April 11, 2013

Anti-inflammatory Drug Dangers: Doctors recommend recall of popular drug

Researchers have requested that the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug Diclofenac be taken off shelves due to increased heart risks.

The drug, is sold under many brand names including Cataflam, Voltaren and Voltarol, and is only available by prescription in Canada and the United States.

Diclofenac is sold over-the-counter in many other countries including the U.K., Australia and Japan.

Diclofenac is typically used to treat mild to moderate chronic pain treat from headaches, arthritis and dental procedures. It is supposedly most effective when there is inflammation present.

Cardiac risks

However, several recent studies have shown that Diclofenac increases the risk of heart attack and stroke. The effects of the drug cause an imbalance in prostaglandins which increases the risk of blood clotting.

Researcher and clinical pharmacologist, Dr. David Henry, is quoted as saying:


“...this is a drug that has about the same risk of causing heart attacks as a drug called Vioxx, which was withdrawn from the market eight years ago because of this adverse effect."


Vioxx, which is the brand name for Rofecoxib, was also an anti-inflammatory which was taken off of the market in 2004 due to an increased risk of heart attack and stroke in patients. Vioxx has faced numerous lawsuits and class actions as a result of thousands of cases of injury or death attributed to use of the drug.

Two other anti-inflammatory medications, Celebrex and Bextra, were taken off the market in 2005 for the same reasons.

The U.S. National Institute of Health listing for Diclofenac contains an “IMPORTANT WARNING” that states:

"People who take nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (other than aspirin) such as diclofenac may have a higher risk of having a heart attack or a stroke than people who do not take these medications."

What should you do?

If you are taking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medication of any kind, you should discuss any concerns with your family doctor. Your doctor needs to be aware if you have any history of heart problems or stroke in your family that may put you at increased risk.

Bottom line: It is always better for your health care professionals to have more information than less information and whenever you have a question or concern, ask your doctor!

Posted by John McKiggan | | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Chronic Pain , Drug Injuries , Product Liability

February 26, 2013

Children’s Meds Causing Dangerous Allergic Reactions

Recently I was doing research for a client whose child had suffered an adverse reaction after taking a common children’s medication. That’s why this article in Reuters caught my attention.

It tells the story of a Massachusetts family that nearly lost their daughter due to an allergic reaction to a common household medicine. Seven year-old Samantha Reckis lost approximately 90 percent of her skin, suffered mild brain damage and is legally blind after taking children’s Motrin.

Following a decade-long trial, a Massachusetts jury has ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $63 million to Samantha and her family.

Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis

The active ingredient in Children’s Motrin and Children’s Advil (ibuprofen) can cause an allergic reaction that burns the skin and can leave the child blind. Samantha suffered from a rare reaction to the Motrin known as Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN).

The U.S. National Library of Medicine website has some helpful information on Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis. It is listed as an extreme skin disorder that is caused by an allergic reaction. Like in Samantha’s case, the allergic reaction is usually triggered by certain medications.

Rare…But Known Danger

Although the extreme allergic reaction is rare, the manufacturer, Johnson and Johnson, knew about this possible dangerous reaction to their product but they didn't provide any warning to consumers on their product labels.

Non-disclosure the Norm?

Pharmaceutical companies have long known about the risk of Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis as a reaction to ibuprofen. Why then did they not label their products to indicate this risk? Or provide advice on the labels for users who develop TEN symptoms? Is it because pointing out these serious side-effects might decrease their sales?

I have previously posted about other pharmaceutical companies who have been sued as a result of them not-warning customers of known and dangerous risks.

In that previous post, I discuss the lawsuits against Pfizer alleging that they failed to warn users of the risks to unborn children. Again, it is alleged that Pfizer knew of the risks and chose not to disclose all of the information.

A Silver Lining

There is some good news that may have come out of this tragic story. Since poor Samantha Reckis’ unfortunate incident, the FDA and Health Canada have ordered the manufactures of Motrin and Advil to put additional disclosure warning of the dangers of TEN on their medicine labels.

Posted by John McKiggan | | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Child Injuries , Child Safety , Drug Injuries , Product Liability

October 30, 2012

Pfizer Zoloft Birth Injury Claims - When is a risk too small to explain?

Last month 10 couples filed birth injury lawsuits against Pfizer, who manufactures the antidepressant Zoloft. They claim severe birth injuries suffered by their children are a consequence of the mom’s taking Zoloft during their pregnancy.

Failed to Warn of Risks

The argument is Pfizer failed to warn of the risks to unborn children, and further that Pfizer did not adequately test the product.

According to the lawsuit:

“Pfizer knew from preclinical studies and subsequent published studies that dangerous birth defects were associated with Zoloft use during pregnancy…Pfizer’s failure to disclose this information was willful, wanton, and with intentional disregard to the health and safety of consumers…and caused serious and permanent injuries to minor plaintiffs.”

Mislead Patients and Doctors

It is also alleged that Pfizer deliberately marketed Zoloft to doctors and consumers as “the safest anti-depressant on the market for pregnant mothers.”

Known Suicide Risk

In 2004 Pfizer came under fire for the links between the use of Zoloft and suicidal thoughts and actions by children and teenagers. Since then the F.D.A. requires all antidepressants to display a black box warning stating that they may increase the risk of suicide in youth.

Serious Injuries to Infants

All of the parents participating in the lawsuit have children who were born with life threatening injuries. These include pulmonary stenosis, heart problems, skull defects, malformation of the brain and spinal cord, severe developmental delays along with a host of other issues. Each child had to undergo life-threatening open heart surgery to treat their condition.

Risks Not Important?

Pfizer defends the claim by arguing that the risks were small enough that there was no need for them to warn users. In other words, the company claims that the risks were so small that it wasn’t important to tell expecting Mom’s that their babies might suffer serious heart, brain and neurological injuries if the Mom’s took the medication.

One small risk for Pfizer, one giant risk for a pregnant mother

While Pfizer argues the risks were remote, the fact is the company knew the drug was associated with an increased risk of birth defects.

Patient Must be Informed of Risks

In 1995 the Supreme Court of Canada decided in Hollis v. Dow Corning that in medical negligence cases involving product liability there is subjective standard for informed consent. In other words, what risks would the patient want to know about.

When it comes to something like the health and life of a fetus, and the safety of your baby how remote is too remote? Especially if the condition the Mom is being treated for, depression, may not be life threatening.

Even if the defects were unlikely to occur, shouldn’t mothers be given all of the information and then be allowed to make the decision after knowing the facts?

While the risk might appear small to a large pharmaceutical corporation, it probably does not seem small to a pregnant mother.

Posted by John McKiggan | | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Child Injuries , Class Actions , Drug Injuries , Personal Injury , Product Liability

August 30, 2012

Is Ford Escape Recall a Cover-Up?

Spontaneous Acceleration

Remember the allegations of spontaneous acceleration that Toyota vehicles had to deal with a few years ago? They ended up recalling 3.8 million vehicles. It was a public relations disaster for the company.

Is Ford facing a similar problem? Worse, has the company been trying to hide a dangerous problem it has known about for seven years?

Deadly Danger

The problem came to widespread attention due to the tragic death of an American teenager. Early this year, Saige Bloom, a 17-year old from Arizona, died after her 2002 Ford Escape accelerated out of control. She called her mom, who was driving just behind her, to say she could not stop the SUV. Bloom’s SUV clipped another car, loaded with children, before her Escape rolled several times. Ford’s investigation into the teenager’s death ultimately led to the recall last month of 485,000 vehicles.

Ford claims the problem was due to inadequate clearance between the engine cover and the cruise control cable, which would result in a stuck throttle when the accelerator pedal is fully or almost fully depressed.

Canadian Recall

About 421,000 of the defective vehicles were sold in the U.S. the rest were sold in Canada and other parts of the world.

Shortly after the U.S. recall, Transport Canada issued a similar recall for all 3L V6 models 2001-2004. The recall notice states that dealers will replace the engine cover fastener which will raise the cover and provide adequate clearance for the speed control cable.

How Long Has Ford Known?

Executive Director of the Center for Auto Safety (CAS), Clarence Ditlow, claims Ford has known of this issue since 2005. On the CAS website he states the Ford’s use of a cheap fastener to raise the engine cover rather than replacing the defective cruise control cable is an inadequate fix for a deadly defect. The CAS calls for the maximum fine to be levelled against Ford for failing to recall these vehicles in 2005 when they discovered the faulty cruise control cables.

CAS lawyer Michael Brooks wrote to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) arguing:

“Ford’s defect description and remedy have one purpose, and one purpose only, to avoid a civil penalty being imposed by NHTSA for failing to do a timely recall in 2005 when Ford discovered the cruise control cable guide would break and the cable connector would jam against the engine cover resulting in a stuck throttle.”

Have Canadians Been Effected?

Aside from the inconvenience of the recall, which affects every Canadian Ford Escape owner, there is no word yet whether any Canadian's have been injured or killed as a result of the defect. But if the allegations by the CAS are true, Ford should be held accountable.

What do you think? Are you a Ford Escape owner? Should Transport Canada be conducting independent investigations into the matter?

Further Reading

You can read more on the story here:

Payson Teen’s Death Forces Ford Recall

Transport Canada: Road Safety Recalls Database

Ford recalls 484,600 Escape SUVs

Posted by John McKiggan | | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Car Accidents , Fatal Accidents , Product Liability

September 29, 2011

Product Recalls are not Proof of Negligence: Johansson v General Motors of Canada Limited

Defective Products and Negligence

If a defective product is recalled does that prove that the product was negligently manufactured? That was one of the issues that Justice Murphy of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court had to decide in the recent case of Johansson et al v. General Motors of Canada Limited.

Driver Injured in Car Accident

The Plaintiff driver was seriously injured in a single vehicle accident when her car went off the road while she was trying to negotiate a left hand turn.

Several years after the accident the car she was driving, a Chevrolet Lumina, was recalled because of a defect in the pinion bearing in the power steering.

The case was set down for a trial before a jury. After the Plaintiff finished leading their evidence, the Defendants made a motion for non-suit. Essentially, the Defendants claimed that there was no evidence on which the jury could find that the Plaintiff’s Claim could succeed.

Defect Caused Crash

Justice Murphy found that the evidence of the product recall was prima facie evidence that the vehicle was defective. Justice Murphy also found that there was evidence that the defect had caused the accident.

Crash Caused Injuries

Finally, Justice Murphy concluded that the Plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the accident. Had the Plaintiff filed a claim in contract alleging that the Defendants had sold her a defective product then it appears that her claim would have been successful.

However, Justice Murphy noted that the Claim was pleaded in negligence.

In a negligence case the Plaintiff must prove that the Defendants breached the relevant standard of care. In other words, did the Defendant do something a reasonable person (or in this case a reasonable company) would not have done? Or did the company fail to do something a reasonable company would have done. In any negligence claim, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof.

Failed to Prove Standard

Justice Murphy found that a product recall does not, by itself, establish the applicable standard of care or that the standard was breached.

In commenting on the standard of proof for product liability claims, Justice Murphy stated:

“In the context of product liability, it is clear that the trial judge is responsible for informing the trier of fact that the applicable legal standard of care on the defendant was "to use reasonable care in the circumstances and nothing more" (Phillips at para. 49). In my view, it is irrelevant whether the translation or application of that standard to the facts is characterized during trial as a question of mixed fact and law or as a question of fact, because in either case, the responsibility for this translation falls on the trier of fact. The trial judge may instruct the trier of fact on the appropriate factors that may be considered—for example, the defendant's expertise, the riskiness of the product, the defendant's knowledge of that risk, industry standards, et cetera—but it is ultimately for the trier of fact to apply the standard of care in the circumstances and determine whether the defendant's conduct breached that standard. … In this case, the plaintiff presented no evidence addressing the standard industry practice of an automobile manufacturer, assembler or distributor with respect to parts supplied by other parties. Such evidence might include answers to the following questions: Is it industry practice for a manufacturer, assembler or distributor to test such parts? If so, what kind of testing is normally performed? Does the testing depend on the type of part and the level of risk posed by a failure of the part? Would a standard manufacturer, assembler or distributor be expected to discover an improperly crimped lower pinion bearing, such as the alleged defect in this case?”

What does it mean?

The plaintiff always has the burden of proving their claim at trial. So it goes without saying that the plaintiff (or their lawyer) must know exactly what facts they will need to prove to establish prove each element of the pleaded causes of action.

When filing a lawsuit involving a claim that a product is defective, it is important to examine all the facts to determine whether there are different types of claims that can be pleaded (for example breach of contract as well as negligence).

Just because a product has been recalled for safety reasons does not automatically mean that a person who has been injured by the product is entitled to compensation. Consumers should consult with a lawyer to learn what their rights are, whether they may be entitled to compensation, and what they need to prove in order to establish their right to be compensated.

Posted by John McKiggan | | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Accidents , Personal Injury , Product Liability

August 10, 2011

Supreme Court of Canada Strikes Out Big Tobacco’s Claims Against Canada - R v Imperial Tobacco Limited

Tobacco Companies Strike Out Again

Last week the Supreme Court of Canada weighed in (again) on a lawsuit filed by the province of British Columbia, which seeks to recover health care costs for tobacco-related illnesses.

First Strike

This is the second time this lawsuit has made it to the Supreme Court of Canada.

In 2001 British Columbia passed the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act that gave the province the authority to sue tobacco manufacturers for recovery of health care costs for people suffering from tobacco related illnesses.

The tobacco industry challenged the constitutional validity of the legislation.

Three issues were put to the Supreme Court of Canada:

1.Is the Act ultra vires the province by reason of extraterritoriality?

2.Is the Act constitutionally invalid as being inconsistent with judicial independence?

3.Is the Act constitutionally invalid for violating the rule of law?

In September 2005 the Court answered "no" to all of these issues and ruled that the legislation was constitutional.

Second Strike

In R v Imperial Tobacco Limited the defendants made a motion to add Canada as a third-party to British Columbia’s lawsuit.

The tobacco companies pleaded that if they were held liable to the Government of British Columbia, Canada should reimburse the tobacco companies for any damages payable. The Government of Canada brought a motion to strike out the third-party claim.

Test to Strike Pleadings

The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed the long-standing rule, applicable in all jurisdictions across Canada, that claims will only be dismissed if they have “no reasonable prospect of success”.

The Court stated at paragraphs 19 through 25 of the decision:

[19] The power to strike out claims that have no reasonable prospect of success is a valuable housekeeping measure essential to effective and fair litigation. It unclutters the proceedings, weeding out the hopeless claims and ensuring that those that have some chance of success go on to trial.

[20] This promotes two goods — efficiency in the conduct of the litigation and correct results. Striking out claims that have no reasonable prospect of success promotes litigation efficiency, reducing time and cost. The litigants can focus on serious claims, without devoting days and sometimes weeks of evidence and argument to claims that are in any event hopeless. The same applies to judges and juries, whose attention is focused where it should be — on claims that have a reasonable chance of success. The efficiency gained by weeding out unmeritorious claims in turn contributes to better justice. The more the evidence and arguments are trained on the real issues, the more likely it is that the trial process will successfully come to grips with the parties’ respective positions on those issues and the merits of the case.

[21] Valuable as it is, the motion to strike is a tool that must be used with care. The law is not static and unchanging. Actions that yesterday were deemed hopeless may tomorrow succeed. Before Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562 (H.L.) introduced a general duty of care to one’s neighbour premised on foreseeability, few would have predicted that, absent a contractual relationship, a bottling company could be held liable for physical injury and emotional trauma resulting from a snail in a bottle of ginger beer. Before Hedley Byrne & Co. v. Heller & Partners Ltd., [1963] 2 All E.R. 575 (H.L.), a tort action for negligent misstatement would have been regarded as incapable of success. The history of our law reveals that often new developments in the law first surface on motions to strike or similar preliminary motions, like the one at issue in Donoghue v. Stevenson. Therefore, on a motion to strike, it is not determinative that the law has not yet recognized the particular claim. The court must rather ask whether, assuming the facts pleaded are true, there is a reasonable prospect that the claim will succeed. The approach must be generous and err on the side of permitting a novel but arguable claim to proceed to trial.

[22] A motion to strike for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action proceeds on the basis that the facts pleaded are true, unless they are manifestly incapable of being proven: Operation Dismantle Inc. v. The Queen, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441, at p. 455. No evidence is admissible on such a motion: r. 19(27) of the Supreme Court Rules (now r. 9-5(2) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules). It is incumbent on the claimant to clearly plead the facts upon which it relies in making its claim. A claimant is not entitled to rely on the possibility that new facts may turn up as the case progresses. The claimant may not be in a position to prove the facts pleaded at the time of the motion. It may only hope to be able to prove them. But plead them it must. The facts pleaded are the firm basis upon which the possibility of success of the claim must be evaluated. If they are not pleaded, the exercise cannot be properly conducted…It is not about evidence, but the pleadings. The facts pleaded are taken as true. Whether the evidence substantiates the pleaded facts, now or at some future date, is irrelevant to the motion to strike. The judge on the motion to strike cannot consider what evidence adduced in the future might or might not show. To require the judge to do so would be to gut the motion to strike of its logic and ultimately render it useless.

[24] This is not unfair to the claimant. The presumption that the facts pleaded are true operates in the claimant’s favour. The claimant chooses what facts to plead, with a view to the cause of action it is asserting. If new developments raise new possibilities — as they sometimes do — the remedy is to amend the pleadings to plead new facts at that time.

[25] Related to the issue of whether the motion should be refused because of the possibility of unknown evidence appearing at a future date is the issue of speculation. The judge on a motion to strike asks if the claim has any reasonable prospect of success. In the world of abstract speculation, there is a mathematical chance that any number of things might happen. That is not what the test on a motion to strike seeks to determine. Rather, it operates on the assumption that the claim will proceed through the court system in the usual way — in an adversarial system where judges are under a duty to apply the law as set out in (and as it may develop from) statutes and precedent. The question is whether, considered in the context of the law and the litigation process, the claim has no reasonable chance of succeeding.

Why Should Nova Scotians Care?

The decision is of interest to citizens in this province because our government recently enacted legislation similar to British Columbia and is currently considering filing a claim for recovery for health care costs incurred for treating tobacco-related illnesses.

More Information

Smoke Free Canada - Tobacco litigation timeline

Posted by John McKiggan | | Email This Post

Posted In: Personal Injury , Product Liability , Tobacco

June 27, 2011

Hot Coffee: The Truth About the MacDonald's Coffee Case

When people I meet for the first time find out I am a personal injury lawyer almost invariably the conversation ends up with them mentioning the lady who spilled hot coffee on herself and sued McDonald's for $3 million.

Unfortunately there is a stunning lack of public understanding about the real facts of the McDonald's coffee case. That misunderstanding is fueled by corporate interests who want the public to belive that there is a "problem" with people being able to recover compensation for their injuires.

The insurance industry wants to increase it's profits by limiting access to justice and the rights of innocent victims to receive full and fair compensation for their injuries.

Tonight HBO Canada is airing the documentary HOT COFFEE which examines the dangers of so-called “tort reform” and its threat to our justice system.

The documentary uses the now-infamous legal battle over a spilled cup of McDonald’s coffee as a springboard, the film follows four people, including McDonald’s plaintiff Stella Liebeck, whose lives have been affected by their inability to access the courts, and examines the role of corporations and the media in promoting “tort reform.”

The movie is airing here in the Maritimes on HBO Canada at 9pm. It's well worth watching.

Posted by John McKiggan | | Email This Post

Posted In: Burn Injuries , Insurance Claims , Personal Injury , Product Liability

May 5, 2011

Infant Safety: Babies Being Given Dangerous Herbal Remedies

The latest edition of Pediatrics Journal contained a study published by the University Hospital Medical Centre in Cleveland Ohio which shows that 9% of babies are being given a wide variety of herbal supplements. The study states that this is a concern because some of the herbs may pose health risks to babies.

Unregulated

The problem arises because herbal supplements are not regulated the same way as drugs and pharmaceuticals. The herbal remedies may cause adverse drug reactions and may be contaminated.

For example, in 2007 Baby's Bliss brand of Gripe Water, which is used to calm colicky babies, was recalled because it contained a parasite that can cause intestinal infections.

Milk or Formula

Pediatric experts recommend that infants receive only human milk or infant formula for the first 4-6 months of their life.

The milk or formula can be supplemented with vitamins or medicine as recommended by your doctor.

More Resources

Infant/Child Product Recalls (not including toys)strong>

Infant Safety Hazards

Posted by John McKiggan | | Email This Post

Posted In: Child Injuries , Drug Injuries , Personal Injury , Product Liability

December 19, 2010

Smoke Detectors May Not Provide Adequate Protection

Everyone knows you should have smoke detectors in your home right?

You may even be one of the dedicated few who check them to be sure they are working and replace the batteries on a regular basis.

But did you know that your smoke alarm may not provide you with adequate warning during a fire?

Detector May Not Detect!

Recent research suggests that the most common type of smoke detector in Canadian homes, ionization smoke detectors, are not particularly effective in detecting the most common cause of fatalities in home fires, smoldering fires.

Problem Known for Decades

This problem has been known by manufactures for decades of smoke detectors for decades but consumers have no idea of the risk. In the early 1990's a research study at Texas A&M University determined that the failure rate of a photo electric smoke detector in detecting smoldering fires is just 4%. But ionization smoke detectors had a failure rate of up to 56%!

Why the Difference?

The huge difference for the failure rate is due to the way that the smoke detectors work.

Ionization Alarms

Ionization smoke detectors create a small electric current between two metal plates. When the electric current is interrupted by smoke the alarm is triggered. This type of technology is susceptible to “false alarms” from high humidity in bathrooms or steam from cooking in kitchens. In fact, the propensity for these types of alarms to go off by mistake often leads consumers to disable to alarms or remove their batteries eliminating any protection at all.

Photoelectic Alarms

Photoelectric smoke alarms contain a small beam of light. When smoke enters the detector it deflects the light onto a electric cell and the alarm is triggered. These types of alarms are more sensitive to the type of large some particles that are given off during smoldering fire, the kind of electrical fire that often happens at night when homeowners are asleep.

Cost an Issue?

The popularity of ionization smoke detectors is also likely due to the fact that they are incredibly cheap. However, while photoelectric smoke detectors cost a little more they are far more efficient at detecting smoldering fires and less prone to false alarms.

More Information:

Health Canada

How to Properly Install a Smoke Detector

Smoke Alarms: Home Safety Information

Posted by John McKiggan | | Email This Post

Posted In: Burn Injuries , Fatal Accidents , Fatal Injury Claims , Personal Injury , Product Liability

October 19, 2010

Car Seat Recall a Reminder to Parents About Possible Dangers to Children

This week Evenflo, one of the largest manufactures of infant car and booster seats, announced it is recalling more than 18,000 child car seats in Canada and the U.S. after Consumer Reports crash-tested the seat and found that it can crack and fail in a simulated 48 km/h frontal collision.

The recall affects the Evenflo Maestro Combination Booster Seat. Canadians who own the seats should call 1-800-265-0749 for more information.

The news made me think of some of the claims I have had in the past where children were injured in car accidents even though they were secured in car seats. The fact is that many parents are not aware of some of the issues that need to be considered when buying and using infant car seats.

Transport Canada statistics show that as many as 30% of children are not properly restrained in vehicles (either in a car seat or with a seat belt).

Child%20car%20seat.jpgCar Seats Mandatory

Every province in Canada has laws requiring children to be placed in proper car safety seats or booster seats.

Unfortunately, every year infants, toddles and young children are injured because the seats have not been properly installed or are not used.

Selecting a Child Safety Seat

Canada has standards for child safety seats that are published by the Canadian Standards Association (CSA). The proper seat for your child will depend on his or her size (which is usually estimated by age). Safety seats usually have a sticker on the side of the seat indicating the proper age range for children that can safely use the seat.

Which Seat is Right for Your Child?

There are four main types of child car seats and each has certain risks and benefits.

Rear Facing Seats

Infants up to 20 pounds should be placed in a rear facing seat. These types of seats provide maximum support and protection for an infant’s body.

However, in order to be properly installed the seat must be placed at the proper angle. Newer infant car seats come equipped with special indicators that allow parents to adjust the angle of the car seat.

Benefits: Statistics indicate that rear facing seats provide children with the best protection in collisions.

Risks: Many infant seats come with hanging toys to amuse the child. These features can be dangerous in a collision because they can hit and injure your child. Some rear facing seats “snap in” to a base unit. If the base unit is not properly secured to the vehicle the safety seat can release during a collision.

Convertible Seats:

Some car safety seats can be used as a rear facing when the child is an infant and then be turned to face forward when the child gets older or larger. These seats are popular because parents can use the seat for a long period of time.

Benefits: According to Consumer Reports convertible seats usually have higher weight capacities which allow parents to use the seat in the rear facing configuration longer (thus providing greater protection to their child).

Risks: Convertible seats are often harder to secure in vehicles and are therefore at greater risk of releasing during a collision.

Forward Facing Seats:

Toddlers up to 40 pounds (4 years of age) must be secured using a front facing car seat.

Benefits: Forward facing car seats come in a variety of shapes, sizes and weights which allows parents to maximize the useful life of the car seat.

Risks: Some forward facing car seats have higher backs that can interfere with the car’s seat belts.

Booster Seats:

In Nova Scotia, for example, children must use a booster seat until they are either 145 cm (4 feet 9 inches) or 9 years old

Booster seats are typically appropriate for children between age 4-9.

Benefits: Booster seats are cheap so that you can buy separate booster seats for each vehicle that your children may ride in. Newer booster seats come with guides showing how to properly position the seat belt over your toddler’s waist.

Risks: Children often quick to want to “grow up” too soon. Children and parents may be too quick to place their children into a booster seat simply because of the added convenience.

However, if a child is too small for a booster seat they run the risk of serious abdominal injuries because the toddler’s seat belt doesn’t go over the child’s pelvis but instead goes over the child’s stomach or abdomen. When children are not properly belted into a vehicle they can run the risk of serious internal injuries in even comparatively minor collisions.

More Information:

Canadian Pediatric Association

Canadian Standards Association

Transport Canada

Consumer Reports

Posted by John McKiggan | | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Accidents , Child Injuries , Product Liability

October 12, 2010

Faulty Hockey Helmet Suit Dismissed: Court Rules on Negligent Standards

Last week the British Columbia Supreme Court released its decision in More v. Bauer Nike Hockey Inc.

Helmet Met Standards

In 2004 the plaintiff was a 17 year old hockey player. He was wearing a helmet certified by the Canadian Standards Association (CSA). The helmet met all of the CSA standards.

During the game, More crashed into the boards, hitting his head. He suffered a subdural hematoma, a serious brain injury. As a result, More was severely and permanently disabled.

His parents sued a variety of defendants including the manufacturer of the helmet, Bauer, and the CSA. The lawsuit was eventually dismissed. However, there was one part of the judgment that I found very interesting.

Were Standards Negligent?

Bauer defended the case on the basis that they manufactured their helmet in accordance with CSA standards. The plaintiff launched a creative argument that the CSA standards were negligent. In other words, it didn't matter that the helmet met CSA standards, because the standards themselves were not adequate!

No Duty of Care

The CSA argued in defence of the claim that even if the court found that the standards for certifying hockey helmets were unreasonably low, the CSA couldn't be sued because they didn’t owe More a duty of care.

No Reliance?

In other words, even if their certification standards were negligent it wasn’t foreseeable that children wearing the helmets would rely on the CSA certification.

Standards Must be Reasonable

Justice MacAulay found that organizations that create certification standards can be sued for negligence if the standards themselves are not adequate.

MacAulay, J. stated:

“I am satisfied that it was reasonably foreseeable that a hockey player and wearer of a mandatory certified hockey helmet might suffer harm if the CSA set the certification standard unreasonably low in the circumstances. …
"By legislative definition, any hockey helmet that is not certified is a hazardous product and cannot be sold in Canada. No matter how well designed the helmet may, in fact, be, no manufacturer can offer it for sale unless it is certified. The consumer hockey player has no choice and buys, or otherwise obtains, the helmet for the purpose of self-protection in a game that has inherent dangers. Nonetheless, there is some reliance by the consumer on the fact of certification and an expectation that the risk of at least some injuries is reasonably reduced. Otherwise, there would be no need for any helmet at all.”

What does it mean?

In product liability cases, it is common for the manufacturer of an allegedly defective product to defend a plaintiff’s claim on the basis that the product met all of the certification standards required by whatever organization certifies the product.

The More case clearly establishes that certifying organizations themselves may be sued if their standards are too low.

Are professional organizations at risk?

But I think the case goes beyond that. In every province professionals are certified by their respective "professional association”. Lawyers have to meet certain standards set by provincial Bar societies, doctors are licensed by provincial medical societies, engineers are certified by their provincial professional organization, and so on.

If a plaintiff suffers a loss as a result of professional negligence it is conceivable that an argument could be made against the organization that certified the professional and the organization may be held liable if their certifying standards are found to be unreasonably low.

Admittedly it may be a stretch to assume one will be able to find an expert willing to testify that the standards of their own professional organization are unreasonably low.

On the other hand, if there is a significant difference in the standards required between various provincial organizations, one can see how an argument might be made by an expert from a neighbouring jurisdiction that differing professional certification standards may be unreasonably low.


Posted by John McKiggan | | Email This Post

Posted In: Brain Injury , Product Liability

January 21, 2010

Facebook Being Used Against Personal Injury Victims

Defence Lawyers on Facebook

Everybody seems to be interested in Facebook, Twitter and all the other social media networks these days. That includes lawyers who represent insurance companies. There have been a series of cases across Canada where lawyers for insurance companies have demanded production of plaintiffs' Facebook pages in order to use the information against the plaintiff.

Depressed Victim Looked Too Happy

In a recent case in Quebec, Nathalie Blanchard was on disability for depression. She had her benefits terminated because her insurance company, Manulife found pictures on her Facebook page where she was smiling and looking like she was having a good time. In other words, she didn’t look depressed so the insurance company cut off her benefits.

Blanchard is now suing Manulife to reinstate her disability benefits.

In New Brunswick the Court of The Queens Bench recently ordered a plaintiff to produce the contents of her Facebook page to the lawyers representing the defendant’s insurance company.

Online Information Must be Disclosed?

Court rules in each province require the parties to disclose any information they have that may be relevant to the matters at issue in litigation. This now includes any electronic information in possession of the parties. While this commonly refers to things like e-mail or digital documents, the courts have been extending the reach of this disclosure obligation to include online information.

In Leduc v. Roman the Ontario Court required the plaintiff to produce information from a “private” Facebook account. The judge in that decision stated:

“It is now incumbent on a party’s counsel to explain to the client, in appropriate cases, that documents posted on a party’s facebook profile may be relevant to the allegations made in the pleading.”

Facebook May Be Used For Cross Examination

In a recent case in Newfoundland, Terry v. Mullowney, the lawyer for the defendants used excerpts from the plaintiff’s facebook page to cross examine the plaintiff about his social life.

The judge commented on the use of this information:

“While not getting into the details of the excepts, they convince me that Mr. Terry (at least in the few months prior to his testimony in court) recorded on facebook had a rather full and active social life…I find it incredible that Mr. Terry’s social life miraculously improved in the few months he was communicating on facebook and that for the remainder of the time from 2001 to 2007 he essentially had little or no social life. Without this evidence I would have been left with a very different impression of Mr. Terry’s social life.”

Disclosure Obligations Extend Online

So in the future you can expect parties in litigation to demand complete disclosure of Facebook pages, Linkedin profiles, Twitter accounts and public Blogs. In short, any information that you post online can and may be used against you. Beware.

Continue reading "Facebook Being Used Against Personal Injury Victims" »

Posted by John McKiggan | | Email This Post

Posted In: Brain Injury , Car Accidents , Drug Injuries , Fatal Accidents , Insurance Claims , Medical Malpractice , Personal Injury , Product Liability

May 11, 2009

Canadian Hydroxycut Injury Claims: Health Canada Update

Hydroxycut Recall

The Hydroxycut recall that I posted about 10 days ago has resulted in an investigation by Health Canada.

Adverse Effects Reported in Canada

To date Health Canada has received 17 reports of adverse reactions related to hydroxycut use. The adverse reactions relate to the cardiovascular, respiratory, gastrointestinal, and neurological systems. So far, none of the adverse reactions reported in Canada relate to liver injuries, which were the main cause of the FDA recall.

How to Report Hydroxycut Problems

Health Canada indicates that you can report any adverse reactions that you think may be related to Hydroxycut three ways:

Report online at the MedEffect™ Canada Web site
Call toll-free at 1-866-234-2345
Complete a Canada Vigilance Reporting Form and either: Fax toll-free to 1-866-678-6789 Mail to: Canada Vigilance Program Health Canada AL 0701C Ottawa, ON K1A 0K9

Continue reading "Canadian Hydroxycut Injury Claims: Health Canada Update " »

Posted by John McKiggan | | Email This Post

Posted In: Drug Injuries , Personal Injury , Product Liability

May 1, 2009

Injuries, Death Lead to Hydroxycut Recall

Weight Loss Product Recalled

Hydroxycut, a weight loss supplement, has been recalled by the FDA as a result of at least 23 reports of serious liver injuries and one death.

Liver Injury, Heart Problems and Muscle Damage

Hydroxycut is a diet supplement marketed to help people lose weight and burn fat.
In addition to the risk of liver injury, reported health risks have also included heart problems, seizures and a serious type of muscle damage called rhabdomyolysis.

Cause of Problems Unknown

It isn’t clear which Hydroxycut ingredients are causing the problems or whether the product increases the risk of illness for certain consumers. However, the FDA reports that people who have not had any pre-existing medical conditions have ended up needing a liver transplant after using Hydroxycut.

Symptoms

If you or a family member have been using Hydroxycut, symptoms to watch for include jaundice (yellowing of the skin or whites of the eyes), brown urine, light-colored stools, fatigue, stomach cramps or pain, weakness, nausea, and vomiting.

This Hydroxycut recall applies to the following products, which are being removed from the market:
• Hydroxycut Regular Rapid Release Caplets
• Hydroxycut Caffeine-Free Rapid Release Caplets
• Hydroxycut Hardcore Liquid Caplets
• Hydroxycut Max Liquid Caplets
• Hydroxycut Regular Drink Packets
• Hydroxycut Caffeine-Free Drink Packets
• Hydroxycut Hardcore Drink Packets (Ignition Stix)
• Hydroxycut Max Drink Packets
• Hydroxycut Liquid Shots
• Hydroxycut Hardcore RTDs (Ready-to-Drink)
• Hydroxycut Max Aqua Shed
• Hydroxycut 24
• Hydroxycut Carb Control
• Hydroxycut Natural

Ingredients Dangerous

The ingredients include herbal extracts, chemicals and metals which could cause liver damage, even when the product is used as indicated on the warning label.

What Should You Do?

If you have any symptoms of liver injury you should see your doctor immediately. Keep any unused portions of the product for evidence in case you decide to pursue a claim for compensation.

Continue reading "Injuries, Death Lead to Hydroxycut Recall" »

Posted by John McKiggan | | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

December 17, 2008

Trasylol (Aprotinin) May Cause Fatal Side Effects: Information for patients

We have been investigating potential personal injury claims against Bayer Inc. the manufacturer of the drug Trasylol (Aprotinin) for almost a year now.

In January 2006, the New England Journal of Medicine reported that of the 4,400 heart surgery patients who received Trasylol:

1. Trasylol increased the risk of stroke by 181%;

2. Trasylol increased the risk of heart attack by 48%; and

3. Trasylol increased the risk of heart failure by 109%.

Furthermore, in a Canadian Research Study referred to as the BART Study, Trasylol was compared to alternative health surgery drugs. The BART Study found that 1 in 50 patients who received Trasylol died from complications related to the drug.

Some patients at the cardiac unit of the Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre in Halifax Nova Scotia received Trasylol as part of the hospital’s pre-operative procedures. There are no public statistics about how many patients from the Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre received Trasylol or how many of those patients who received Trasylol developed debilitating or fatal complications.

If you or a family member had heart surgery at the Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre and suffered stroke, heart attack, heart failure or kidney damage after your surgery, you may have a potential claim for compensation.

Continue reading "Trasylol (Aprotinin) May Cause Fatal Side Effects: Information for patients" »

Posted by John McKiggan | | Email This Post

Posted In: Brain Injury , Drug Injuries , Medical Malpractice , Personal Injury , Product Liability

December 9, 2008

Trasylol (Aprotinin) Class Action: Information for Nova Scotia patients.

A “multi-million dollar” class action law suit has been filed against drug manufacturer Bayer Inc. for injuries allegedly caused by the drug Trasylol (also known as Aprotinin)

CTV News has reported that a number of class action lawsuits have been filed in the United States. Now patients in Canada have filed a similar lawsuit.

Bayer Inc. withdrew Trasylol from the market after medical research studies showed that patients treated with the drug were more likely to die than patients treated with other medication.

We have been investigating potential Trasylol claims for almost a year.

In May of this year I posted about a Canadian study called the “BART Trial” which found that patients who received Trasylol were 53% more likely to die than people who received other common anti-bleeding agents like Aminocaproic Acid.

You can read the post here: Trasylol (Aprotinin) Anti-Bleeding Drug Raises Death Risk: Canadian Study.

Almost a year ago a documentary on CBS’s 60 Minutes discussed the risks posed by the drug and suggested that the manufacturer, Bayer, hid evidence that Trasylol was dangerous. The documentary pointed out that as far back as January 2006 the New England Journal of Medicine published a study reporting that Trasylol was connected with kidney failure, cardiac arrest and stroke in patients undergoing coronary artery surgery.

You can watch the whole 60 Minutes story here.

You can also take a look at my earlier post: Is Trasylol (Aprotinin) the Next Vioxx? Manufacturer Hid Evidence Drug was Dangerous.

Trasylol (Aprotinin) has been used by the cardiac surgery unit of the Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre for many years. If you or a family member suffered kidney failure, cardiac arrest or stroke after having heart surgery, you may have a potential claim.

For more information you can contact me at www.apmlawyers.com or toll free 1-877-423-2050 or through this blog.

Posted by John McKiggan | | Email This Post

Posted In: Drug Injuries , Medical Malpractice , Personal Injury , Product Liability

November 13, 2008

How Insurance Companies Deny, Delay, Confuse and Refuse: New Report

Insurance companies use "dirty tricks" and "unethical behavior" to deny legitimate claims and boost their profits, according to a new report released by the American Association for Justice.

The report explains how insurers have:

...endeavored to deny claims, delay payments, confuse consumers with incomprehensible insurance-speak, and retroactively refuse anyone who may cost them money.

Although the report takes a look at the practices engaged in by American insurance companies, the insurance industry is multi-national in scope and many of the insurers exposed in the report, for example Allstate and AIG carry on business in Canada.

The report describes how:

Allstate gave employees who denied valid claims rewards such as portable fridges, and used a “boxing gloves” approach to policyholders who refused to accept lowball offers.

Here in Nova Scotia, Justice Walter Goodfellow of our Supreme Court just finished hearing a trial involving a constitutional challenge to our province's Insurance Act. The law places a "cap" on the amount of compensation that innocent victims can receive for their pain and suffering if they have suffered a "minor injury". The problem with the law is that the law defines almost every injury as "minor"; making it very difficult for legitimate innocent victims to receive fair compensation for their injuries.

When Justice Goodfellow releases his decision on the constitutional challenge we can expect the insurance industries' "public relations" machine to kick into high gear, claiming that the insurance industry is losing money because of payments to innocent accident victims.

Don't believe a word of it.

Related posts:

Why you may have a "Minor Injury" from your Nova Scotia Car Accident: Reason #3

Why the Insurance Company says you have a "Minor Injury": Reason #2

Why the Insurance Company Says you have a "Minor Injury": Reason #1

Continue reading "How Insurance Companies Deny, Delay, Confuse and Refuse: New Report" »

Posted by John McKiggan | | Email This Post

Posted In: Brain Injury , Car Accidents , Child Injuries , Drug Injuries , Insurance Claims , Personal Injury , Product Liability

August 29, 2008

Cheese Recall in Quebec Feeds Listeria Hysteria

Provincial health authorities in Quebec have announced a recall of three brands of cheese after one person died and 87 people became sick from salmonella food poisoning.

The recall has increased the hysteria surrounding the Maple Leaf Foods listeria recall.

I have seen at least three media reports incorrectly linking the cheese recall with listeria. See here and here, for examples.

The media reports have helped Canadian's become more aware of some of the risks inherent in our food safety system. However, they have also created a great deal of fear in many people who are now afraid to eat any kind of packaged food product.

The fact is that those most at risk from listeriosis are infants, the elderly, pregnant women and people with compromised immune systems. The general public has very little risk of becoming seriously ill as a result of listeria.

It is certainly possible for people to suffer serious injury or death if companies responsible for manufacturing and packaging foods are negligent. It is also people for people to suffer illness or death if food is not properly prepared/cooked.

Most listeria and salmonella outbreaks are due to contamination by the person preparing/cooking food products.

So be careful how you prepare your food. Pay attention to "Best Before" dates on food packages. And keep track of how long that leftover meatloaf has been in your fridge before you feed it to your kids!

Have a safe Labour Day weekend!

Posted by John McKiggan | | Email This Post

Posted In: Personal Injury , Product Liability

August 27, 2008

Listeria Outbreak and Lawsuits Highlight Risks/Misunderstandings of Food Safety System

Maple Leaf Foods Recall

Last week Maple Leaf Foods announced a voluntary recall of meat products produced at their packing plant in Toronto, Ontario as a result of several cases of illness and death linked to food products contaminated with Listeriosis.

Media Frenzy

The outbreak and recall has received a considerable amount of attention from the media. In fact, it would be an understatement to describe the reaction as a “frenzy”.

Several Lawsuits Filed

Not surprisingly this week saw at least 5 class actions filed on behalf of people who suffered illness, death, mental distress or financial loss as a result of the tainted meat recall.

Recall to Cost Millions

Maple Leaf Foods predicted that the recall would cost the company $20 million dollars.

Stock prices have "plunged" hitting record lows in less than a week.

Risks Not Explained

The shock and fear expressed by the public as a result of this recall has served to highlight the risks inherent in our food safety system. Unfortunately I have not seen a great deal of media coverage explaining the risks to the public as a result of this outbreak.

Fortunately, the general public, as a whole, has little risk of contracting any serious illness or suffering a fatality as a result of contracting listeriosis.

Unfortunately, the persons who are most likely to contract the disease, and suffer serious illness or death, are those members of society who are most vulnerable; the very young, the elderly, those who are sick or frail, and pregnant women.

What is Listeria?

Listeria is a bacteria. It is commonly found in soil, vegetation, animal feed and in feces.

What are the Symptoms?

Infants, the elderly and those who are already sick or frail are most susceptible to becoming ill after exposure to listeria. Symptoms include vomiting, nausea, diarrhea, headache and fever. The disease is often misdiagnosed as the flu.

How Long Before Symptoms Appear?

Symptoms usually appear within 2 days to a week after consuming food contaminated with listeria. However, the bacteria can colonize for up to 30 days before symptoms appear.

Treatment

The symptoms can be treated effective through the use of antibiotics. However, if symptoms are not treated promptly they can develop into more serious problems like septicemia ( blood infection) or meningitis or encephalitis (brain infections).

I have included a link to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's Listeria site for more information.


Maple Leaf Food’s Response

From a public relations standpoint, I have to applaud Maple Leaf Food’s response to the recall. The CEO of Maple Leaf Foods, Michael McCain, immediately issued a public apology (no doubt something the company lawyers urged him not to do).

Although the apology may slightly increase the risk that Maple Leaf Foods will be found legally liable for losses suffered as a result of the outbreak, I think it will do a great deal to increase the public’s confidence in Maple Leaf Foods and limit the number of people who will consider suing the company if they haven’t suffered a catastrophic illness or lost a love one.

I expect the apology will also do a great deal to protect the value of Maple Leaf shares in the long run. In fact it appears that the apology is already having a positive effect. Maple Leaf's stock prices rose today.

The value of an apology cannot be underestimated. I posted about this issue a few months ago on my other blog, Halifax Medical Malpractise Lawyer Blog, Doctors: Say “I’m sorry” and Don’t get Sued! The New York Times reported on a study that found that doctors who apologized for their mistakes get sued far less often than doctors who refuse to admit that they have done anything wrong.

This listeria outbreak is truly a tragedy. My sympathies are with all of those who have lost loved ones as a result of this totally preventable illness. Time will tell if Maple Leaf Food’s conduct in not preventing the outbreak will result in the company being held legally liable.

In the mean time, the public needs to educate itself about the risks inherent in our food safety system.


Continue reading "Listeria Outbreak and Lawsuits Highlight Risks/Misunderstandings of Food Safety System" »

Posted by John McKiggan | | Email This Post | Comments (1)

Posted In: Personal Injury , Product Liability

June 18, 2008

Bodybuilding Supplements cause Seizures and Blood Clots: Health Canada Warning

A diet supplement used by bodybuilders called 6-OXO and 1-AD can trigger seizures and blood clots in the brain that can lead to lasting disability according to a warning issued today by Health Canada.

prod_6oxo.jpg

prod_1ad.jpg

Both 6-OXO and 1-AD are manufactured by ErgoPharm-Proviant Technologies and are popular among amateur and professional bodybuilders.

CTV news reports that Health Canada has received one report of a serious adverse event that has been linked to use of the supplements. According to the report, a man who had no known health problems suffered seizures and blood clots in his brain after using the supplements.

6-OXO is not approved for sale in Canada, but consumers can buy the supplement over the internet or while travelling in the United States.

1-AD contains an anabolic steroid. That means the supplement is a controlled substance in Canada and can only be purchased by prescription and is supposed to be used only under the supervision of a doctor.

If you are using either of these supplements, you should seek advice from a doctor immediately.

Posted by John McKiggan | | Email This Post

Posted In: Brain Injury , Drug Injuries , Personal Injury , Product Liability

May 29, 2008

“Dangerous Substance” BPA Found in Children’s Food Containers

Last month Bisphenol A was officially designated a dangerous substance by Health Canada. I posted about the news here.
The ruling came about as a result of concerns when the hormone was found in children’s baby bottles.

Now tests conducted for CTV News and The Globe and Mail on cans for several popular children’s foods shows similar or higher levels of bisphenol A than in baby bottles.

Baby bottles were found to leach about 6 parts per billion of BPA. The new test results showed higher concentrations of the dangerous substance in some popular children’s food containers.

Campbell’s Chicken Noodle Soup: 8.61 (Parts per billion)
Heinz Tomato Juice: 14.11
Allen’s Apple Juice: 17.9
Hunt’s Tomato Sauce: A whopping 18.21 parts per billion!

For those of you that think just children are at risk, the chemical was also found in Molson beer cans 8.19 and Labatt beer cans 9.27.

The scary part is that these results are likely low:

"The tests we did in the cans are fairly conservative," said Julia Taylor, the lab technician that conducted the tests. "We used water, which is less likely to pull out BPA in a can."

My boys love Campbell's chicken noodle soup. What do you eat when you have a cold or aren't feeling well? Chicken noodle soup. Is there any product out there that has a reputation for being healthier than chicken noodle soup?

I guess now I'm going to have to dig out my grandmothers recipe for home made chicken noodle soup. Yum!

Posted by John McKiggan | | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

May 26, 2008

Hospitals Reusing Single-Use Medical Devices: Are Patients at Risk?

A number of Canadian hospitals are reusing "single-use" medical devices (SUDs) that are supposed to be disposed of after being used. Worse yet, the vast majority of hopitals that are reusing the medical devices are sterilizing the devices in-house. Infection control experts have criticised the practice as being "fraught with risk", according to a story by the Canadian Press.

...tragedies like the tainted blood scandal and cases of variant Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease -- the human form of mad cow disease -- linked to reuse of tools used in brain surgery have deepened the understanding of infection risks and raised the bar for infection control in hospitals.
No Regulations:

The story reports that while there appears to be consensus among health care professionals that a national policy is needed and that the practice of in-house reprocessing ought to be banned, a regulatory void means that in many parts of the country hospitals can do as they wish when it comes to reuse of single-use medical devices.

Saving Money vs. Patient Safety:

The cost of health care has become so astronomical that hospitals have been forced to find any way they can to save money. Some would say by cutting corners at the expense of patient safety.

The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) is a national body that provides Canada’s federal, provincial and territorial health care decision makers with impartial advice and evidence-based information about the effectiveness and efficiency of drugs and other health technologies.

Reuse Poses Legal Liability Issues:

CADTH has produced a series of reports on reprocessing of SUDs that address concerns about possible risks to patients of infection or other complications, legal liability issues, and uncertainties regarding cost-effectiveness.

CADTH concluded that there is:

"Insufficient evidence to establish safety and effectiveness "of reusing SUDs.

Reuse Endangers Patient Safety: United States:

Almost three years ago the Washington Post published a story about the dangers of reusing SUDs. The report documented dozens of cases of patient injuries and device malfunctions after single-use devices were reused.

Government Investigates Health Risks:

The practice has become so widespread that the United States Government Accountability Office prepared a report on the issue. The title of the report concludes that FDA has increased its regulation of the reprocessing of SUMDs and "available information does not indicate that use presents an elevated health risk".

But on the very first page of the report the authors state:

Neither existing FDA data nor studies performed by others are sufficient to draw definitive conclusions about the safety of reprocessed SUDs compared to similar original devices.

How comforting.

Posted by John McKiggan | | Email This Post | Comments (2)

Posted In: Medical Malpractice , Product Liability

May 15, 2008

Trasylol (Aprotinin) Anti-Bleeding Drug Raises Death Risk: Canadian Study

Trasylol also known as Aprotinin, an expensive anti-bleeding drug used during heart surgery actually increased the risk that patients would die during surgery or in the 30 days following by more than 50%!

The Canadian Press has reported that a recent Canadian study called the BART trial compared Trasylol to two far cheaper alternatives found that patients who received Trasylol were 53 per cent more likely to die than people who received the other anti-bleeding agents, tranexamic acid or aminocaproic acid.

Dr. Paul Hebert, a critical care doctor at the Ottawa Health Research Institute and one of the investigators in the study, was quoted as saying that:

"The risks of aprotinin are greater than its benefits,"

Dr. David Mazer, a cardiovascular anesthesiologist and critical care physician at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto and one of the lead researchers in the BART trial said:

"The BART study has changed the way heart surgery will be done in Canada and around the world,"

I have posted about the risks surrounding Trasylol before. According to an investigation by CBS's 60 Minutes, Bayer, the manufacturer of Trasylol knew about dangers associated with the drug in 2006 but failed to advise the FDA and Health Canada.

You can watch the whole 60 Minutes story here.

Continue reading "Trasylol (Aprotinin) Anti-Bleeding Drug Raises Death Risk: Canadian Study" »

Posted by John McKiggan | | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

May 13, 2008

Chewing gum ingredient may cause Cancer? Health Canada

The federal government is considering declaring an ingedient used to make chewing gum as toxic after tests linked it to cancer in lab rats.

The Canadian Press reported that vinyl acetate is one of 17 substances Health Canada could recommend be deemed toxic in a draft report to be published Saturday.

There has been no link demonstrated between vinyl acetate and cancer in humans.

Many major chewing gum manufacturers were quick to point out that their products do not contain vinyl acetate.

I don't smoke and now it looks like I have to stop chewing gum. If they find out that coffee causes cancer I am in big trouble.

Posted by John McKiggan | | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

April 16, 2008

Bisphenol A is officially a dangerous substance: Health Canada

Bisphenol A has been officially named a dangerous substance by Health Canada. The Globe and Mail reported the story here.

There is wide concern that the hormonally active chemical, which is commonly used in products like baby bottles, can have long term negative health effects. Toxicnation.ca published a helpful list of baby bottles that are manufactured using the chemical. You can find the list here.

The move is widely expected to be the first step in an outright ban on the chemical in products designed to contain food or drinks.

Bisphenol A is one of the:

...most widely used synthetic chemicals in modern industry. It is the basic building block for polycarbonate, the see-through, shatter-proof plastic that resembles glass, and is also used to make the epoxy resins lining the insides of most tin cans, along with some dental sealants, sports helmets, and compact discs.

You can read more about the chemical on Kathy Farber's blog Non-Toxic Kids.

Next time you go to the gym, take a look and see how many people are chugging their water out of Bisphenol bottles. The question is, what else are they chugging?

Posted by John McKiggan | | Email This Post

Posted In: Child Injuries , Product Liability

February 18, 2008

Is Trasylol (Aprotinin) the Next Vioxx? Manufacturer Hid Evidence Drug was Dangerous.

Trasylol (Aprotinin) is a drug used during heart bypass surgery to help reduce bleeding and the need for blood transfusions. But a documentary on CBS's 60 Minutes last night suggests the drug may be responsible for contributing to the loss of one thousand lives a month.

You can watch the whole story here.

On January 26, 2006, The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) published an article by Dr. Dennis Mangano reporting an association of Trasylol (aprotinin) with serious renal toxicity (kidney failure) and ischemic events (cardiac arrest and stroke) in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting surgery.

Although the Trasylol study was published in January 2006, Bayer failed to disclose the study to the FDA until after an advisory panel meeting in September 2006. The study's researcher, Dr. Dennis Mangano, has said that 22,000 patients could have been saved if Trasylol had been taken off the market when the January 2006 study was first published.

The F.D.A. issued a Public Health Advisory in November 2007. On November 5, 2007 the drug manufacturer Bayer agreed to suspend marketing of the drug at the request of the F.D.A.

Bayer suspended marketing of Trasylol (aprotinin) in Canada in November 2007 following a request from Health Canada.

Bayer is now facing hundreds of lawsuits in the United States alleging injury of death due to the drug and the Defective Drug Claims are likely to spread to Canada, just like the Vioxx litigation.

Is this another case of a drug manufacturer puts dollars over lives? You decide after watching the video.


Posted by John McKiggan | | Email This Post | Comments (2)

Posted In: Drug Injuries , Product Liability

February 10, 2008

Canadian Company Sued for Lead Contaminated Toys

Lead contamination in toys and other consumer products has been receiving a great deal of coverage from the media lately. See this story, for example.

However, China is not the only source of potentially dangerous toys. The Attorney General of Vermont has sued Canadian Toy manufacturer Ganz Inc. of Woodbridge, Ontario, for distributing items of jewelry and other metal products containing high amounts of lead through retail stores in Vermont.

The lawsuit points out the consumers shouldn't be complacent or assume a product is safe simply because it isn't made in China. So how do you find out if a product is safe?

Katy Farber runs a great blog called Non-Toxic Kids with information about product recalls and contaminated toys and dangerous products. It's a great resource. Check it out.

Health Canada has a website listing all it's Advisories, Warnings and Recalls. You can find it here.

Posted by John McKiggan | | Email This Post | Comments (1)

Posted In: Child Injuries , Product Liability

February 9, 2008

Botox Linked to Children's Deaths: FDA Issues Warning

The popular anti-wrinkle drug Botox and a competitor have been linked to dangerous botulism symptoms in some users, cases so bad that a few children have died, the government warned Friday.

Botox, and its competitor, Myobloc, use botulinum toxin to block nerve impulses, causing them to relax. In rare cases, the toxin can spread beyond the injection site to other parts of the body, paralyzing or weakening the muscles used for breathing and swallowing, a potentially fatal side effect.

The drugs are not approved for use with children but are commonly used to treat severe muscle spasticity in children with cerebral palsy.

MSNBC has reported that the FDA:

...warned that patients receiving a botulinum toxin injection for any reason —cosmetic or medical — should be told to seek immediate care if they suffer symptoms of botulism, including: difficulty swallowing or breathing, slurred speech, muscle weakness, or difficulty holding up their head.

Health Canada is now reviewing the safety of Botox as a result of the reported deaths.

Health Canada spokesperson Carole Saindon told CTV News:

"Departmental experts are currently reviewing safety information on the issue of toxin spread regarding Botox. Canadians can be confident that after a thorough review, Health Canada will take action, if necessary,"

These reports highlight the dangers of "off label" use of drugs. Since the drugs are not being used for their approved purpose, they have also not been subjected to testing by the FDA and Health Canada for potential side effects from the non-approved drug use.

Posted by John McKiggan | | Email This Post

Posted In: Child Injuries , Product Liability

February 5, 2008

Tainted Drugs and the Abortion Pill

Nearly 200 Chinese cancer patients were paralyzed or injured by contaminated leukemia drugs manufactured by a Chinese pharmaceutical company that supplies the abortion pill Mifepristone (or RU-486) to the United States.

The New York Times has reported that Chinese drug regulators have accused the drug manufacturer, Shanghai Hualian, of a cover-up and have closed the factory that produced the tainted cancer drugs.

The Times has reported that the same company is the sole supplier of Mifepristone (the abortion pill) to the U.S.

The Times has previously reported on how a Chinese drug company Honor International Pharmtech had been accused of shipping counterfeit drugs into the United States.

Health Canada has not approved Mifepristone for use in Canada. So why should we Canadians care?

There are numerous products manufactured in other countries that are approved for sale in Canada. There has been an explosion recently in the popularity of alternative health products and herbal or "traditional" remedies.

How do you know if the drug, or product you are taking is safe?

MifepristoneHalifaxpersonalinjurylawyerblog.jpg

Drugs and natural health products that are authorized for sale in Canada will have either an eight-digit Drug Identification Number (DIN), a Natural Product Number (NPN) or a Homeopathic Medicine Number (DIN-HM) on the label. These numbers indicate that the products have been assessed by Health Canada for safety, effectiveness and quality.

You can check for a list of foreign product alerts, advisories and warnings issued by Health Canada here.

Posted by John McKiggan | | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

February 2, 2008

Stop Smoking Drug May be Linked to "Serious Psychiatric Problems"

A drug designed to help people stop smoking may be linked to "serious psychiatric problems."

The Wall Street Journal has reported that the United States Food and Drug Administration issued a public health advisory Friday saying is "increasingly likely" that Pfizer Inc.'s smoking-cessation drug Chantix may be tied to serious psychiatric symptoms.

Health Canada approved Chantix for sale in Canada in early 2007.

There is no indication if Health Canada will be issuing a similar warning here in Canada.

Posted by John McKiggan | | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

January 28, 2008

Eardrops May Cause Hearing Loss: Canadian Study

A new study, led by researchers at The Montreal Children’s Hospital, has revealed that certain over-the-counter earwax softeners containing the active ingredient triethanolamine polypeptide oleate condensate (10%) can cause severe inflammation and damage to the eardrum and inner ear.

The research team studied the impact of the non-prescription drug Cerumenex on hearing. In addition, overall toxicity in the outer ear and changes in the nerve cells of the inner ear were analyzed.

"Harmful effects to many of the cells were observed after only one dose,” says Dr. Melvin Schloss co-author and MCH Director of Otolaryngology. “We observed reduced hearing, severe inflammation, and lesions to the nerve cells.”

This study highlights the fact that over the counter medications still carry the risk of serious side effects. The use of such products should be discussed with your family doctor.

Unfortunately, The College of Family Physicians in Canada has reported that approximately five million Canadians (17 %) do not have a family doctor.

Who do they turn to for advice about routine health care matters?

Posted by John McKiggan | | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Subscribe

facebook linkedin

Subscribe to the blogs's ATOM feed Subscribe to the RSS feed

Subscribe

Enter your email address: Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact Us

Recent Entries

Legal Blogs