Archive for the ‘Wrongful Death’ Category

Generic Drug Risks

Monday, August 1st, 2011

While generic drug manufacturers would like consumers to believe that generic versions of drugs are exactly equivalent to the name brands, this is not usually the case.

Consequently, some people who switch from a name brand to a generic drug experience what doctors term a “therapeutic failure.” What this means is that while the name brand drug worked to control the patient’s condition, the generic version does not.  Patients may also experience new or different side effects.  Hardly chemically identical.

Poor Quality Control

So, how are dangerous generic drugs getting into the American marketplace? One problem is that  manufacturers are using raw materials from China, India, and other areas where quality assurance is not strict. It is worth noting that many over-the-counter medicines, such as ibuprofen and acetaminophen, are currently being imported from these same areas. In the opinion of our Chicago injury attorneys, it is only a matter of time before a major safety incident occurs with these products, as well.

But why doesn’t the FDA stop these problems? The simple answer is that the FDA is dramatically underfunded and understaffed to confront the task before it. The FDA pulls and tests only about 300 doses of prescription medication each year. This means that only about one in ten million doses are inspected each year. And, although the FDA is supposed to inspect the facilities where drugs are manufactured at least once every two years, due to the lack of adequate resources, in fact some drug companies have only one plant inspected every four years. And only 200 plants have been inspected in China and India in the last seven years.

Risks of Generic Drugs

The risks of generic medications are hardly academic. The next year will bring a rash of new generic medications on the market, as the patents expire on a number of the biggest drugs in America. In fact, 7 of the top 20 best-selling international medications have patents expiring in the next 14 months. This includes Lipitor, a commonly-prescribed anti-cholesterol medication, and Plavix, a commonly-prescribed blood thinner.

Also included are common medications for asthma, diabetes, depression, HIV, blood pressure, and bipolar disorder. In the next four years, drugs which account for around $255 billion in annual international sales have expiring patents.  In fact, Blue Cross Blue Shield estimates that up to fifteen percent of the American population is currently taking a medicine with a patent expiring in the next few years.

And the problems with generic safety will only get worse, thanks to a recent ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court. In this year’s term, the Court ruled that generic drugs are required to do nothing more on their labels than mirror the labels of the name-brand drugs. This decision, in Pliva v. Mensing, provides extensive protection for generic drug manufacturers, but none for innocent patients. In effect, the decision means that even when there are indications that a generic version of a drug causes catastrophic or fatal side effects not present in the name brand, up to and including kidney failure, the drug manufacturer need not provide a warning to those who take the drug.

In fact, the Court ruled that even if state consumer protection laws would require the drug maker to provide a warning, federal law preempts those state requirements and in fact mandates that the drugmaker not provide a warning, if that warning is not present on the name-brand label.

Our serious injury attorneys are more than troubled at this state of affairs. The lack of warning labels is by no means the only type of legal claim available to the victims of generic drugs. And as the legal responsibilities of the manufacturers of generic drugs continue to develop, we hope that the legal redress for those injured by these dangerous drugs will become easier to access. In the meantime, we urge consumers to take care when using generic drugs, and to weigh the risks carefully before choosing these products.

Stephen M. Passen of Passen Law Group has over 30 years representing individuals against large corporations in serious personal injury and wrongful death cases.  To speak with one of our top-rated injury attorneys, call us at (312) 527-4500 or email us at info@passenlaw.com.

share save 171 16 Generic Drug Risks

Toxic Torts: An Overview

Tuesday, July 19th, 2011

What Is a Toxic Tort?

Although the term “toxic tort” is used by lawyers who practice in this area, and even occasionally by the media, many people do not truly understand what it means. Simply put, a toxic tort is a form of wrongdoing – either intentional or negligent – which causes injury or property damage due to exposure to a toxic substance.  Toxic torts can take many forms, from large-scale chemical spills, to employee actions, to individual injuries.  Passen Law Group is proud to represent individuals and families who have been injured or killed by toxic substances.

Depending on the type of injury, a toxic tort case can be grounded in any of a wide variety of civil torts, including intentional torts, simple negligence, professional negligence, and products liability. Toxic tort cases can also be based on federal or state statutes. For example, the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OSHA), a federal statute, requires employers to keep their workers safe from dangerous substances.

Types of Toxins Involved

The types of toxic tort cases vary greatly, as there is seemingly no end to the variety of toxins to which people can be exposed in modern life. The classic examples – asbestos in the workplace, a chemical spill leaching into residential groundwater – are really only the beginning. Indeed, even the highly-publicized tobacco litigation is made up of toxic tort claims, as these suits allege that tobacco is a toxin to which smokers were wrongfully exposed.

Among the types of toxic torts which have emerged in recent years are cases involving exposure to the following:

  • Heavy metals
  • Solvents
  • Emissions from oil and other recycling
  • Unsafe chemicals in drinking water (generally due to chemical runoff from manufacturing)
  • Emissions from refineries
  • Radioactive and radiographic chemicals
  • Gasoline or its unsafe components
  • Chemicals released in railroad accidents
  • Chinese drywall, which releases sulfur fumes
  • Mold contamination
  • Toxins or contaminants in medications
  • Lead paint
  • Asbestos

Forms of Toxic Tort Litigation

Toxic tort cases can take many forms. The form most commonly known is the class-action or mass-actions law suit: many individuals who were harmed by a single incident or practice band together to sue, or an individual or small group sues on behalf of this larger group. But toxic torts can take other forms, as well.

A single individual harmed by the practice, product, or incident issue can file his own, individual lawsuit. In many cases, particularly where an individual’s circumstances or damages differ from the norm, this strategy can be the best.

In addition, many states allow consumers and citizens to step into the shoes of the state’s Attorney General and file a “private attorney general” action to redress some types of toxic torts. Although the rules vary by state and by type of claim, these actions are generally regulatory (actions alleging the violation of a statute or regulation). This type of toxic tort claim is most often based upon exposure to a toxin via a consumer product (such as gasoline, or high lead content in a toy).

Summary

Whatever the type of toxic tort at issue, a highly-skilled, experienced attorney is essential. Toxic tort defendants are often large companies, which spare no expense, and are willing to spend significant amounts of money to defend what can become a high-profile case. If you believe that you have been injured through exposure to a toxin, seek out the counsel of an attorney who knows how to try these cases and combat these tactics.

Stephen M. Passen has over 30 years experience representing individuals and families in serious personal injury and wrongful death actions against some of the largest and most powerful corporations.  As an example, he recently secured a $4.2 million settlement for the family of a worker who was severely burned after a gasoline storage tanker he was working on exploded.

Contact Mr. Passen by phone at (312) 527-4500 or email at info@passenlaw.com for a Free Consultation.

share save 171 16 Toxic Torts: An Overview

Study Finds Chicago Hospitals Fall Short on Basic Safety

Wednesday, April 20th, 2011

Medical errors occur all too often — and with devastating consequences for patients and their families.  Indeed, as recently reported by the Chicago Tribune, if the current national rates of medical malpractice apply here in Chicago, then every day in Chicago-area hospitals medical errors claim the lives of ten patients and injure one hundred others.

Take, for example, hospital-acquired infections as a result of medical care, generally from catheters or IV lines.  As our top medical malpractice attorneys have previously written, these infections are generally not only preventable, but easily preventable.  Studies have shown that such simple, common-sense measures as routine handwashing and proper sterilization would effectively eliminate such infections.  Yet they continue to occur at alarming rates at hospitals and medical centers across the country, leading to serious illness and death.

Likewise, bedsores (otherwise known as decubitous ulcers) are a completely preventable medical complication. Bedsores are an extremely painful complication caused when a patient is left for far too long in one position. Just as it sounds, this complication can be easily prevented by the simple expedient of regularly repositioning those patients who are immobile.

A third common medical complication, post-operative sepsis (a bacterial infection), is not quite as easy to prevent, but can be effectively treated if caught promptly.  Like hospital-acquired infections, rates of post-operative sepsis can be greatly reduced by proper sterilization and sanitation practices (such as routine handwashing).  But perhaps even more importantly, when post-surgical patients are properly monitored, infections can be identified and treated early, before they have a chance to develop into life-threatening conditions.

The methods of preventing or reducing these problems are so simple, so common-sense, that it would be easy to assume that top Chicago-area hospitals, prominent hospitals with good reputations, have comparatively low rates of these conditions.  As our Chicago malpractice attorneys are all too well aware, however, this is not the case.

The recent Tribune article examined rates of complications in eight prominent local hospitals.  This information was derived from publicly-available data on whynotthebest.com, a site designed to “motivate” and enable hospitals to provide better care, and was presented to local health care executives.  The hospitals the author looked at were:

•    The University of Chicago
•    The University of Illinois
•    Northwestern
•    Rush
•    Loyola
•    Lutheran General (the flagship hospital for the Advocate system)
•    Evanston (the flagship hospital for NorthShore University)
•    Stroger (Cook County’s public hospital)

The data available was adjusted for the condition of the patient – how sick he was to begin with, and thus how susceptible he would be to additional complications, and severity of those complications.  The site also adjusted for statistical significance, meaning that only those hospitals who were demonstrably better or worse than average were reported as such.

For rates of infections caused by medical care, three of these hospitals – Loyola, the University of Chicago, and the University of Illinois, were all ranked as “significantly worse” than average. Not one of these eight local hospitals ranked significantly better than average in rates of these largely preventable infections.

For rates of bedsores, Loyola was again ranked as significantly worse than average.  Indeed, Loyola’s rate of patient bedsores was nearly nine times the average, a shocking rate even to our experienced medical malpractice lawyers.  Again, not one of these eight prominent Chicago hospitals ranked above average in this area.

As to the third category, post-operative bacterial sepsis, only the University of Chicago was ranked significantly worse than average.  Interestingly, Stroger (a public Cook County hospital) ranked “significantly better” than average in this category.

This data is truly telling.  While many of these hospitals are renowned for their innovative and effective care, what these data demonstrate is that, in many cases, they are simply not taking care of their patients.  It is, quite simply, of no use to a patient to have her cancer cured through a cutting-edge treatment if she passes away from a preventable IV-borne infection.

We urge each of these hospitals – and others – to examine their patient-care practices, and to truly make patient safety a priority.

For a Free Consultation with a top-rated Chicago serious injury lawyer at Passen Law Group, call us at (312) 527-4500.

share save 171 16 Study Finds Chicago Hospitals Fall Short on Basic Safety