facial blood supply is greatly increased on a patient of Betty’s age and complexion. However, based on her doctor’s recommendation, Betty went through the combination of procedures and the blood supply to her face was, in fact, severely damaged.

After the surgery, the skin on Betty’s face struggled to live without its usual blood supply and after a 3-week period, died completely, leaving the once fair-skinned wife and mother with huge, gaping wounds from her temple to her jaw line, covering both sides of her face and over both of her cheeks to her chin. Betty Nestlehutt’s face, quite literally, fell off.

In the Nestlehutt case, a Fulton County, Georgia jury awarded Mrs. Nestlehutt well over $350,000.00 for permament injuries she received to her body due to medical malpractice by her physicians. After a trial, the Fulton County jury found Mrs. Nestlehutt's case to be meritorious and awarded her substantially more than the $350,000.00 cap. When judgment was about to be entered, however, the Fulton County trial court judge ruled that the cap of $350,000.00 found in SB3 was unconstitutional.

Expect a decision on this case soon.

Alabama/Georgia/Florida: Insulin Pump Recall-Insulin Pump Dangers?

Mark Zamora — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:45:55 -0500

From Rob Bunch, 256.764.0095

Insulin Pump Dangers

The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) is working to reduce risks from dangerous problems that affect what it described as tens of thousands of diabetics. While the FDA has not provided specific insulin pump manufacturers names in its report, there are known insulin pump makers, including Medtronic Inc, Roche Holding AG, and Johnson & Johnson.

According to the FDA panel papers, here are"Device Problems:"

The most frequently reported device problem in MDR’s related to insulin infusion pumps was ‘unknown,’ and the top five reporters identified “unknown” in 5421 of 16640 reports (19.7% of reports). The second most frequent device problem reported was “replace,” which accounted for 2385 entries (9% of reports).

Patient Problems included:

Patient Problems
The most frequently reported patient problems were 1) hospitalization, and 2) blood glucose high. Of the 16640 MDRs from the top five manufacturers, hospitalization was identified in 7967 reports (21% of reports) while blood glucose was identified in 6236 reports (16.6% of reports). The other most frequently reported patient problems reported were:
 Diabetic Ketoacidosis (8% of reports)
 Hyperglycemia (8% of reports)
 Treatment with medication (6% of reports)
 Blood glucose low (4.7% of reports)
 Therapy/non‐surgical treatment (4% of reports)

Insulin pumps are primarily used by people with Type I diabetes, a condition in which the pancreas produces little or no insulin, a hormone needed to help the body properly use sugars from foods. People with Type 1 diabetes need to administer insulin daily whether through a pump or other methods like shots.

The more common form of diabetes, Type 2, which is often associated with obesity and typically develops later in life, is managed with oral medications designed to help the body properly use insulin, although some cases do require insulin.

The FDA said the number of Type I diabetics using insulin pumps has increased, with about 375,000 U.S. users in 2007, up from about 130,000 in 2002.

Recalls:

MiniMed Insulin Pumps
The thin plastic tubes are used with the MiniMed Paradigm Medtronic insulin pump to deliver insulin to diabetes patients. The infusion set is typically replaced every three days. However, thousands of patients may have been sold infusion sets that may not allow the insulin pump to vent air pressure properly, potentially resulting in the device delivering too much or too little insulin.

Over or under delivery of insulin from an insulin pump could have serious and catastrophic consequences for diabetes patients.

Medtronic announced that approximately 60,000 Quick-set infusion sets used with the Medtronic MiniMed Paradigm insulin pumps could be defective and not work properly. Therefore, they recalled an estimated 3 million of the infusion sets with reference numbers MMT-396, MMT-397, MMT-398 and MMT-399 with lot numbers starting with an “8”.

Accu-Check:

Accu-Check Spirit insulin pumps were previously recalled by Disetronic Medical Systems Inc., a unit of the Roche Group, because of a potential defect in the “up” and/or “down” buttons of some devices. Malfunctioning buttons could prohibit users from changing any programmed setting on the Accu-Check Spirit insulin pumps. Another earlier recall was issued for battery caps included with some varieties of Aimas insulin pumps. According to Animas Corp, the defective battery caps could cause the pumps to stop administering insulin, putting patients at risk of hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia.

Insulin Overdose Symptoms
Diabetes patients who begin to develop any of the following signs or symptoms should seek medical attention immediately as they may be experiencing an insulin overdose:

Severe headache
Increased/rapid heartbeat
Nausea
Tremors, anxiety
Uncontrolled sweating
Hypoglycemia

Hypoglycemia
One of the most dangerous risks associated with insulin overdose is hypoglycemia, a condition in which a person’s blood sugar (glucose) is too low. Symptoms include: cold sweats, confusion, double vision, convulsions, fatigue and general discomfort. Severe hypoglycemia can result in seizures, coma and death.

Call us today if you believe that an improperly functioning insulin pump has harmed you. You may use the Contact Us form, or call Rob Bunch today. 256-764-0095

Florida/Georgia: Denture Adhesives May Cause Zinc Poisoning and Neuropathy

Mark Zamora — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 19:19:59 -0500

Several Poligrip lawsuits have been prompted by cases of peripheral neuropathy in the United States among users of Poligrip and other denture adhesive creams. A serious neurological condition, peripheral neuropathy is most commonly seen among diabetics, and the Poligrip lawsuits contend that neuropathy is an unwarranted risk of a denture cream use that is not described by GlaxoSmithKline, the pharmaceutical giant that makes Poligrip.

Denture Adhesive Cream and Neuropathy

Millions of people in America have dentures and use Poligrip or another adhesive on a daily basis to keep their dentures in place. A link between neuropathy from denture cream was claimed to be revealed in the Poligrip lawsuits that have arisen in the past years. These lawsuits note the often debilitating symptoms of neuropathy:

pain and/or tingling in the extremities (i.e., the "peripheral" part of "peripheral neuropathy")
sensation disorders, such as a sensation of gloves or stockings being worn although the hands or legs are bare
a loss of balance, difficulty walking
cognitive decline

In some cases, neuropathy symptoms improve on their own after a period of time. Unfortunately, however, in other cases, treatment programs do not help and the neuropathy never goes away.

Poligrip and Zinc Poisoning

Neuropathy can be caused by:

an injury
a metabolic problem
an infection
exposure to toxins
diabetes (about half of all diabetics develop some degree of neuropathy)
alcoholism (because of poor dietary habits)

However, the link between denture creams such as Poligrip and neuropathy is based on the zinc content of the creams. Zinc — a mineral that is normally vital to one's health — is toxic at high doses. The USDA recommended daily allowance (RDA) for zinc is 15 milligrams of zinc from food and/or supplements every day. On the other hand, too much zinc can be quite harmful to one's health, because a high-enough level of zinc decreases the body's ability to absorb the essential minerals copper and iron.

In Japan on March 4, 2010, the Japanese subsidiary of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), announced that it would begin a voluntary recall of Poligrip products that contain zinc in that country. The company's decision followed just three reports of adverse health effects in consumers of the product, sold in Japan as Poligrip EX.

Despite hundreds of American consumers reporting similar disabling effects stemming from the company's many zinc-containing products in the U.S., Glaxo's American subsidiary has yet to order a recall here.

In a letter in 2009, the company had “received an increased number of adverse event reports” that together with recent medical literature suggest that there were serious dangers associated with denture adhesives spiked with zinc.

Even as Glaxo warned doctors of the dangers posed by its denture cream, the company continued to blame users of its products, writing, “some patients apply more adhesive than directed and use it more than once per day.”

Talk with Mark Zamora, who may be reached at mark@markzamora.com or call 404-451-7781.

GA, FL, AL: Dilantin and SJS and Purple Glove Syndrome

Mark Zamora — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 12:50:48 -0500

According to a quarterly report issued in late 2008, the FDA investigated occurrences where Dilantin (phenytoin) injections led to a disorder known Purple Glove Syndrome. This condition -named after the discoloration that often accompanies it, can lead to the need for emergency surgery, and even limb amputation, if it becomes serious.

Phenytoin is an antiepileptic drug. Aside from seizures, it is an option in the treatment of trigeminal neuralgia as well as certain cardiac arrhythmias. In the US, phenytoin is marketed as Phenytek and Dilantin (including Dilantin Kapseals, Dilantin-125 and Dilantin Infatabs).

Phenytoin has been administered intravenously since 1956. But occasionally, this treatment can lead to a complication called Purple Glove Syndrome. Purple Glove Syndrome starts as a pale blue or dark purple discoloration which appears around the intravenous insertion site 2 to 12 hours after the administration of the drug. Progression occurs during the next 12 to 16 hours as developing edema and continued discoloration spread around all sides of the affected limb.

If a patient is fortunate, the discoloration and edema will gradually fade, and the affected limb will heal within 2 to 4 weeks. However, Purple Glove Syndrome can sometimes turn quite serious, resulting in the death of affected tissue. When such necrosis occurs, a patient may require surgery to restore blood flow to the affected tissue. The most severe cases of Purple Glove Syndrome can lead to amputation of the injured limb.

In its report, the FDA did not say how many cases of phenytoin-related Purple Glove Syndrome it was investigating. But a 1998 study conducted by researchers at the Mayo Clinic found that of 152 patients receiving intravenous Dilantin (phenytoin), 9 (about 5.9%) developed Purple Glove Syndrome. The study also found that the disorder was more likely to affect the elderly, and people who received more than one dose of phenytoin.

No one yet understands why intravenous Dilantin can cause Purple Glove Syndrome. The disorder does occur when Dilantin - which has highly alkaline PH - leaks into the interstitial tissue. But Purple Glove Syndrome is also seen in patients were such phenytoin leakage has not occurred. Some health practitioners believe this could have something to do with the exact formulation of the phenytoin injection.

This is news in addition to previous claimed links to SJS.

Dilantin is also commonly used to treat and prevent the onset of seizures after a major brain or spinal surgery. Other names for Dilantin include: Dilantin Infatabs, Dilantin Kapseals, Dilantin-125, Phenytek, and Phenytoin Sodium.

In many instances, the consumer sees visible manifestations of a Stevens Johnson Syndrome reaction within a few days of starting the anti-seizure medication. Others may not see or realize the manifestations of the reaction due to Dilantin until weeks later. Typically the reaction starts out with symptoms such as headaches, sore throat, trouble breathing, itchy or irritated eyes, blistered lips, and/or the onset of a skin rash. In time the condition only gets worse, especially if the ingestion of the inducing drug is not stopped immediately.

Call Mark Zamora at 404 451 7781 , or email him at mark@mzlawyer.com

Georgia, Florida and USA: Dilantin and Stevens Johnson Syndrome

Mark Zamora — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 18:07:16 -0500

Dilantin (generic name: phenytoin) is a widely-prescribed antiepileptic drug issued for treatment of partial and generalized tonic clonic seizures associated with epilepsy. The drug, developed in 1938 and currently marketed by Pfizer, has been linked to Stevens Johnson Syndrome (SJS).

Stevens Johnson Syndrome is a severe, life-threatening condition which affects the skin and the mucous membranes. SJS typically begins with a flu-like period of fever, sore throat and headache. Victims then develop circular lesions that cover a majority of the skin. The lesions can develop into blisters and occasionally complete skin detachment.

Many experts agree that a reaction to Dilantin can cause the onset of this horrible disease. While Dilantin has been recalled numerous times since its introduction, it is still prescribed today.

Most common side-effects:

• Nausea, vomiting, constipation, or diarrhea
• Mild dizziness or drowsiness
• Tender or swollen glands
• Swollen or painful gums
• Headache
• Muscle twitches
• Increased facial hair
• Swelling of breasts
• Insomnia

More severe side-effects are:

• An allergic reaction (difficulty breathing; closing of the throat; swelling of the lips, tongue, or face; or hives)
• Hallucinations
• Slurred speech or staggering walk
• A rash
• Changes in vision
• Agitation
• Low blood pressure
• Slow or irregular heartbeats
• Abdominal pain, dark urine, light colored stools, or jaundice (yellow skin or eyes)
• Easy bruising or bleeding
• Swollen or tender gums

If you believe your Dilantin use has put you or a loved one in danger call or email us right away

Mark Zamora, 404-451-7781, or mark@mzlawyer.com

Avandia Dangers: Florida, Georgia, North Carolina

Mark Zamora — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:03:08 -0500

One of the most common medical problems that exists in the United States today is diabetes. Given the market’s needs, billions of dollars have been spent on research in an attempt to prevent, cure or otherwise control this condition. One medication to hit the market in recent years was Avandia, which has been offered by GlaxoSmithKline.

Avandia patients who develop one (or more) of the these conditions wmay have the right to make a claim, depending on a number of factors:

congestive heart failure
heart attack
liver toxicity
severe allergic reaction
stroke

Even given the early promise that Avandia showed, recent events have brought to light the potential for serious health problems occurring as a result of using Avandia, some claim.

A report released in February by the Senate Finance Committee said Glaxo knew of an increased risk of heart attack linked to Avandia for several years, but played down potential problems to the public and the FDA. The committee was critical of the FDA’s support of Avandia, and the report included studies by two FDA doctors who said in 2008 the drug should be removed from the market.

Lawyers Mark Zamora and Joey James are investigating this medication. Email joey@bunchandjames.com, or call 256.764.0095.

Hydroxycut and Georgia Lawyers:Hydroxycut linked to other cases of liver damage

Mark Zamora — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:52:50 -0500

In a new study, reported in the American Journal of Gastroenterology, researchers analyzed 17 cases of liver damage among Hydroxycut users that had not yet appeared in the medical literature. Nine of the cases had been reported to the FDA, while eight were seen by the authors of the study.

Looking at factors like patients' risk factors for liver disease and the timing of their Hydroxycut use, the researchers found that for eight of the liver-damage cases, there was a greater than 95 percent likelihood that the weight-loss aid was to blame.

In five cases, the researchers concluded that Hydroxycut was "highly likely" the cause (a 75 to 95 percent chance), while it was probably to blame in two cases (a 50 to 74 percent chance). The last two cases were considered to be possibly linked to Hydroxycut use.

From Reuters.com, and the article is from nature. com:Hydroxycut has been clearly implicated as a cause for severe liver injury that may lead to acute liver failure and death. Weight-loss supplements represent a class of dietary supplements that should be regarded as capable of causing severe hepatic toxicity when the usual causes of identified liver injury cannot be otherwise elucidated.

Source here: http://www.nature.com/ajg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ajg20105a.html

Lawyer Mark Zamora is investigating links to claims of liver injuries and this product, mark@mzlawyer.com

Will Georgia Victims of Medical Wrongdoing Have to Jump Through More Hoops?

Mark Zamora — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 16:00:17 -0500

An excellent piece on the GTLA blog, written today (1/9):

How many hoops should you have to jump through to get justice? It's a fair question that many people struggle with. Yesterday, the CEO of a Georgia medical services company suggested - in an opinion piece submitted to a GA newspaper - that to be sure that Georgians who have been harmed by negligent medical care are worthy of justice we should subject them to one more hoop. Not coincidentally, it's a hoop that benefits only medical professionals and insurance companies – the only two interest groups that profit when injured patients are prevented from securing justice.

What the author of the opinion has proposed is that, instead of allowing victims of medical malpractice the same Constitutional Right to Trial by Jury enjoyed by all other Georgians, people harmed by medical wrongdoing/malpractice would have to get permission to have a jury trial from a “screening panel” comprised of members of the medical and insurance industries, the same industries that want to avoid compensating injured patients. This approach is wrong and adds an unnecessary, ineffective layer to our civil justice system.

The fact is all medical malpractice cases brought in Georgia have already been through multiple screening hoops. The first hoop is that you have to have had something very bad happen as a result of malpractice. Your next hoop is that you have to find a lawyer willing and able to take your case. That lawyer will tell you that there is another, special hoop that protects only professionals charged with negligence. In order to pass through that hoop, the patient must find a medical professional willing to publicly criticize their colleague and sign a document swearing that malpractice happened. So far your case has been screened three times: Something bad happens. You find a lawyer who will invest in helping you find justice. And, you find another doctor who agrees that there was malpractice and is willing to say so. Then there’s a fourth screening before you can have a jury hear your case: the judge must screen the case, too.

Our Founding Fathers created the world's best independent screening panels when they imbedded the right to a trial by jury in our Constitution. You are entitled to a jury of your peers, not a two step process, the first of which is a trial by jury of the defendant's colleagues. We trust the people of our communities to fairly resolve our disputes when we are unable to resolve them ourselves.

The CEO cites an approach tried in Maine as being the right fit for us here in Georgia. He fails to mention that this approach is regularly criticized by the Supreme Court of Maine as being inadequate and harmful to the people of Maine. He cites, as a reason for needing “screening panels,” a Georgia case involving a plastic surgeon who carelessly destroyed the blood supply to a woman’s face and left her horribly disfigured. He suggests that this woman – who was horribly injured through no fault of her own and who successfully navigated all of the legal hurdles to hold the wrongdoer accountable for herself and other patients – has not done enough. He says she needs to clear yet another hurdle to prove herself worthy of a jury trial. The suggestion is outrageous and it serves no purpose but to deny those who have been harmed their fair measure of justice.

Why should patients who have been harmed by medical malpractice have to go through two trials when everyone else only has to go through one? Why should medical professionals get special treatment? It's a question with an obvious answer: They shouldn't.

Interrogatories

Ron Miller — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 08:23:58 -0500

The best advice for propounding, answering and following up on interrogatory answer is the one thing that few lawyers do: put thought into them as to exactly how you are going to use them at trial. We get so much advice as lawyers as to what we should do. As a result, we make a lot of diving impossible catches but miss too many fly balls.

Think about what you are trying to prove at trial. Think about the questions that box in the defendant's lawyer (in one direction or the other). Think about the hard questions that you would like to get answers to read to a jury. Think about the case individually. Then draft your interrogatories and demand answers that fairly and honestly answer the questions.

Focusing just on this is better than reading a thousand differnet article on drafting interrogatories.

Interrogatories

Ron Miller — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 08:23:58 -0500

Focusing just on this is better than reading a thousand differnet articles on drafting interrogatories.

Advice Clients on How Long Settlement Will Be?

Ron Miller — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 14:20:19 -0500

I wrote a page today advising injury victims on the question of how long their auto accident claim will take to settle. For lawyers, the best advice in terms of giving advise is to underpromise and overdeliver. Like construction, things typically, take longer than you anticipate or hope that they will. How do you predict how long the Plaintiff will receive treatment or who long the doctor will take to provide a medical opinion you need in your demand package?

Moreover, if the client has a multitude of health care providers, you can bet that at least one is going to be slow to respond.

The "take home message" is twofold. First, set expections low in terms of how long things will take, offering an expected range within a 98% confidence interval as opposed to an estimated date. Second, make sure you are doing everything you reasonably can to push the accident claim forward (without cutting any meaningful corners).

Yaz and Gallbladder Problems? (Georgia, Florida)

Mark Zamora — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:22:13 -0500

In order to understand the connection with Yaz gall bladder problems and gallstones, it is important to review why stones form in the first place.

Your gallbladder is a small, pear-shaped organ on the right side of your abdomen, just beneath your liver. The gallbladder holds a digestive fluid called bile that's released into your small intestine.

Gallstones (choleliths) are bodies formed within the body, by accretion or concretion.Gallstones can occur anywhere within what is known as the biliary tree, and the gallbladder as well as the the bile duct. Source.

If there are gallstones in the bile duct, the condition is known as Choledocholithiasis.

Bile contains water, cholesterol, fats, bile salts, proteins, and bilirubin—a waste product. Bile salts break up fat, and bilirubin gives bile and stool a yellowish-brown color. If the liquid bile contains too much cholesterol, bile salts, or bilirubin, it can harden into gallstones.

Source

There is a contention that Yaz birth control elevates the level of cholesterol contained within the bile salts produced by the liver.

How does one treat gallstones?

Oral Dissolution Therapy. Oral dissolution therapy uses bile acids in pill form to dissolve gallstones and may be used in conjunction with lithotripsy, although both techniques are rarely used at present. Ursodiol (ursodeoxycholic acid, Actigall) and chenodiol (Chenix) are the standard oral bile acid drugs used for dissolution. Most physicians prefer ursodeoxycholic acid, which is considered to be among the safest of common drugs and does not seem to have significant side effects. Long-term treatment appears to notably reduce the risk of biliary pain and acute cholecystitis. The treatment is only moderately effective, however, since gallstones recur in the majority of patients. Source.

Patients may elect contact dissolution: In contact dissolution of gallstones, a solvent is usually introduced through a percutaneous trans-hepatic catheter into the gallbladder. A catheter is inserted through a small needle puncture into the gallbladder under fluoroscopic or ultrasonographic guidance. The catheter is then connected to a computerized peristaltic pump that delivers small amounts of solvent continuously to slowly dissolve the stones and removes any remaining stone fragments. Gallstones can usually be cleared in hours to days. Care must be taken to limit the time of contact between instillation and drainage to avoid discharge of this potentially toxic agent into the bile duct or the duodenum. Failure to do so may result in transient abdominal pain and duodenitis. Source.

For some, surgery is the way to address gallbladder problems.

Laparoscopic gallbladder surgery (cholecystectomy) removes the gallbladder and gallstones through several small incisions in the abdomen. The surgeon inflates your abdomen with air or carbon dioxide in order to see clearly.

The surgeon inserts a lighted scope attached to a video camera (laparoscope) into one incision near the belly button. The surgeon then uses a video monitor as a guide while inserting surgical instruments into the other incisions to remove your gallbladder.

Before the surgeon removes the gallbladder, you may have a special X-ray procedure called intraoperative cholangiography, which shows the anatomy of the bile ducts.

You will need general anesthesia for this surgery, which usually lasts 2 hours or less.

After surgery, bile flows from the liver (where it is made) through the common bile duct and into the small intestine. Because the gallbladder has been removed, the body can no longer store bile between meals. In most people, this has little or no effect on digestion. Source.

Symptomatic gallstones can result in extreme pain and serious medical issues. If you or someone you know has developed gallstones after taking Yaz birth control pills, you may have a legal right to file a claim, call Mark Zamora at 888-574-6454.

Blair Expands Recall of Robes, Jackets and Tops

Mark Zamora — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:00:46 -0500

More news on an expanded recall of Blair products:

A Pennsylvania clothing company has expanded a recall of highly flammable bathrobes, as a Connecticut woman says the company's negligence led directly to her mother's fiery death. Blair LLC, based in Warren, Pa., initially recalled 162,000 of its chenille robes in April, as it announced that it had received reports of three deaths blamed on the robes' extreme flammability.

Blair and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) have expanded that recall, as six additional deaths are linked to at least four types of chenille robes and other chenille products produced by the same manufacturer.

The expanded recall covers around 300,000 items. Products covered by the recall include full length women's chenille robes, women's chenille jacket, women's chenille lounge jackets, and women's chenille tops.

Recalled robes bear the item numbers 3093111, 3093112, 3093113, 3093114, 3093115, and 3093116. According to the CPSC, the items are one-piece garments made of plush sculpted chenille, a shaped stand collar, and horizontal chenille front and back yolks and cuffs. The robes have a full-button front with seven matching button closures.

Affected items were sold both in Blair catalogs and on the company's website, as well as Blair stores in Warren, Pa., Grove City, Pa., and Wilmington, Del., from January 2003 through March 2009.

Attorney Joey James at www.bunchandjames.com is investigating these claims: You may reach him at 888-422-2882.

Synthes USA, Ti Synex II Vertebral Body Replacement (VBR) Lots Numbers

Mark Zamora — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:15:30 -0500

Lawyers Mark Zamora and Rob Bunch are investigating these claims, and you can reach them at 404-451-7781 and 888422-2882.

Here is the information on the recalled Lots:

Ti Synex II Vertebral Body Replacement (VBR)

This recall involves part numbers 04.808.001-11, Synex II Central Body, Titanium (all lots).

Part Numbers

Descriptions

04.808.001

04.808.002

04.808.003

04.808.004

04.808.005

04.808.006

04.808.007

04.808.008

04.808.009

04.808.010

04.808.011

Ti Synex (TM) II Central Body 14 mm - 19 mm

Ti Synex (TM) II Central Body 17 mm - 25 mm

Ti Synex (TM) II Central Body 21 mm - 29 mm

Ti Synex (TM) II Central Body 25 mm - 33 mm

Ti Synex (TM) II Central Body 29 mm - 44 mm

Ti Synex (TM) II Central Body 37 mm - 52 mm

Ti Synex (TM) II Central Body 45 mm - 71 mm

Ti Synex (TM) II Central Body 58 mm - 84 mm

Ti Synex (TM) II Central Body 71 mm - 97 mm

Ti Synex (TM) II Central Body 84 mm -110 mm

Ti Synex (TM) II Central Body 97 mm -123 mm

This product was manufactured from June 8, 2007 through September 9, 2009 and distributed from July 2, 2007 through September 8, 2009.

Use:

This device is a vertebral body replacement device that is used in the T1-L5 portion of the spine to replace a collapsed, damaged, or unstable vertebral body due to a tumor or trauma (that is, a fracture).

Adverse Event Reporting is done here:

www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/default.htm

Chelation Therapy: Link to Heart Injuries?

Mark Zamora — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:47:24 -0500

Does Chelation Therapy Cause Heart Injuries? Chelation therapy is a recognized treatment for heavy metal (such as lead) poisoning. EDTA (Ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid) is injected into the blood and binds the metals, allowing them to be removed from the body in the urine.A potent chelator of cations, especially calcium, it is FDA-approved only for rapid, emergency treatments of hypercalcemia or digitalis toxicity,and for those indications it has long been obsolete. Source.

Na2EDTA is specifically contraindicated for “generalized arteriosclerosis.” Its labeling includes a “black box” warning: “The use of this drug in any particular patient is recommended only when the severity of the clinical condition justifies the aggressive measures associated with this type of therapy." You can find the warning here: http://www.circare.org/foia2/endrate_ppi19740716.pdf

Chelation therapy is not approved by the FDA to treat coronary artery disease, but some physicians and alternative medicine practitioners use it for this purpose.

In August 2002, the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), which are both components of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), announced the launch of the Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT). This placebo-controlled, double-blind study involves participants age 50 years and older who’ve had a heart attack, and is expected to reach a total enrollment of 1,950. Participants are representative of the U.S. population.

Last August, the federal Office of Human Research Protections began a probe into whether the people in the study were being fully informed of risks and adequately protected. Researchers then suspended enrollment.

The most common immediate side effects of oral chelation therapy include: skin rashes, redness and swelling, headaches, diarrhea, nausea, fainting, fatigue, joint pain, body aches, cramps and convulsions.

Kidney damage from chelation therapy has resulted in permanent damage requiring ongoing dialysis. Deaths have also occurred during chelation therapy from kidney failure and cardiac arrhythmia.

Death and permanent injury have resulted from chelation therapy, even in doctor-supervised clinical trials. The American Heart Association warns of severe and life-threatening side effects and does not endorse chelation as a treatment for heart disease.

Other observers have reported cases of hypocalcemia leading to cardiac arrhythmias and tetany; decreased blood clotting ability with abnormal bleeding; thrombophlebitis and embolism; hypoglycemia and insulin shock; severe vasculitis and autoimmune related hemolytic anemia, dermatitis with pruritus and generalized eczema; and extensive clumping of platelets in the blood of some patients with atherosclerosis and other chronic diseases.

This post was written by Mark Zamora, and you can reach him at ageorgialawyer.com

Blair Robes Recall

Rick Kuykendall — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:09:44 -0500

Blair Chenille Robes Recalled

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and Blair LLC, of Warren, Pa., announced a voluntary recall by Blair of 162,000 women’s full length Chenille Robes. Since the recall was originally announced in April 2009, Blair has received reports of six deaths due to the robes catching on fire. Five of the six victims were female, and all five were cooking at the time of the incidents. Three of the victims were in their 80s.

CPSC and Blair announced the recall for the robes after Blair learned of three robes catching on fire, including one report of second-degree burns. Blair was subsequently made aware of the fatalities after the recall was announced and after Blair had sent letters of the recall to consumers who purchased the robes.

The recalled Blair robes were made in Pakistan and include the following item numbers -- 3093111, 3093112, 3093113, 3093114, 3093115, and 3093116. They were sold through Blair catalogs and on the company's Web site as well as Blair stores in Pennsylvania and Delaware from January 2003 through March 2009.

Lawyers Bunch and James are handling these horrible injuries at 888-422-2882.

Trial Lawyer Listserves

Ron Miller — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 08:35:55 -0500

Sometimes in life, we can make the diving catches but we miss the soft ground balls hit right at us.

If you are reading this, chances want tools to make yourself a better lawyer. And you are doing creative things to make yourself better. But if you are not on your local listserv, you are missing one of those easy ground balls. Because I cannot think of a single personal injury lawyer who would not benefit by joining their state trial lawyer listserv.

Listserves are essentially e-mail groups catering to a specific topic or community. A host will maintain the registry of participants by determining what members to accept and decline, and will sometimes assist in regulating content to keep the discussions to fundamental purpose of the list.

Many listserves useful to plaintiffs’ lawyers are those maintained by the American Association for Justice (AAJ, formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, ATLA) and various state trial lawyers associations. AAJ has over 30 listserves based on practice area and member type (for example, auto accident, products liability, medical malpractice, new lawyers, paralegal members), and more listserves based on “litigation groups” featuring current litigation topics (for example gadolinium, pain pumps, Yaz, jury bias). State trial lawyers associations have their own topics that cater to the needs of their members. In order to access these listserves, you must be a member of the parent organization and, in some cases, a member of a particular section or group within the organization. Our listerv in Maryland is absolutely fantastic. There is no a single lawyer who participates that does not learn something.

There are typically policies or “rules of conduct” governing a user’s right to participate in the listserve discussions. Frequently they include rules that topics must be relevant to the listserve’s purpose, political discussions are forbidden, and listserve discussions are private and cannot be shared with non-members.

Messages can typically be received in varying formats, including individual messages, a daily digest (one message each day including all messages sent that day) or a daily index (one message each day indicating the subjects of the day’s postings). Listserve archives are typically searchable.

Some people get turned off by lawyers on their listserv because (1) lawyers who are writing to hear themselves talk and (2) subject matter that is nonsensical/irrelevant or otherwise just plain silly. This is a pandemic listserv problem. My advice? Just deal with it. Because it is worth it.

These listserves allow members to provide information and ask questions to a group of like-minded attorneys in a particular area. It is an invaluable tool for advice and guidance. There is not a single lawyer in the country handling personal injury cases who would not be served by being on its state's trial lawyer association listserv.

Getting Jurors to Sympathize with Your Client

Mark Zamora — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:05:16 -0500

From my friend Michael Maggiano's blog, which you can find here - http://www.atriallawyersjournal.com/

I have found that too often Jurors follow the attitude of my Dad who once said laughingly, "Do as I say, not as I do." I would like to share with you an interesting Jury Tip I received from Harry Plotkin, Jury Consultant of Claremont California.

Harry's points are relevant and real. One comment on Harry's use of the words "force them to think." I am sure he meant these words figuratively as you should not be forcing the jury to do anything in voir dire -- you have not earned that right. What I believe he means to impart is that by your voir dire questioning you invite the jurors to think of what people usually do and how they usually conduct themselves; what is the usual, what is that most people really do in day to day life, not an ideal, not a super or hyper vigilant person but the average everyday conduct of going about life. I hope you find this as interesting as I have.

For the rest of the blog post, check out Michael's new blog.

FDA Phenargran Warnings

Mark Zamora — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:03:03 -0500

The US Food and Drug Administration has ordered the makers of a drug used to treat nausea and vomiting to put the strongest warning possible on the product due to its damaging side-effects.

It was found that tissue damage can be caused as a result of using the medication, in the worst cases leading to amputation.

Go to the FDA site for more information: fda.gov.

Georgia Supreme Court to Hear Argument on Med Mal Caps (Face Surgery Gone Wrong)

Mark Zamora — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 11:03:06 -0500

A lower court declared caps unconstitutional. Here's the story:

Atlanta, GA-- On Tuesday, September 15, 2009, the Georgia Supreme Court will hear oral arguments regarding the constitutionality of the provision that caps the amount of damages a victim of medical malpractice can secure from a jury. The plaintiffs in the case of Betty Nestlehutt and Bruce Nestlehutt v. Atlanta Oculoplastic Surgery, P.C., will argue that the Georgia Supreme Court should uphold the trial court judge’s finding that O.C.G.A. § 51-13-1, as enacted in 2005, is unconstitutional.

The case arose from a medical malpractice claim filed by Adam Malone and Frank Ilardi on behalf of their clients Betty Nestlehutt and her husband Bruce Nestlehutt in the Fulton County State Court in October of 2008. Married for over 50 years, the Nestlehutts raised two children and they shared a real estate business. Bruce handled the behind-the-scenes work, and Betty, a people-person by nature, focused on client and public interaction. Competition was tough and as Betty aged she found that more and more clients seemed to prefer younger agents. So, at seventy-one years of age, Betty Nestlehutt, after much thought and consideration, sought consultation with Dr. Harvey P. Cole of Atlanta Oculoplastic Surgery, P.C. concerning bags under her eyes and lines around her mouth. Dr. Cole recommended she undergo several surgical procedures including a simultaneous CO2 laser resurfacing and full facelift.

Having both the CO2 laser resurfacing and full facelift done together is well-known by practicing cosmetic surgeons to be risky, as the chance of damaging the facial blood supply is greatly increased on a patient of Betty’s age and complexion. However, based on her doctor’s recommendation, Betty went through the combination of procedures and the blood supply to her face was, in fact, severely damaged.

After the surgery, the skin on Betty’s face struggled to live without its usual blood supply and after a 3-week period, died completely, leaving the once fair-skinned wife and mother with huge, gaping wounds from her temple to her jaw line, covering both sides of her face and over both of her cheeks to her chin. Betty Nestlehutt’s face, quite literally, fell off.

“Betty Nestlehutt was the face of her real estate business,” said Malone. “Her face was so horrifically disfigured that she was no longer able to even leave her house. Photographs of her disfigurement are even too gruesome for public distribution. The damage is permanent. Years later she has to wear layers of special makeup to try to give the appearance of normalcy.”

After hearing the testimony and considering all of the evidence, a jury of 12 returned with a verdict in the Nestlehutts’ favor which included a recovery of money damages for her past and future medical expenses, for damage to her relationship with her husband and $900,000 in “non-economic” damages for the devastation of her quality of life. The verdict exceeded the $350,000 cap on noneconomic damages enacted as part of SB 3 in 2005. Judge Diane Bessen declared unconstitutional the statute capping a jury’s verdict and now her decision, upon the defendant’s appeal, is before the Supreme Court.

“Judge Bessen’s order appropriately concluded that a one-size fits all predetermined cap on damages violates several protections guaranteed by the Georgia Constitution,” said Malone. “Her order balances the rights of all Georgians, young and old, rich and poor, and restores the guarantees set forth by our Constitution that were stripped away in 2005.”

Judge Bessen’s order declares the caps on damages provision unconstitutional because it violates three basic constitutional tenets: the right to trial by jury, the separation of powers doctrine and equal protection of the laws.

Under SB 3, the jury’s deliberation regarding the amount of damages to be awarded is preempted by a legislatively imposed cap—no matter how severe or catastrophic the case before them. Historically, a jury had the ability to decide the fate of its peers constrained only by the particular facts of an individual’s case, as the Founding Fathers intended. Thomas Jefferson once said, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its Constitution.”

In her order, Judge Bessen wrote:

A limit or cap on noneconomic damages, however, invades the right to a jury trial by usurping one of the fact-finding responsibilities of the jury. If the amount of noneconomic damages awarded by the jury exceeds the statutory cap, this Code section automatically and arbitrarily reduces the verdict, without consideration of the evidence, the record, or any other fact produced at trial and found by the jury. The limitations imposed by O.C.G.A. 51-13-1 render the right of the jury to assess damages meaningless… The cap so interferes with the determination of the jury that it renders the right of a jury trial wholly unavailable.

Additionally, Judge Bessen also found that the cap on damages violates the Separation of Powers Doctrine contained in the Georgia Constitution. Three other states’ supreme courts, with similar constitutional provisions, also have struck down caps on damages on this basis. The Georgia Constitution states that: “The legislative, judicial and executive powers shall forever remain separate and distinct, and no person discharging the duties of one, shall, at the same time, exercise the functions of either of the others.” One distinct function of the judicial branch is that judges have the exclusive right to award to a party a “remittitur” – or a new trial – if a judge finds that a verdict is either excessive or inadequate. Judge Bessen’s order declares the cap on damages statute to be a “legislative remittitur” and that the legislature has unconstitutionally invaded the exclusive role of the judiciary to find facts and control judgments.

“Equally important,” the judge writes, “it does so without the option of a new trial for the injured plaintiff. As such, it unduly encroaches upon the judiciary’s constitutional right and prerogative to determine whether a jury’s assessment of damages is either too excessive or too inadequate within the meaning of the law.”

The third violation of the Constitution Judge Bessen found was that a cap on damages violates the Equal Protection provisions of the Georgia Constitution which state: “No persons shall be denied the equal protection of the laws.” To examine this violation, Judge Bessen explored whether there was a “rational relationship” between the government’s purpose and its enacted statute which treats similar parties in very different, unequal ways.

The rational relationship test basically states that a statute may be valid as long as it has a rational relationship to a governmental purpose. In the case of SB 3, the government’s stated purpose was to “promote predictability and improvement in the provision of quality health care services and the resolution of healthcare claims..., assist in promoting the provision of healthcare liability insurance by insurance providers…, [and addressed concerns about] medical providers and facilities leaving the state and the cost of malpractice awards.” For a law to be valid, a rational relationship to those goals must be proven. Judge Bessen found that the cap on damages failed the rational relationship test completely.

In holding the cap on damages provision unconstitutional, Judge Bessen wrote:

After review, this Court finds that there is no rational relationship between statute and the expressed government interest. Most obviously, it is a complete contradiction to state that the overall quality of healthcare would be improved by shielding negligent healthcare providers from liability. In fact, as recognized by other courts, a cap on noneconomic damages actually diminishes tort liability for healthcare providers and diminishes the deterrent effect of tort law… There is absolutely no evidence that these objectives are achieved by imposing a financial burden on the most victimized of plaintiffs… Based on current statistics, limiting noneconomic damage caps is not rationally related to the state purpose of reducing medical malpractice insurance rates… it appears that this statute was enacted arbitrarily, based upon speculation and conjecture rather than empirical data.

Finally, Judge Bessen found that the cap on damages violates Equal Protection because it creates different classes of victims—those injured by healthcare providers and those injured by others and those who are catastrophically injured and those who are less severely injured. Judge Bessen penned, “The cap’s greatest impact falls on those who are most severely injured, and creates classes of fully compensated victims and those only partially compensated… Similarly, the noneconomic damages cap discriminates against low-income individuals who are unable to prove large economic damages but nonetheless may sustain large noneconomic damages.”

The President of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association, Chris Clark, has been following this case closely.

“As a trial lawyer, I represent the person, who, through no fault of their own, has been injured—sometimes severely. They miss work, accrue medical bills and—often most important to them—they suffer a loss of the quality of life that they once had,” said Clark. “Betty Nestlehutt’s severe disfigurement – which she had no part in creating – has diminished her quality of life and, in turn her husband’s and her family’s. Judge Bessen’s order was fair, upheld our Constitution, and reflected the rule of law that has stood firm since the inception of this nation.”

The argument on Tuesday was prepared by Malone and attorneys Darren Summerville of Bird Law Group, P.C. and Michael Terry of Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, LLP. AARP, Voices for Georgia’s Children, Georgia Women for a Change and Georgia Watch all filed Amicus Briefs in support of Betty and Bruce Nestlehutt.