Medical Injury Lawyer Blog : Houston Medical Injury Lawyer & Attorney : Arnold & Itkin Law Firm : Pharmaceutical Injuries, Medical Devices : Texas, Dallas, Fort Worth, San Antonio

Pipelines criss-cross North America, bringing critical liquids and gases from distant producers to manufacturers, shippers, and consumers across the continent.  With pipelines' prevalence, though, comes the ever-present hazard of dangerous equipment failures and pipeline ruptures, which can expose nearby workers and the public to explosive blasts and toxic chemicals.  Unfortunately, recent history has shown that pipeline accidents are all too common.

This week, two catastrophic pipeline ruptures resulted in back-to-back explosions in Texas.  Both produced fatalities and injuries among workers at the blast sites.

On June 7, one person was killed and several others injured when a work crew assigned to dig holes for the installation of utility poles struck a 36-inch natural gas pipeline in a rural area some 50 miles southwest of Dallas.  The explosion rocked the countryside, while the subsequent intense heat of the raging fire prevented emergency responders from approaching the site for some two hours.

The following day, another explosion erupted in the Texas panhandle near Darrouzett, just south of the state's border with Oklahoma.  According to media reports, in that accident a bulldozer operator struck a natural gas pipeline as a work crew was removing clay from a pit for a dirt-contracting company.  In the ensuing explosion, two men died and at least three others were injured.

The injuries to these workers, unfortunately, can be expected to be the same as those experienced by all types of industrial workers who are subjected to explosive blasts.  They can include physical harm due to blast injuries (primary, secondary, tertiary and quaternary), burns (first degree, second degree, or third degree), smoke inhalation (injury from potentially scorching air and toxic combustion byproducts), and broken bones and soft tissue injuries of all types and severities.

Accident victims also may suffer intense emotional injuries after being involved in or witnessing a horrific accident such as a catastrophic explosion.  Many will suffer the anxiety condition known as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which can require professional diagnosis and care to alleviate the potentially debilitating symptoms.

It's important that every victim of a pipeline explosion consult with a skilled and experienced industrial accident attorney.  A lawyer familiar with industrial accident cases can promptly evaluate a victim's potential claims and advise about an accident victim's rights to seek fair compensation for harms suffered.

If you or a family member has suffered a serious injury due to a catastrophic event, call Arnold & Itkin LLP toll free at (866) 222-2606 or contact us online using the form on this page. We can provide a free evaluation of your case.

• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On the night of April 20th, an explosion rocked the oil and gas rig Deepwater Horizon as it performed exploratory drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico.  The explosion led to a raging fire that ultimately doomed the immense platform.  Efforts to save the Deepwater Horizon failed as, less than two days after the explosion, the semisubmersible rig sank in 5,000 feet of water.

Houston maritime injury lawyer Kurt Arnold discussed the dangers facing maritime workers in the petroleum industry during an interview with the Houston Chronicle a short time after the explosion. “Unfortunately, the rise of incidents offshore are increasing as the exploration for oil and gas increases,” Arnold said. “Many companies talk about their safety record, but the majority of accidents are not reported or misclassified. Unlike on land, there is little oversight.”

In the case of the Deepwater Horizon, 115 of the rig's 126 workers safely evacuated.  The remaining eleven have yet to be found.

What is known, however, is that at least 17 of the evacuated workers arrived onshore with injuries.  For four of the workers, the injuries were described as critical.

What sorts of injuries might be involved?  They are almost certainly the same as those suffered by so many maritime workers exposed to the risks and dangers of the offshore oil and gas production industry.  The most serious of these include physical harm such as blast injuries, burns, smoke inhalation, broken bones, and soft tissue injuries.  Each type of physical injury raises distinct concerns for the victim.

Accident victims also may suffer emotional injuries after witnessing an event such as the Deepwater Horizon explosion and fire.

Blast Injuries

In the case of an explosion, victims are subject to suffer four categories of harm:

•  A primary blast injury results from the intense shockwave of an explosion as it passes by the victim.  Primary blast injuries from a powerful explosion typically cause internal bleeding and serious organ damage.  Most at risk are a person's lungs, abdominal organs, and ears.  Because blast injuries to these organs often aren't obvious from the outside, they can go undetected, many times until it's too late.  Expert diagnosis and prompt treatment are critical.

•  Secondary blast injuries are those caused when a victim is struck by objects that have been hurled into the air by an explosion.  Common injuries are blunt trauma and penetrating wounds.

•  Tertiary injuries are those that result when the victim's body is hurled against other objects by the force of the blast.  Tertiary injuries often include broken bones, blunt trauma, and even traumatic amputations.

•  Quaternary injuries include all other types of injuries that might happen from exposure to the effects of a blast, such as crush injuries, burns, and respiratory injuries.

All categories of blast injury can result in neurological damage such as concussions or, worse yet, traumatic brain injury.

Thus, any workers who were near the explosion that occurred on the Deepwater Horizon may have suffered a wide variety of significant, serious injuries, ranging from internal hemorrhaging and organ damage, hearing damage, broken bones, penetrating wounds, and lacerations, among others.

Burns

The intense fire that followed the Deepwater Horizon explosion naturally put nearby workers at grave risk of burns, whether first degree (superficial and somewhat painful), second degree (deeper into the skin and often very painful), or third degree (reaching all the way through the layers of the skin, but often less painful because the skin's nerve endings are destroyed).  Depending upon the category of burn, and the amount of a victim's skin that is affected, burns can be disfiguring, disabling, or even life-threatening.

Smoke inhalation

Smoke inhalation often accompanies burn injuries.  The result can be serious damage to a person's lungs and airways due to the intensely hot air in a fiery environment, the toxic substances given off in a fire, or both.  Victims can be afflicted with anything from simple coughing after a mild exposure to smoke or life-threatening fluid build-up in the lungs and obstruction of inflamed airways.

Broken Bones and Tissue Damage

Anyone involved in an offshore oil rig explosion and fire would be at risk of the broken bones and soft tissue injuries that can accompany a serious industrial or other violent accident.  The severity and long-term consequences of the injury are critically linked to the type of accident involved and the person's exposure to the accident.

Emotional Injury

Survivors of horrifying accidents such as that which occurred on the Deepwater Horizon also face long-term risk for emotional injury in addition to the consequences of their serious physical injuries.  The survivors here may be at risk, for instance, of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which is a type of anxiety disorder that can occur after a person experiences or witnesses a traumatic event that involved the threat of injury or death.  The scope of any emotional injury suffered by the victims of the Deepwater Horizon explosion may not be known for some time, but the symptoms and underlying emotional damage can be diagnosed and treated with counseling and other, appropriate professional care.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

The attorneys and staff of Arnold & Itkin LLP express their sympathies for the workers injured aboard the Deepwater Horizon on April 20th, as well as their fervent hope for the safe return of those who remain missing in the aftermath of the tragic explosion.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

If you or a family member has suffered a serious injury due to a catastrophic event, call Arnold & Itkin LLP toll free at (866) 222-2606 or contact us online using the form on this page. We can provide a free evaluation of your case.

• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Everyone has heard the clichés: “We’re all human.” “Everyone makes mistakes.” “Nobody’s perfect.”
Those answers are just fine when they come from a waiter explaining an overcooked filet or a child offering a reason behind a less-than-perfect spelling test. But when it’s your doctor?

The fact is that those go-to answers actually are valid, even for doctors … who are human … and therefore are not perfect … and sure enough, make mistakes, many of which fall under the umbrella of medical malpractice. But none of those answers does anything to appease the feelings of patients (and their families) who bear the brunt of errors ranging from the improper administration of medications to sponges (or other items) being left inside a body during surgery to surgery performed on the wrong part of the body. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a Class I recall of a brain catheter manufactured by Medtronic Inc. due to failures in the device that may result in serious medical injuries.

In February, Medtronic recalled the BioGlide Ventricular Snap Shunt Catheters that are used to drain excess brain fluid into another part of the body. The catheter is often used in the treatment of hydrocephalus, a condition in which excessive fluid forms in the brain. The company received reports that the catheters are prone to disconnecting. According to Medtronic, such failures could cause:

• Vomiting
• Nausea
• Fatigue
• Headache
• Seizures
• Visual problems

Although the company says it has not received reports of death or serious injuries connected to the use of the catheters, the FDA has classified the recall a Class I. Generally, such a recall is issued when there is “a reasonable probability” that the use of a product can result in serious injuries or death. 3,000 catheters, distributed between 2000 & 2009 are affected by the recall.

The company has received nine reports of the catheter disconnecting. In these instances, the catheters disconnected from the snap base assembly, resulting in the need for emergency revision surgery.

The recall involves the following models of the catheter:

• Inner Vision Snap Shunt Ventricular Catheter BioGlide (R: 25.44, 1.15, 4.73%) Catalog Number 27782
• Snap Shunt Ventricular BioGlide(R: 25.44, 1.15,  4.73%) Catalog Number 27802
• Snap Shunt Ventricular Catheter BioGlide (R: 25.44, 1.15, 4.73%) Catalog Number 27708

Patents who have questions have been asked to contact their doctors or the company.

Defective Medical Devices Can Cause Serious Injuries

By the time a medical device is found to have a serious defect, it is often too late for patients who have been injured, sometimes fatally, by their use. It is the job of the FDA and medical device companies to keep patients informed and to protect consumers from dangerous medical products. 

If you or a loved one has been injured by the use of a defective medical device, a medical injury lawyer can help you recover compensation for your injuries. Contact an experienced medical injury attorney at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free evaluation of your case.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Across the country, support for the Medical Device Safety Act of 2009 is growing as medical injury lawyers, patients' rights groups, and the New England Journal of Medicine throw their combined weight behind it. The Act, which was introduced in March, aims to overturn the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that granted device makers immunity for injuries caused by U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved devices.

The Act was introduced by U.S. Representatives Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ) and Henry Waxman (D- CA), together with a similar bill, introduced by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT). It seeks to nullify the Supreme Court's ruling in Riegel v. Medtronic. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that patients could not file medical injury lawsuits against device makers under state laws, if the device had been approved by federal regulating authorities.

The new Act has spurred action from health and consumer groups, and has received backing from the American Bar Association. The Center of Justice and Democracy released a report, Hazardous Heart Devices and the Importance of Litigation, that offers a chilling look at the way heart device makers have used blatant cover ups to avoid liability for defective products. Even the venerable New England Journal of Medicine has thrown its support behind the bill, arguing in favor of patients' rights to full disclosure of the benefits and risks of a device and their right to hold a company accountable if it fails to disclose all risks associated with a device.

Medical Injury Lawsuits

Medtronic, the company responsible for setting off the preemption debate, is standing firm in its belief that the FDA should be the sole arbiter of a device's safety. Determining safety of a device is the responsibility of the FDA and should not be left to "juries of laypersons," company representatives say. The company has managed to duck numerous medical injury lawsuits related to its defective Sprint Fidelis leads and judges around the country have used the Supreme Court ruling to dismiss many other medical injury lawsuits.

As things currently stand, patients can sue pharmaceutical drug companies for their failure to warn of risks that cause medical injuries, but cannot sue device makers. It is a strange and entirely incompatible state of affairs and the bill's supporters hope patients' right will be soon be reinstated.

If you've been injured by the use of a defective medical device, contact a medical injury attorney at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free consultation.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a Class I recall for Baxter International's Colleague infusion pumps, but a prominent consumer advocacy group is criticizing the agency for its delay in issuing the recall.

The recall was made concerning Single and Triple Channel Volumetric Infusion Pumps, which are used to deliver fluids and drugs to patients. There is a malfunction in the battery and software of the device that can cause an interruption in the infusion. This defect is serious enough to cause injury or death, therefore, the recall assigned is a Class I.

In January, Baxter sent a letter to customers informing them of the failures in the pumps. The warning included an alert that the pump could overheat, resulting in fire and smoke if not properly cleaned. The letter also underscored the importance of proper battery care, pointing out that failure to do so could cause the device to malfunction.

Baxter issued a press release announcing the recall on March 11th; the FDA posted a recall notice on its website the same day, a full seven weeks after Baxter sent the letter to customers. The FDA has come under fire by Public Citizen for its delay in issuing the recall of the drug pump. The criticism is not new – medical injury lawyers have insisted that the FDA issue recall notices quickly and on its own, rather than waiting for companies to act first.

Colleague infusion pumps have been linked to safety issues for years. The FDA, in fact, has issued at least 7 Class I recalls for the pumps. The company stopped sales of the pump in the U.S. in 2005, but at least 200,000 of the pumps are currently in use in hospitals and nursing homes across the country. The malfunctioning, which can cause the pumps to stop pumping and overheat, has been blamed for at least 19 deaths. Sidney Wolfe, the director of the Health Research Group of Public Citizen has demanded that all existing Colleague Infusion pumps be removed from the facilities that continue to use them to deliver fluids and medication to patients. Baxter, however, insists that a full withdrawal, including removal of pumps currently in use, would lead to a shortage in the market.

Delayed Recalls Increase Risk of Medical Injuries

Thousands of patients in hospitals and nursing homes around the country are at risk due to defective medical devices like Colleague Infusion pumps that they depend on to receive lifesaving drugs and fluids. It is outrageous that these pumps continue to be used, even after the manufacturer admitted the device has serious flaws.

If you've suffered injuries due to the use of a defective medical device, contact a medical injury lawyer at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free evaluation of your claim.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Supporters of the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that granted device makers immunity from medical injury lawsuits brought on by FDA approved devices, should rethink their position. According to the Wall Street Journal, a knee device maker engaged in unethical lobbying to obtain U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for its new device.

The approval for Menaflex implants, which are used to help knee injury patients, was given overriding objections by FDA scientists. According to FDA correspondents, several senior staff members of the agency complained that ReGen Biologics Inc., the company that manufactures Menaflex, pressured the agency to approve the device. Lawmakers have since gotten involved in the controversy with Senator Chuck Grassley sending letters to the agency as well as the device maker, calling for more information about interactions between the two. According to Senator Grassley, his investigation is based on emails that suggest the agency was overenthusiastic in its readiness to ‘’accommodate the company.’’ Menaflex received approval under the agency's fast track rules, in which clinical trials are not necessary.

It is not only ReGen Biologics Inc. and the safety, or lack of it, of Menaflex in question here. At the crux of the matter are the reliability and integrity of FDA approval processes. Email correspondence between staff members at the agency indicate that they removed certain lines from emails that could indicate ‘’special treatment for the device maker.’’ FDA critics are concerned about what they call the agency’s tendency to bow to device companies. The fast track process, in particular, has come under intense scrutiny. The process allows scientists to bypass clinical trials only when reviewing devices similar to existing ones. There is no explanation forthcoming about why Menaflex was approved under the fast track process considering it is the only device of its kind in the market. With the FDA behaving more like a corrupt government than the country's premier drug safety agency, it is fair to assume that medical injury lawyers will be kept busy for a while.

Defective Medical Device Lawsuits

Medical devices that are rushed through approval processes or approved through lobbying efforts may come with risks that can pose potential dangers to patients. These devices may not have had stringent review guidelines applied to them, which means their safety may not be thoroughly verified.

If you've been injured by the use of a defective medical device, and want to know if you are eligible for compensation, contact an experienced medical injury lawyer at Arnold & Itkin LLP.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Michigan has the somewhat dubious distinction of being the only state in the country to grant pharmaceutical companies immunity from medical injury lawsuits. That may soon change - on March 26th, the Michigan House of Representatives approved a set of three bills aimed at reversing that immunity.

This is the second time the Michigan House of Representatives has passed the bill granting pharmaceutical companies immunity. Of the three bills, the third aims to allow medical injury lawsuits retroactive to 1996, when then-Governor John Angler signed the law that gave the pharmaceutical industry immunity from lawsuits brought by patients harmed by U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved products.

The law has been criticized by medical injury lawyers and patient rights advocates, and has been detrimental for thousands of medical injury victims unable to take action against these, often, negligent pharmaceutical companies. These people are victims of a range of defective drugs, such as:

• Paxil
• Avandia
• Heparin

What the law has done, essentially, is give pharmaceutical companies a free pass to market and promote their drugs (in the state) without any fear of consequences in the event of the drugs causing injuries or deaths. Patients injured by the drugs are currently helpless in the face of the law. At the time the bill was passed, proponents insisted that it would attract pharmaceutical investment in the state; that theory has since been disproved. Pharmaceutical investments and companies have moved out of Michigan in recent years, taking valuable jobs with them.

Georgia has since tried to emulate Michigan's example. Governor Sonny Perdue introduced a tort reform bill earlier this year that sought to prohibit medical injury lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies for products approved by the FDA. Better sense seems to have prevailed there; that bill was rejected in the Georgia Senate Economic Development Committee.

These instances of states attempting to block patients' right to file medical injury lawsuits against companies signify a dangerous trend. Michigan has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country and their drug immunity laws have done nothing to revitalize it. Other states should take note.

Medical Injury Lawsuits Hold Companies Accountable

The prospect of being held liable in a medical injury lawsuit is probably the biggest factor motivating drug companies to ensure that their products are safe for use. In the absence of such accountability, companies are encouraged to rush through drug approvals. The only people who suffer from this carelessness are unfortunate consumers.

If you've been injured by the use of a defective drug, contact a medical injury lawyer at Arnold & Itkin LLP to discuss your case.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In recent weeks, patients injured by Medtronic defibrillators have watched in pain as judges around the country dismissed their medical injury lawsuits. Law makers' recent plans to reintroduce patients' rights, give them reason to cheer.

Democratic lawmakers are working on plans to reintroduce legislation that would return patients' rights to sue medical device companies for their injuries. In February 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that patients injured by the use of defective medical devices, like Medtronic defibrillators, could not file a lawsuit against the company if the device had received approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Since then, judges around the country have cited the Supreme Court decision numerous times, using it as an excuse for throwing out hundreds of lawsuits including several against Medtronic. On February 17th, a judge in Wisconsin dismissed a lawsuit filed by a 63-year-old man who needed surgery to remove a Medtronic device after the company warned that the batteries may suffer from a sudden depletion of power causing it to malfunction. Earlier this year, a judge in Minnesota dismissed hundreds of Medtronic injury lawsuits brought by injured patients.

With the new administration, however, it seems like patients may have their right to sue companies like Medtronic returned to them. House democrats, Henry A. Waxman of California, who also serves as the chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, and Frank Pallone Jr. of New Jersey, plan to introduce legislation that would nullify the Supreme Court ruling. Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Patrick Leahy of Vermont sponsored a similar bill last year which could be reintroduced later this year.

At the crux of the Supreme Court decision last year was the belief that the FDA, as the country's chief drug and medical device safety agency, could be trusted to approve a product only after ensuring it was entirely safe to use. Since then, we have seen evidence of the agency's ineptitude, not only in the number of defective drugs that seem to enter the market like contaminated Heparin and Vioxx, but also through the whistle blowing efforts of its own staff who allege that the agency's approval processes are questionable. In this situation, where companies attempt to push their products through approval processes as quickly as possible and the FDA continues to lurch from one food and drug safety scandal to another, the only losers are patients who end up with no recourse to civil justice after they suffer injuries. Several lawmakers, medical injury lawyers, and patient advocates have strongly voiced their opposition to the 2008 Supreme Court ruling. With a new administration in power, however, it seems like change is finally coming to American civil justice.

Medical Injury Lawsuits

Going up against big medical device manufacturers like Medtronic can be intimidating. In conjunction with laws prohibiting your right to justice, however, it can seem impossible. Our team of medical injury attorneys can help you find the resources you need in such a situation.

If you have been injured by the use of a defective medical device, contact a medical injury lawyer at Arnold & Itkin LLP to learn how you can begin to recover compensation for your suffering.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link