California Women's Hospital Sued for Allegedly Filming 1,800 Patients

Sharp Grossmont Hospital in El Cajon, California claims it was investigating employee theft of anesthesia drugs. So it installed motion-activated cameras on drug carts in three operating rooms at the facility. The only problem? Those three rooms were part of the women's health center, and the secret cameras recorded some 1,800 patients in various stages of undress, undergoing Cesarean births, hysterectomies, and sterilization and miscarriage procedures.

"At times, Defendants' patients had their most sensitive genital areas visible," according to a lawsuit filed against the hospital, and "patients' faces were recorded, and the patients were identifiable." And this isn't the first suit involving the video surveillance at Sharp Grossmont.

Patient Safety or Patient Surveillance?

Eighty-one women filed the potential class action lawsuit, and hundreds more could join. "It's universal shock from the patients, and disgust," according to their attorney, Allison Goddard. "They don't know how their videos might be used or who may have seen them because Sharp didn't make sure that that would be taken care of." The hospital is allegedly still in possession of thousands of videos.

Representatives from Sharp HealthCare and Sharp Grossmont Hospital released a statement asserting the surveillance was set up "to ensure patient safety by determining the cause of drugs missing from the carts":

Between July 2012 and June 2013, Sharp Grossmont Hospital installed and operated one hidden camera on the anesthesia cart located in each of three operating rooms in the Women's Center. The purpose of the three cameras was to ensure patient safety by determining the cause of drugs missing from the carts. An initial lawsuit alleging privacy violations and other claims stemming from the video recording was filed against Sharp HealthCare and Sharp Grossmont Hospital in 2016. The case remains active and Sharp is not in a position to comment further about the matter. Sharp HealthCare and Sharp Grossmont Hospital continue to take extensive measures to protect the privacy of its patients.

Privacy and Negligence

This lawsuit puts forth several invasion of privacy claims. And while Sharp spokesperson John Cihomsky told the New York Times that only a handful of authorized people in the company's security, legal and clinical departments reviewed the videos and that the "videos themselves are, and have always been, securely maintained," that lawsuit also charges the hospital with negligence for storing the videos on computers used by multiple people, some of which were not password protected.

Patient privacy, and breach, is a serious matter. If you think a medical provider has improperly recorded, used, or released your medical information, talk to an attorney immediately.

Related Resources:

• Find Personal Injury Lawyers Near You (FindLaw's Lawyer Directory)
• Women Sue L.A. Hospital for Gynecologist Sexual Misconduct (FindLaw's Injured)
• Lawsuit: Mississippi Hospital Liable for Sex Assault by Paramedic (FindLaw's Injured)
• Can I Sue for Hospital Negligence? (FindLaw's Injured)

from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/04/california-womens-hospital-sued-for-allegedly-filming-1800-patients.html

Xarelto Settles 25,000 Cases for $775M

The makers of the blood-thinning drug Xarelto, Bayer and Johnson & Johnson, have agreed to settle the 25,000 consolidated cases against them for $775 million.

The massive mass tort settlement resolved the cases by creating a fund that the individual plaintiffs in each case can seek compensation from. Curiously, in six of the trials of individual cases, the drug makers actually won. However, facing mounting litigation costs for continuing to battle it out, the companies' statement explains that settling was an economic decision. Despite the big settlement figure, the path actually pans out.

What Are These Cases About?

The Xarelto cases involve claims that the drug maker failed to warn those patients prescribed the drug of several, potentially fatal, side effects. Complicating matters is the fact that prescribed patients cannot simply stop taking the drug without risk.

For several years when the drug was first sold, those risks were not disclosed, which basically meant anyone taking the drug prior to the disclosure in 2015 potentially had/has a claim. The value of that claim however is likely to vary based on whether there has been an impact to the person's life as a result of the failure to disclose.

Big Numbers, But Not Big Enough?

While that $775 million figure might sound impressive, even assuming no attorney fees or costs come out of that number, which is unlikely, each of the 25,000 cases would have $31,000 each (hypothetically if everyone got the same amount, which isn't likely to be the case as many suffered more injury than others).

As Forbes explains, the drug makers are basically getting off easy here. Given the sheer number of cases that $775 million settles out, it's clear the drug makers have gotten the benefit of the bargain in this settlement.

Related Resources:

• $28M Xarelto Verdict Goes Against J&J, Bayer (FindLaw's Injured)
• Xarelto Injuries or Fatalities: Can You Sue? (FindLaw's Injured)
• Xarelto Litigation: 6,000 Lawsuits Consolidated (FindLaw's Injured)

from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/04/xarelto-settles-25000-cases-for-775m.html

Jury Orders Monsanto to Pay $80M in Roundup Cancer Case

Last week, a California jury determined Monsanto's popular Roundup weed killer was a "substantial factor" in causing a longtime customer's non-Hodgkin lymphoma. What was left to figure out was how culpable the company was in creating a dangerous product and failing to warn consumers. We now have our answer.

In phase two of Edwin Hardeman's trial, the same jury ordered Monsanto to pay him more than $80 million for failing to include Roundup's cancer-causing risk on the label.

A Dangerous Product?

"The evidence is overwhelming that Roundup can cause non-Hodgkin's lymphoma," Hardeman's lawyer, Jennifer Moore, told The New York Times. "And despite that, Monsanto continues to deny that." Moore claimed Monsanto ignored scientific evidence regarding Roundup's harmful health effects, leading the jury to hold the company accountable.

The science on Roundup, it seems, is split. The World Health Organization deemed glyphosate, a main weed-killing ingredient, "probably carcinogenic" in 2015. But the EPA in 2017 claimed glyphosate it was "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans." Now, a newer study relied upon by expert witnesses in Hardeman's trial linked large doses of the chemical to a heightened risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

In the end, the jury was convinced enough to award Hardeman more than $200,000 for medical bills (he underwent chemotherapy treatments and his attorneys claim his cancer is in remission), and another $5 million for his past and future suffering. The remaining $75 million of the award is punitive damages, based on Roundup's negligence and failure to warn.

Product Liability

Proving fault in a product liability case is no easy task, and generally require proof that the manufacturer knew its product was dangerous. Claims against chemical manufacturers can be based on:

• Defects in Design: The chemical is inherently unreasonably dangerous to consumers;
• Defects in Manufacturing: The chemical was improperly manufactured, dangerously departing from the intended composition; or
• Defects in Warnings: The chemical product lacks adequate instructions or warnings, rendering it unreasonably dangerous.

In this case, the jury was sufficiently swayed that Monsanto knew Roundup was dangerous and failed to place adequate warning labels on the glyphosate-based product.

If you have more specific questions about product liability cases or feel you've been injured by a dangerous product, contact a local personal injury attorney.

Related Resources:

• Find Personal Injury Lawyers Near You (FindLaw's Lawyer Directory)
• Reuters Releases Johnson & Johnson Report, Suggests Internal Knowledge for Decades (FindLaw's Injured)
• Lumber Liquidators Scandal Keeps Getting Worse (FindLaw's Injured)
• Legal Basis for Liability in Product Cases (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)

from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/03/jury-orders-monsanto-to-pay-80m-in-roundup-cancer-case.html

Jury Rules Roundup a Substantial Factor in Man's Cancer

Scientists can't seem to agree on glyphosate. The popular weed-killer ingredient was deemed "probably carcinogenic" by the World Health Organization in 2015, but the EPA in 2017 said it was "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans." And then a new study suggests people exposed to large doses of the chemical have a heightened risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

But while scientists may not be able to say that glyphosate causes cancer, a jury can. Jurors in a federal lawsuit in California ruled that Roundup -- which contains glyphosate -- was a substantial factor in causing Edwin Hardeman's non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Science Roundup

Hardeman underwent chemotherapy treatments in 2015. This was after the 70-year-old used Roundup to kill poison oak on his 56-acre property for 26 years. Two of the expert witnesses who testified in Hardeman's case cited the latest study linking glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. According to the study's author, Rachel Shaffer, people who are highly exposed to glyphosate are 41% more likely to contract NHL than the overall population.

But this is just the first phase of Hardeman's trial. Now that jurors had determined the chemical to blame for his cancer, they must now decide how liable the manufacturer will be. Bayer AG acquired Roundup maker Monsanto last year, and continues to claim "glyphosate-based herbicides do not cause cancer." Hardeman's lawyers, on the other hand, claim they have evidence that Monsanto attempted to manipulate public opinion and science to minimize Roundup's health risks.

Legal Steps

Hardeman's is far from the only lawsuit claiming Roundup causes cancer. Some 11,000 Roundup suits are pending in American courtrooms, around 760 of which are in front of the same judge as Hardeman's. His is considered a "bellwether" trial which could impact how those other cases proceed, although Bayer contends the jury finding "has no impact on future cases and trials because each one has its own factual and legal circumstances." Last year, a different California jury awarded $289 million to a groundskeeper who contracted lymphoma after using Roundup, although a judge later reduced the verdict to about $78 million.

Product liability cases can be complex, especially those that attempt to link products to cancer diagnoses. If you think a particular product is responsible for your cancer, talk to an experienced personal injury attorney about your legal options.

Related Resources:

• Find Personal Injury Lawyers Near You (FindLaw's Lawyer Directory)
• Monsanto's Roundup Found by Jury to Be Likely Cause of Cancer in Second Bay Area Man (San Francisco Chronicle)
• $28M Xarelto Verdict Goes Against J&J, Bayer (FindLaw's Injured)
• Product Liability Claims Arising from Pesticides (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)

from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/03/jury-rules-roundup-a-substantial-factor-in-mans-cancer.html

Theme Park Injuries: Brazilian Boy's Foot, Leg Allegedly Crushed on E.T. Ride

A lawsuit filed against Universal Studios is seeking $15,000 in damages after a mother says her son was injured on the E.T. ride at the theme park in January. According to the suit, Tiago Perez's left foot got stuck between the ride and a cement offloading area near the end, crushing his foot and breaking multiple bones in his toes, foot, and leg.

Here's a look at his mother's lawsuit, and similar injury claims against theme parks.

A Normal Kid

According to his family who witnessed the incident and his attorney, Thiago was doing nothing wrong as he enjoyed the ride. "He was just being a normal kid," Edmund Normand said, "a normal rider." Another boy injured his right foot on the same ride in 2002.

"Prior to this incident," the lawsuit alleges, "[Universal] had knowledge that the design, manufacture, testing, construction, and/or operation of the E.T. Adventure ride, created an unreasonably dangerous ride resulting in injuries to guests, but [Universal] continued to market the ride as safe to the unsuspecting public." The suit also claims that Universal updated its safety measures following the incident, pausing the ride near the exit so an employee could ensure riders' arms and legs were inside the vehicle.

A Frequent Injury

Universal declined to comment on the lawsuit to the Orlando Sentinel, but injuries at theme parks do happen. And here's what you should know if they do:

• Top 5 Theme Park Injury Concerns: First, you should be aware of the potential dangers lurking inside any theme park. While we are all there for fun and games, there are still injury risks involved.
• 5 Ways to Sue Over Theme Park Injuries: Not all injuries are the same. For instance, did you slip in a spill that a park employee failed to clean up? Or did a ride malfunction? Or maybe you were assaulted by another park guest. How and whom you sue will be different, depending on your personal circumstances.
• 5 Personal Injury Lessons From Disney Lawsuits: The "Happiest Place on Earth" once faced 140 injury lawsuits over a 5-year span. So, what did the company learn from those suits, and what can you?

If you or a loved one has been injured at a theme park, contact a local personal injury attorney for help.

Related Resources:

• Find Personal Injury Lawyers Near You (FindLaw's Lawyer Directory)
• Harry Potter Amusement Park Ride Lawsuit Settles (FindLaw's Injured)
• Girl Gets $75K for Mechanical Dinosaur Injuries (FindLaw's Injured)
• Disneyland Sued in 140 Injury Cases in 5 Years (FindLaw's Injured)

from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/03/theme-park-injuries-brazilian-boys-foot-leg-allegedly-crushed-on-et-ride.html

Can You Get Workers' Comp for Being Mauled by a Rhino?

Working alongside 4,000-lb wild animals may seem like an inherently dangerous job. And wildlife lovers may not have a whole lot of sympathy for a zoo employee injured by an animal that has already tried to escape twice and should be roaming free in the grasslands of Central Africa.

But a female zookeeper struck by "Archie's" horn at the Jacksonville Zoo and Gardens is probably just wondering if she can get paid for the time she'll miss work.

Archie Nemesis

Most employers are required to carry workers' compensation insurance, which reimburses employees for lost wages due to a work-related injury. A "work-related injury" is generally defined as one suffered while doing something on behalf of your employer or otherwise in the course of employment. While most of the injuries classified as work-related occur at the workplace, some covered accidents may occur at other locations or in company-owned vehicles -- as long as the employee was doing something connected to their job.

In this instance, zoo spokesperson J.J. Vitale said the zookeeper was injured when she came into contact with Archie during a routine training session. The zoo's executive director, Tony Vecchio, said zookeepers conduct the sessions with the animals to prepare them for medical exams, and the training generally involves teaching them how to open their mouth and lift their feet on command, as well as submit to blood tests.

While Vecchio also said there is always a safety barrier between the zookeeper and the animal -- and that there were vertical and horizontal bars in between the zookeeper and Archie -- Jacksonville Fire and Rescue confirmed she was transported to the hospital with serious injuries.

Zoo Workers' Comp

Workers' comp covers injuries which can be connected in some way to an employment requirement or condition, so it's likely the zookeeper will be covered in this case. If you're wondering if your work injury falls under workers comp, need help filing a claim, or you've had a workers' comp claim rejected, contact a local attorney for help.

Related Resources:

• Find Workers' Compensation Lawyers Near You (FindLaw's Lawyer Directory)
• Worker Injured by Rhino at Florida Zoo (NBC Miami)
• Can I Get Workers Comp If Assaulted at Work? (FindLaw's Injured)
• 10 Injuries That May Not Be Covered by Workers' Comp (FindLaw's Injured)

from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/03/can-you-get-workers-comp-for-being-mauled-by-a-rhino.html

Court: Sandy Hook Lawsuit Against Remington Can Proceed

In 2016, a Connecticut judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by the families of the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre against Remington, the manufacturer of the weapon used in the killings. But this week, the Connecticut Supreme Court revived part of the lawsuit, ruling that federal protections did not prevent the families from bringing a lawsuit based on wrongful marketing tactics, and claims based on a state law regarding unfair trade practices could move forward.

Here's a look at the ruling, and what it could mean for future lawsuits against gun makers.

Laws, Lies, and Liability

The suit was initially dismissed pursuant to the Protection of Lawful Commerce of Arms Act (PLCAA), signed into law by George W. Bush in 2005. In the 4-3 ruling, the Connecticut Supreme Court largely agreed with that decision, finding that most of the claims raised by the families were precluded under the PLCAA and a gun manufacturer or dealer cannot be held liable for how a gun is used if the gun was sold legally.

But the parents' lawsuit also attacked Remington's marketing campaign, including ads for the AR-15-style Bushmaster used in the 2012 attack that invoked combat violence and told would-be buyers, "Consider your man card reissued." And the court said the suit could go forward under Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act.

That statute is aimed at harmful marketing and prohibits advertising the use of a weapon as a potential tool for "offensive military style combat" by civilians. Other Bushmaster ads featured soldiers on patrol in jungles along with the phrase: "When you need to perform under pressure, Bushmaster delivers." Remington allegedly promoted the rifle to civilians as "the ultimate combat weapons system," and the Connecticut Supreme Court decided that "it falls to a jury to decide whether the promotional schemes alleged in the present case rise to the level of illegal trade practices and whether fault for the tragedy can be laid at their feet."

The End of the Road and the End of Immunity?

Appeals are assured and a jury may still find in Remington's favor, so the suit is far from over. But attacking a gun maker's ads through state consumer protection laws may provide gun violence victims a path to compensation that didn't exist before.

Related Resources:

• Sandy Hook Massacre: Remington and Other Gun Companies Lose Major Ruling Over Liability (The New York Times)
• Sandy Hook Families Sue Alex Jones and InfoWars for Defamation (FindLaw's Injured)
• Parents of Slain Sandy Hook Students Offer to Settle for $11M (FindLaw's Injured)
• Sandy Hook Lawsuit Would Seek $100M From State (FindLaw's Injured)

from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/03/court-sandy-hook-lawsuit-against-remington-can-proceed.html