3M Bair Hugger Lawsuits: Surgical Warming Blankets Causing Deadly Infections

The controversy over the Bair Hugger surgical warming blankets has escalated beyond expectations. When the federal court initially accepted the case as a multi-district litigation case, there were just over a dozen cases. Now, just one year later, there are nearly 900 cases claiming the Bair Hugger caused surgical site infections. Currently, the parties and the court are working on figuring out which cases will be tried as representative (Bellweather) cases.

Basically, the way the device works has been called into question, despite it being widely accepted throughout the medical industry. The surgical warming blanket system works by essentially forcing warm air into sterile disposable blankets that are placed on a patient's body.

The lawsuits claim that the part of the device that forces the air into the blankets can be easily contaminated, because it sits on the floor, thereby increasing the risk of infection by circulating contamination from the floor into the warming blankets that rest directly on a patient's skin.

Surgical Site Infections and Legal Liability

Apart from the risks posed by anesthetics, as well as the surgical procedure itself, the risk of surgical site infections also make any surgery a dangerous undertaking. However, determining how an infection occurred may be nearly impossible. While one might think that whenever an infection occurs, the hospital or doctors will be legally liable, this is not the case.

One issue with surgical infection cases is that symptoms from an infection usually are not immediately apparent. This means that an individual might not even know they contracted an infection until weeks after a surgery and discharge from the hospital.

Furthermore, hospitals and doctors will not be liable unless it can be proven that they were negligent, and that the negligence was the reason for the infection. As one might expect, proving these matters is not simple. It will usually require medical expert analysis and testimony, as well as good lawyering.

Why Is 3M Being Sued?

3M doesn't just make adhesive and scotch tape. The company makes all sorts of products, including medical devices and medical equipment. However, the fact that doctors who used the 3M Bair Hugger are not being sued begs the question: Why? Because the Bair Hugger's use is widely accepted, and doctors and hospitals were unaware of the device's alleged failure to prevent contaminated air from contacting patients, it is unlikely that a medical malpractice or negligence suit would be successful.

However, because it was learned that the device's makers have been aware of the dangers for at least the past few years, and failed to issue warnings to doctors or the public, the company can be held liable on a product liability theory. They knew about the risks, but did nothing to warn people.

Related Resources:

• Find Personal Injury Lawyers in Your Area (FindLaw's Lawyer Directory)
• When to Sue a Hospital for MRSA or Other Staph Infections (FindLaw's Injured)
• 5 Ways Surgery Errors Can Lead to Lawsuits (FindLaw's Injured)
• Robotic Surgery Injury Lawsuit FAQ (FindLaw's Injured)

from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/01/3m-bair-hugger-lawsuits-surgical-warming-blankets-causing-deadly-infections.html

Emergency Room Malpractice - When Can You Sue?

We go to the emergency room because we need immediate, competent medical attention. Sadly, not all emergency room staff perform to that standard. Understaffed, mismanaged, or mistake-prone emergency rooms can cause more harm than good, and, like all doctors and medical professionals, they can be liable for medical malpractice.

How do you know if you have a case? Here's a look:

Rights and Responsibilities

If you are in need of urgent medical care, most hospitals are obliged under federal law to provide it. (The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act applies to all hospitals that accept Medicare payment, which is nearly all of them.) So going in, you should know your rights as well as the responsibility for applicable emergency rooms to provide treatment:

• Emergency rooms and staff must provide screening examinations to determine if a medical emergency exists;
• Emergency rooms and staff must provide stabilizing treatment to anybody with a medical emergency, regardless of their insurance coverage or ability to pay; and
• Emergency rooms may not deny patients treatment on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, or medical history, including an AIDS diagnosis.

Hospitals are allowed to transfer patients once they are stabilized or with their consent, or if they can receive better treatment elsewhere.

Emergency Liability

Hospitals that fail to provide patients with a standard of care in their emergency rooms can be directly liable for their own negligence or vicariously liable for the negligence of their employees. If a hospital failed to make reasonable inquiries when hiring staff for its emergency room, and an employee injures a patient, the hospital could be sued for negligent supervision or retention. Hospitals could also be liable for patient injuries if emergency room staff fail to follow the orders of a patient's physician.

In addition, hospitals are required to ensure that they have enough emergency medical staff on duty to maintain quality patient care, and could be liable for injuries to patients resulting from a staff shortage in their emergency room.

If you were refused medical care or received substandard care in an emergency room, consult an experienced injury attorney about your case.

Related Resources:

• Have a malpractice claim? Get matched with a local attorney. (Consumer Injury)
• Oregon Man Dies Waiting for Ambulance at ER (FindLaw's Injured)
• Toddler's Hand, Feet Amputated After ER Wait (FindLaw's Injured)
• Low-Ranking VA Hospital Sued for Wrongful Death (FindLaw's Injured)

from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/01/emergency-room-malpractice---when-can-you-sue.html

Lawsuit: Apple's FaceTime Blamed for Child's Death

Tech giant Apple is facing another lawsuit that claims they are liable for an auto accident which resulted in a death because the at-fault driver was using their iPhone at the time of the crash. Underlying the claim is the fact that Apple apparently has the technology to prevent drivers from using their iPhones in dangerous ways while driving. This newest lawsuit is also premised upon the same patent used in an earlier lawsuit, which shows that Apple has the technology to detect when a device is being operated by a driver in order to prevent certain features, like texting, from working.

The plaintiffs in the case, the surviving family of the five-year-old child that died as a result of the accident, assert that Apple is at fault because the driver that caused the accident was in the middle of a FaceTime video call when they caused the accident. The plaintiffs’ legal theory, in both new and old cases, is that Apple should be liable because it knew people would use their technology in this dangerous way but didn’t didn’t stop it with a “driver lock-out” feature.

Slippery Slopes for This Type of Lawsuit

If you think this legal claim is ridiculous, you are not alone. Critics of these lawsuits against Apple explain that the legal theory being used is tenuous, at best, and if accepted could lead to even shakier legal theories of liability. Should McDonald’s be liable if an accident is caused while someone is eating a Big Mac while driving? Should a gun manufacturer be liable if their gun is used to shoot an innocent person? Should a phone company be liable if their customer causes an accident while using the phone in violation of state laws? If a person is speeding, should the auto maker be liable if the speeder causes an accident?

While a manufacturer should be held liable for legitimate design defects that cause injuries, when a consumer misuses the product and causes someone else injury, holding the manufacturer liable seems disingenuous.

Like the example questions above, while each of the injuries are foreseeable, holding the manufacturer liable runs afoul of principals of personal responsibility. No car maker needs to make a car that can go over 85 mph (the highest speed limit in the country); should they be liable every time a car crash happens over 86 mph?

Related Resources:

• Injured in an accident? Get matched with a local attorney. (Consumer Injury)
• Princess Cruises Sued for Gross Sewage Slip and Fall Injury (FindLaw’s Injured)
• Teen Drivers Can’t Be Trusted With Smartphones, Study Finds (FindLaw’s Injured)
• Smartwatches and Distracted Driving Laws (FindLaw’s Injured)

from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/01/lawsuit-apples-facetime-blamed-for-childs-death-1.html

Woman Sues Search Sites to Remove Name After Revenge Porn Incident

Revenge porn, or posting an ex's sexually explicit photos or videos on the internet, is a nasty and sometimes illegal business. And while state laws and courts have begun cracking down on those who post and facilitate revenge porn, protections for victims are far from perfect.

Take the case of one New York woman, who, while successful at getting surreptitiously recorded sex tapes removed from porn sites, is having a harder time scrubbing her search results from Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Now she is suing the search sites in the hope that removing her name entirely will finally keep the more promiscuous search results from popping up.

Hell Hath No Fury

The Harlem woman, a college student, was horrified to find her ex had posted video of their sexual encounters to several porn websites along with her name. Having a unique, four-word-long West African name, this meant that the revenge porn came up every time her name was searched, to the tune of four pages worth of search results. She asked the sites to remove the content, and they complied, but that had little impact on the search engines themselves.

"If you Google her name, everything is right there," Ryanne Konan, the woman's attorney, told The New York Post. "She can't even get an internship." So she and Konan sued Bing, Google, and Yahoo, seeking an injunction that would compel the companies to "remove her full name from their search engines."

Recourse for Revenge

Unfortunately for the victim, there is little, if any, precedent for her request. Google has made an effort to keep non-consensual nude and sexually explicit postings from its search results, and all three search companies allow victims to report non-consensual pornography and request to have it removed from search results. But removing a person's name entirely from a search engine would be a first.

And while many states have criminal statutes prohibiting revenge porn, New York is sadly not among them. So even though the search engine suit may be a long shot, it could also be this victim's last resort.

Related Resources:

• Find Internet Lawyers Near You (FindLaw's Lawyer Directory)
• Woman Sues to Delete Name Online After Revenge Porn Incident (CBS)
• YouGotPosted 'Revenge Porn' Operators Must Pay $900K Judgment (FindLaw's Decided)
• 'Revenge Porn' Law Now in Effect in Calif. (FindLaw Blotter)

from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/01/woman-sues-search-sites-to-remove-name-after-revenge-porn-incident.html

Princess Cruises Sued for Gross Sewage Slip and Fall Injury

A passenger aboard one of Princess Cruises’ ships is suing over a disgusting injury that occurred in the ship’s public bathroom. The lawsuit, which is, at its heart, the result of a slip and fall, claims the cruise company is responsible for the injuries the plaintiff suffered.

The passenger, who was on a vacation with her husband, went to use the public restroom while the ship was docked for repairs to its sewage system. When she reached the bathroom, she discovered that the toilet was overflowing with sewage. Before she could leave, she slipped and fell on the sewage, struck her face on the door, and was knocked unconscious on the disgusting bathroom floor.

Premises Liability and Maritime Law

A cruise ship company will generally be liable to its guests and passengers for injuries the guests sustain that are a result of negligence when the operator knew or should have known about the dangerous condition. However, whereas most other injury cases would be handled according to state law, cruise ships and operators fall under a different set of laws known as maritime laws. When an injury or conflict giving rise to a legal claim occurs on the high seas, it will be governed by maritime law and handled in the federal court system.

Limitations on Liability

Frequently, cruise ship operators will require passengers to agree to release their rights on their liability for injuries, or loss or damage to goods. Sometimes, the operators even sneak their releases and limitation of liability onto the back of the cruise ticket.

While not all releases and limitations will be deemed enforceable, some may be. Additionally, some operators may require passengers to willingly cut short their statute of limitations for all claims. While maritime law generally provides three years to file an injury claim, operators frequently sneak in 12 month (or shorter) notice requirements that effectively shorten the claim period.

Related Resources:

• Injured in an accident? Get matched with a local attorney. (Consumer Injury)
• Can I Sue a Cruise Line for an Injury? (FindLaw’s Injured)
• Giant Cruise Ship Faces off with Storm, Forced to Return to Port (FindLaw’s Injured)
• Crimes on Cruise Ships: 3 Things to Know (FindLaw Blotter)

from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/01/princess-cruises-sued-for-gross-sewage-slip-and-fall-injury.html

Homeopathic Teething Tablets May Cause Child Deaths; Could Lawsuits Follow?

Parents with teething babies have sought a myriad of remedies to soothe their children's pain and discomfort (and their own ears as well, no doubt). One remedy which many found effective was the use of dissolving homeopathic tablets and gels that claimed to ease pain and reduce irritability associated with teething.

But last fall, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned that the tablets and gels could pose a health risk to children and recommended that parents stop using them. As many as 10 deaths had been linked to homeopathic teething tablets, so could lawsuits follow?

Homeopathies at Home

The FDA first issued a safety alert about homeopathic teething tablets and gels back in 2010, noting they can cause seizures in infants and children. Parents were warned to be on the lookout for "difficulty breathing, lethargy, excessive sleepiness, muscle weakness, skin flushing, constipation, difficulty urinating, or agitation" in children after using the products.

Hyland's, one of the major manufacturers of homeopathic teething tablets and gel, was quick to point out that, despite the FDA's investigation, there was no recall issued, and continues to maintain "[t]here is NO scientific link between homeopathically-prepared belladonna, or Hyland's Baby Teething Tablets, and seizures." Instead, the company acknowledges that "certain allergies may exist" and recommends that parents closely monitor their children when introducing new medicines.

Legal Bite

Teething tablet and gel manufacturers have a duty to ensure their products are safe. They therefore may be strictly liable if a child is injured or killed by their product. There are three main types of product liability claims:

• Defect in Design: The teething tablet's design is flawed, rendering it unreasonably dangerous to children;
• Defect in Manufacturing: The tablet or gel is improperly manufactured, in a way that dangerously departs from its intended design; or
• Defect in Warnings: The homeopathic remedy lacks adequate instructions or warnings, without which the product is not reasonably safe.

Homeopathic tablets or gels might have been improperly designed, poorly manufactured, or lack proper warnings, leading teething children to have adverse or even deadly reactions. If this happened, the manufacturer might be liable for such injuries and damages.

Related Resources:

• Injured by a product? Get your claim reviewed by an attorney for free. (Consumer Injury)
• Teething Tablets May Be Linked to 10 Children's Deaths, FDA Says (CNN)
• Alcohol Swabs to Blame for Toddlers Death? (FindLaw's Injured)
• Your Child Is Injured. Should You Sue? (FindLaw's Injured)

from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/01/homeopathic-teething-tablets-may-cause-child-deaths-could-lawsuits-follow.html

Crime at Walmart: When Can You Sue?

Walmart has long been associated with low prices, but the megaretailer is also becoming synonymous with high crime rates. While Bloomberg recently noted that staff cuts may have contributed to over 200 violent crimes at Walmart locations in 2016 (including attempted kidnappings and multiple stabbings, shootings, and murders), watchdog groups who have been charting crime on company property for the past decade see the same old story.

So are criminals responsible for their own dangerous behavior, or can Walmart be held liable for crime in its stores and parking lots?

Criminal Element

There's no shortage of outrageous tales of crimes in and around Walmart stores:

In June, a SWAT team killed a hostage taker at a Walmart in Amarillo, Texas. In July, three Walmart employees in Florida were charged with manslaughter after a shoplifter they chased and pinned down died of asphyxia. Other crimes are just bizarre. On Aug. 8, police discovered a meth lab inside a 6-foot-high drainage pipe under a Walmart parking lot in Amherst, N.Y.

According to recent reports, incidents at Walmart account for nearly half of all criminal activity in Port Ritchie, Florida, and Tulsa police were called to the city's four Walmart stores almost 2,000 times last year (compared to 300 such calls to Tulsa's four Target stores).

Walmart CEO Doug McMillon made reducing crime a top priority when he took over in 2014, and despite's the retail giant's claims that new efforts are working, local police say different. "It's ridiculous -- we are talking about the biggest retailer in the world," Tulsa Police sergeant Robert Rohloff told Bloomberg. "I may have half my squad there for hours."

Civil Negligence

In the last few years, courts have been more likely to find retailers liable for crimes that occur in their parking lots. Whether Walmart or another particular store will be legally responsible for injuries resulting from a crime on their property will generally depend on how foreseeable the crime was. Retailers and parking lot owners in high crime areas or those whose lots have often been the scene of the crime are more likely to be on the hook for any injuries from robberies or assaults in their lots.

This seems especially relevant to Walmart, who allegedly keeps a detailed criminal database but refuses to release it, even when sued. "Nothing compares to the way Walmart litigates cases," attorney Christopher Marlowe told Bloomberg:

He fought Walmart for several years over a lawsuit he filed in 2010 on behalf of a woman who was abducted outside a store in DeFuniak Springs, Fla., and repeatedly raped. Marlowe said in a court filing that he learned only in 2013 of the database, which documented "precisely the sort of incidents" he sought for more than two years. Walmart's lawyer, he said, "led everyone to believe that crime data retrieval was a great mystery -- a query of inconceivable proportions." Walmart denied liability in the case. The company eventually settled for an undisclosed sum.

Related Resources:

• Have an injury claim? Get matched with a local attorney. (Consumer Injury)
• Woman Pistol-Whipped in Parking Lot, Sues Walmart (The Huffington Post)
• Disabled Woman's Parents Sue Walmart Over Shoplifting Arrest (FindLaw's Injured)
• Parking Lot Injuries: When Can You Sue? (FindLaw's Injured)

from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/01/crime-at-walmart-when-can-you-sue.html