Ride the Ducks Accident Settles, Some Question Canopy Safety

May 17th, 2012. By AbiK

The recent multimillion-dollar Ride the Ducks settlement serves as a stark reminder that even the most seemingly innocent of rides can spell disaster. Ride the Ducks—those amphibious vehicles that have become a tourist attraction at a number of locations across the US—would appear to be a pretty tame ride compared to what’s on tap at your local Six Flags theme park—that is, of course, if your eardrums can withstand the continual honking of the duck quack whistles all Ride the Ducks passengers receive (see below right).

Unfortunately though, for two Hungarian students who were visiting Philadelphia in July, 2010, their Ride the Ducks experience ended in death—and wrongful death lawsuits.

The duck boat, which in the Philly location drive-swims into the Delaware River, had had a mechanical failure and was floating adrift in the river when it was struck by a tugboat-guided barge. Sixteen year old Dora Schwendtner and twenty-year old Szabolcs Prem both drowned following the incident.

Both the Ride the Ducks tour company and the tugboat operator were sued—and the tugboat pilot, Matthew Devlin, was sentenced to a year in prison after pleading guilty to misconduct of a ship operator. (Both defendants had blamed each other for the accident.)

The Ride the Ducks Philly tour boats are back in the water—they’ve been given the ok by the US Coast Guard–but not everyone thinks they’re the safest things on the water. The boats have canopies—which, having been on one in the dead of summer, was a welcome relief from the glaring sun. However, in the event of capsize, the canopy could become a trap leaving passengers struggling to free themselves from underneath it while under water. The irony of it is that it might be easier to escape a canopy trap without having a life jacket on–but, of course,  no one would advocate not wearing a life jacket.

The Ride the Ducks settlement was for $15 million, to be split by both families of the victims. A $2 million fund was also set up for 18 other passengers who survived the duck boat accident. At the time of the accident, there were approximately 4o people onboard the duck boat.

Actos Lawsuit Angles: How Many Can You Come Up With?

May 14th, 2012. By AbiK

If you’ve tried to figure out what’s going on with Actos—and more specifically, Actos lawsuits–you’ve probably found it can get a bit confusing. This drug has more lawsuit angles now than a tetrahedron. So here’s a list of Actos lawsuit angles:

Actos Bladder Cancer Lawsuits

Actos bladder cancer lawsuits are not class action lawsuits. These are lawsuits filed by individuals who allege they now have bladder cancer because of taking Actos to treat their type 2 diabetes.

When there are many individual lawsuits claiming similar injury (i.e., Actos bladder cancer) brought on by the same defendant(s), it’s a mass tort not a class action. The reason for that is because even though all the victims have bladder cancer, each individual case will be different—for example, the extent of harm will be different from one victim to another, and any damages paid needs to reflect that. In a class action lawsuit, everyone in the class receives the same exact damages.

Typically, parts of a mass tort that are in common across all injured parties will be consolidated into what’s called ‘multi-district litigation’ (MDL). Once the common aspects of all the lawsuits have been resolved, any individual lawsuit differences can be addressed.

Actos Class Action Lawsuit

While there is not an Actos class action lawsuit for bladder cancer injury itself, there has been an Actos class action filed that alleges Takeda, the manufacturer of Actos, engaged in wrongful conduct when it designed, manufactured and marketed the drug–because the drug wound up being linked to bladder cancer and getting an FDA warning because of it.

Actos Whistleblower Lawsuit

Moving right along, a former consultant for Takeda, Dr. Helen Ge, came forward in a whistleblower lawsuit stating that Takeda knew about and yet either did not report or underreported cases of both Actos bladder cancer and Actos myocardial infarction (i.e., Actos heart attack).

According the lawsuit, Ge asserted that “Takeda instructed its medical reviewers not to report hundreds of non-hospitalized or non-fatal congestive heart failure cases as ‘serious adverse events and thus avoided its responsibility of accurately analyzing and reporting these hundreds of serious adverse events to the FDA.

Actos Heart Attack Lawsuit

Like the song “One Thing Leads to Another”, the Actos whistleblower lawsuit sheds light on another potential Actos lawsuit angle: myocardial infarction. Initally, in 2007, the FDA placed a warning on Actos (and Avandia) for congenital heart failure. That warning, however, did not include mention of mycardial infarction (i.e., heart attack). Yet, there had been complaints of Actos heart attack, and those complaints more or less hung in limbo. With Dr. Ge stepping forward, however, it would appear that her allegations could spell more lawsuits for Takeda—this time from Actos heart attack victims. If, in fact, Takeda knew that there was an increased risk for myocardial infarction given their own adverse event reports but did not report that risk, the potential for additional Actos lawsuits is there.

And that could perhaps mean a whole other Actos lawsuit…in the form of an Actos class action. After all, remember how Takeda aggressively advertised that it was a “safer” alternative to Avandia once Avandia took the hit for heart side effects? Stay tuned.

Attorney James Kowalski: Pioneer Against Mortgage Robo-Signing

May 14th, 2012. By BrendaC

Lawyers Giving Back Profile: Attorney James Kowalski, Jr.

Attorney James Kowalski, Jr. saw his first “robo-signing” case ten years ago, and it’s fair to say he’s been a pioneer in the fight to save thousands of Americans from illegal lawsuits launched by the mortgage and debt service industry. Much of that work Kowalski has done on his own time.

In 2002, Kowalski was handling a foreclosure case for client. The bank had rejected his client’s cashier’s check—and claimed he was in arrears.

Kowalski was surprised when he solicited a routine affidavit from a GMAC bank employee who was supposed to have firsthand knowledge of the client’s case. “She had not reviewed any of the documents,” he says.

As it turns out, Kowalski had found one of the first known cases of “robo-signing”.

“What typically happens in a robo perjury case is that the witness reviews a computer screen that is usually populated by some other department—and the numbers on the screen match the documents they will sign,” says Kowalski. “And in many cases they actually don’t look at the screen, they just look to see their name is printed correctly.”

Two years ago, Kowalski was asked to address the House Judiciary Committee in Washington. As he waited for his turn, Kowalski sat dumb-founded as he listened to a panel of regulators testify.

“Every one of them said that they were not aware of the practices,” says Kowalski. “We were there to talk about things we had been living with for most of a decade—as just a normal part of any litigation in foreclosures in particular. So it was odd to hear these government regulators that are charged with supervising the servicing industry and compare that with those of us that actually litigate against the servicing industry—I just thought that was interesting.”

Kowalski was recently named as the winner of a Florida Bar Association Pro Bono service award. He was also named as the Consumer Protection Lawyer of the Year in 2011.

“I don’t track my hours,” says a very modest Kowalski. “I do a mix of cases involving foreclosures, credit card collection defense and some other legal aid someone may ask me to look at.”

“Especially with the foreclosures it is nice to make a change in those cases—because it is an enormous amount of stress that these people go through,” Kowalski adds.

Despite Kowalski’s efforts, and the efforts of others, robo-signing still continues. “It will take change by the regulators to end the practice,” Kowalski says.

James Kowalski is a former death penalty prosecutor now in private practice in Jacksonville, Florida. He handles serious personal injury cases, consumer litigation (including mortgage foreclosure defense cases, credit card and other debt collection defense cases), class actions, and business-to-business issues.

Asbestos News Roundup: 5.10.12 – Car Mechanic Asbestos Exposure

May 10th, 2012. By LucyC

A roundup of recent asbestos-related news and information that you should be aware of. An ongoing list of reported asbestos hot spots in the US from the Asbestos News Roundup archive appears on our asbestos map.

Car mechanics—the unsung heroes that keep us mobile—are among the groups of people who are at risk and were at risk for asbestos exposure. This is because brake pads and liners were made with asbestos. Auto mechanics who worked with grinding machines to smooth out those brake liners and pads, would have been exposed to asbestos.

According to a study by the Environmental Protection Agency that looked at the risk for asbestos exposure during regrinding of old brake linings, as many as 7 million asbestos fibers per cubic meter can become airborne and saturate the area around the grinding machine, while it’s in use. If the mechanic was grinding new brake pads, the exposure was estimated at 5 million asbestos fibers per cubic meter.

These fibers would be inhaled, not just by the people working the machines but also by anyone nearby. If this type of exposure was routine—it would or could result in asbestos disease such as asbestos mesothelioma, asbestosis and worse.

In a ruling this week in San Francisco, four asbestos lawsuits brought by mechanics and their families in 2007 and 2008 against the manufacturer of a brake shoe grinding machine, have been reinstated. All the mechanics had developed asbestos disease.

Asbestos Lawsuits

San Francisco, CA: Four lawsuits filed by asbestos victims, against a manufacturer of brake shoe grinding machines, have been reinstated by a state appeals court in San Francisco. The lawsuits claim that the machines released the lethal fibers from brake linings. The lawsuits were filed in 2007 and 2008, by a former mechanic who suffers from asbestosis and by families of three people who, after years of exposure to asbestos, died of asbestos-related cancer.

All the plaintiffs allege the asbestos was generated from brake shoe linings by grinding machines made by Hennessy Industries, the defendant in the lawsuits. Hennessy, based in Tennessee, manufactures wheel service equipment.

This latest ruling effectively overturns an earlier decision made by Superior Court Judge Harold Kahn in June 2010, which dismissed the four asbestos lawsuits, based on Kahn’s ruling that asbestos was not used in by Hennessy in its machines, and so was not responsible for the asbestos illness and injuries detailed in the lawsuits.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the First District Court of Appeal, having reviewed the lawsuits, stated the sole purpose of Hennessy’s machines was to grind brake linings, inevitably releasing the asbestos they contained. “When used as designed and intended, Hennessy’s machines caused the release of the toxic agent,” said Presiding Justice Barbara Jones in the 3-0 ruling.” (sfgate.com)

Jefferson County, TX: The daughter of the late Joyce Venable has filed an asbestos lawsuit alleging Chevron USA and Texaco, exposed her father to asbestos. The lawsuit states “As a result of such exposure, Joyce Venable developed an asbestos-related disease, esophageal cancer, from which he died a painful and terrible death on May 23, 2010.”

According to the lawsuit, Venable was employed by Texaco in Jefferson County, where he was exposed to asbestos. The lawsuit claims that Chevron USA and Texaco knew for decades that asbestos products were harmful and still allowed their employees to work with them without warning. (setexasrecord.com)

Charleston, WV: A couple from Florida is suing 30 companies they claim are responsible for a malignant mesothelioma diagnosis of Barbara E. Amick. Mrs. Amick was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, according to the lawsuit, on December 13, 2011.

The asbestos lawsuit alleges the 39 defendants are responsible for the diagnosis because they exposed her to asbestos during her employment in the accounts and sales departments from 1952 until 1977.

Amick claims she was further exposed to asbestos during home renovations in the 1950s and 1960s at her and her husband’s home in Vienna, WV.

According to the lawsuit, the actions of the defendants were negligent. Amick and her husband, Eldon E. Amick, are seeking compensatory and punitive damages with pre- and post-judgment interest. The 39 companies named as defendants in the suit are: Allied Glove Corporation; American Electric Power Company, Inc.; Brand Insulations, Inc.; CBS Corp.; Certainteed Corporation; Copes-Vulcan, Inc.; Crane Co.; Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc.; Ebasco Services Incorporated; Fairmont Supply Company; Famous Furnace & Supply Co.; F.B. Wright Company; FMC Corporation; Flowserve US, Inc.; General Electric Company; General Refractories Company; George V. Hamilton, Inc.; Georgia-Pacific, LLC; Grinnell Corporation; Goulds Pumps, Inc.; IMO Industries, Inc.; Ingersoll Rand Company; International Harvester Company; I.U. North America, Inc.; J.H. France Refractories Company; McJunkin Corporation; Mahoning Valley Supply Co.; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Nitro Industrial Coverings, Inc.; Ohio Valley Electric Corporation; Pittsburgh Gage & Supply Company; Safety First Industries, Inc.; SepCo Corporation; Spirax SarCo Company, Inc.; Tasco Insulations, Inc.; Union Carbide Corporation; Vimasco Corporation; Warren Pumps, Inc.; and Yarway Corporation.

Tennis Balls Get their Fuzz Up in Top Seed Lawsuit

May 7th, 2012. By AbiK

We’re over a month away from Wimbledon, but there’s plenty of action on the court for tennis fans. Make that in the court as Penn delivers an offensive lob over to Dunlap in the form of a false advertising lawsuit. Seems Dunlap has had the balls (too easy, had to take it) to dub itself the “World’s No. 1 Ball” and the company also claims to have a 70% share of the worldwide tennis ball market. Apparently, Penn (owned by Head USA, Inc.) doesn’t agree.

Note, fwiw, Penn dubs itself as “America’s No. 1 Selling Ball”.

The tennis ball lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Connecticut also includes charges that Dunlap had previously agreed to stop using “No. 1” in its advertising, but hasn’t done so.

For those who are interested, the United States Tennis Association (USTA) publishes a list of “USTA-approved” tennis balls each year. And, in true diplomatic fashion, the list of brands is shown in alphabetical order—clearly they’re not stepping into the clay, er fray, by showing any favoritism to either ball brand.

No word from Wilson in the matter—but let’s face it, they had their hands full last week making commemorative NFL Draft footballs. And Prince? Well, they just filed for bankruptcy.