Posts tagged with "find an attorney"

Failure to Warn Case Against Generic Ibuprofen

Leave a reply

A federal appeals court has reinstated a lawsuit against the maker of a generic brand of ibuprofen. The lawsuit is on behalf of a child who suffered liver damage after taking the drug as prescribed after surgery. The case holds generic drug makers to the same labeling standard as makers of patented drugs. The case alleges failure to warn of ibuprofen risks by the drug maker. The court says the duty to warn applies to generic drug makers.

Drug Label Failed to Warn of Known Risk

Ibuprofen is a popular over-the-counter painkiller. The lawsuit says the drug is known to cause liver failure under some circumstances. The label contained no warnings about this potential side effect.

In 2009 the Supreme Court ruled drug makers can be sued for failing to warn of the risks of a medication even though the FDA has approved package or label warnings. This ruling makes clear the same standard applies to makers of the generic forms of the drug. Failure to warn is one of the main theories of product liability law.

By now everyone should be clear on the risks of liver damage associated with the two common aspirin alternatives. The FDA instructed drug makers to limit the amount of acetaminophen in prescription painkillers like oxycodone and hydrocodone. As this case shows, what you don’t know can hurt you.

By: Arthur Buono

–

If you have any questions relating to a personal injury claim or would like to schedule a free consultation, please contact Joseph Maya and the other experienced attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. at (203) 221-3100 or JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Nightclub Owners Agree to $4.2 Million Settlement in Wrong-Way Crash Case

Leave a reply
Case Background

The parents of Connecticut College student Elizabeth Durante reached a settlement in their wrongful death lawsuit against the owners of the Ultra 88 nightclub at Mohegan Sun Thursday for $4.2 million.

Durante, a 20-year-old aspiring medical student, had recruited fellow students for a humanitarian mission to Uganda during spring break in March 2009 and was en route to the airport when she was killed in a wrong-way collision on Interstate 395 that was caused by an intoxicated nightclub patron Daniel Musser.

Durante’s parents, Keith and Kathleen Durante of Islip, N.Y., had sued the club’s Boston-based owners, Plan B LLC, and the Lyons Group, and its permittee, Patrick Lyons, claiming the nightclub had acted recklessly and negligently.

The Durantes and attorneys involved in the case agreed they would not comment publicly on the settlement, the details of which were put on the record Thursday afternoon by Hartford Superior Court Judge William H. Bright Jr.

The Settlement

The judge released a jury that had listened to two days of evidence in the case before the parties agreed to the $4.2 million figure. In reaching the settlement in state court, the Durantes also agreed to release the nightclub backers from a case that is pending in Mohegan tribal court, according to a court transcript.

New London attorneys Robert I. Reardon Jr. and Kelly E. Reardon represented the Durantes. Attorneys Scott Behman, Frank Ganz and Domenick Secundo from the Wallingford law firm Behman Hambelton represented the club and its backers.

Musser, then a sailor stationed at the Naval Submarine Base in Groton, had been drinking at Ultra 88 for several hours before he drove the wrong way out of the casino in the early morning hours of March 7, 2009. Musser’s car collided head-on near Exit 79A on I-395 with a van carrying Durante and seven other students to Logan Airport.

Pretrial Settlement Discussion

Pretrial settlement talks were unsuccessful, so the sides selected a jury and testimony began Tuesday in Hartford Superior Court. Bartender Sarah Webster, who sold Musser several drinks at the nightclub before calling security to eject him for lewd behavior, had been on the witness stand for several hours when the settlement talks resumed.

Musser, who had a 0.13 blood alcohol level following the crash and is serving a 75-month sentence for second-degree manslaughter, was slated to testify on Friday had the trial continued.

Three other students and the van driver had also sued Ultra 88 and had settled their lawsuits during jury selection. The Durantes had initially sued Mohegan tribal officials, but a judge ruled they had sovereign immunity.

In late 2009, following the deaths of Durante and two others that occurred after patrons left the casino under the influence of alcohol, the tribe said it was expanding its measures to prevent drunken driving.

By Karen Florin, theday.com

–

If you have any questions relating an auto accident, wrongful death claim or would like to schedule a free consultation, please contact Joseph Maya and the other experienced attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. at (203) 221-3100 or JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Surviving Medical Malpractice

Leave a reply

It sometimes seems that friends and family are constantly in and out of doctor’s offices and hospitals.  We once went six months straight with a different friend in the hospital each month.  Hospitals are amazing places staffed by people whose job is to help you get better.  Unfortunately, that doesn’t always happen.  Sometimes people are beyond help.  Worse yet, sometimes the actions or inactions of the doctors or nurses can unnecessarily injure or kill a patient.  This happened to a friend of mine almost five years ago.  She is still paying off the medical bills from her hospitalization despite the fact that her doctor committed medical malpractice and she came within a few hours of dying.

So, what’s the problem, why is she paying off the bills, including the fees of the doctor that nearly killed her?  None of the attorneys she spoke to would take her case.  Why?  Because she lived.

Medical Malpractice Cases

That’s right.  If she had died they would have been happy to help her husband go after the people responsible, but because she lived they felt the damage wasn’t catastrophic enough.  Apparently weeks in the hospital, hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical bills that her insurance didn’t cover, and inability to work for about a year wasn’t catastrophic.  It was incomprehensible to me that medical professionals nearly killed her and then legal professionals did nothing to right the wrong.

I’ve done some research and discovered that my friend isn’t the only one who has been left out in the cold.  It turns out one of the reasons attorneys are so picky about the cases they accept is that it is very hard to win a medical malpractice case.  The things an attorney will consider in taking your case are:  liability, damages, and who would pay the damages.  If you think you have a potential medical malpractice claim, here are some things you should consider in deciding what to do next.

Do you live in a state that requires you to first try to work things out through mediation or arbitration? 

The process can vary from state to state so you may want to ask a legal professional in your state what to expect.

How long ago did this happen?

While there can be variants in different states’ statutes of limitations, if what happened was over two years ago you may find it hard to bring your claim now.  Seek the advice of a lawyer on this for your state’s particular rules and any factors that may extend the time you have to bring suit.

Was your doctor negligent? 

Negligence can come in many forms.  Common ones include: misdiagnosing a problem, failure to treat a problem correctly, giving the wrong medication, and failing to warn you of the risks of surgery or other procedures.  Of course, even if your doctor did misdiagnose you, that doesn’t automatically mean you can take him to court and win.  The question then becomes: was that a common enough misdiagnosis that other doctors would have made the same mistake?  That leads to the next question.

How would your doctor’s actions compare to those of other doctors? 

If the average practitioner would have done the exact same thing, you’re probably not going to be able to win a lawsuit.  Your doctor’s actions have to be judged in light of a standard of care observed by doctors.  This guarantees that you can’t go after a doctor just because he isn’t on the cutting edge of research or number one in his field.  If your doctor’s actions were in line with accepted medical practice, then he’s probably covered.  However, if other doctors are surprised or perplexed by the actions of the one who caused your injury, you might be able to bring a case against him.

What damages did you suffer? 

This is another one of those fuzzy areas.  Of course, some damages such as medical bills are obvious.  However, you also need to think in terms of loss of ability, pain and suffering and what the short and long term effects will be.  What makes this difficult is that this varies greatly from person to person.  For example, loss of a toe for a professional dancer could be much more catastrophic than for a banker.  The physical marring and the loss of balance could negatively impact a dancer’s work and income whereas a banker should be able to do his work just fine without the toe.

There are a lot of factors that affect a medical malpractice case.  If you think you have one, seek out an attorney as soon as possible.  Keep in mind the above list so you know what to ask and what to expect from the meeting.  Don’t be too shocked if the attorney refuses to take your case.  Do seek out a second opinion, just like you would from a doctor!

However, if multiple attorneys tell you the same thing then the best thing you can do for yourself is let it go.  Work on recovering physically and financially as fast as you can.  A lawyer can help you work out the details of your medical financial obligations and how to best handle them.  The important thing is to do what you can to minimize the impact and get on with the rest of your life and do your best to thrive, not just survive!

By: lawyers.com

–

If you have any questions relating to a personal injury claim or would like to schedule a free consultation, please contact Joseph Maya and the other experienced attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. at (203) 221-3100 or JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

‘Distracted Doctoring’ a Danger to Patients

Leave a reply
Distractions From Patient Care

A survey found that 55 percent of technicians monitoring bypass machines admitted to talking on cell phones during surgery. Half admitted to texting while in surgery. A widely read editorial in Anesthesiology News by Peter J. Papadakos, MD, says health care workers today are “fixated on computer screens” and rarely receive information directly from their patients. Papadakos referred to a study presented to the American Society of Anesthesiologists this year that said nurse anesthetists and residents were distracted by something other than patient care in 54 percent of cases. The study further cited surfing the Internet as the primary distraction. All of these distractions serve as a potential danger to patients.

Additionally, a report in The New York Times cited polls of medical professionals in which a majority of respondents admitted using cellphones during critical procedures. The Times cited a survey of medical technicians published in Perfusion, a journal about cardio-pulmonary bypass surgery, which found that 55 percent of technicians who monitor bypass machines acknowledged talking on cell phones during heart surgery and half said they had texted while in surgery.

“Why does anyone carry a cell phone into an operating room?” Patrick A. Salvi, managing equity partner of Salvi, Schostok & Pritchard P.C. in Chicago, asked. “The patient on the table deserves the undivided attention of everyone in that room.”

Malpractice of Healthcare Workers

Salvi, a medical malpractice attorney, expressed concern that healthcare workers’ increased reliance on electronic devices has become a distraction that has led to medical errors and injuries.

“We’re dismayed by reports that say doctors, nurses, technicians and others providing medical care are spending too much time focused on smartphones, computer screens and other devices when they should be paying attention to their patients.” “We’re not against the use of electronic devices for delivery of medical records or even personal communication, but it is absolutely crucial that a focus on the patient is not dropped from the accepted standards of medical care,” said Salvi.

Anyone believing their injuries or the injury or death of a loved one in a hospital or another medical setting may have been caused by medical errors resulting from distraction should contact an experienced medical malpractice attorney immediately.

By: Larry Bodine

–

If you have any questions relating to a medical malpractice claims, medical negligence or injury, or a personal injury claim or would like to schedule a free consultation, please contact Joseph Maya and the other experienced attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. at (203) 221-3100 or JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

State Lawmaker Involved in Car Accident Lawsuit Accused of Drunk Driving

Leave a reply

A personal injury lawsuit filed this week accuses Connecticut State Rep. Christina Ayala of fleeing the scene of an accident caused by her own drunk driving, according to a report from the Norwich Bulletin.

Sources say the lawsuit, filed by 26-year-old Krystal Valez, claims that Ayala was under the influence of alcohol when she ran her car into a vehicle driven by Valez. The lawsuit also alleges that Ayala fled the scene of the accident.

The accident in question occurred last August, when Ayala’s 2007 Nissan Sentra allegedly struck a 2002 Honda Accord being driven by Valez.

Ayala allegedly fled the scene of the accident, but a person who witnessed the crash followed her car and eventually forced her to pull over about six blocks from the location of the collision, according to sources.

When Ayala was questioned by officers after the accident, she claimed that she tried to check on Valez following the collision, but that she decided to leave the scene because she felt “scared” due to the presence of a man who was screaming at her.

Car Accident Lawsuit

Interestingly, when police took Ayala into custody, they did not test her for alcohol, because they claimed she did not appear to be intoxicated. Nevertheless, the lawsuit filed by Valez alleges that Ayala was drunk at the time of the crash.

The plaintiff claims that she suffered back injuries and a concussion as a result of the accident, and that her medical costs amount to roughly $11,000.

Valez, however, will have to refute the testimony of Ayala’s father, Alberto Ayala, who claims that his daughter had not been drinking before the accident, according a statement given to the Connecticut Post.

Of course, Alberto Ayala has every incentive to make this claim, because not only is he the driver’s father, he is also named as a defendant in the car accident lawsuit.

Unfortunately for Christina Ayala, a native of Bridgeport, Connecticut, the pending personal injury lawsuit is the least of her legal concerns.

Sources say Ayala, who is serving her first term in the state legislature, was officially charged with failing to renew her driver’s registration, failing to obey a traffic signal, and evading responsibility.

During her latest court hearing, Ayala was told by her judge that she could accept a plea bargain offered by prosecutors or stand trial for her criminal counts.

Under the plea deal, Ayala would receive a suspended sentence and have an extended period of probation. Sources say Ayala has three weeks to make her choice.

By JClark, totalinjury.com

–

If you have any questions relating to a personal injury claim or would like to schedule a free consultation, please contact Joseph Maya and the other experienced attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. at (203) 221-3100 or JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Woman Injured in Rail Crash Files Train Accident Lawsuit

Leave a reply

A 65-year-old woman who was injured in a dramatic train crash last month in Connecticut has filed a negligence lawsuit against Metro-North Railroad, according to a report from ABC News.

Sources say the woman, Elizabeth Sorenson, a resident of Bridgeport, Connecticut, suffered multiple bone fractures and remains in critical condition as doctors tend to a severe brain injury.

The lawsuit was the first claim filed by a victim of the crash that occurred on May 17. According to sources, the crash injured more than 70 people.

Sorenson’s personal injury attorney told sources that he filed the lawsuit in federal court in order to gain access to witnesses that observed the accident and to allow families of the victims to become involved in the investigation.

Sources expect more lawsuits to eventually be filed in the wake of the massive train accident, which happened at 6:10 p.m. on a weekday as the train carried 300 passengers from New York’s Grand Central Station to New Haven, Connecticut.

The train reportedly derailed near a highway overpass in the town of Bridgeport, and was then struck by a train holding 400 passengers that was headed the opposite direction.

The Damage Caused by the Accident

The damage caused by the accident was “absolutely staggering,” according to Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal, as he observed the scene. Sources say parts of the roof of some of the train cars had been torn off, and that some of the tracks were noticeably twisted.

Three people remain in critical condition after the accident, and the National Transportation Safety Board has launched a full investigation into the wreck.

Thus far, investigators have yet to isolate the cause of the accident, but the impact was so severe, some passengers initially thought it may have been caused by a bomb.

“We came to a sudden halt. We were jerked. There was smoke. People were screaming; people were really nervous. We were pretty shaken up. They had to smash a window to get us out,” said one passenger traveling from New York.

Another passenger told local sources that they “went flying” and reported that “one entire compartment was completely ripped open.”

Most of the 70 passengers who were injured received prompt treatment at the site of the accident, but three victims are still in critical condition, according to reports.

According to report from train officials, the tracks involved in the collision suffered “extensive infrastructure damage,” and the train involved in the accident will “need to be removed by crane” following a thorough investigation.

By JClark, totalinjury.com

–

If you have any questions relating to a personal injury claim or would like to schedule a free consultation, please contact Joseph Maya and the other experienced attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. at (203) 221-3100 or JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

$825,000 Verdict for Injuries from Truck Accident

Leave a reply

In a personal injury trial in the Stamford Superior Court a woman received $825,000 for injuries to her head and neck suffered in a collision with a large truck.

Case Details

The case involved a motor vehicle accident whereby, the plaintiff, Mrs. Hutter, was hit from behind by a large beer truck owned by DiChello Distributors. As a result of the collision, Mrs. Hutter sustained a number of serious injuries including injuries to her head and neck. She also sustained a mild traumatic brain injury.

During the course of a three week trial, the plaintiff presented a substantial number of witnesses to establish the significance of the impact and the extent of the injuries. The experts included an accident reconstruction expert from Maryland, a bio-mechanical expert from Virginia, a neurologist, a psychiatrist and a neuropsychologist.

In addition to the various expert witness, Mrs. Hutter also presented testimony from her friends who knew her before the time of the accident and were able to explain to the jury the significant change in Mrs. Hutter that occurred as a result of the incident.

The Verdict

After three weeks of evidence, the jury deliberated for two and one-half days and then rendered a verdict in favor of Mrs. Hutter in the amount of $825,000 including over $500,000 for compensation for her pain and suffering.

–

If you have any questions relating to a personal injury claim or would like to schedule a consultation, please contact Joseph Maya and the other experienced attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. at (203) 221-3100 or JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Medical Devices Hurting Kids

Leave a reply

Medical Devices –  from contact lenses to insulin pumps – injure about 70,000 children each year in the United States. A study published in the journal Pediatrics Monday is the first to compile data on the injuries. The increasing use of medical devices designed for adults in children concerns researchers.

  • A groundbreaking study of hospital admissions estimates over 70,000 injuries yearly
  • Many injuries linked to improper handling or care of medical devices by patients
  • Concerns over pediatric use of adult devices
Many Injuries Preventable, Some Tradeoffs Made

Contact lenses caused one-quarter of the injuries counted. Many of these were minor infections or scratches caused by kids failing to clean their contacts carefully or wearing them too long. Devices also caused some serious injuries. Some devices allow children to be treated at home instead of in the hospital. Sometimes parents lack the skill or knowledge to handle the devices properly. The idea that some of the injuries may be the result of adult devices being used in children raises questions of defective design by manufacturers and malpractice by caregivers.

As doctors and healthcare use medical devices more frequently to treat patients, litigation over injures the devices cause also increases. Very often the litigation takes the form of a class action. In a class action, the claims of numerous people who’ve been injured by the same device or drug are combined in one lawsuit. Injured persons may choose to join the lawsuit or go it alone.

Class actions involving persons injured by medical devices will involve some form of a product liability claim. Individual claims relating to devices might also involve a theory of medical malpractice or negligence. The increase in malpractice and products liability cases continues to stoke the health care and tort reform debate.

By: Arthur Buono

–

If you have any questions relating to a medical malpractice claim, medical injury, personal injury claim or would like to schedule a free consultation, please contact Joseph Maya and the other experienced attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. at (203) 221-3100 or JMaya@Mayalaw.com to schedule a consultation today.

Firing to Prevent Pension Vesting, Without More, Does Not Violate ADEA

Leave a reply

In this economy, companies are terminating employees in an effort to increase share value or simply improve the bottom line.  Often it is the older, more senior, and more costly employees that are the first to go.  The question sometimes arises: “Can my employer fire me to prevent my pension from vesting (thereby saving itself money) without violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act?”  The short and surprising answer is “yes,” assuming the absence of other critical allegations necessary to sustain an ADEA claim.

A Relevant Case

In a case out of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, a Connecticut employee alleged in his Complaint only that “he was fired by defendants because he was nearing the age of retirement.”  The lower court dismissed this claim and the appellate court affirmed because this was the only fact alleged in the Complaint as evidence of age discrimination.  The United States Supreme Court has held that the firing of an employee to prevent his pension benefits from vesting does not, without more, violate the ADEA.

What essential allegations were missing?  In order to prevail, the plaintiff had to allege facts evincing that his employer was using pension status as a proxy for age, in order to discriminate on the basis of age.  How could he do that?  One way would be to plead and prove that his pension vested due to age and not years of service.  While age and years of service are empirically connected, the Supreme Court has said that they are “analytically distinct.”  What the Complaint lacked were additional allegations supporting a claim of age discrimination, for a successful ADEA plaintiff must prove that age actually motivated the employer’s decision.

The take-away from this case is that victims of age discrimination should consult with an experienced employment law litigator to ensure that an actionable claim is properly alleged in a Complaint.  In the case referred to above, it is impossible to say whether the plaintiff would have prevailed with a more artfully crafted Complaint.  What we do know is that his bare-bones Complaint was dismissed as insufficient without ever being heard on its merits.

–

The employment law attorneys in the Westport, Connecticut office of Maya Murphy, P.C. have extensive experience in the negotiation and litigation of all sorts of employment-related disputes and assist clients from Greenwich, Stamford, New Canaan, Darien, Norwalk, Westport and Fairfield in resolving such issues. Please contact Joseph Maya and the other experienced attorneys at our Westport office at 203-221-3100 or JMaya@Mayalaw.com to schedule a consultation today.

Hurdles Employees Must Jump in Filing a Claim for Unlawful Discrimination

Leave a reply

Here in Connecticut and across the nation, employees from all walks of life routinely face unlawful discriminatory practices and treatment in the workplace. Depending on the nature of the claim, he or she may file civil lawsuits under Title VII (which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin) or the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA).

However, employees need to keep in mind that before they seek recourse with the courts, they must first exhaust all of their administrative remedies. “The exhaustion requirement exists to afford the administrative agency the opportunity to investigate, mediate, and take remedial action.”[1] Failure to do so will result in dismissal of the case.

CFEPA Title VII

Furthermore, employees must pay attention to statutory time restrictions for filing administrative charges under Title VII and CFEPA:

To sustain a claim for unlawful discrimination under Title VII in a deferral state such as Connecticut, a plaintiff must file administrative charges with the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunities Commission] within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory acts.[2] … CFEPA requires that a complainant file the administrative charge with the CCHRO [Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities] within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory act.[3]

Courts are particularly cognizant of these requirements and endorse “strict adherence… [as] the best guarantee of the evenhanded administration of the law.”[4] As a result, the time bar will begin running for each individual adverse employment action against the employee on the date it occurred. Failure to timely file a claim may prevent it from being reviewed by the EEOC or CCHRO.

However, employees often endure discriminatory practices over a prolonged period of time, so even if alleged conduct falls outside of the charging period, it may be reviewable. An important exception to strict adherence is the continuing violation exception, which involves incidents occurring both within and outside the time bar. A continuing violation occurs “where there is proof of specific ongoing discriminatory policies or practices, or where specific and related instances of discrimination are permitted by the employer to continue unremedied for so long as to amount to a discriminatory policy or practice.”[5]

–

As an employee, it is imperative that you understand Connecticut’s statutory scheme surrounding hiring, evaluation, and termination processes, as well as the requirements for filing a lawsuit under State and federal anti-discrimination law. The attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C., assist clients in Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, and Westport.

If you have any questions regarding any employment law matter, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya. He may be reached at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport, Connecticut (located in Fairfield County) by telephone at (203) 221-3100 or by email at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

 

[1] Stewart v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, 762 F.2d 193, 198 (2d. Cir. 1985).

[2] Flaherty v. Metromail Corp., 235 F.3d 133, 136 n.1 (2d Cir. 2000).

[3] Connecticut General Statutes § 46a-82e.

[4] Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807, 826 (1980).

[5] Cornwell v. Robinson, 23 F.3d 694, 704 (2d Cir. 1994).