Personal Injury Archive

Duh. Watch College Kids React to Monster Energy Death News (Parent Alert!)

June 14th, 2013. By AbiK

Add energy drinks to the list of worries for parents sending kids off to college. Of course, energy drinks seem to pale when compared to sex, drugs, alcohol and all that comes with that trio of vices—from OD’ing, to date rape, to DUI’s. But that’s the thing—energy drinks seem…so…harmless, right? After all, they’re sold in convenience stores and vending machines right next to the bags of chips…

If the above news clip is any indication, energy drinks are quite popular on college campuses—and just as readily available as coffee. So why the fuss?

The fuss is due to a pending lawsuit against Monster Energy Drink that alleges that 14-year old Anais Fournier went into cardiac arrest and died after drinking two 24-ounce cans of Monster in less than 24 hours. (Check out our interview with attorney Kevin Goldberg of Goldberg, Finnegan & Mester–he’s one of the attorneys representing the Fournier’s).

And there’s also the lawsuit filed by San Francisco city attorney Dennis Herrera which claims the Monster caffeine levels can lead to elevated blood pressure, seizures and cardiac arrest. That’s all bad enough (if true) but the real fuss ought to be that Monster’s being marketed to kids. Your kids.

RELATED: SRSLY? ABA Rep Tries to Defend High Caffeine Energy Drinks #EpicFail

Let’s back up a moment. There was a time when college exam cram time meant coffee-infused study sessions, splashing your face with cold water and relying on whatever other natural means there were to stay awake and pull an all-nighter. Sure, some kids popped the occasional No-Doz (some still do)—not a good practice, but there’s a bit of a difference: when was the last time you saw No-Doz logos popping up all over black hoodies or on the “sponsor” list of latest batch of rad, gnarly, wicked or badass athletes?

Not remembering?

That would be because No-Doz doesn’t really market itself that way. It knows its place isn’t in the culture of cool. Monster Energy, however, does something different. By selling (allegedly) extreme caffeine in drink form rather than pill form, it’s tried to create a whole lifestyle around ramping things up a notch. Or two. Or three.

Here’s how the ‘guys’ at Monster talk about themselves (straight from their website):

In short, at Monster all our guys walk the walk in action sports, punk rock music, partying, hangin’ with the girls, and living life on the edge. Monster is way more than an energy drink. Led by our athletes, musicians, employees, distributors and fans, Monster is… 

A lifestyle in a can

Right. “Lifestyle in a can”. Live life on that edge, dude.

See, somehow when you put it in drink form, wrap the can in cool graphics, and get extreme sports icons to promote it, downing super-charged soda somehow becomes cool. The sexed up version of caffeine pills. And the marketers at Monster know that. They know how impressionable kids, pre-teens, teens and even twenty-somethings can be. I don’t know about you, but I haven’t seen any banner ads for Monster over at AARP. Why? Because your average grown-up over the age of 40 knows a soft drink loaded with caffeine is bullshit.

Monster markets to a gullible crowd—and one that thinks it’s invincible.

Unfortunately, if the allegations surrounding the Anais Fournier case prove true, and if reports on the increase in energy drink-related emergency room visits* are any indication, the very folks Monster is marketing to are not invincible. They’re vulnerable—first mentally for buying into this marketing crap, and possibly physically for drinking it.

As parents, sometimes it’s the more innocent-looking influences—the wolf in sheep’s clothing—that are more insidious than the stuff we’re reminded to be wary about on a daily basis.

*In 2011, the US Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) reported a tenfold spike in emergency room visits involving energy drinks. Approximately 70% of cases involving teens from ages 12 to 17 going to ER was due to energy drinks itself – without drugs or alcohol. Most hospitalizations are caused by dehydration, heat exhaustion and heart problems. A January 2013 update from DAWN indicates that from 2007 to 2011 the number of energy drink ER visits doubled, with 20,783 reported emergency room visits due to energy drink consumption in 2011.

Tags: Monster Energy Drink, Monster Energy Drink Lawsuit, Personal Injury, Wrongful Death
Posted in Emerging Issues, lawsuits, Personal Injury | No Comments »

Would You Kill this Dog? Rallying for the ‘Defense’ after a Dog Bite Injury

May 16th, 2013. By AbiK

A death sentence for a 7-year old Sheltie is causing a stir in upstate New York—so much so that there’s a Facebook page dedicated to getting a stay of execution for the pup. What’s interesting in this case, too, is that normally we hear of dog bite injury lawyers representing the dog bite victim; this time, the attorney is representing the dog owner.

Back on March 27th, Natalie Beratta’s dog, Jack (at left), bit her four-year-old granddaughter in the cheek. There were no witnesses to the attack except for the little girl—and she needed four stitches to close the wound. According to the “Help Save Jack” Facebook page, the cheek bite was Jack’s first offense (though one news report does quote Beratta referring to the dog as “nippy”; ok, a lot of dogs are “nippy”).

Hard to know what happened—some surmise the child may have startled or provoked the dog in some way. That we’ll never know. But the series of events that followed the dog bite injury have created a groundswell of support for the dog and his owners—including the sale of t-shirts that read, “I’ve got Jack’s back”.

So how did a dog who’s been described as “friendly” and “gentle” come to be on death row?

It all started with a 911 call.

Once Beratta’s daughter, the child’s mother, called 911, and the little girl was taken to the hospital where she was treated. The 911 call apparently resulted in the animal control officer, Nick Morosco, being notified, which then resulted in Jack winding up at the Steven Swans Humane Society where he was to be quarantined, by law, for ten days.

But things didn’t stop there.

The next stop was New Hartford (NY) Town Court. Beratta, according to the Facebook page, thought she was heading to court because Jack had not been licensed (note to dog owners—get your dog licensed, it’s the law), however, the license was the least of her worries. Rather, Judge James Van Slyke ruled that the dog should be put to death. The judge’s decision was in accordance with what NY law stipulates–that any domestic animal determined to be “dangerous” be euthanized.

Needless to say, the ruling came as a bit of a shock to Beratta and her family.

The family is now appealing the judge’s decision—which otherwise would’ve had Jack put down on April 6th. Until the appeal of the case is heard, Jack remains at Stevens Swan Humane Society, which WIBX950.com reports is costing the family $40 per day—and Jack may need to stay at the shelter for up to sixty days until the appeal is heard.

Given that the family didn’t have an attorney–why would they have thought they needed one?—and given the now costly and time-consuming position they now find themselves in in order to try and appeal the judge’s decision, what happened next is interesting.

According to the Facebook page, a New York attorney—who is only referred to as “Louis”—has taken on Jack’s case pro bono. Here is an excerpt from the Facebook page:

“An attorney by the name of Louis, read the article which was posted by Dana on the WKTV’s Facebook page and offered his services Pro-bono. Louis currently lives in NYC, but is originally from this area..and he obviously has a love for dogs!! He is a very busy man but has taken his time to help us with this case.”

Mind you, Beratta is just trying to keep Jack alive—she isn’t wanting to bring him back home and risk any other possible incidents. In fact, according to WKTV, Beratta has found a home for him in a neighboring county.

“They’re older people,” Beratta told WKTV. “They don’t have any children and we made the arrangement to have him go there and we can see the dog whenever we want. So it’s a safe situation for everybody. He’s a wonderful pet, a wonderful pet. I mean, he’s been in our family. He’s our family member.”

While Beratta awaits the appeal decision, local supporters of Jack have also created a petition at change.org.

 

Tags: Dog Bite Injury, Dog Bite Lawyer, Euthanasia, Jack, Natalie Beratta, New Hartford NY, Save Jack
Posted in Emerging Issues, Personal Injury | 10 Comments »

With Golf Cart Accidents on the Rise, how Stupid can you be in a Golf Cart?

May 6th, 2013. By AbiK

Apparently pretty stupid!

Given a top speed of around 15 miles per hour, golf carts aren’t exactly the speed racers that come to mind when you think about potentially dangerous accidents. But it’s that very image that can also create a false sense of safety for those who operate and/or ride in a golf cart.

Not all that long ago golf carts were simply that: carts used for playing golf. And they conjured up a speed demon image right up there with Fred Flintstone’s footmobile–only swapping out foot calluses for golf cleats. But with an increase in planned communities—particularly in Florida, California, Arizona, or Peachtree City, GA—as well as an increase in use on corporate and college campuses—golf carts have become more prevalent. And who ever imagined the day that homes would be built with custom golf cart garages?

Well, the increase in popularity has seemingly given way to an increase in golf cart injuries, too. According to an article in  Herald Tribune Golf (June, 2012), the American Journal of Preventive Medicine reported that injuries from being hit by or falling off of golf carts spiked 132 percent from 1990 to 2006. That translated to nearly 150,000 people, ranging in age from 2 months to 96 years, getting hurt in golf cart accidents over that time period.

Why the increase?

Let’s start with the fact that the golf cart is the new town cruiser—less work than a taking a bicycle; less of a pain than taking a car. But, unlike a car, in some states—Alabama, California, Iowa, Kansas, Rhode Island, and Vermont—the minimum age to sit behind the golf cart wheel is thirteen. In Florida, it’s fourteen. The rest of the states put the minimum age to drive a golf cart at fifteen. That’s not to say that a teen can’t be a responsible driver. But one only needs to take a look at the above video to understand how teen stupidity can contribute to a golf cart accident.

On the flip side, there’s no maximum driving age. Of course, it’s not like every state has an age limit—or even just a vision test—for older car drivers either. But it’s a safe bet that some elderly drivers should not be putting the pedal to the metal regardless of vehicle size or speed.

Unfortunately, golf cart accidents can lead to some pretty serious injuries—including death. A sharp turn, for example, can cause passengers to fall out leading to spinal injury, fracture or concussion. But even seemingly harmless behavior like hanging a leg out over the side of the golf cart or forgetting to put the brake in the locked position when getting out of the golf cart can lead to injury as well. And it goes without saying that once alcohol and/or drugs are involved, stupidity usually follows…

So now that golf cart season is actually all seasons, golf cart safety needs to become an all-season concern as well.

 

 

Tags: Back Injury, Concussion, Golf Cart Accident, Neck Injury, Personal Injury, Spine Injury
Posted in Emerging Issues, Personal Injury | No Comments »

Top 10 2012 FDA Consumer Health Update Topics

February 12th, 2013. By AbiK

Ever wonder what gets the most traffic over at the FDA website? According to an update at the Brandon Patch, more than 7.3 million people visited the Food and Drug Administration online last year to check out the consumer updates section of the website (fda.gov). What were they looking for? The following were the ten most popular topics readers sought out at the FDA. Many, as you’ll see, were topics covered at LawyersandSettlements.com as well.

Top 10 2012 FDA Consumer Health Update Topics

1. When to dispose of unused medicines–how long should medicines be kept and how to safely dispose of them.

2. Questions regarding potentially harmful presence of mercury in skin products sold illegally in U.S.

3. HCG diet products and their potential link to blood clots, depression and other harmful side effects.

4. Dietary supplement Hydroxycut, and its alleged connection to liver-related illness.

5. Questions over arsenic contained in rice.

6. Concerns over tattoo inks being linked to serious infection.

7. Safety concerns over the additive triclosan, which is commonly found in antibacterial lotions or hand sanitizers.

8. Thickening agents, like SimplyThick, which were connected to reports of infant deaths.

9. Statins and the risk of rhabdomyolysis and cardiomyopathy.

10. Finally, one for man’s best friend: information on the symptoms and treatment of Cushing’s disease in dogs.

Tags: Arsenic, FDA, HCG, Hydroxycut, Mercury, SimplyThick, statins, Tattoo Ink, Triclosan
Posted in Emerging Issues, Personal Injury | 1 Comment »

Stryker Hip Recall, Broadspire & the Meaning of Two Words

February 7th, 2013. By AbiK

Not since the days of Monica Lewinsky has parsing the meaning of a word—or two in this case—been worthy of such scrutiny. The words, “if necessary” in this “Claims & Reimbursement FAQs” link on the Stryker website should perhaps make any hip replacement patient who’s been affected by the Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II modular-neck hip stems recall suspect.

Why?

Well, a little walk down memory lane on LawyersandSettlements.com brings up a story we had published back when Broadspire was the third-party claims administrator brought in by J&J to handle DePuy hip replacement claims.

At the time, a Reuters article noted that the move means that Broadspire’s physicians—not the patient’s physician—will determine whether a hip should be replaced. This means that even if the patient’s physician recommends replacing the hip, if a Broadspire physician disagrees with the decision, Johnson & Johnson may not pay to cover the costs of that surgery.

So is history repeating itself?

Clearly by inserting the words “if necessary” in discussing defective hip replacement revision surgery reimbursements Broadspire retains the right to deem whether a revision surgery was necessary, or not; the “not” undoubtedly necessitating a denial—or reduction—of reimbursement.

What we’re hearing from attorneys like Ben Stewart of Stewart Law Group PLLC., who’s familiar with defective hip lawsuits, is that before a patient submits any paperwork with Broadspire—or signs anything—for a Stryker hip reimbursement claim, he or she should first talk to a lawyer.

 

Tags: Broadspire, Defective hip replacement, Hip Implant lawsuit, Hip Revision Surgery, Stryker Hip Recall, Stryker Rejuvenate Recall, stryker-orthopedics-rejuvenate-modular-hip-system
Posted in Defective Products, Drugs/Medical, lawsuits, Personal Injury | No Comments »