Vaccine Court Rejects Mercury-Autism Link
Posted by: Stephen Leshner
March 12, 2010
Topic: NATIONAL VACCINE INJURY COMPENSATION PROGRAM

'Vaccines court' rejects mercury-autism link in 3 test cases

The finding supports a broad scientific consensus that the mercury-containing preservative thimerosal does not cause autism, and will likely disappoint parents who are convinced otherwise.

By Thomas H. Maugh II

March 12, 2010 | 12:57 p.m.

The government's "vaccines court" ruled Friday in three separate test cases that the mercury-containing preservative thimerosal does not cause autism, a finding that supports the broad scientific consensus on the matter but that is likely to disappoint parents who are convinced that their child's illness has been caused by vaccines.

The court had ruled 13 months ago that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine, commonly known as MMR, does not cause the disorder, and the new ruling may finally close the bulk of litigation on the matter. More than 5,000 parents had filed claims with the court, formally known as the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, seeking damages because they believed their children had developed autism as a result of vaccinations.

The cases that three special masters for the court chose to include in the omnibus proceeding were considered among the strongest, so the outlook appears grim for others making the same claim.

Special Master Denise K. Vowell wrote in one of the decisions that "petitioners propose effects from mercury in [vaccines] that do not resemble mercury's known effects in the brain, either behaviorally or at the cellular level. To prevail, they must show that the exquisitely small amounts of mercury in [vaccines] that reach the brain can produce devastating effects that far larger amounts experienced prenatally or postnatally from other sources do not."

She also dismissed claims that some groups of children are unusually susceptible to the effects of mercury. "The only evidence that these children are unusually sensitive is the fact of their [autism] itself."

The special vaccine court was established in 1986 because vaccine manufacturers were facing many liability suits that threatened their ability to continue manufacturing the valuable medicines. The court holds no-fault hearings to determine if a child has, in fact, been damaged by a vaccine. Compensation comes from a special fund based on a surcharge leveled on each dose of vaccine.

The court has made many awards to parents who successfully showed that their children were damaged neurologically or otherwise by vaccination -- a rare, but nonetheless real event -- but has refused to accept claims that autism is caused by vaccination.

Permalink

FDA Refuses to Withdraw Zicam Recall
Posted by: Stephen Leshner
March 09, 2010
Topic: PRODUCT LIABILITY

PDATE 1-Matrixx: FDA declines to withdraw warning letter

Tue Mar 9, 2010 6:27am EST

Stocks

Matrixx Initiatives MTXX.O $4.81 -0.06-1.23% 10:31am MST

* Says FDA reaffirms original position

Stocks | Regulatory News | Healthcare

* Co says evaluating options

March 9 (Reuters) - Matrixx Initiatives Inc (MTXX.O) said U.S. health regulators declined to withdraw the warning letter on the company's nasal versions of Zicam cold remedy.

Last June, the company voluntarily withdrew two of its existing Zicam products after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a warning letter that the products could cause a loss of smell. [ID:nN24151638]

In October, the company had said that the FDA had indicated that it was unwilling to reverse its position.

In a regulatory filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Tuesday, the company said it had filed in November a response to the warning letter but the FDA reaffirmed its original position.

Matrixx said it was evaluating its options.

Permalink

Handling the Auto Injury Claim: Take the Case to Trial--March 19, 2010 seminar by Steve Leshner
Posted by: euser
February 15, 2010
Topic: PHOENIX PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY STEVE LESHNER IS NAMED A ARIZONA "SUPER LAWYER"

On March 19, 2010, the National Business Institute will be presenting a seminar on Handling the Auto Injury Claim in Phoenix, Arizona.  The seminar is designed for attorneys who represent plaintiffs and defendants in car, truck, bicycle and motorcycle personal injury cases.  Steve Leshner is one of the seminar speakers, and will be presenting the topic "Take the Case to Trial".  As an Arizona State Bar Board Certified Specialist in Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Litigation, a former President of the Arizona Trial Lawyers Association, a Arizona "Super Lawyer" and a Life Member of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum, with a history of having tried lawsuits in Arizona for over 30 years, Steve is particularly well qualified to present this topic.  To learn more about this seminar, please click on the following link:
http://enews.nbi-sems.com/

Permalink

Uninsured Motorist (UM) Claims
Posted by: euser
December 30, 2009
Topic: PERSONAL INJURY LAW

What do you do if you are injured in a car crash, and the other party has no insurance? You can either try to collect from them personally, or you can make an uninsured motorist (UM) claim against your own auto insurance policy. Since I've heard that some 40% of Arizona motorists are uninsured, this coverage is essential. It's relatively cheap and critical if you are injured as a result of the negligence of an uninsured motorist. Since you didn't cause the collision, your rates should not be affected by making such a claim. Your UM coverage will cover all damages caused by the uninsured motorist (medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering), but will usually not cover punitive damages, which might have applied if the uninsured motorist was guilty of driving under the influence.

While you are making the claim against your own insurance, you should not assume your own company will give you the benefit of any doubt in evaluating your claim. Typically, the UM carrier is as difficult to deal with in adjusting claims as if you were dealing with the carrier of the responsible party. If you are unable to settle your claim with your UM carrier, you have to look at the policy to determine how to resolve the claim. Historically, UM carriers provided for binding arbitration within the policy to resolve claims. Either one or three arbitrators (usually practicing personal injury lawyers) acted as judge and jury to resolve the claim. However, carriers are increasingly adding direct suit endorsements to their UM policies, which require their policy holders to sue them in Court to resolve the claim. What follows is a real case which I recently resolved, which demonstrates the process of a UM claim.

My client, Fred (not his real name) was seriously injured in a motorcycle collision. He had five surgeries, and his medical bills were over $300,000.00. He had complications with one of the surgeries when a surgical plate broke. He originally came to see me because he was considering a product liability claim against the manufacturer of the plate. However, when I told him we would have to sue not only the manufacturer of the plate, but his surgeon, too, he refused. He really liked his surgeon, and did not want to sue him. (Based on my experience, the manufacturer would claim that the surgeon did not install the plate correctly, which caused it to fracture. In order to counter that defense, the surgeon would need to be a party to the case). Further, since Fred technically rear ended a car in the collision; he did not think he had a case against the driver of the car.

Since Fred was so seriously injured, I wanted to help him. In reviewing his case, I learned that the driver of the car had no insurance, and Fred had $100,000.00 in UM coverage. It wasn't enough to fully compensate him, but it was significant enough to help him financially. I also learned from interviewing the witnesses that Fred was riding behind the car at a safe distance and speed, but the car stopped unexpectedly during a right hand turn, and while attempting the avoid the collision, Fred clipped the left rear of the vehicle. With this evidence, I felt that while the driver of the car wasn't 100% at fault, she did have some fault.

In Arizona, cases are evaluated on the basis of comparative negligence. What this means is that each party responsible for a collision only pays his or her own share. For example, I evaluated Fred's claim as being worth $1,000,000.00. If the driver of the car was 10% at fault, and Fred was 90% at fault, he would still be entitled to 10% of his damages, or in this case, $100,000.00, which was the limit of his UM coverage.

I presented a demand to Fred's UM carrier, demanding the $100,000.00 limit. They refused to make an offer, claiming that Fred was 100% at fault for this collision. Pursuant to the terms of the UM policy, I filed suit against the UM carrier. After filing suit, I reached an agreement with the UM carrier to have the case be decided by binding arbitration, and we agreed on a single arbitrator, and set a hearing date. The arbitrator did not know the amount of insurance coverage involved. At the hearing, each side presented witnesses and evidence.

After the hearing, the arbitrator made his decision: he found Fred's total damages to be $950,000.00, and found Fred to be 60% at fault for the collision, and the uninsured motorist to be 40% at fault, entitling Fred to 40% of the $950,000.00, or $380,000.00. If Fred had purchased that much UM coverage, he would have received that amount. However, he only purchased $100,000.00 in coverage, and the carrier paid that amount. Because the carrier initially refused to pay anything, and for other elements of the carrier's conduct in this case, Fred has the option of filing a bad faith lawsuit against his insurance company for the damages they caused him as result of their handling of this case, but that is another topic for another post.

When your considering buying auto insurance, or reviewing your policy upon renewal, make sure you have enough UM coverage.

Permalink

Matrixx Says FDA Won't Budge on Recalled Zicam Products
Posted by: euser
October 28, 2009
Topic: PRODUCT LIABILITY

It looks like federal health regulators aren't backing down when it comes to recalled Zicam Nasal Cold Remedies. According to a Reuters report, Matrixx Initiatives Inc., the maker of Zicam products, said the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) is "unwilling to reverse its position regarding the warning letter" it issued over Zicam nasal remedies earlier this year.

In June, the FDA said it had received 130 reports of anosmia-loss of sense of smell-in people who had used the product. Following the FDA alert, Matrixx Initiatives recalled two of the products: Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Gel and Zicam Cold Remedy Swabs. The company had already withdrawn Zicam Cold Remedy Swabs, Kids Size, the third product named by the FDA.

At the same time, the FDA issued a warning letter to Matrixx. In the letter, the FDA said Matrixx had failed to inform it of 800 anosmia reports linked to the recalled cold remedies. Matrixx has admitted that it did not pass along those reports to the FDA, but has maintained that its legal counsel advised it was not required to forward those reports to the agency. In the Warning Letter, the FDA warned the firm that the products cannot be marketed without agency approval and also stated that the three Zicam nasal remedies did not include adequate warnings about the risk of loss of sense of smell.

According to Reuters, Matrixx said in a regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that the FDA will not reverse its stance that the recalled Zicam products could not be marketed without agency approval. The filing said the company is currently evaluating its options. Matrixx also said it was reviewing the FDA's contention that it should have filed adverse event reports on several individual Zicam loss of smell cases, and that it would be responding soon.

Since the Zicam nasal cold remedy recall, Matrixx has been hit with several class action lawsuits filed on behalf of people who claim the products caused them to suffer anosmia. Earlier this month, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the Zicam litigation for pretrial proceedings in the District of Arizona for coordinated handling.

According to Reuters, the recent SEC filing also disclosed that two shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in September against current and former Matrixx officers related to the recall.

Permalink