Mississippi Injury Lawyer Blog

When we step through the doors of a retailer, we expect that the representation made to us by that retailer will be trustworthy, and we also expect that retailer to ensure that the products sold in that establishment are safe. However, unfortunately, this does not always turn out to be the case. As reported by the San Diego Union Tribune, the well know sports and nutrition retailer, GNC, is now under fire for selling unsafe products, and may possibly be liable for fraud as well as negligence relating to a products liability claim.

The suit was filed by Lynette Bates, a Southern California woman who bought a pre-exercise drink powder called C4 Extreme last summer. The pre-exercise drink promised "explosive workouts." According to a class action lawsuit filed this month in Los Angeles Federal Court, a substance originally created as an over the counter decongestant has been illegally and unsafely sold in widely marketed sports supplements. The compound, 1,3-dimethylamylamine, also known as DMAA, is "illegal and dangerous," according to the complaint. The lawsuit also claimed that "experts in the industry have become concerned that this potent stimulant drug will lead to serious health issues and even death."

Bates sued the retailer of the product, GNC, and Cellucor Sports Nutrition, which manufactures, distributes and markets the supplement, for "making false and unsubstantiated representations concerning the efficacy, safety and legality of C4 Extreme," among other claims. Cellucor's parent company, Woodbolt International, is also named in the suit.

According to the San Diego Union Tribune C4 Extreme is no longer manufactured with DMAA. But the substance can still be found in a variety of dietary supplements aimed at boosting physical performance or weight loss, such as Jack3d (pronounced "jacked") and OxyELITE Pro, which are sold online and at retail stores. Medical experts say there are potential health risks from consuming DMAA. "What we've seen is that DMAA in supplements has been connected to situations where the heart has gone suddenly into failure due to excessive stress," said Dr. Pieter Cohen, an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School.

Continue reading "Well Known Retailer, GNC, Under Fire for Selling Possibly Dangerous Product" »

According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, more than 1.7 million Tassimo single cup coffee brewers and another 4 million Tassimo espresso coffee pads were recalled on Thursday, February 9, 2012, after reports that dozens of consumers were sprayed with hot liquid. Some consumers were severely burned and suffered extensive personal injury. As reported by USA Today Money and Reuters.com, among the more than 160 consumers injured was a 10-year-old girl from Minnesota, who was hospitalized with second-degree burns on her face and neck, and a 2-year-old girl from Canada with second-degree facial burns.

Tassimo has initiated two separate voluntary product recalls, and information regarding these recalls was posted on the consumer watchdog website early Thursday. This voluntary recall effort was likely initiated by Tassimo in an effort to not only protect consumers, but to also shield itself from further exposure to products liability claims. The first recalled 835,000 Tassimo Single-Cup Brewers in the United States and an additional 900,000 in Canada, and was issued by the manufacturer, BSH Home Appliance Corporation, of Irvine, California.

According to the statement on the consumer product safety website: "The plastic disc, or T Disc, that holds the coffee or tea can burst and spray hot liquid and coffee grounds or tea leaves onto consumers using the brewer and onto bystanders, posing a burn hazard,"

The specific items recalled were Tassimo brewers with the Bosch brand name, which have either "BOSCH" or "TASSIMO" printed on the front, with codes of FD8806 through FD9109. Also recalled were Tassimo Professional brewers, with "TASSIMO PROFESSIONAL" on the front and codes of FD8905 through FD9109. The brewers subject to the recall were sold in stores and online from June 2008 through February of this year.

Continue reading "Tassimo Coffee Brewers Recalled After Customers Report Burn Injuries" »

Only a few days after Christmas, one Mississippi man received news that no plaintiff to a lawsuit wants to hear, that his jury award, which had been the largest verdict awarded to a single plaintiff in an asbestos case, had been vacated. The jury award was vacated by Mississippi judge William F. Coleman in an order signed on December 27, 2001. According to Forbes.com, the plaintiff, who had suffered personal injuries, or "asbestos maladies," as a result of being exposed to the chemical, was awarded $322 Million dollars by a Mississippi jury in May 2011.

According to the Wall Street Journal Law Blog, Thomas Brown Jr. filed the case styled Brown v. Phillips Co., 2006-196, in the Circuit Court of Smith County, Mississippi in 2006. Brown, who worked in the Mississippi's oil fields from 1979 to the mid 1980's, was later diagnosed with asbestosis. According to Brown's lawsuit, he acquired the condition as a result of inhaling asbestos dust while mixing drilling mud sold by Chevron Phillips Chemical and manufactured by Union Carbide Corporation, which was tainted with asbestos used as a thickening agent.

The jury found that Chevron Phillips and Union Carbide were liable to Brown in this product liability case, for defectively designing their product and failure to provide an adequate warning. Brown, who was 48 at the time of the award in May, said he was diagnosed with asbestosis and required to take oxygen 24-hours a day. As a result, the judgment included awards for medical expenses, damages for pain and suffering, and punitive damages. In total, Brown was awarded $322 million - $22 million in compensatory damages, and $300 million in punitive damages. According to Brown's lawyer, Allen Hossley, this was the biggest asbestos award ever to a single plaintiff. However, only months later, this award was vacated.

According to Bloomberg.com, Brown's award was overturned as a result of Carbide asking the state Supreme Court to overturn the verdict. Both companies claimed that Smith County Circuit Judge Eddie Bowen, the judge who had presided over Brown's case, had a conflict of interest because his parents had been involved in asbestos legal claims, including one against Union Carbide. According to the Associated Press, Union Carbide first asked Circuit Judge Eddie Bowen to toss out verdict shortly after the record award was handed down. They also asked Bowen to step down from the case. When Bowen didn't respond, Union Carbide went to the Supreme Court and asked the justices to remove him.

Continue reading "Largest Asbestos Verdict in History Tossed Out by Mississippi Judge" »

When consumers purchase and take pain relief medication, it is expected that the medication will be safe and effective. However, in an announcement made on the products website, the makers of Motrin Pain reliever, Johnson and Johnson informed consumers of a malfunction with the product. According to the web announcement, the product may not be as effective as expected under certain circumstances. Although neither Bloomberg nor Reuters have reported any products liability lawsuits s or injuries stemming from the product malfunction as of yet, both new agencies have announced news of the product malfunction.

According to Bloomberg, the maker of Motrin, Johnson and Johnson, which has been plagued by other product recalls over the last two years, recently announced that it was asking retailers to return about 12 million bottles of Motrin over concerns the painkiller may dissolve too slowly. According to a statement on its website, Johnson and Johnson's McNeil Consumer Healthcare unit said that tests of product samples showed some caplets may not dissolve as quickly as intended when near their expiration date.

Johnson and Johnson spokeswoman, Bonnie Jacobs, said in a telephone interview with Bloomberg that consumers do not have to return any bottles, but it's possible there may be "a delay in relief" after taking the drug. In light of Johnson and Johnson's announcement, it seems as if there is not a poison or contamination threat the consumers must be wary of. However, the announcement does indicate that as the pain reliever ages, it may not be as effective as advertised or anticipated, which can pose a problem for consumers who rely on the effectiveness of the product.

According to Reuters, the bottles that are the subject of Johnson and Johnson's recall were distributed in the United States, Puerto Rico, Bahamas, Fiji, Belize, St. Lucia and Jamaica. Johnson and Johnson has already initiated its recall efforts in Puerto Rico and Jamaica. According to the statement released by Johnson and Johnson, "Out of an abundance of caution, we are recalling all the listed products since there is a chance they could experience a similar problem as they approach expiration."

Continue reading "Johnson and Johnson Pulls Millions of Bottles of Motrin Pain Reliever from Store Shelves" »

Many of us remember the stance Former Mississippi Attorney General, Mike Moore, took against America's Tobacco Companies when he initiated a suit, on behalf of the State of Mississippi, against 13 tobacco companies, as well as wholesalers, trade associations and industry public relations consultants. This suit was styled: Mike Moore, Attorney General, ex. rel. State of Mississippi v. The American Tobacco Company et al., Chancery Court of Jackson County, Mississippi, Cause Number 94-1429. In this products liability suit, Moore alleged that America's tobacco companies knowingly concealed the dangers of cigarettes from the American public, and because of this they should pay the healthcare costs for those they harmed in the form of legal damages. At the time, Moore declared: "This lawsuit is premised on a simple notion: you caused the health crisis; you pay for it. The free ride is over. It's time these billionaire tobacco companies start paying what they rightfully owe to Mississippi taxpayers. It's time they quit hooking our young people on nicotine delivered through the dirty needle of cigarettes and other tobacco products."

In the lawsuit, Attorney General Moore, on behalf of the State of Mississippi, asked that the defendants be required to reimburse the state for money paid out for smoking-related illnesses like lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease through insurance claims, Medicaid and medical assistance programs for the elderly and indigent. Mississippi was eventually successful in its suit, reaching a settlement agreement with Philip Morris Incorporated, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and 19 other tobacco companies.

However, almost ten years later, the fight to ensure that tobacco companies are honest with the American people about the consequences of smoking and the fight to ensure that tobacco companies pay for the damage and loss of life they have caused continues. Earlier this month, president Obama, in a White House wed video, criticized tobacco companies for opposing the implementation of new cigarette warning labels. According to The President, "Tobacco remains the leading cause of preventable early deaths in this country. We also know that the best way to prevent the health problems that come with smoking is to keep young people from starting in the first place."

In order to accomplish this aim, the Food and Drug Administration, in June, approved new warning labels that tobacco companies would have to place on the top half of cigarette packs. Some of the labels are graphic, including images of a man exhaling cigarette smoke through a tracheotomy hole in his throat, the corpse of a dead smoker, diseased lungs and a smoker wearing an oxygen mask.

Continue reading "New News regarding the Cases against American Tobacco Companies " »

Earlier this month, the Mississippi Supreme Court overruled a $7 million dollar verdict that had previously been entered against paint maker Sherwin Williams in 2009, according to the New York Times. The jury in this products liability case handed down this verdict on behalf of the plaintiff, Shermeker Pollard, who brought the case on behalf of her son, Trellvion Gaines. In its decision, the Court cited the inadmissibility of the plaintiff's two expert witnesses as the justification for its decision to overturn the $7 million dollar verdict against Sherwin Williams. The Court determined that minus this expert testimony, the plaintiff could not prove that Sherwin Williams' negligence led to Trellvion Gaines' injuries.

In 2000, Shermeker Pollard filed a claim, on behalf of her son, Trellvion Gaines. Pollard alleged that her son, Gaines, sustained brain damage after ingesting lead-based paint that was obtained from Sherwin Williams. According to LegalNewsline.com, when Gaines was a child, his grandmother witnessed him ingesting paint chips that were peeling from the home they were occupying. Since 1993, when a blood test conducted on Gaines revealed that he had elevated levels of lead in his blood, Gaines has been developmentally disabled.

According to the plaintiff, Sherwin Williams is liable for Gaines' damages because the house that Gaines occupied was painted with lead based paint procured from Sherwin Williams in the 1930's. Despite the plaintiff's allegations, the house burned down in 1994. Thus, further testing was rendered impossible. As a result, Sherwin Williams argued, throughout the entire course of litigation, that the plaintiff failed to ever prove that Sherwin Williams even provided the paint that may have led to Gaines' injuries.

Early on in the case, Sherwin Williams won summary judgment in the case. However, this ruling was overturned by the Mississippi Supreme Court, and the matter was allowed to go to trial. In 2009, a jury in Jefferson County, Mississippi handed down a verdict awarding Pollard $7 million dollars. As reported by the Columbus Morning Call, despite overruling Sherwin Williams' original summary judgment victory, and allowing the case to go to trial, the Mississippi Supreme Court tossed out the jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff citing the inadmissibility of the testimony of the plaintiff's two expert witnesses.

Continue reading "Inadmissible Expert Testimony Led to Mississippi Supreme Court Overruling $7 Million Dollar Verdict against Sherwin Williams" »

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences may soon be on the receiving end of a marked increase in the power to regulate chemical use in products. A new bill designed to reduce human exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals would "give the director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and a panel of experts selected by the director, the power to ban up to 10 chemicals from commerce each year by categorizing them as being of high concern," reports CNN . Given this regulatory oversight and the increased risk of product liability lawsuits, this hopefully will have an impact on chemical manufacturer's decisions about what chemicals to produce and the warning that need to be given.

An early draft of the bill indicates that 24 months after being categorized, the chemicals would become unlawful to use. Products liability attorneys know the proposed legislation is a big deal -especially in light of the recent controversy surrounding the chemical bisphenol A (BPA), a hormone-disrupting substance widely used in shatterproof plastics including eyeglass lenses, electronics, thermal paper, metal water bottles, car dashboards, microwaveable food containers and baby bottles.

BPA exposure has also been linked to cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and obesity in adults. Research has suggested that exposure to BPA can cause developmental abnormalities over time in infants and young children, a statistic which prompted the FDA to issue a recommendation that parents take measures to reduce children's exposure to the agent.

How exactly are children being exposed? The polycarbonate looks and feels like glass but is light and difficult to break, leading bottle-makers to use it in their products. Over time and after repeated use, however, BPA can leak into the liquid contents of a plastic container. Washing the containers in dishwashers and heating them in microwaves increases the risk of a leak, reported the New York Times in 2009.

Continue reading "Chemicals Potentially Dangerous to Health Would Be Banned with New Bill" »

The very drug some advanced breast cancer patients credit for making them cancer free, is now facing possible approval withdrawal by the FDA. Patricia Howard says Avastin saved her life and dramatically improved her standard of living. However, four clinical studies showed that the drug did not actually make patients live longer. It has also been cited for its dangerous side effects, which include increased risks of internal bleeding and high blood pressure. Given the results of these studies and the negative side effects of the medication, it appears that Avastin may disappear as a treatment for breast cancer.

According to CNN, recommendations for withdrawal were heeded in December of last year when the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) proposed that Avastin's approval to treat metastatic breast cancer be taken away. While the decision is not yet final, personal injury attorneys very much understand why this proposal is being made. The primary problem, it seems, is that the risks associated with the drug far outweigh the benefits. "The overall ratio... [is] out of whack," Dr. Joanne Mortimer, a breast cancer specialist who served on the FDA's advisory panel, told CNN. This is one of the primary manners in which product liability lawyers attack a drug manufacturer when a medication has resulted in serious injuries to a patient.

Nevertheless, the proposal has been met with a great deal of strong opposition - and surprisingly, that opposition has come from patients themselves. "If it's working, why force us to try something else?" asks Howard. I very much understand and respect the strong opinions held by patients who feel they were greatly helped by this medication. Still, despite patient support, many doctors veered away from prescribing Avastin even before the final decision came down, with approximately only 20-25 percent of patients receiving Avastin prescriptions in stark contrast to the previous 60 percent. Insurance companies also tend to shy away from shelling out large sums of money (often upwards of $90,000) to finance treatments that are not approved by the FDA. I think this does not bode well for Avastin, even though it may still be prescribed as a treatment for other diseases.

Even some breast cancer advocates, like the National Breast Cancer Coalition, agree with the proposal to withdraw approval, testifying that the drug bolsters false hopes when scientists should be expending their efforts on finding "more effective and life-saving drugs." Looks like this very well may be one case where resistance is futile.

Continue reading "Breast Cancer Patients Advocate Cancer Drug Avastin despite Risks" »

English author Gilbert K. Chesterton once described fireworks as a nocturnal art. Despite the history behind the holiday, the Fourth of July has now become wholly synonymous with fireworks. Or maybe it is the history behind the holiday (I could swear there's something in our national anthem about "the rockets' red glare"). Either way, the barbeques, picnics and festivals that take place earlier in the day are only the primer for the real thing.

I've often seen toddlers riveted by a sparkler in their hand and, while as a father I can understand a parent's desire to give their child his first fireworks experience, as a Mississippi personal injury attorney this gives me cause for concern. Sparklers can burn at nearly 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit, which is hot enough to cause a third-degree burn, says the American Academy of Ophthalmology. In fact, children are the most common victims of firework accidents, with those fifteen years old or younger accounting for half of all fireworks eye injuries in the United States. For children under the age of five, seemingly innocent sparklers account for one-third of all fireworks injuries.

From sparklers to rockets, from the legal to the illegal those colorful sparks in the sky are what it's all about and, unfortunately, injury statistics reflect American's unbridled enthusiasm for incendiary devices. According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, more than 9,000 fireworks-related injuries happen each year. Of these, nearly half are head-related injuries with nearly 30 percent of these injuries to the eyes. One-fourth of fireworks eye injuries result in permanent vision loss or blindness. As the statistics above indicate, even innocuous sparklers can be dangerous, especially in the hands of small children.

Dry conditions also increase the likelihood of accidents. In previous years, the state of Mississippi enacted a ban on fireworks as a drought pervaded many of its cities. This year, some areas like the Jackson County Board of Supervisors have proactively decided to ban the use of fireworks by individuals in unincorporated areas, even though there are no restrictions on purchases or sales. People in those areas will have to do a little travelling for legal enjoyment.

Other parts of Mississippi still have celebrations lined up for the holiday weekend. Jackson, Meridian and Laurel, Mississippi are all advertising fireworks displays and I encourage everyone to go out, even if just to reinforce the idea that fireworks should be left to the professionals. However, if you must incorporate them into your ritual, avoid allowing small children to handle fireworks of any type. Keep a bucket of water nearby and make sure to take advantage of open areas that are nowhere near foliage or buildings. For more safety tips, see the US Consumer Product Safety Commission's Web page on firework safety.

In the end, every parent must make their own decision about whether to allow their child around fireworks. The most important thing is to understand the risks and to make an informed decision.

Happy Fourth of July, everyone!