In discussing the DePuy ASR hip recall and the failures associated with it, Childers Schlueter & Smith founding partner, Richard Schlueter, was featured in the news piece along with Calhoun Police Lieutenant John McGivern who is a Childers, Schlueter & Smith client.

Atlanta attorney Richard Schlueter is representing dozens of clients who received the now-recalled implant. And it’s estimated that several thousand people in Georgia are affected.

Based on the initial FDA notice date of July 17, 2010 and subsequent DePuy worldwide recall date of August 24, 2010, the statute of limitations for most Georgians affected by this DePuy ASR recall will expire in less than 60-90 days, or as early as July 17, 2012 (if you go by the actual FDA notice date to doctors) or possibly August 24, 2012 (if you go by the actual product recall date).

 For this reason, and as denoted in the news story and video:

Richard Schlueter stressed that time is running out for victims to pursue legal claims, stating, “I would encourage anybody that has this device to consult with a lawyer to at least know their options and to make sure they bring a claim before the statute of limitation runs,” he said.

 There have been numerous news articles and groundbreaking stories covering the DePuy ASR hip implant recall since 2010, and Consumer Reports recently joined in the cause to promote more awareness of this life altering, and potentially life threatening, problem.

“This particular type of hip was called the ASR XL,” said Consumer Reports’ investigator Nancy Metcalf. “It was made of chrome cobalt metal, but it was never clinically tested before the FDA cleared it to be sold. Because of high failure rates and complications like Dr. Tower experienced, it’s now off the market.”

Childers, Schlueter & Smith, LLC applauds the efforts of  Stephany Fisher and CBS Atlanta News for “Asking Tough Questions” to promote more awareness of the growing epidemic of 510(k) medical devices and the recalls affecting thousands of patients and consumers all over the United States.

 In addition to viewing the CBS news report, if you are not familiar with the Safe Patient Project,  please review their website as soon as possible to learn about how they are working to keep Georgians and Americans safe from untested and dangerous medical devices, such as the recalled DePuy ASR metal-on-metal hip implants:

“Medical device industry lobbyists are working overtime to pressure Congress to preserve weak federal oversight that puts patient lives at risk,” said Lisa McGiffert, Director of Consumers Union’s Safe Patient Project (www.SafePatientProject.org).  “We need common sense reforms to assure consumers that these devices are safe and work like they are supposed to.”     

A brief look at Broadspire’s website is illustrative of the context in which the company utilizes medical records of the claimant for the benefit of its client, DePuy and J&J. Broadspire even claims to have a panel of medical professionals at their disposal as represented on their website.

Many clients have come to rely on the reimbursement benefit that affords only out of pocket expenses such as co-pays and deductibles. So the next two key questions become:

1. Will this benefit continue into the future for the client that needs it?
2. Will Broadspire continue to pay a patient’s out of pocket medical expenses after their statute of limitations (“SOL”) runs in August of 2012 (for most 2 year SOL states)

In seeking to look at these questions it is important to remember that this “reimbursement process” is not a contracted or promised benefit of funds being administered by DePuy and J&J. This benefit can therefore be changed at anytime without recourse by DePuy and J&J. Some have suggested the purpose of the Broadspire process is really to influence the hip implant victim to not pursue a legal claim or lawsuit for the harms associated with the defective hip implant device. If this underlying theory and goal of Broadspire is fulfilled: Will DePuy and J&J continue to pay reimbursements when the claimant can no longer pursue a civil claim barred by their respective statute of limitations?

In trying to answer this important question, it is also important to know that the harms associated with cobaltism and metallosis are very significant. Many of the known harms associated with the DePuy ASR device are latent and do not manifest for 3-6 years after implantation of the device. Many claimants therefore will only recognize the full extent of their harms after statute of limitation has expired in their given state and many may be left without any recourse for their medical bills, injuries and suffering after that SOL time period lapses. Because DePuy and J&J are not required by law to pay, or even consider, claims that are beyond the statute of limitation, it is very possible, and even likely, that they will tell Broadspire to stop making reimbursement payments on its behalf to patients that are beyond their SOL. Is this a risk consumers, with absolutely no contractual guarantees or promises being made in writing, should be willing to take?

In the estimation of Childers Schlueter and Smith, LLC, we strong suggest the answer should be No as the harms and value of each timely filed and prosecuted claim will include future considerations and medical expenses that may not be accounted for unless the responsible companies are held legally accountable. Given the hundreds of millions of dollars that could potentially be saved from such a course of action, the risk is too great for a claimant to rely and trust a company like DePuy and J&J to do the right thing when there is no legal mechanism to force them to do so. The average claimant will have been exposed to high levels of Chromium and Cobalt that will require ongoing monitoring and treatment. Questions will persist into the future: Will there be long term affects from exposure, such as impaired renal function, hearing, neurologic effects, or conditions that affect the heart, or perhaps effects that will impact to the thyroid gland or cause other forms of cancer like lymphoma?

If you are faced with these same questions and concerns regarding the DePuy ASR hip implant device, the firm of Childers Schlueter and Smith LLC is available to answer your questions and explain your legal options.

Individual considerations of particular circumstances are evaluated including the possible uncertainty of the longstanding effects of metallosis, cobalt, chromium and other known complications. Each represented client has claims that are different in many respects and therefore should be treated as such.

After revision many patients find impairment to their vigor and health. It is not uncommon to have tissue damage and destruction of the joint by the time they were diagnosed. Substantial impairment of range of motion could be a real concern and not just related to an awful complication from revision surgery. The body can only take so much insult to it from repetitive procedures and loss of bone may be a real problem that limits you from the enjoyment of activities and hobbies from physical limitations caused by the failure of the device. Despite these findings, we have already seen that Broadspire routinely denies reimbursements for collateral injuries to the body that, in their sole opinion and discretion, is not directly related to the defective hip implant. Even when other patients’ medical doctors disagreed with Broadspire’s assessment, they still have refused to change or re-evaluate their self-serving opinions and findings in an effort to avoid responsibility and accountably.

Further, routinely, Broadspire has disallowed reimbursements that it deems “chronic”. For the claimant that has substantial bone loss and joint destruction caused by the failed device, it calls into question long term concerns for mobility and whether those patients deserve to be properly treated and be compensated for the harms the DePuy devices have caused, rather than simply labeling these conditions “chronic” and refusing to cover the same. We commonly refer to such tactics and actions as “Putting Profits Over People”.

By our evaluation 28 states have statutes of limitation that are two years or less for product liability claims like the 6,000 other claims already filed by other victims of the DePuy ASR hip implant device all over the Country. For those clients unrepresented we encourage them to speak to a lawyer immediately and consider formally filing a claim/lawsuit before their statute of limitation expires in order to avoid this potential pitfall.

In short the concerns of future problems regarding this device are potentially daunting and will ultimately leave many harmed victims of this device without real options or recourse. The attorneys at Childers Schlueter and Smith, LLC are experienced and understand the methodology employed by DePuy and J&J in their Mass tort strategy to limit and minimize client claims either through the process employed by its agent Broadspire or via the national law firms it hires and employs to limit a client’s potential claim in litigation. Based on our experience, the DePuy defendants will not voluntarily consider or pay a reasonable hip implant settlement that takes into account many of the above considerations without the assistance of an experienced lawyer or firm.

If you want help or just the ability to become more informed about the overall process, please call us at 1-800-641-0098 and ask to speak to one of DePuy hip implant attorneys. You can also contact us on the internet at www.cssfirm.com

Justice is Served

Too often, these tragic stories have equally upsetting endings when victims do not receive justice through the court system. But sometimes, the responsible pharmaceutical companies are held accountable, and some degree of justice is served.

The latter scenario is what happened in mid-April, when a federal court in New Haven ruled that Pfizer’s Wyeth unit was liable for causing the breast cancer of Connecticut-resident Margaret Fraser. Ms. Fraser took the menopausal drug, Prempro, before developing the disease.

Bloomberg reports that the judge has yet to rule on how much Ms. Fraser will fully be rewarded, but that the number will total at least $4 million. The verdict was given on April 18^th, when the jury concluded that Prempro was an “unreasonably dangerous product” and that Wyeth’s handling of the drug “was reckless and they had misrepresented the risks and benefits of its drug to patients and doctors,” according to one of Fraser’s lawyers. 

This Ain’t Pfizer’s First Rodeo… Er, Mandated Payout

New York-based drug maker Pfizer has been under a lot of heat since a 2002 study revealed that cancer risk increased with the use of Prempro and similar drugs that treat menopause symptoms. Since 2006, Pfizer’s Wyeth and Upjohn units have lost more than half of the 20 Prempro cases that have been decided by juries since the trials against the company began in 2006, according to Bloomberg.

While there have been many more than 20 cases against the pharmaceutical company, many have settled out of court, had the rewards reduced, or been thrown out before or after trial.

Most recently, a Philadelphia jury awarded three women upwards of $72 million for the suffering and expenses linked to their cases of breast cancer, which they believed to be caused by the menopause medication. Ultimately, Pfizer settled the cases for undisclosed amounts of money.

Prempro Increases Breast Cancer Incidence And Death Toll

In 2010, the Journal Of The American Medical Association published a study that found that Prempro increased not only the risk of developing breast cancer, but also the likelihood that the disease would spread, as well as the probability of dying of breast cancer.

According to USA Today, these results come from a study that followed 13,000 women for an average of eight years after they had stopped taking Prempro. Every year during the study, roughly 1.3 out of 10,000 women died because of Prempro.

The 2010 study was conducted as a follow-up to the original study that raised a red flag about Prempro in 2002. That study followed 16,000 women who were taking Prempro or a placebo. The study ultimately had to be halted in 2002, when Prempro was found to increase the risk of developing breast cancer, heart attack and stroke. Additionally, a study published last year linked use of the drug to an increased risk of developing lung cancer.

Has Your Medication Made You Sick?

Have you become sick from taking a medication that was prescribed for you by a doctor, or purchased over-the-counter? If so, you may be protected by legal rights that entitle you to compensation for your suffering and losses. Contact our team of attorneys today for a free consultation. Allow us to explain to you your rights and legal options.

The potential payout on these two drugs could be nearly more than $24 billion if Bayer settles the other 11,000+ claims at the same or a similar rate.

The Scoop on Yaz and Yasmin Dangers

The German-based pharmaceutical giant has been under fire since last year, when the FDA warned that women taking the pills were 74% more likely to develop blood clots in their veins than women taking comparable forms of birth control. The ingredient in question in the birth control pills is drospirenone, which is a man-made version of progesterone, the hormone that occurs naturally in women’s bodies.

Yasmin and Yaz have been available since 2001 and 2006, respectively. The birth control drugs are among the most popular brands in the United States, due in part to Bayer marketing them as being able to reduce acne, premenstrual symptoms and other hormonal issues. The New York Times reports that more than 11,000 women have sued Bayer since their birth control debut, due to medical problems linked with the drugs. 

Stricter Label Mandate: A Step Toward Consumer Protection

Last week was a rough week for Bayer Pharmaceuticals. Not only did the company announce their big payouts to injured consumers of their drugs, but they were also hit with stricter requirements affecting their product labeling.

On Tuesday, the FDA announced that birth control brands Yaz, Yasmin, Safyral and Beyaz are required to update their labels with warning statements that reflect their increased risk of blood clotting, as reported in Time. These labels will be required to state that various studies have suggested a range of increased risk, all the way up to three times the risk of increased dangerous clots, according to one study.

 Yaz-Induced Blood Clots: A Cause For Concern

According to The Mayo Clinic, blood clots occur when blood turns from a liquid to a solid, forming a clump in the blood vessels. Clotting can occur in many different parts of the body where it can cause localized problems, like swelling, redness and pain. But the real danger of blood clots is when they become dislodged and travel to crucial organs of the body, causing blockages:

• Blood clots that travel to the lungs can cause a life-threatening condition called pulmonary embolism.
• Clots that arise in or travel to the heart can lead to heart attack.
• Clots that reach the brain can result in stroke.

Become a Savvy Consumer

You may want to talk to your physician about the possibility of switching to a different birth control method that has not been linked with increased dangerous side effects.

If you do continue to take Yaz, Yasmin, or one of the other drospirenone-containing birth control pills, be aware of the symptoms associated with blood clotting. According to the FDA, if you take these drugs and experience any of the following symptoms, you should contact your doctor immediately:

• Persistent leg pain
• Severe chest pain
• Shortness of breath

Also keep in mind that you may have a deep vein blood clot and not have any symptoms.

Experienced Serious Blood Clots on Yaz Or Yasmin?

Have you or someone you love suffered from a deep vein blood clot while taking Yaz or Yasmin? If so, you may be entitled the compensation that Bayer is paying out to women who have suffered similarly. Contact our experienced attorneys today for a free consultation. The time to file a claim is limited, so contact us today.

The FDA posted on its website the recall of Depuy ASR acetabular components  in the United States on July 17^th 2010.

Following July 17, 2010 FDA recall notice, DePuy Orthopedics issued a worldwide recall of all the ASR components on August 26, 2010.

The two year anniversary date of the recall is approaching and will serve as a bar to claimants that have statutes of limitations that expire prior to filing a civil claim with a Court of competent jurisdiction. A quick look at the statute of limitations that are at issue reveal approximately 28 States have statutes of limitation that are 2 years or less.  In those States, the statute of limitations could expire as soon as July 16, 2012. (Less than 90 days from right now!)

Many patients that have the Depuy ASR device have not been told of the significance of the statute of limitation.  The unwary client is usually unaware of the level of sophistication of the risk management or hired legal defense firms that a company such as Johnson and Johnson employs to minimize or bar a harmed patient in pursuing a legal claim that has not been timely filed within their statute of limitations.

Some of our clients have received the letter below before hiring our law firm.  The letter has the effect of lulling the hip implant victim into the belief that their cooperation will result in “additional compensation” and that “payment will be made within 30 days, avoiding the complex and lengthy lawsuit process”. This letter is a shameful example of victimizing an already harmed patient by setting up a false expectation that may result if the patient does not fully comply with their orders and directives.

The DePuy Settlement letter sent and received by many is found here.

Based upon what we have learned since this letter was originally sent in 2010 regarding DePuy’s promise to pay for “additional compensation”  to a patient wishing to  avoid  the “lawsuit process”, these promises to date have not been fulfilled and it has mislead many patients all over the Country. There is no outstanding promise or guarantee to pay compensation to a deserving client that has had to undergo a surgery to replace the device. Why would DePuy send this letter and then make no offer to the claimant after asking for information and getting the claimant to sign authorizations granting them access to medical records to verify their harms?  Whether intended or not, the claimant that relies on DePuy being fair with them in settling their case without filing a civil claim will be barred legally from pursuing the claim through the civil justice system after their statute of limitation expires.  It has been nearly a year and a half since these letters were first sent out and there still has not been any meaningful settlement offers for thousands of ASR hip implant patients. Just hollow and empty promises from what we have seen thus far.

It is expected that the victim of the hip implant after providing their documented information detailing their harms/losses and expecting fairness will recognize that their cooperation and hope for fairness will be met with the “run around” or “a take it or leave it offer” just before the statute of limitations. We expect that readers that have been speaking to DePuy know this first hand.  Our firm encourages victims to call us at 1-800-641-0098 to assist them in protecting their claims and rights against the responsible companies involved or visit our website at www.cssfirm.com

Childers Schlueter and Smith LLC is available to answer your questions and explain your options in a free consultation.  Our law firm is assisting harmed consumers through out theUnited Statesand have filed ASR hip implant cases on behalf of consumers residing throughout theUnited States. Individual considerations and particular circumstances are evaluated including the possible uncertainty of the longstanding effects of metallosis, cobalt and chromium. Each represented client has claims that are different and are evaluated individually.  This is not a Class Action.  Either DePuy will agree the appropriate dollar value authorized by our client  or the individual client’s claim  will be prosecuted through the civil justice system to determine the fair value of their claim.  In the estimation of Childers Schlueter and Smith, LLC the harms and value of each timely prosecuted claim will be significant and substantial.

The attorneys at Childers Schlueter and Smith, LLC are experienced and understand the methodologies employed by DePuy to limit and minimize a client’s claims either through the process employed against unrepresented patients as exhibited by the above letter or through the National Law firms it employs to limit a client’s claims in litigation. If you want help or just the ability to become more educated on your legal rights, call us at 1-800-641- 0098 or 404-419-9500 and ask to speak to one of our DePuy ASR hip implant litigation attorneys.

St. Jude, makers of one of America’s leading heart implant devices, faced a major setback last week when The Heart Rhythm Journal refused to retract a recently published article that linked failures in their medical devices with at least 20 deaths.

According to the New York Times, the medical device company did not dispute the occurrence of the deaths, but rather accused the study of being flawed due to incorrect research and bias against St. Jude’s devices. According to representatives of St. Jude, the analysis should have uncovered a similar frequency of deaths associated with the use of devices made by a competitor, Medtronic.

“While I can understand the angst St. Jude is experiencing, I haven’t seen their data and it hasn’t been peer-reviewed,” Dr. Dougals Zipes, the editor and chief of The Heart Rhythm Journal told the Wall Street Journal. “There is no way I can accept what amounts to a press release” over the original article, which was scientifically researched and approved by experts in the field.

Faulty Wiring in Device Causes Shocks

The damaging article on St. Jude arose from injury reports pertaining to one of the company’s Riata leads, an older model that was popular in previous years. Evidently, a number of these devices have caused electrical problems, including delivery of shocks at inappropriate times. The electrical malfunctioning results from wiring within the devices coming through the surrounding insulation. According the company, this problem has been corrected in newer models.

Finger-Pointing and Defensiveness is Poor Strategy

When a company produces a flawed, potentially injurious product, how they deal with the ensuing crises will determine much about the future of their relationship with customers. This principle may hold particularly true for a company in the medical industry that produces products on which their customers’ lives literally depend.

In attacking both their competitors and the science behind the accusations rather than dealing with the problem head-on, St. Jude may be doing an even greater disservice to the future of their company that will not easily be undone. According to crisis-management experts interviewed by the Wall Street Journal, this stance that is at the same time defensive and offensive could easily backfire. “They’re calling into question some of the leading lights in the industry,” said Raj Denhoy, an analyst at Jefferies & Co. “That’s not going to sit well with clinicians.”

Importance of Industry Integrity in Protecting Public Health

Despite laws requiring that medical devices that possess a higher risk of injury (such as ventilators and heart implants) undergo studies before they can receive the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) seal of approval for distribution, oftentimes problems will arise after the devices are released on the market. According to a recent article in the Online Journal of Issues in Nursing about safe use of medical devices, it is critical that the FDA is able to rely on manufacturers as well as consumers to report problems as they arise.

It is for this reason that it is particularly disturbing to see companies—such as St. Jude—that have manufactured faulty medical devices react to the tragedies that their products have caused with denial and scapegoating. When human lives are at stake, medical companies need to step it up, take ownership of their mistakes, and work with medical professionals, regulating industries, and the public to solve the problem. They certainly owe that much to the families of the 20 or more people who have died due to their defective products. 

Have You Been Injured By a Medical Device?

If you or a loved one has been seriously injured by a medical device, you may be legally entitled to compensation for your pain, suffering and losses. Contact our experienced medical device injury attorneys today, and let them discuss your legal rights and options with you.

Tuna Scrape, The “Hamburger Meat” of Raw Fish

A recent press release issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) describes tuna scrape – the fish meat that was responsible for the recent Salmonella outbreak – as “tuna back meat, which is specifically scraped off from the bones and looks like a ground product.” Not only does that sound incredibly unappealing, it may not be as safe for human consumption as other cuts of fish.

In an interview for an NPR article, Michael Doyle, who is the director of the Center for Food Safety at the University of Georgia, said that grinding animal products increases risk for foodborne bacteria to spread. He explained that, at least in the case of ground beef and turkey, risk for widespread contamination is more likely since bacteria can spread from one carcass to the entire batch. This same premise may hold true for fish, as well.

Salmonella: Spotting The Symptoms

For many of us raw fish lovers, giving up sushi in an effort to avoid potential sickness is simply not an option. What sort of signs or symptoms should we look for to know when we may have been served contaminated fish? According to the Mayo Clinic, Salmonella symptoms generally appear anywhere from a few hours up to two days after consumption, and may last for four to seven days. Symptoms may include:

• Nausea
• Vomiting
• Abdominal pain
• Diarrhea
• Blood in the stool
• Fever
• Chills
• Headache
• Muscle pains

Most cases of Salmonella will clear up with adequate rest and continual fluid replacement, but for some—and particularly young children, the elderly, pregnant women, or those with weakened immune systems—medical attention may be necessary. Frustratingly, it may take several months for proper bowel function to be reestablished after a bout with Salmonella.

Reducing Risk At The Sushi Bar

Want to enjoy an occasional sushi dinner, but cut back on the risk of food poisoning as much as possible? It might be a good idea to avoid rolls like the spicy tuna roll, which, according to the FDA, was one of the foods most commonly reported by people who got sick during the recent outbreak. Spicy rolls tend to utilize cut up pieces of fish, so it’s harder for restaurant patrons to tell what they are getting. Furthermore, the addition of mayonnaise and spices can be used to mask the flavor of fish that may be past its prime.

To play it completely safe, stick with rolls that feature cooked fish. If you are going to eat raw fish, order sushi that uses entire cuts of fish so you have a better sense of what you are eating. Give your favorite sushi restaurant a call, and find out what days they receive their seafood deliveries so you can dine out when the fish is at its freshest.

Has Contaminated Food Made You Ill?

Have you or a loved one suffered from illness after having eaten food that was contaminated Salmonella, or another harmful pathogen? If so, you may be eligible for compensation from the food manufacturers that did not take adequate precautions to protect their customers. Contact our experienced attorneys today to learn about your rights and potential course of action.

The contaminated sausages, produced on February 9^th by the Yoakum, Texas-based Eddy Packing, Co, and distributed nationwide on February 14^th include:

• 1-lb vacuum-sealed “ARTISAN FRESH, ALL NATURAL chicken & apple sausage” that comes in packs of three, bearing the USDA mark of inspection, and featuring a sell-by date of June 23, 2012
• 36-lb cases of 12/3-lb packages of “ARTISAN FRESH, ALL NATURAL CHICKEN APPLE SAUSAGE,” featuring the number “P-4800” inside the USDA mark of inspection and bearing codes 42450 or P13203 on the label

As of Saturday, March 31, Eddy Packing Co. and the US Food and Safety Inspection Service had not received any reports of illnesses or injuries caused by the contaminated sausage.

The government agency urges anyone who is concerned about an illness or injury related to consumption of these foods to contact a health care professional for appropriate medical guidance. Consumers with questions about the contaminated products can call Lindsey Morkovsky, Vice President of Operations at Eddy Packing Co. at (361) 293-2361.

FDA’s List of 10 Most Common Foreign Particles Found in Foods

The Food and Drug Administration lists some of the foreign materials most frequently found in food products, the common sources of these materials, and the threat that they might pose to unsuspecting consumers:

• Pieces of glass sometimes end up in food after breaking off of bottles, jars or lights. They can easily cause cuts and bleeding, and may require surgery to remove.
• Pieces of wood can come from fields, pallets, boxes or buildings. Wood can cause cuts, infection or choking, and may also require surgery to remove.
• Stones or metal fragments can come from fields, buildings, machinery, wire or the employees at the production site themselves. They can cause choking, broken teeth, cuts and infection.
• Insulation from the factories sometimes contaminates food, as well. Insulation can pose as a choking-hazard, and—in the case of asbestos—can also cause long-term bodily damage or death.
• Bone usually originates in the fields, or from improper plant processing. It can pose a choking hazard and cause trauma to the esophagus.
• Plastic can break off of plant packaging materials or pallets, or come from employees. Foreign plastic particles can cause choking, cuts, or infection, and may require surgery to remove.
• Personal affects belonging to employees have been known to get mixed up into food production. These articles can cause choking, cuts or broken teeth.

Injured by Contaminated Food?

If you or a loved one has suffered an injury or illness from a food contaminated with foreign particles or bacteria or any other food-borne pathogens, you may be entitled to compensation for your suffering. Contact our experienced attorneys today for a free consultation to determine if legal action is the right for your unique case. 

Louisiana health officials have temporarily shut down an oyster harvesting area after receiving reports of 14 illnesses resulting from consumption of contaminated oysters from the area. In addition, health officials are ordering a recall of all oysters grown in “Area 23”, which is located in Terrebonne Parish outside of New Orleans, according to Bloomberg BusinessWeek.

The foodborne illnesses were reported among restaurant-goers in the New Orleans area, but the suspected contaminated oysters have been shipped to Georgia, Texas and Maryland as well. The affected oysters had been processed to varying degrees, including shucked, breaded and distributed to be served on the half shell.

According to state health officer, Dr. Jimmy Guidry, the oyster contamination was likely the result of sewerage dumped from a boat in the harvesting area. The New York Times reports that the area will be shut down for 21 days, which is the amount of time it takes for oysters to purge themselves of the virus.

Oysters: Tasty Treat, or a Ticket to the ER?

Oysters are notorious for causing foodborne illnesses. In 2007, the CDC reported that seafood represented 27% of foodborne illness outbreaks that could be attributed to a single commodity, even though seafood is consumed in far smaller quantities than other animal products in the United States.

One particular concern about oysters is that they are frequently exposed to Vibrio vulnificus, a bacterium that occurs naturally in the Gulf of Mexico. According to a recent report issued by The U.S. Government Accountability Office, an average of 32 people become ill from eating oysters contaminated with V. vulnificus every year, with about half of the cases resulting in death.

Oyster Industry Lobbyists Responsible for Dozens of Preventable Deaths

Victims of V. vulnificus and oyster aficionados may be surprised to learn that illnesses and deaths caused by this lethal bacterium are entirely preventable. Since 2001, the state of California has implemented a regulation that requires oysters shipped from the gulf to undergo a light processing technique that effectively kills the bacterium in question. Since implementation of the new safety standards, California’s reported cases of V. vulnificus have dropped to nearly zero.

Although the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced its commitment to eliminate cases of V. vulnificus in 2009, it has failed to do so. Instead of implementing the practice that has been proven nearly 100% successful in California, the FDA continues to attempt to solve the problem through ineffective consumer education efforts and mild industry regulations.

According to public health advocate and food safety scholar Marion Nestle, the FDA’s failure to act results from pressure placed on politicians by oyster harvesting, processing and distribution companies. As a result of these greedy corporations and ineffective regulatory processes, at least 15 people are dying needlessly every year after being poisoned by oysters.

Victim Of Food Poisoning?

Foodborne illness may be an uncomfortable annoyance for some, but in special populations—particularly the young and the elderly—it can be a dangerous or even life-threatening issue. If you or a loved one has had a serious case of foodborne illness, you may be entitled to financial compensation for your suffering and losses. Contact us today, and allow our experienced attorneys to explain your legal rights and options to you.

The widow of a Mexican citizen who died while in immigration custody in southern Georgia is suing the government for $1 million in a wrongful death lawsuit, reported the Atlanta Journal-Constitution last week.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of Sara Hernandez-Gonzalez last Tuesday in federal court, claiming that the federal government’s negligence was responsible for the widow’s late husband’s death from myocarditis, an inflammatory heart disease.

Died While in Custody

Roberto Medina-Martinez, a 39-year old native of Mexico, had been arrested in North Carolina in January of 2009 for speeding and driving without a license. He was transferred to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in Stewart County, where he was held for just over a month before he died on March 11, at the St. Francis Hospital in Columbus.

Under ICE policy, all detainees must receive physical examinations and have a physician sign off on their exam reports when they are admitted. According to the plaintiff’s attorneys, Medina-Martinez’s medical report was not reviewed or signed off by a physician. Additionally, they claim, Mr. Medina-Martinez had been administered an abnormal chest x-ray, which had never received appropriate follow-up care.

“The government’s failure to provide proper medical treatment of Mr. Medina breached the applicable standard of care and was negligent,” the lawsuit alleges. 

“With this lawsuit, we take the next step to seek justice for the widow and family of Roberto Medina-Martinez,” said attorney Brian Spears. “We contend that Mr. Medina’s death could have been prevented and that he died as a result of systematic neglect by certain medical professionals at the Stewart Detention Center.”

Claim Refused by ICE

Last September, ICE rejected a previous $1 million claim from Ms. Hernandez-Gonzales, citing “fail(ure) to establish that any negligent or wrongful act or omission of a federal government employee caused this alleged accident.”

Declining to comment on the lawsuit, an ICE spokesperson instead said that his agency had recently made “significant reforms (…) to the immigration detention system and health care management. ICE is committed to providing all detainees in our care with timely, safe, humane and appropriate treatment, which includes medical and mental health care. ICE has developed a system of service delivery and oversight to ensure that this occurs.”

What is Wrongful Death?

Used as a legal term, wrongful death refers to a death that was caused by the negligent or deliberate act by an individual or a company. Wrongful deaths can occur in many different ways, including the following:

• Car accidents caused by drunk or reckless driving
• Intentional homicide
• Faulty construction
• Contaminated food
• Medical malpractice
• Dangerous or defective projects
• Dangerous medical devises
• Nursing home abuse or neglect
• Unsafe prescription drugs
• Illegal or improper service or alcohol
• Accidents at work
• Criminal acts 

In Georgia, wrongful death lawsuits are usually filed by the spouse of the deceased. In cases where the decedent was unmarried or had no living spouse, the decedent’s children may file a lawsuit. If the deceased had no living spouse or children, surviving parents have the right to pursue a claim for wrongful death.

Has Someone’s Negligence Caused You to Lose a Loved One?

Has someone close to you passed away, due to the negligent or harmful acts of another person or company? You may be entitled to compensation for the loss of your loved one. Georgia law allows surviving family members to collect the value of the life of the decedent, as well as damages for pain and suffering, economic losses and punitive damages. Contact our attorneys today for a free consultation.