San Luis Obispo Personal Injury Lawyer

Stolen Insulin Still A Concern Warns The FDA

Chrissie Cole — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:08:00 GMT

The FDA is reminding the public that stolen vials of Levimir insulin, made by Novodisk Inc. may still be on the market.

The FDA initially warned the public about 129,000 stolen vials of Levemir that were stolen in North Carolina. To this date, two percent has been recovered so far.

It appears the stolen insulin was not stored or properly handled and may be dangerous for use. Multiple reports of adverse events have been reported to the agency due to poor control of glucose levels after using a vial from one of the stolen lots.

The following lots of Levimir are included in the recall: XZF0036; XZF0037; XZF0038. The lot number is located on the side of the box of insulin and also on the side of the vial.

The agency is aggressively investigating the matter and asks if you have any information to contact the FDA's Office of Criminal Investigations (OCI) by calling 800-551-3989 or by visiting the OCI Web site.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Chrissie Cole

New Limits On Toxic Substances To Take Effect

Chrissie Cole — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:59:00 GMT

On February 10, two key provisions of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act designed to limit the amount of phthalates (pronounced "thay-lates") and lead in children’s products will take effect.

The new law will limit the total lead content in most children’s products to no more than 600 parts per million in any part. This limit applied only to lead in paint and surface coatings previously.

The law will also limit the amount of six phthalates to 1,000 ppm. Phthalates are used in plastic primarily to make the material soft and flexible. The same chemicals are also banned from children’s products sold in Europe.

The CPSC also announced that it would not enforce the overall testing and certification requirements for one more year in order to give the agency and those affected by the requirements time to sort out compliance issues.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Chrissie Cole

Hospital Balance Billing in California

Nigel Whitehead — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:14:29 GMT

In California if you end up in the emergency room at least you don't have to worry about the bill since you have health insurance, right? Not so fast. This week a new rule was put in to place prohibiting hospitals from the so called practice of "balance billing". This means that if you end up in the hospital, particularly one outside of your provider network, you could be billed by the hospital for anything your insurance company didn't pay. This could be thousands and thousands of dollars. This week the California Department of Managed Health Care implemented a new rule banning this practice. You can read the Department's press release on this issue here.

But, before you head to the emergecny room without concern for the bill, be aware that a group of doctors and hospitals have filed a lawsuit challenging the new rule. They argue that many times the reimbursment rates from the insurance company is far below the amount needed to make a profit. And, since by law an emergency room is obligated to treat every patient regardless of insurance issues, they will lose billions of dollars.

The DMHC argues that the reimbursement issue will be addressed by regulations desgined to address unfair contracts giant health insurance companies are forcing on local medical providers that provide for very low payment rates for medical services.

As if the issue was not confusing enough, the California Supreme Court is set to hear oral aurguments in another case addressing this very issue - Prospect Medical Group v Northridge Emergency Medical Group -on November 5, 2008. You can see the California Supreme Court calendar here.

In a personal injury case this issue can have a huge impact on the settlemement of a case. If the lawyer can't tell with certainty how much - if anything - the client will owe to the hospital over and above the paid amount, it is impossible to tell the client how much the net settlement will be. This is an area that cries out for judicial and legislative clarity. Hopefully, the result will be fairness to the consumer, and not protection of the profits of giant corporations.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nigel Whitehead

Should I Take My Personal Injury Case To Trial?

Nigel Whitehead — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:53:31 GMT

Deciding whether to settle your Personal Injury case or go to trial is sometimes a difficult decision. Many factors unique to you and your case must be carefully considered before you decide whether or not you should settle without going to trial.

You and your lawyer should objectively examine the offer being made by the Defendant and the chances that you will obtain a more favorable result at trial. Examine the strenghts and weaknesses of your case. Research comparable verdicts in your jurisdiction. Your personal circumstances, including the financial and emotional costs of trial must also be considered.

An interesting new study looked at over 2000 cases and determined that in only 15% of the cases that went to trial did the Plaintiff recover more than the Defendant's offer AND the Defendant paid less than the Plaintiff's demand. That means in 85% of the examined case someone made an error in judgment!

Having tried many case over my career I can offer this advice: The more ready and able you are to take your case to the jury - the more likely it is that the Defendant will make a reasonable offer. The best way to make the right decision is to hire a lawyer with the skill, resources and nerve to take your case to a jury.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nigel Whitehead

Do I Need a Lawyer?

Nigel Whitehead — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 17:23:40 GMT

I just spoke to a potential client on the phone about her daughters non-injury accident. She was shocked when I explained to her that she probably didn't need a lawyer and suggested that a Small Claims Court claim was the best way to resolve the small property damage dispute. She joked (perhaps) that I was the first lawyer she knew who ever talked himself out of getting hired!

Hiring an experienced personal injury lawyer in a serious injury case is essential if you are to receive full value for your case. However, there are many situations where you simply don't need to hire a lawyer. Did you know that you can make a claim for up to $7,500 in Small Claims Court? The process is inexpensive and quick.

The California Superior Court web site is an excellent self-help guide. The site contains links to forms and "How To" guides.

If you claim is minor you should be fine in Small Claims Court. If, however, you are getting treated unfairly by the insurance company and you have been injured you should consider hiring an experienced personal injury attorney.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nigel Whitehead

Continued Concerns Regarding Bisphenol A

Nigel Whitehead — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:22:49 GMT

The FDA has said that plastic products containing the chemical Bisphenol A are safe. Experts, however, aren't so sure and have reported that they can't completely rule out the dangers of this chemical. Bisphenol A is used in a host of plastic products, including food packaging and baby bottles. Walmart and other retailers have even indicated that they will pull from their shelves all baby products containing the chemical.

Such discrepancies between the FDA and other Federal health experts highlights the trouble of repeated attempts by the "Tort Reform" crowd to ban litigation involving drugs or products approved by the FDA. If Bisphenol A really does cause brain damage in children and manufacturers are aware of the problem, should they really be able to avoid liability because the FDA, for some reason, approved the product. Surely, at some point safety and accountability must trump corporate profits.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nigel Whitehead

New California Laws for Drivers - No Smoking

Nigel Whitehead — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:49:35 GMT

Every year there are new state laws passed. A few new laws this year affect drivers. I have previously blogged about the new "hands-free" law for use of a cellular phone while driving. But, did you know that it is also now illegal to smoke in your car if you have a minor passenger? As of January 2008 Health & Safety Code Article 2.5 was added to Part 15 of Division 104 of the code making it a citable offense to smoke in your car while you have a passenger under the age of 18. This infraction carries a $100 fine and applies to cigars, cigarettes and pipes.

It appears from the legislative history of the bill that this law was motivated not by driving safety concerns but by second-hand smoke dangers to children. California is the most aggressive state in the county in passing laws restricting smoking.

I was pleased when smoking in most public building was prohibited. I was pleased to see airlines adopt a no smoking policy. I think it a bad idea to smoke at all, and especially around kids. But I must confess I get a little uneasy when the government starts restricting the use of a legal product in a private place. Why not ban smoking around children anywhere? Why not ban smoking all together? As a person with a family recently diagnosed with lung cancer I'm all for it. But as a lawyer I think the government may have stepped a little too far into some people's personal liberties.

Your thoughts?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nigel Whitehead

Are There Really More Personal Injury Lawsuits?

Nigel Whitehead — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:58:26 GMT

It seems as if almost daily we are told that the proliferation of personal injury lawsuits will be the ruin of Western civilization as we know it. This propaganda is generated by a host of pro-business interest groups such as the Chamber of Commerce. A simple search of "Tort Reform" on www.cuil.com (An interesting alternative to Google) will produce over 137,000 results.

But are there really more personal injury lawsuits? Every year the Judicial Council of California produces a statistical report concerning the State Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, and the Superior Courts of each County. The truth is that all personal injury filings are down over the last 10 years. In fact, motor vehicle lawsuits are way down. In 1997 there were 43,947 motor vehicle lawsuits filed in California's Superior Courts. In the most recent 2007 report that number has dropped to 31,389.

Were there really that many fewer injury accidents. Of course not. In the last 10 years did the insurance companies start settling claims fairly without a lawsuit being filed. (If you have ever been injured in an accident you know the answer is no.)

The answer is that the propaganda machine has made people reticent to file many injury lawsuits. That doesn't mean there were not hurt. It simply means they are not being fairly compensated.

If you have ever wondered why big corporations would fund propaganda campaigns to distort the truth one need only look at the record profits being reported by the largest corporations.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nigel Whitehead

Blue Shield Settlement in Wrongful Recision Case

Nigel Whitehead — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:10:18 GMT

Blue Shield has settled wrongful recision claims against it by the Department of Managed Health Care. The DMHC alleged that Blue Shield wrongfully engaged in "post-claims underwriting". When some health plan members submitted claims Blue Shield attempted to find a reason to cancel their insurance in order to avoid paying the claims. Such practices are prohibited by California law.

The settlement involves a $3,000,000 administrative fine and presents those people whose coverage was wrongfully canceled certain remedies, including the right to purchase new insurance and reimbursement for unpaid medical expenses. The settlement is complicated and could affect your legal rights. We encourage anyone interested in the settlement to fully investigate their options and to seek legal counsel if needed. A copy of the press release can be found here.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nigel Whitehead

Another Fatal ATV Accident at Oceano Dunes

Nigel Whitehead — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:51:20 GMT

On Sunday a 26-year old Santa Maria man was killed in a single ATV accident. Details of the crash are not yet known. The alarming number of fatalities and serious injuries at the Oceano Dunes no doubt arms the anti off-road riding crowd with additional ammunition to close the beach to vehicular traffic. I'm not sure closing the beach will solve the problem. Those who love to ride will simply ride elsewhere if the beach is closed.

This message will not go into the environmental arguments over the off-road riding issues. But, from a safety standpoint, something must be done. Whether it be additional required training, safety equipment or limiting access to some of the more dangerous areas, such as "Competition Hill" where this accident happened, something must be done. Too many children and young adults are being hurt or killed. It is estimated that there are up to 300 serious accident per year at the 1500 acre off road area.

It is too easy to glibly enter this debate from afar. When your family has been personally affected by such an accident the debate takes on a completely different tone. I would love to hear suggestions from those who ride more than I do.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nigel Whitehead