Chicago Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

The U.S. Supreme Court examined a Vermont law that limited the use of patient information collected by pharmacies to determine whether or not 18 V.S.A. § 4631 violated pharmacies' First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court held that the Vermont law did place unnecessary limits on the speech of pharmaceutical companies and had failed to justify these limits within the law itself. Therefore, the Court found Vermont's Confidentiality of Prescription Information statute to be unconstitutional as it currently stands in Sorrell v. IMS Health, No. 10-779.

The Vermont law at issue, 18 V.S.A. § 4631, sought to limit pharmacies from selling their client's demographic information to pharmaceutical companies. Basically, whenever a patient fills a prescription at a pharmacy, information on that patient is generated. The pharmacy then sells that information to "data miners," who compile the data into coherent reports, which are then sold to pharmaceutical manufacturers. The drug companies then use this data for "detailing", a process through which they promote their medications to doctors in the hopes of increasing the sale and use of their drug.

The goal of §4631 was to limit the practice of detailing by eliminating the role of the data miners; under the law, pharmacies were no longer able to sell patients' information to data miners. The law sought to limit the commercial use of patient information and its sale to pharmaceutical companies. However, it did allow this information to be used in other ways, e.g., for medical research purposes. In fact, it was this arbitrary divide of what was allowed and what was not that led to the Supreme Court's ruling in Sorrell.

Continue reading "Law Limiting Sale of Customer Prescription Data Overturned by Supreme Court - Sorrell v. IMS Health" »

Federal preemption has long been a hot button issue in pharmaceutical drug cases, with consumer advocates arguing that drug companies should be held to the sometimes higher state standards. However, the U.S. Supreme Court appears to have reversed the federal preemption stance it took in Wyeth v. Levine. In Wyeth, the Court held that the negligence claim against the pharmaceutical company was not preempted by federal regulations and that the drug company was liable for its failure to provide adequate warning of its drug's dangers.

However, in Pliva v. Mensing, No. 09-993, the Supreme Court ruled that a pharmaceutical manufacturer could not be sued under state law for failing to warn consumers about its drug's risks. This decision seems to go against the Court's ruling in Wyeth just two years ago; both lawsuits deal with federal preemption issues and involve states setting higher safety regulations than the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Yet in Wyeth, the Court held the drug company responsible, while in Pliva, the Court ruled the pharmaceutical lawsuit was barred under federal preemption.

Yet on closer inspection, there appear to be some key differences between the facts surrounding the drug warning labels in Wyeth and Pliva. The main issue in both the Wyeth and the Pliva pharmaceutical cases involved an FDA regulation referred to as "changes being effected" (CBE). Under the CBE regulation, a drug manufacturer may modify its warning label without prior FDA approval if the modifications will improve the drug's safety. Under CBE regulations, the FDA approval comes after the warning changes, not before; however, the assumption is that the warning changes in such matters are so important to consumer safety that the FDA will eventually approve those changes.

Continue reading "Generic Drug Companies Held to Lower Standard Than Name Brand Counterparts - U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Pliva v. Mensing" »

A recent Cook County personal injury lawsuit involving a railway worker who was injured at work exemplifies many of the typical components for worksite injury lawsuits. Not only were there several defendants involved whom the injured worker held responsible for his work injury, but the defendants alleged that the railroad worker was actually responsible for his own injury. It was up to the jury in James Barnicle v. Belt Railway Company of Chicago, 06 L 1325, to decide who was at fault for the railroad accident.

In order to determine who was at fault, the jury must first examine the case facts. At the time of the work accident, 48 year-old James Barnicle was working as a railroad switchman for The Belt Railway Company of Chicago. His duties involved switching railcars traveling in and out of the Exxon Mobil plant located off Cicero Avenue. However, as he was engaging a track switch, it unexpectedly jerked towards him, causing an injury to his lumbar spine.

Barnicle claimed that the specific track switch was defective and that Exxon Mobil had prior notice of this defect. Plaintiff's lawyers attempted to establish the prior notice by submitting evidence that other employees had reported that the switch was difficult to operate and in need of repair. The idea being that if the jury believed that Exxon knew that the track switch was defective, but did nothing to repair the switch, then Exxon would be responsible for the plaintiff's injuries.

Continue reading "Cook County Railroad Employee Awarded $1.26 Million for Defective Track Switch Injury - Barnicle v. Belt Railway Company of Chicago" »

Typically auto accidents occur between two vehicles engaged in the driving process. It is fairly unusual for a driver to hit a parked car or standing vehicle without some contributing factors. Yet that is what happened in the Chicago bus accident that resulted in the Illinois personal injury lawsuit of Jose Maldonado v. Leona Meade, 09 L 6610 (Cook County).

In 2007, Jose Maldonado, a CTA bus driver, was sitting in his disabled bus. The bus was facing northbound on Chicago's Sheridan Road, its flashers on. At the same time, the 89 year-old Leona Meade was driving her car northbound on Sheridan Road. Despite being on the opposite side of the street as the parked bus, Meade somehow managed to crash her car into the front of Maldonado's CTA bus.

As a result of the Chicago car-bus accident, Maldonado suffered a torn labrum in his right shoulder. The labrum is the area of cartilage around the shoulder socket that helps stabilize the shoulder joint. An injury in this area can require a lengthy recovery, during which time shoulder mobility is extremely limited.

Continue reading "Parked CTA Bus Hit By Elderly Driver - $395,858 Verdict for Injured Bus Driver In Maldonado v. Meade" »

Jeep Grand Cherokees might face a recall due to a product defect that causes the increased risk for fuel fires following rear-end collisions. The auto recall would affect 1993 to 2004 Grand Cherokee models; however, Chrysler denies the need for a Jeep recall and the National HIghway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has not yet instituted one. Yet there are at least different three crash tests showing that Grand Cherokees are more likely to catch on fire following rear end collisions that similar SUVs manufactured during the same time period.

The various crash tests were conducted by Karco Engineering and The Federal Outdoor Impact Laboratory; Karco has previously performed crash testing for the NHTSA. One test conducted on 1995, 1996, and 1999 Grand Cherokees resulted in significant gasoline leaks following rear-impact crashes. These gasoline leaks not only put the Jeep passengers at risk, but could also pose a fire threat to the occupants of the striking vehicle.

Likewise, another investigation of Grand Cherokeesfrom 1993-2004 was conducted because of over 254 deaths resulting from "172 fatal fire crashes" involving those Grand Cherokees models. The majority of these investigations are focusing on the Grand Cherokee because of similar results showing that the Grand Cherokee's fuel system is much more likely to pose a fire threat than those used in similar vehicles. For example, comparable Ford Explorer models were much less likely to catch fire following a rear-end collision; in crash tests, Ford Explorers' fuel system typically remained intact following these collisions.

Continue reading "Jeep Grand Cherokees Recall? Crash Tests Show Fire Risk Following Rear-End Collisions" »

The first case to go to trial in the series of Cook County pharmaceutical negligence lawsuits against Baxter International received a $625,000 verdict against the pharmaceutical manufacturer. The Illinois lawsuit of Estate of Johansen v. Baxter International, Inc., et al., 09 L 11175, was filed after the plaintiff, Steven Johansen, died as a result of receiving contaminated Heparin distributed by the defense.

Hundreds of lawsuits have been filed against Deerfield-based Baxter International, Inc. and Scientific Protein Laboratories, its supplier, after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) discovered that the companies had been selling contaminated Heparin. The tainted Heparin was discovered to contain oversulfated chondroitin sulfate, which is a synthetic chemical created from animal cartilage that is typically distributed as a dietary supplement. According to tests run by the FDA, the false chemical mimics the real drug, Heparin.

However, not only does the oversulfated chondroitin sulfate not have the same blood thinning effects of Heparin, but can actually cause adverse reactions in patients taking it. The synthetic chemical has been found to cause vomiting, difficulty breathing, a drop in blood pressure, and other severe reactions. The plaintiff, Steven Johansen, first received low doses of the contaminated Heparin during dialysis treatment in December 2007, with no obvious reaction. However, Johansen later received a second, much higher dose of the contaminated Heparin, which resulted in his death five days later.

Continue reading "Contaminated Heparin Lawsuit Awarded $625,000 By Cook County Jury - Johansen v. Baxter International" »

A jury in a Southern Illinois federal district court entered a $95 million jury verdict in a sexual harassment lawsuit brought against a retail store and one of its managers by a female employee. Ashley Alford v. Aaron's Rents, Inc., Richard Moore, et al., 08 cv 00683, included widespread claims of sexual harassment by the store manager and allegations of inaction on behalf of the company itself.

Twenty year-old Ashley Alford worked at Aaron's, Inc., a nationwide chain that offers rent-to-own appliances and furniture. Alford's lawsuit claimed that in November 2005 her store manager began calling her degrading pet names, accompanied by inappropriate touching, groping, and pinching. In addition, the store manager, Richard Moore, began giving her gifts, which were accompanied by him stating that he expected some form of sexual acts in return.

After six months of this behavior, Ashley took action by calling the company's sexual harassment hotline. However, while this did result in the regional supervisor coming to her local store, he failed to take any action against the supervisor. And even worse, the regional supervisor discussed Ashley's sexual harassment allegations in front of the very supervisor she had filed a complaint against.

Continue reading "Illinois Jury Returns $95 Million Verdict for Workers' Rights Violations" »

Four years ago, Microsoft was sued by a technology company for patent infringement. The Toronto-based company, i4i, won its patent lawsuit against the computer giant and were to receive a payment of $290 million for Microsoft's wrongdoing. However, the payment by Microsoft had been held up by the appeals process Microsoft was engaged in to try and reverse the large settlement.

The Supreme Court recently issued its decision, affirming the lower court's ruling in Microsoft Corp v. i4i Limited Partnership, 10-290. The main issue before the Court was the level of proof required. In patent lawsuits, courts assume that the patent, in this case held by i4i, is valid. Therefore, the burden of proof lies with the entity accused of violating that patent, which in this case is Microsoft.

The Canadian company, i4i, accused Microsoft of using technology developed by i4i when creating Word 2003 and Word 2007. Specifically, i4i stated that Microsoft has infringed on its patent setting out a new and improved method for editing documents. In the original jury trial, Microsoft was found guilty of willfully infringing on i4i's patent and was ordered to pay $290 million to i4i and discontinue versions of Microsoft Word containing i4i's technology.

Continue reading "U.S. Supreme Court Orders Microsoft to Pay $290 Million in Patent Infringement Lawsuit" »

Under Illinois workers' compensation laws, an employee cannot file a civil lawsuit against his or her employer for an injury that occurs within one's work duties. However, workers' compensation laws do not protect other entities from liability for injuries that occur in the workplace.

In Timothy McDonald and Judith McDonald v. Imperial Zinc Corp., et al., No. 09 L 1581, the plaintiff truck driver sued a manufacturing company after one of its employee's negligence caused plaintiff's work place injury. At the time of the personal injury, Timothy McDonald was loading his truck with goods from Imperial Zinc Corporation.

McDonald was standing on the loading dock when a forklift operator employed by Imperial Zinc Corp. backed over McDonald's right foot. As a result of the work place injury, McDonald sustained a fractured foot, skin was torn off of his right foot, and a tendon in his left knee was ruptured. Despite extensive medical treatment, McDonald was unable to return to his prior job as a truck driver after this work place injury.

Continue reading "Chicago Forklift Operator Fails to Meet OSHA Standards - Truck Driver Receives $3.6 Million Settlement in McDonald v. Imperial Zinc Corp." »

The Illinois wrongful death lawsuit of Estate of Richard Schrik, deceased v. Oyindamola Omole, RN, No. 07 L 10740, involved claims that the decedent died as a result of nursing negligence. The nursing home resident fell while under the supervision of a nursing staff member and was the victim of a poor neurological exam by the same nurse.

Richard Schrik had been living at the Howe Development Center, a nursing residence run and operated by the State of Illinois for residents with developmental disabilities. Schrik had severe mental retardation and had been diagnosed with the mental abilities of a three or four year-old. He had been living in state institutions since 1977.

In 2002, Schrik was noted to be running around the residence facility, throwing garbage cans and acting out in general. While running around, Schrik fell and hit his head. His fall resulted in a severe fracture and the hyperextension of his neck, which resulted in a spinal cord injury.

At the time of Schrik's fall, Oyindamola Omole, a registered nurse (RN), was the nurse in charge. While the wrongful death complaint did not hold Nurse Omole responsible for Schrik's fall, it did include claims of nursing negligence regarding the exam she conducted immediately following the decedent's fall.

Continue reading "Disabled Resident's Fall Leads to $400,000 for Surviving Family - Estate of Schrik v. Omole" »