Norfolk-Portsmouth Personal Injury Lawyer

Fracking Can Cause Severe Problems for Well-Water Users, Poses Other Health Risks

Richard N. (Rick) Shapiro — Tue, 21 May 2013 20:57:43 GMT

The practice of fracking, or “hydraulic fracturing,” wherein a high-pressure jet of water is used to drill into rock layers, may cause serious issues for nearby water wells; there are many indications that individuals who drink from well water near fracking outfits should be wary of doing so. In Ohio, it was recently reported that two residents who live nearby a fracking operation can literally set their water on fire due to the contamination the work has caused.

As of late, there has been much concern with how fracking can affect the quality of drinking water. Recently, the EPA released a study that suggests a positive connection between fracking operations and degrading quality of nearby water sources. The report found that aquifers in the vicinity of fracking outfits had traces of methane, along with other hydrocarbons, within their water supplies.

Fracking has been around since the middle of the 20^th century, but the 21^st century has seen a rise in the procedure; it is now estimated that well over half of all new gas and oil wells utilize fracking in order to extract natural resources from the earth. Because fracking is so prevalent today, it is important that individuals and industry officials be aware of the potential dangers it may pose to peoples’ health. There have been many reports in recent years of the health risks of fracking—even just being near a gas fracking site may pose risks—so health officials should be diligent about inspecting and reporting on the potential dangers of this procedure. Fracking also presents the risk of explosions when drilling for natural gas, so it is not just water and general health problems that the practice may engender.

The law firm of Shapiro, Lewis, Appleton & Favaloro writes Legal Examiner blogs for Norfolk, Virginia Beach and Northeast North Carolina as a pro bono service to inform consumers and officials of urgent health risks, dangerous products and matters of injury law.

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Richard N. (Rick) Shapiro

Recent Meat Industry Truck Crashes Raise Concerns About Driver Safety Records

Emily Mapp Brannon — Wed, 15 May 2013 21:07:44 GMT

Two recent trucking accidents in Virginia raised important safety concerns about the driving history of some of the drivers of large commercial motor vehicles. A recent investigation uncovered that two recent Virginia crashes involving tractor-trailers loaded with animals occurred in cases where the drivers had lengthy records of earlier driving infractions, raising questions about why the men were ever left in charge of driving such large and dangerous vehicles in the first place.

Just last month, a truck fully loaded with pigs crashed on U.S. 258 in Isle of Wight County, Virginia. Several of the pigs were thrown from the truck during the accident and a total of 55 ended up dying at the scene of the accident. A subsequent investigation into the matter by officials with PETA revealed that the driver of the truck had previously been charged in more than 15 traffic offenses in North Carolina. The offenses were serious and they included one incident of reckless driving, five separate violations for speeding and another for attempting to evade federal safety regulations.

In yet another recent tractor-trailer accident in Virginia, this time in Henry County, a tractor-trailer carrying 1,000 turkeys crashed last month and led to the deaths of hundreds of birds. PETA discovered that in the Henry County case, the truck driver also had a scary motor vehicle history, with previous convictions for DWI and driving with a revoked license. Even more alarming was that the man had previously been charged with a felony for manufacturing a controlled substance. The Henry County crash added yet another charge to his driving record, this time police say they charged the man with failing to maintain control of his vehicle.

Though neither accident injured any innocent motorists, hundreds of animals died due to the carelessness of the truck drivers. Besides the dangers these drivers pose to animals, when meat companies and other commercial industries knowingly put dangerous drivers behind the wheel they also place humans who happen to be on the road at great risk.

Nationwide, there was a 1.9 percent increase in the number of people killed in crashes involving large trucks from 2010 to 2011, the most recent year of data available from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The issue of commercial driving safety is a serious one and so is the need for state authorities to regularly and judiciously enforce commercial vehicle safety regulations. It’s troubling to see the disregard some employers have for the safety records of the drivers they have out on the road.

About the Editors: The attorneys at Shapiro, Lewis & Appleton & Favaloro, a personal injury law firm with offices in Virginia (VA), North Carolina (NC) and Massachusetts (MA), are responsible for editing the Virginia Beach Injuryboard, Norfolk Injuryboard and Northeast North Carolina Injuryboard as pro bono services.

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Emily Mapp Brannon

New Legislation Before Congress Targets Ending Mandatory Arbitration Clause

Mark Favaloro — Wed, 15 May 2013 08:00:19 GMT

An important bit of legislation made its way before Congress this past week when Minnesota Senator Al Franken and Georgia House Representative Hank Johnson proposed the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2013. The measure may not sound terribly interesting, but it contains a critically important provision that would eliminate the current practice of sneaking mandatory arbitration clauses into many nursing home contracts.

The law was written as an attempt to end the unfair practice of many nursing home operators that force those entering a nursing home facility to sign a document that requires arbitration in the event of a dispute with the operator. These arbitration agreements insulate the companies from being held fully accountable in a court of law and work to the detriment of injured individuals who often are unaware that they have signed away their right to sue nursing homes in the event of abuse, negligence or neglect.

The Arbitration Fairness Act was designed to put a stop to mandatory arbitration clauses. The law would prevent companies from forcing arbitration in all consumer, employment, anti-trust and civil rights cases. While arbitration clauses would still be legal, the measure specifies that they would only be upheld in cases where the clause was truly voluntarily entered into by both parties.

Many times, nursing home companies tell prospective residents that the arbitration agreement is take-it-or-leave-it and not up for negotiation, something that leaves consumers and patients with no choice. Nursing home corporations frequently use forced arbitration clauses as a way to avoid accountability for their negligence by inserting the provision in the fine print of lengthy resident admission documents. Given the legalese used in the arbitration clauses, many families are unaware they have signed away their rights until something tragic happens.

So far, the law has 17 co-sponsors in the Senate and 22 co-sponsors in the House. Experts say that unfortunately the legislation faces an uphill battle given the current conservative makeup of Congress. Though the chances of passage in the House may be slim, concerned citizens who have or might soon have loved ones in a nursing home facility should contact their legislators and tell them just how important the Arbitration Fairness Act is.

About the Editors: The Shapiro, Lewis & Appleton & Favaloro personal injury law firm, which has offices in Virginia (VA), North Carolina (NC) and Massachusetts (MA), edits the injury law blogs Virginia Beach Injuryboard, Norfolk Injuryboard and Northeast North Carolina Injuryboard as pro bono services.

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Mark Favaloro

Study Finds Diagnostic Errors Are Costliest And Deadliest Kinds Of Medical Mistakes

Mark Favaloro — Tue, 14 May 2013 12:00:00 GMT

The Wall Street Journal recently published the results of a study by researchers at Johns Hopkins who found that diagnostic errors accounted for a major and costly portion of the overall medical errors that take place in the U.S. each year.

The study, published in the journal BMJ Quality and Safety, involved researchers examining 350,000 medical malpractice claims that have been filed over the past 25 years. The results were clear that the most common, most expensive and, ultimately, the most dangerous errors were in misdiagnosing patients. The study estimated that such misdiagnosis leads to permanent injury or death in as many as 160,000 people each year.

The study found that out of the 350,000 malpractice claims examined, diagnostic errors accounted for almost 30 percent of the total number, more than any other categories including surgical mistakes, medication errors or treatment complications. Diagnostic mistakes also made up the largest share of the total claim payments, around 35 percent of all the money paid out in med mal cases. Finally, the study found that diagnostic errors were responsible for death in more than 40 percent of the claims, the highest of any category of error.

The study found that the five most commonly misdiagnosed conditions were pneumonia, worsening congestive heart failure, renal failure, cancer and kidney infections. Researchers concluded that some of the reasons that led to these diagnostic errors include a breakdown in communication between patients and doctors during the initial visit, a failure to refer patients to specialists, inadequate medical histories and a failure by doctors to follow up with patients.

One problem identified by the researchers was that few hard numbers regarding misdiagnosis are available. Doctors and hospitals never report their diagnostic error rate, despite revealing other quality measures such as surgery outcomes. More transparency might help bring the number under control and provide useful information to patients. Other measures suggested include using software that can alert doctors to other possible conditions that fit the same symptoms.

Though most physicians are highly skilled and strive to do good for each and every patient, mistakes happen that can leave people seriously injured or even dead.

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Mark Favaloro

Study Finds NICU's Nursing Shortages Put Infants at High Risk for Infections

Mark Favaloro — Mon, 13 May 2013 17:52:08 GMT

A new study has concluded that widespread shortages of nurses in Neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) are potentially increasing the risk of infection in critically ill babies. The study, which was published in JAMA Pediatrics, found that infection rates for very low birth weight infants were 40 percent higher in NICUs with nursing understaffing.

The study examined data from 67 NICUs from the Vermont Oxford Network, a nonprofit collaboration of health-care professionals working in more than 900 NICUs around the world. The collected data was included 5,771 very low birth weight babies from 2008 and 5,630 very low weight babies from 2009.

The researchers used national guidelines which specify nurse to patient ratios. The lowest-acuity infants have a recommended nurse-to-patient ratio of 1 to 3 or 4, but the highest-acuity infants have ratios of greater than one nurse per patient. They found hospitals understaffed 32 percent of their NICU infants in 2009 and 48 percent in 2008, with understaffing varying by acuity. Hospitals understaffed 85 percent of high-acuity infants in 2008 and 92 percent in 2009.

NICU nurse understaffing was associated with increases in infection risk among very low birth weight infants. For example, a one-standard deviation increase in nurse understaffing per infant was associated with a higher risk of infection in 2008 and 2009.

The researchers concluded in their findings that the, “most vulnerable hospitalized patients, unstable newborns requiring complex critical care, do not receive recommended levels of nursing care.”

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Mark Favaloro

Third Circuit Rejects Federal Railroad Safety Act Preemption

Richard N. (Rick) Shapiro — Sun, 12 May 2013 14:28:38 GMT

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently decided that the Federal Railroad Safety Act does not automatically preempt all state common law claims. Specifically, the Court said that the federal regulation would not prevent a claim being brought against CSX by a Pennsylvania mall damaged by floodwater. The mall never sought damages, instead only requesting an injunction that would force CSX to fix the drainage problems caused by their train tracks.

The incident began when the MacDade Mall was flooded as a result of storm water runoff from a nearby CSX train track. The owner of the mall filed suit against CSX, claiming that the railroad’s negligence led to the flooding problem. A lower court rejected the mall operator’s argument, ruling that the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) preempted the claim and ultimately tossed the case out of court. The mall operator appealed the decision and a divided panel of the Third Circuit disagreed with the district court, sending the case, MD Mall Associates v. CSX Transportation, back to the lower court for further review.

The Third Circuit’s majority decided that because no section of FRSA expressly speaks to the issue of storm water runoff, the presumption is that existing state laws concerning such matters must survive. The Court found that CSX’s position was unreasonable, saying that if you followed their automatic preemption logic to its extreme it would mean that CSX would be allowed to intentionally pour storm water onto any neighboring property it chooses, without ever being held liable for its actions.

The Court made clear that its ruling does not mean that FRSA will be gutted. On the contrary, the majority wrote that when a FRSA provision clearly subsumes a plaintiff’s state-law claims, then FRSA will apply and the suit will be preempted. In this case, no such provision in FRSA spoke to the issue of water drainage, which means the mall’s claims were allowed to proceed.

The case offers hope for others who have been harmed by the actions of major railroad operators such as CSX, Amtrak, Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern. The Third Circuit made clear in its ruling that FRSA could not be used by railroad companies as a blanket attempt to toss state-law claims for damages out of court. This ensures that injured plaintiffs have a way of holding railroad companies like CSX responsible for their negligent and harmful actions.

About the Editors: The Virginia and Carolina injury law firm of Shapiro, Lewis, Appleton & Favaloro provides legal articles on health & safety as a pro bono service. We also blog on railroad & FELA worker injury claims

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Richard N. (Rick) Shapiro

NHTSA Offers Online Truck Safety Workshop May 13 and 14

Randy Appleton — Sun, 12 May 2013 12:17:35 GMT

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will be conducting a workshop on May 13th and 14th to discuss issues related to fuel economy, vehicle mass reduction, and the effects of vehicle mass and size on vehicle safety. The workshop is being held at the Department of Transportation (DOT) headquarters in Washington, D.C., and will be available to watch live online through an NHTSA affiliated website.

According to the DOT, there are approximately 500,000 accidents involving tractor trailers every year. Almost 5,000 of these accidents result in fatalities. One out of eight traffic fatalities involves a truck. Ninety-eight percent of truck accident fatalities occur to the people in the passenger vehicles, not the trucks.

Data compiled from the NHTSA show that in 2008, more than half of the fatal accidents involving large truck occurred in a rural area (64 percent), during the day (67 percent) and on weekdays (80 percent). The majority of those accidents occurring on weekdays happened in the daytime (74 percent), and on weekends, at night (63 percent).

In half of the fatal accidents involving a truck and another type of vehicle, both vehicles were proceeding straight at the time of the crash. In nine percent of those accidents, the other vehicle was turning. In another nine percent, either the truck or other vehicle was negotiating a curve.

In announcing the workshop, the NHTSA said, “We want to bring together experts in the field to discuss questions that NHTSA must grapple with when we establish CAFE standards for model years 2022-2025 –like how much mass reduction will be feasible for different vehicles, how much that mass reduction will cause, and whether there will be safety effects as a result of that mass reduction.”

The workshop panel will be made up of NHTSA researchers, along with other government researchers, auto manufacturer and supplier representatives. To view the workshop online, register at the NHTSA teleconference page.

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Randy Appleton

Dairy Company Recalls Product Due to Incorrect Labeling

Jim Lewis — Fri, 10 May 2013 18:20:45 GMT

A North Carolina dairy company has voluntarily recalled ice cream due to its being packaged in the wrong containers, which presents risks for some customers with certain food allergies.

Dairy Fresh, out of Winston-Salem, issued a recall of its IGA Brand Vanilla and Chocolate products that may actually be a different type of ice cream, the company reported. The mislabeled ice cream may contain soy, coconut and almonds, which are risks for consumers who have allergic reactions to the food types. The company reported at least one consumer who suffered an allergy attack after consuming the product.

Recalls happen fairly often in the food industry; earlier this year, both Bumble Bee Foods and Chicken of the Sea recalled some of their tuna products because of defective seals. As well, this February, Smithfield Packaging Company recalled nearly 40,000 pounds of sausage due to plastic pieces in the product.

The dangers of mislabeled or harmful food products are myriad: spoiled or contaminated food can cause serious illness and death, and mislabeled foods are a grave risk for consumers who have food allergies. Food recalls were noticeably higher than average at the end of 2012,illustrating the critical importance of safe food production and the necessity of both food companies and government authorities to be aware of the risks inherent in certain products, and to take necessary action to recall unsafe foods that are a danger to the public.

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Jim Lewis

Study Finds Many Women Receive Inadequate Treatment for Ovarian Cancer

Emily Mapp Brannon — Thu, 09 May 2013 16:18:27 GMT

A recent study by the University of California, Irvine found most women with ovarian cancer receive inadequate care and miss out on treatments that could add a year or more to their lives. In the U.S., 15,000 women die each year from ovarian cancer. There are 22,000 new cases diagnosed yearly, most of them discovered at an advanced stage and needing aggressive treatment. Worldwide, there are close to a quarter million new cases diagnosed each year.

Typically, the reason for the poor care women receive in treatment is that most hospitals and doctors lack expertise in the complex surgery and chemotherapy that can fight the disease and prolong life. The study found that a little more than one third of patients receive best care possible, a troubling statistic that has been confirmed in other similar studies.

Cancer specialists agree that successful treatment depends on meticulous, extensive surgery and aggressive chemotherapy. Ovarian cancer spreads inside the abdomen, and survival improves with surgery that removes all visible traces of the disease. Taking out as much cancer as possible gives the drugs a better chance of killing whatever is left. The surgery may involve removing the spleen, parts of the intestine, stomach and other organs, as well as the reproductive system.

This surgery should only be performed by a gynecologic oncologist, but too often it’s done by general surgeons and gynecologists. Dr. Robert E. Bristow, lead researcher of the study, said that surgeons who lack expertise in ovarian cancer should refer women to specialists if the women are suspected to have the disease. But many don’t. Almost 80 percent of the women in the study were treated by what the researchers called “low-volume” providers — surgeons with 10 or fewer cases a year, and hospitals with 20 or fewer.

“If we could just make sure that women get to the people who are trained to take care of them, the impact would be much greater than that of any new chemotherapy drug or biological agent,” said Dr. Bristow, during a presentation of the study at a meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology in Los Angeles.

A physician’s failure to diagnosis or treat a patient properly can have tragic consequences. Patients and their families do have legal options to hold doctor’s responsible, such as this patient whose medical misdiagnosis led to a $650,000 settlement.

A guide to learn more information about medical malpractice or misdiagnosis and what your options may be can be found here.

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Emily Mapp Brannon

Medical Misdiagnosis More Common than You Think

Mark Favaloro — Wed, 08 May 2013 09:16:16 GMT

Last year, a 12-year-old boy went to an emergency room in New York, but was subsequently sent home. The boy continued to grow sicker and sicker until, to the shock of his family and the doctors, he lost his life. It turns out that the doctors who treated the boy missed the systemic infection that killed him. This is a prime example of medical misdiagnosis and it happens quite frequently.

The journal, BMJ Quality & Safety, revealed that fatal medical misdiagnoses occur just as frequently as deaths caused by breast cancer (40,500 deaths to be exact). Medical misdiagnosis events far exceed drug errors and surgeries that are conducted on the wrong patient or body part.

You may be thinking – “mistakes happen, especially for tough-to-discover diseases like cancer.” Well, a recent study found that many of these misdiagnoses involved common diseases like pneumonia and urinary tract infections. Even more shocking is that 87 percent of the missed diagnoses had the potential for “considerable to severe harm” including “inevitable death,” according to the Washington Post.

Our medical malpractice injury law firm has handled misdiagnosis cases and we understand just how difficult and tragic they can be. For example, we represented a client who was misdiagnosed by emergency room physician. Our client reported to the emergency room complaining of headaches for eight days, nausea, vomiting, neck pain and sensitivity to bright lights. The emergency room doctor evaluated him, obtained a sample of his spinal fluid and decided that he was suffering from viral meningitis. He released our client with a prescription for pain medication. Over the next two days our client’s condition drastically worsened. He returned to the emergency department and was admitted to the hospital. He was ultimately diagnosed with fungal (cryptococcal) meningitis, a very serious and fatal disease. This disease resulted in severe neurological injuries to our client who is now permanently disabled. We understood the severity of this misdiagnosis and worked tirelessly to get our client the compensation he needed. Fortunately, we were able to settle this medical malpractice case in mediation for $650,000.00.

If you or your loved one was the victim of a medical misdiagnosis, take a look at this article which provides more in-depth information about this serious problem.

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Mark Favaloro