Philadelphia Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Pennsylvania health officials say the number of people stricken with illness after consuming raw milk from the same dairy has risen to 35 in four states.

The confirmed cases of Campylobacter bacterial infection include 28 people in Pennsylvania, four in Maryland, two in West Virginia, and one in New Jersey.  The DHMH Laboratories Administration has confirmed the presence of Campylobacter jejuni in two unopened raw milk samples purchased from this farm. 

Health officials said Thursday that consumers should discard raw milk bought from the Family Cow farm in Chambersburg on or after Jan. 1.  The farm has voluntarily suspended raw milk production.

Source

The federal Food and Drug Administration warns that raw, or unpasteurized, milk can contain harmful bacteria.  Dairy farmers say demand is growing because of concerns about hormones in traditional dairy products.

Although most individuals will recover within a week of being diagnosed, there are complications resulting from Campylobacteriosis associated with drinking of milk which has led to arthritis or Guillian-Barre Syndrome - a neurological condition that is often quite serious.  Though a formal recall has not been announced, the Pennsylvania Department of Health has recommended that individuals discard any milk purchased from the dairy in which the milk was produced following January 1st. 

Individuals sickened by such products should contact an attorney experienced in defective product suits.  Pennsylvania's product liability laws are specifically designed to protect and compensate those that have been injured by a defective products, such as contaminated milk.

A Nevada jury found three drug companies - Teva Parenteral Medicines Incorporated, Baxter Healthcare Corporation and McKesson Corporation - liable for distributing 50 and 100 milliliter vials of an anesthetic used during colonoscopies.  The drug companies were found liable in two separate trials because the size of the vials was larger than necessary for a single use.

The Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada re-used vials of that anesthetic during colonoscopy procedures which caused a hepatitis C outbreak which infected hundreds of people, including Ann Arnold, the plaintiff in this case.

Arnold's attorney says the drug companies were initially offered a settlement of $4.9 million in this case.  They turned it down and instead will pay more than $180 million.  As expected, the drug companies maintain they were not negligent despite losing all three trials related to the outbreak so far.

Be careful of dangerous drop side cribs when shopping for baby furniture online.  The detaching drop side rails have been associated with at least 32 infant deaths since 2000.  Over the past five years, more than 9 million drop-side cribs-which have a side rail that moves up and down so that parents can more easily lift their babies-have been recalled.  Although heightened safety standards no longer allow the manufacture and sale of so-called drop side cribs, unfortunately, shoppers can still find these dangerous products offered for sale on sites like Craigslist and eBay.

The CPSC says there have been a reported 3,520 incidents and injuries, including infants falling from cribs, skull fractures and babies getting their limbs caught between the crib slats from November 1, 2007 to April 11, 2010.  Child injuries and deaths have occurred because furniture was assembled incorrectly or because it had loose, defective or missing hardware.    A child's head can become trapped in small gaps and in between broken slats, causing strangulation.

The CPSC recommends:

• Cribs should have no cutouts in the headboard or footboard.
• The mattress should fit snugly so that a baby's head can't get trapped beneath it.
• Corner posts should not protrude more than 1/16th of an inch, so they can't snag an infant's clothing.

Some online sellers inadvertently list substandard cribs for sale, not realizing that the products were recalled.  Many times these cribs are sold before the host website can take corrective action.  Although it is not illegal to use a dropdown crib in your home, it is important to be aware that these are potentially dangerous products that can kill or seriously injure a baby.   Parents can find more information on how to keep your child safe in their crib, by checking out the CSPC Crib Information Center and the SIDS factsheet from the NIH.

Sources: 

USA Today, "Illegal used cribs still for sale on Craigslist, eBay," Aug. 7, 2011   

CNN Health, "Dangerous drop side cribs no longer for sale," August 9, 2011

Levaquin, a type of fluoroquinolone, is a broad spectrum antibiotic that is available only by prescription.  Levaquin is used to treat infections such as pneumonia, chronic bronchitis, and sinus/urinary tract infections.  In general, fluoroquinolones such as Levaquin are well tolerated, with most side effects being mild to moderate. However, one serious side effect that is more common with fluoroquinolones, such as Levaquin, than with other antibiotic drug classes is tendon toxicity that may result in tendon ruptures.

The risk of tendon ruptures has been known for over a decade; however, manufacturers of Levaquin have failed to provide adequate warnings to doctors and consumers.   As a result insufficient warnings, users have experienced tendon ruptures because they are not aware that they should be concerned about development of tendon pain or inflammation.

On July 8, 2008, the FDA ordered the manufacturer of Levaquin to upgrade its warning of tendon rupture to a Black Box warning.  A Black Box warning is the strongest warning available for prescription drugs.  The FDA also required that a guidebook be provided to patients warning about the possible side effects.

Tendon problems may occur within a few days of taking the antibiotic or several months after the course of therapy is finished.  What's more, these ruptures may occur while doing low impact daily activities such as walking. 

Tendon ruptures are a serious and painful injury which can require prolonged physical therapy, weeks of casting and reconstructive surgery.    Many people suffering from these ruptures are no longer able to work or do the activities that they love due to limited mobility.  

Continue reading "Levaquin causes painful tendon tears for many unsuspecting users" »

A Philadelphia woman has brought a lawsuit against Dunkin' Donuts, claiming that a worker mistakenly put sugar in her coffee that caused her to go into diabetic shock.

Danielle Jordan's lawsuit claims she asked for artificial sweetener to be added to her coffee during a June 2009 visit. Jordan claims that after drinking the coffee she experienced dizziness, light-headedness and ended up making an emergency trip to the hospital.

A legal liaison for the Canton, Mass.-based doughnut chain told the Philadelphia Daily News she couldn't comment on the case. But she says employees only provide customers with the order they ask for.

Source: Posted on Fri, Jun. 3, 2011

Despite the unusual circumstances that may get this case featured in "weird news," Dunkin Donuts may be held responsible if it is found that the employee breached the standard of care. Dunkin Donuts and its employees have a duty to conform their conduct to that of a reasonable person. If a jury finds that the employee's conduct was unreasonable, Dunkin Donuts will be responsible for the injuries caused to Ms. Jordan. This is true notwithstanding the fact that a sugar mix-up would not have harmed a normal person.

The eggshell skull rule is a well established legal doctrine which holds that you take your victim as you find him. The term implies that if a person had a skull as delicate as the shell of an egg, and the negligent party who was unaware of the condition injured that person's head, causing the skull unexpectedly to break, the defendant would be held liable for all damages resulting from the wrongful contact, even if such damages were not reasonably foreseeable, or the wrongdoer did not intend to cause such a severe injury.

Here, if the employee mistakenly gave Ms. Jordan sugar instead of artificial sweetener, Dunkin Donuts may be found liable for damages caused by the mix-up, even though this mistake would not have harmed a normal person and the damages were not easily foreseeable.