Posts Tagged ‘Chicago Personal Injury Lawyer’

CTA Dangerous Busdriving: Taxpayers Foot the Bill

Thursday, July 8th, 2010

CTA bus dangerous driving 300x164 CTA Dangerous Busdriving: Taxpayers Foot the Bill Most Chicago-area taxpayers are aware that when a CTA busdriver causes an accident, it is almost always the Chicago taxpayers who foot the bill for the damage, including those stemming from personal injury or wrongful death lawsuits.  What they may not know, however, is that Chicago taxpayers are also footing the bill for busdrivers’ dangerous driving when an accident does not result.

Our Chicago CTA accident lawyers recently discussed the proliferation of red-light cameras in the Chicago area.  Chicago-area pedestrians are quite familiar with the tendency of many drivers, including CTA, Metra, Pace or other public busdrivers, to run red lights – the experience of waiting to cross the road, even after the light has changed, because a bus is still in the intersection is a daily ritual in Chicago.  It is unsurprising, then, that Chicago’s red-light cameras catch an inordinate number of CTA and Pace buses running red lights.

In fact, red-light cameras caught CTA busdrivers running red lights a staggering 1,200 times in 2008.   CTA non-fare vehicles (cars and trucks) racked up an additional 75 red-light tickets.  And Pace drivers, including buses, vanpools, and paratransit vehicles, were also caught by red-light cameras over 100 times in that same year.  Pace, however, operates largely in the suburbs, which have a comparatively smaller number of red-light cameras.  With Cook County’s plans to increase the number of cameras in the suburbs, our Chicago bus accident attorneys expect that number to rise.

And CTA policy does not require the busdrivers themselves to pay the penalty for red-light malfeasance.  Instead, the CTA itself pays the $100 fine each time a red-light camera issues a citation to a CTA bus.  The CTA instituted this policy when the red-light cameras began to spring up across Chicagoland, in response to pressure from the busdrivers’ union.  Pace, however, still requires the bus drivers themselves to pay for red-light tickets – perhaps another reason why the number of Pace violations is lower.

CTA officials insist that the policy is not overly lenient on offending busdrivers, and that it is easy for the CTA to discipline offending drivers because the CTA can view the red-light camera photos, as well as video of the red-light violations.  This may be little reassurance, however, to Chicago drivers and pedestrians familiar with the commonality of CTA buses running red lights. Indeed, the number of CTA red-light violation nearly doubled from 2007 to 2008.  Bus drivers, in turn, point the finger back at the CTA, claiming that the agency is placing increased pressure on them to keep the buses on schedule.  Regardless, the outcome is the same: more potentially catastrophic bus accidents caused by negligent driving of public buses.

The CTA also asserts that its current policy is more efficient.  Before this policy was put in place, when the CTA received a red-light violation, it would have to ask the city to re-issue the ticket to the bus driver responsible.  The driver could then either pay the ticket or contest it.  Until that process was complete, the CTA could not take any action against the driver.  Now, the CTA can begin the internal investigation and discipline process – which may lead to a series of progressive actions beginning with retraining leading up to written warnings or eventual dismissal – as soon as it receives the citation.  It is questionable, however, whether this minimal gain in efficiency justifies the annual use of over $100,000 in taxpayer dollars to pay drivers’ citations.

In any event, relieving busdrivers from the fiscal consequences of their dangerous driving is not a move designed to enhance the safety of others on the road.  Our Chicago CTA accident attorneys urge the CTA to reverse this dangerous policy, giving its drivers a direct incentive to abide by the rules of the road.

For a free consultation with an experienced Chicago personal injury lawyer at Passen Law Group, call us at (312) 527-4500.

Diving Spinal Cord Injuries: A Summer Danger

Friday, June 18th, 2010

diving spinal cord injury 183x300 Diving Spinal Cord Injuries: A Summer DangerSummer is a time for outdoor fun.  Boating, swimming, hiking and camping are among the activities  we associate with summertime.  But these activities are also fraught with hidden danger.  Every year, many lives are ruined by diving accidents – in particular, by spinal cord injuries including paralysis and death caused by diving into shallow water.  These accidents are always tragic.  But they are also often preventable, as explained by our Chicago brain injury lawyers, through the caution of the diver and through proper precautions by property owners and others.

Diving accidents often strike young people, particularly children, who are more prone to take risks and fail to understand the consequences.  Each year in the United States, around 6,000 Americans under the age of 14 suffer a diving accident severe enough to require hospitalization.  Of those, a heartbreaking one in five suffer severe and permanent spinal cord damage.

But the recklessness of the young is not all that is to blame for catastrophic diving injuries.  Often simple precautions by adult landowners and governmental authorities could prevent the destruction of these young lives.  When landowners or authorities are aware that water is unsuitable for diving, they may have an obligation to warn others of the shallow depth of the water.  This is particularly true when they allow swimmers and boaters to use the water, but still fail to warn them that the water is shallow.  This failure to warn may amount to actionable negligence.  Those injured by diving accidents should contact an experienced personal injury lawyer who can help evaluate the circumstances surrounding the accident, and determine if they have a cause of action.

Even when water is deep enough to prevent divers from hitting the bottom, spinal injury can occur.  Dr. Shawn Hervey-Jumper, a resident at the University of Michigan’s Department of Neurosurgery, has stated that if a diver hits the water improperly, the surface tension of the water can be enough to cause spinal injury.  Perhaps this is because of the nature of the spinal cord.  The spinal cord — which is responsible for transmitting movement signals from the brain to the muscles throughout the body — has a consistency that is similar to firm jello.

Spinal cord injuries are among the most debilitating injuries that can occur.  Severe spinal injuries lead to paralysis, including quadriplegia and paraplegia, which affects the body differently depending on the point at which the spinal cord injury occurs (with paralysis extending below point of injury).  Spinal injuries are also particularly problematic because they cannot be completely repaired.  The spinal column, once injured, is permanently damaged.  Although surgery and other treatment may help, the spinal cord will never be the same.

That is why the University of Michigan’s Department of Neurosurgery has prepared an educational video, titled “Shattered Dreams,” that highlights this very real danger.  The video was also adapted into several public service announcements, which began playing in Michigan movie theaters on June 4.

The movie features two men injured by diving accidents.  The first, Matt Kerry, was an athletic young man recruited for a football scholarship.  He dove off a boat into three feet of water, and was paralyzed.  He is now unable to perform simple activities for himself, including feeding and dressing himself.  The second, Josh Weber, was a golfer, swimmer, and carpenter before his own diving accident.  He, too, is paralyzed, unable to get out of bed or a chair.

The University of Michigan campaign encourages boaters and swimmers to jump “feet first” to avoid diving accidents and severe spinal injuries.  Our top Chicago brain injury lawyers add our voice to that encouragement, and also urge landowners and park districts to properly warn potential boaters and swimmers of shallow water.

For a free consultation with an experienced Chicago personal injury lawyer at Passen Law Group, call us at (312) 527-4500.

Government Ineffective Against Pharmaceutical Misconduct Even When It Imposes Record Fines

Tuesday, June 8th, 2010

Those who follow the news may be impressed by the massive fines they have seen imposed against pharmaceutical companies for their misconduct, including off-label marketing.  Periodically, the press reports a fine against one of these companies reaching into the hundreds of millions of dollars.  Surely, with such fines imposed, the drug companies and the industry as a whole will begin acting responsibly?  Unfortunately, our Chicago personal injury lawyers of the Passen Law Group, among others, have observed that this is not the case.  These penalties have proven completely ineffective in reigning in the negligent and abusive practices of drug companies.

In addition to the large dollar figures, such settlements also often include what are affectionately known as “CIAs,” or Corporate Integrity Agreements.  These agreements, in theory, allows the government to keep an eye on the company’s future compliance efforts, even steering or directing those efforts.  The government apparently believes that a settlement containing a CIA will create compliance from that company in the future.   The evidence is to the contrary: some recent fines have even been leveled against companies who were already operating under such agreements from prior misconduct.

Moreover, our Chicago wrongful death attorneys believe that government fines, in addition to their ineffectiveness, may actually be harmful to Americans.  There is nothing preventing companies from passing these fines along to future customers in the form of increased drug prices.  Americans are thus hurt in a multitude of ways by the companies’ wrongful conduct – they pay for Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements for off-label and dangerous drug uses, they pay the societal and healthcare costs for treating and dealing with the severe, debilitating, or even fatal side effects, they pay the costs of government litigation against the drug companies, and then they pay higher prices for medicines in the future.

The perfect example is the recent fine leveled against drugmaker AstraZeneca for marketing abuses in connection with Seroquel, the company’s marqee psychiatric drug.  Seroquel has FDA approval – for a limited number of uses.  Seroquel’s FDA approval extended only to short-term treatment, of specific conditions:  schizophrenia and acute bipolar 1.  It is alleged, however – by both the Justice Department and numerous civil and class-action plaintiffs – that the company aggressively and consistently marketed the drug for long-term use, and for the treatment of a much wider array of conditions.  The Justice Department’s complaint stated that AstraZeneca marketed the drug “as a long-term cure-all for a broad spectrum of psychiatric maladies, including . . . aggression and agitation in children.”  The company also allegedly marketed the drug for the long-term treatment of dementia.  Making this off-label marketing even more egregious, clinical studies on Seroquel have had mixed results, but have often shown “serious and debilitating” side effects – particularly in the elderly and children.

The type of doctors to whom Seroquel was marketed was also part of the problem.  For its approved uses, Seroquel should most commonly be prescribed by psychiatrists.  But the company marketed the drug to general practitioners, staff at veteran’s hospitals and prisons, staff at nursing homes, and even to neighborhood physicians.  By doing so, AstraZeneca essentially used patients, including America’s veterans, elderly, and children, as test subjects for unapproved, unsupervised trials of the use of Seroquel for the treatment of additional conditions.  Our wrongful death attorneys are shocked by this betrayal of the public trust.

After the Justice Department filed its criminal complaint against AstraZeneca, the company decided to settle.  The company’s stated reason was, of course, to “avoid the delay, uncertainty, inconvenience, and expense of protracted litigation.”   The company worked out a deal with the government that included a record-breaking $520 million civil-only fine.  This fine was touted as a major victory in a press conference held by no less than the Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the head of the FDA.

But despite the hype (and the fact that $520 million sounds like a lot of money to most Americans), the fine, like most, has proven far too small to be effective.  Indeed, this staggering fine is actually just over 15% of the amount Seroquel earned for AstraZeneca in the U.S. during the years that the company was actively marketing the drug to physicians for dangerous, unapproved, off-label uses.  In that time, the company made an unbelievable $8.6 billion dollars from U.S. Seroquel sales – making even this record fine little more than a slap on the wrist.

AstraZeneca was already operating under a CIA during at least some of the years in which it aggressively marketed off-label uses of Seroquel – a CIA was imposed in connection with a $355 million fine imposed for the marketing of an AstraZeneca cancer drug.

The personal injury attorneys of Passen Law Group know that there is every reason to question the government’s effectiveness in cases of drug company misconduct.  Along with the massive underfunding of both the FDA and the Justice Department’s enforcement, the government has several serious incentives to settle, rather than fully prosecute, these cases.  First, the government, and particularly the high-ranking officials, like to have an occasional large settlement to trot out to the press.  The risk of the bad press of a costly prosecution and a not-guilty verdict, from the perspective of the political fallout to these high-profile politicians, it considerable.  Additionally, if the government were to succeed in one of these prosecutions, the law would then require that it exclude the offending company from any federal healthcare programs.

Not only would such an exclusion deprive federally-funded patients of the medicines produced by these companies, it could have a profound negative impact on the industry.  Most pharmaceutical companies get between 30% and 40% of their revenue from federally-funded programs.  Exclusion could thus put a company completely out of business, rocking the industry and destroying countless jobs.  With these various settlement incentives, there is every reason to believe that the government is not really trying to win these cases.

Our top Illinois injury lawyers urge the government to begin to take these cases seriously.  Funding for prosecutions must be increased, and the government must begin When cases are settled, they must be for more that a token amount, and there must be conditions imposed preventing the company from passing the cost along to customers.  Finally, the government should remove the exclusion penalty, thus allowing it to aggressively litigate these cases, and see them through to completion.  Until then, however, the only true means of protecting consumers and punishing offending companies will be civil litigation brought by top products liability lawyers such as those at Passen Law Group.

For a free consultation with an experienced Chicago personal injury lawyer at Passen Law Group, call us at (312) 527-4500.