GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) paid $60 million in about 700 Avandia lawsuits over side effects associated with the diabetes drug so far.  However, thousands of cases against GSK remain over its drug Avandia.  These cases allege that GSK failed to adequately warn the plaintiffs about the risk of heart attacks, heart failure and other fatal injuries by taking the drug.  This settlement, reached about a year ago, was one of the first Avandia settlements. 

As a result of the negative press about the drug, Avandia's sales have plummeted.  Some experts claim that Avandia has caused between 60,000 and 200,000 heart attacks and deaths from the time between 1999 and 2006.  The risks became known in May 2007 when a trial was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.  The published article suggested that the drug increased the risk of a heart attack by 43%. 

The average Avandia plaintiff can expect to receive about $86,000.  And, with pressure mounting on GSK to settle cases, victims can be sure that they will receive a payment with the help of a proper and skilled attorney. 

In 2007, an 8-year-old girl was severely injured in a backover accident on a farm.  The girl's father was using the farm owner's utility tractor to mow.  The girl came from behind her father and got caught in the blades of the mower.  Her father had pulled the mower back at the same time she came up from behind him.  As a result, one of her legs had to be amputated later that day.   

The manufacturer of the lawnmower argued that the lawn tractor was intended for commercial use only; however, this lawnmower is routinely used to mow school yards and anywhere you expect to see kids.  Thus, the prosecution argued that the manufacturer should have had better safety precautions and labels on the item.  The plaintiffs won a settlement just a year later. 

The government's liability is capped at $150,000 per individual and $600,000 per incident under a 1971 government immunity statute.  However, if I were to crash into my neighbor's car or accidentally kill someone, I would have to pay monetary damages to help my neighbor or would face criminal charges.  However, the government is not liable in the same manner.  For example, recently the Colorado State Forest Service was blamed for the destruction of 27 structures and three deaths in a recent controlled burn that went awry.  However, its liability under this archaic law is restricted to the above mentioned numbers.

This Colorado fire started as a controlled burn on March 22, 2012.  However, the fire soon reignited in 80 mph winds on March 26.  As a result, the fire spread across more than 4,000 acres and caused $11.3 million in property damage.  To further the damage, firefighting efforts were hampered by a series of communication mishaps and a delay in ordering an evacuation.  For example, many residents did not receive emergency phone calls, including one of the people who died.  And, surprisingly, the Sheriff department found no criminal violations related to the wildfire. 

Homeowners are justifiably furious that the Forest Service chose to set the fire during one of the driest Marches on record.  This fire resulted in 900 homes being evacuated and more than 700 firefighters being called into action.  The legislature in Colorado and around the nation should raise the liability cap for plaintiffs to be able to recoup damages from the government's negligence or mistakes.  For example, one of the nine claimants lost 2.5 miles of power distribution lines in the fire and has already spent $700,000 to repair them, even before paying mounting overtime compensation for restoring electric service to customers in the area. 

While this law is intended to protect governments from frivolous lawsuits, the law needs to be reviewed and updated to keep pace with at a minimum inflation.  After all, the state and local governments are collecting more in taxes as individuals earn more and home values increase.  Furthermore, this would ensure that the government is liable and held accountable for its own mistakes and negligence. 

Twenty-one mothers recently filed a lawsuit claiming that their children were born with a birth defect as a result of taking the antidepressant drug Zoloft.  Zoloft is manufactured Pfizer.  Recently, many antidepressant prescriptions have become the subject of many birth defect lawsuits.  These suits have included, but are not limited to, severe birth defects and include fetal death. 

The recent trend has been to downplay the potential side effects which results in many consumers not being fully informed.  Consumers have the right to know all of the risks before they start taking drug, especially if there is a probably it will impact another life.  The plaintiffs were not properly communicated to about the harmful potential side effects and, thus, have filed suit.  The plaintiffs hope to recoup some monetary damage for the medical expenses incurred, and the pain and suffering their baby will now experience.

The family of an 87-year old woman who claimed to be victimized by intentional nursing home abuse has released a video showcasing the abuse.  The woman was paralyzed and, as a result, lived at the nursing home, the defendant, until her death a year ago.  The victim's family was shocked when they learned about the abuse that she endured the last couple of months of her life.  The family became suspicious after noticing bruises.  So, they hid a video camera in her room.  As a result, one person was charged; however, the family has a video that shows more than one employee mistreating their loved one. 

The family complained to the nursing home officials, but nothing happened.  The family called state officials to get an attempt of accountability on the part of the nursing home, but nothing happened.  The video the family has shown shows at least one nursing home staff physically and emotionally abusing their loved one.  At one point in the video a worker says, "Lady, why don't you die."  Furthermore, the video shows an employee hitting the woman for no reason and removing her oxygen mask without asking

As a result, the family has filed a nursing home neglect lawsuit against the nursing home for its abusive care.  The video footage will obviously play a significant part in the trial. 

Lowell Police Chief Joe Landers is in critical condition after a recent motorcycle accident.  While Landers was in Panama City, FL a drunk driver hit his Harley motorcycle.  As a result, Landers was thrown off of his bike and rushed to the hospital.  The driver that hit Landers, John Christo, did not stop.  It was later found that Christo was also drunk.  As a result of Christo's actions, Landers was seriously injured.

The police chief is still in critical condition and his brain is still suffering swelling.  He has minimal pupil activity and function.  The citizens of Lowell are offering prayers as the accident occurred 800 miles away and they are not able to visit.  Landers had more than 17 years of service on the police force and the town is rallying around his recovery. 

A leading law firm, Holland and Knight, was recently found liable by a Los Angeles jury for fraud, legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary responsibility.  The jury ordered Holland and Knight to pay $34.5 million as a result of their involvement in a fraud lawsuit involving Shi Shailendra, an Atlanta real estate promoter.  

The Sabadias family claimed that Holland and Knight and Glass assisted Shi Shailendra in diverting tens of millions of dollars of the Sabadia's money right into Shailendra's pockets.  The jury found that Holland and Knight, independently, and through its responsible partner White Reeder Glass, had tricked the plaintiffs into believing that the law firm was representing the plaintiff's interests; however, the law firm was not.  Sabadia stated that the law firm basically allowed them to be financially mugged.  Holland and Knight created multiple entities for the Sabadias, portrayed to banks and others that they were representing the family, directed the Sabadias family to sign various agreements and legally binding documents, and even sent the Sabadias blank pages to sign in various transactions.  The prosecution stated that this is a victory not only for the Sabadias family, but for all consumers in California.   

The Connecticut Supreme Court ordered a new trial in a medical malpractice case.  The reason was because Dr. Todd Albert, an orthopedic surgeon and expert surgical witness in the trial, told the jury that suits of this kind drive up health care costs by forcing doctors to practice defensive medicine in Connecticut.  Albert testified that the boy's surgeon complied with accepted medical standards and that any doctor in Connecticut would have done the same thing.  Albert further stated that malpractice suits are the reason that many doctors, especially in Connecticut, cannot receive malpractice insurance and, thus, have to practice elsewhere.  This Connecticut Supreme Court decision allows the boy and his mother another chance to argue their case before a jury.  

The boy had to endure repeated spinal surgeries and may have future back problems because his surgeon failed to obtain timely X-ray photos prior to his operation to remove a benign, spinal tumor.  The photos the surgeon used were more than nine months old.  Furthermore, the plaintiffs argue that the surgeon burst the tumor during surgery, causing the growth to seed itself elsewhere causing debilitating spinal pressure.  The prosecution claims that this could have been easily avoided had the surgeon taken more recent X-rays.  As a result of the surgeon's mistake, the boy had to undergo two corrective operations and his back is now enforced with metal rods.  The original surgery occurred in 2001 when the boy was only eleven.

A witness told a tv channel that the man hoisted up a bucket with a large hook on it that hit a power line before he fell.  About fifteen minutes later, he was pronounced dead.  The investigation is unclear whether he was killed by the fall or the electrocution.

Lawyers are using New York City's age and architectural weirdness to cite violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act.  Interestingly, these lawyers usually do not have plaintiffs, rather they identify businesses that are not in compliance and then recruit or reuse plaintiffs.  Each plaintiff can usually anticipate collecting approximately $500.  Furthermore, each plaintiff can be used multiple times, resulting in the same names appearing on multiple lawsuits.  And, of course, the lawyers make thousands as the noncompliant businesses have to pay their legal fees.

Examples of lawsuits include no ramp and shelves that are too high at a flower shop on the Upper East Side and a bathroom doorknob that can't be opened with a closed fist at a yogurt shop in the theatre district.  Ben-Zion Weitz, a Florida lawyer, filed both of these and he is currently leading the reins in New York City disability violation cases.  He has a group of plaintiffs with disabilities that he regularly selects.  One of these men sued 19 businesses over the course of 16 months.  As a result, shops would immediately fix the problems and have to pay thousands in legal fees to Weitz.

In 2006, Christina Eilman, a California woman, was permanently injured.  After arresting Eilman, police ignored a police commander's instructions to take her to a hospital.  They then took her to the Wentworth District lockup in the city's highest-crime areas.  The next night, after she showed psychotic behavior, the police released her into the dangerous area with no direction of where to go, miles from where she was arrested.  That night, she was sexually assaulted before plunging from a seventh-floor window.  She suffered brain injury, a shattered pelvis, a collapsed lung and other injuries.  The prosecution is suing for negligence claiming the police knew Eilman would meet great harm upon release and that police violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by denying her access to needed mental health care while in custody.  The negligence is also clear from the police officers' clear disobedience of orders.

Unfortunately, the defendants are now stalling the trial and the prosecution has had to send three motions to the appellate court to make a decision.  The prosecution has not heard back.  The prosecution claims that these delay tactics are detrimental to the case as passage of time has an effect on witnesses and as Eilman's condition does not receive the proper care needed.  Eilman has no insurance and is completely dependent on CA for medical aid.  This also places a financial burden on the state.  She will remain physically and mentally impaired for the rest of her life as a result of this incident, along with remembering the traumatic night of her sexual assault. 

"Nakaochi Scrape" is the backmeat that shaved off of fish bones and then placed into sushi such as ground yellowfin tuna.  Two Wisconsin women became severely sick after eating sushi rolls that contained Nakaochi Scrape.  The restaurant had received the yellowfin tuna from India and the label stated that the sushi was packaged as safely.  However, the prosecution claims that the restaurants may have been ignorant of the fact that they are and were selling contaminated products.  It is quite possible that distributors may have removed the packaging label before delivering it to the restaurant.

Salmonella usually just leads to fever, diarrhea and abdominal cramps within three days and goes away within a week.  However, the two women had infections far worse, one even required hospitalization.  She was diagnosed with an ulcerated colon, which the prosecution blames on the Nakaochi Scrape that she ate.

Personal injury cases of this kind usually fall under product liability laws and, thus, anyone in the distribution chain can be held liable.  Scientific evidence has already proved that the plaintiffs were made sick by a rare type of bacteria called Salmonella Bareilly. 

Marj and Samuel Scarberry recently filed a lawsuit against Target in Ohio.  However, Target does not feel this is fair and, as a result, wants the case to be moved to federal court.  It believes that the damages sought exceed the jurisdictional limit of $75,000 because of all the claims that the Scarberrys raise and because there is a "diversity of citizenship" between it and the plaintiffs. 

In March 2010, Marj was shopping when she violently fell on an "unsafe, dangerous and unmaintained walkway floor aisle way."  The prosecution claims that Target failed to exercise reasonable care to ensure that shoppers were not in danger.  Consequently, their negligence caused her injuries, losses and damages.  Those injuries include injuries to her back, head, extremities, "body chemistry," psyche," fascia and muscle tissue, along with other internal injuries.  Furthermore, she lost wages and she claims has sustained a diminution in her future earning ability, capacity to care for herself and enjoy a normal life.  Her husband, Samuel, is also claiming loss of consortium as a result of his wife's permanent and lasting injuries.   

Corey McGriff, also known as DJ Megatron, was hit last year while he was parked on Castleton Avenue near Pelton and Oakland avenues in West Brighton.  On June 7, 2010, he was hit by a 2001 Cadillac, owned by Richard Montalbano.  It is thought that the driver of the car was not Montalbano, but that the car had been stolen.  The driver is still unknown.  As a result of the accident, McGriff suffered neck and back injuries and was not able to work for eight months. 

McGriff worked as a radio and TV personality on BET's "106 & Park" music countdown series, as well as on-camera work for the show and BET's website.  He was the provider for the family, so this loss was significant.  A year after the car accident, in March of 2011, he was murdered during a botched robbery.  He had three children, so the loss of eight months of work and the subsequent death of their father was significant.  The Staten Island public administrator filed the lawsuit on behalf of the family's estate.

An ambulance-chasing lawyer, Jeffrey Squitieri, was recently caught for committing health-care fraud.  In June 2011, Squitieri filed a $1 million dollar personal injury claim against the FBI on behalf of an undercover cop, his supposed client, who was working to bring Squitieri down.  Last Wednesday, Squitieri pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit health-care fraud. 

In January 2011, the undercover cop began working on the case.  Squitieri immediately told the undercover cop to make as many unnecessary doctor visits as possible, and to make sure to bill his insurance company for as many high-priced procedures as possible.  Squitieri was to get a third of whatever reimbursements the undercover cop received, and, thus, was very motivated to increase the amount the insurance companies owed.  Furthermore, Squitieri even recommended a chiropractor who specializes in "manipulation under anesthesia" which dramatically increases the amount the cop could claim from his insurance provider.

Finally, when Squitieri learned that the FBI had rented the car that was listed in the police report provided to him by the undercover cop, Squitieri immediately jumped on the change to also sue the FBI.  In September, he was disbarred for misappropriating clients' money and now faces up to 10 years in prison.