Massachusetts Injury Lawyer Blog

In what will be the largest recall in the history of Toyota Motor Corp., the company will be recalling 3.8 million defective motor vehicles because of defective floor mats. The defective mats may cause the accelerator to jam, and may lead to serious accident.

Toyota has recommended that for several Camry, Avalon, Prius, Tacoma, Tundra and Lexus models the driver's side removable mat be removed from the car immediately and not replaced until the company issues a fix.

According to the Washington Post, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has called this an "urgent matter," and has strongly urged owners to "remove mats and other obstacles that could lead to unintended acceleration."

One recent spectacular car crash has been blamed on the defective mats. In August 2009, a California family was traveling in a 2009 Lexus ES 350 when the car's accelerator became stuck. The runaway vehicle could not be stopped, and reached a speed of 120 mph before crashing, rolling off the highway, and catching fire. All four family members were killed.

Toyota has also issued instructions on how to disable the vehicle if the accelerator becomes jammed. A driver should use both feet on the brake to slow the car and slip the gear shift into neutral. The key should be turned to accessory (not to lock, otherwise steering will be lost). In a push-button ignition, holding the button for three seconds will kill the engine. 

More Information

For more information, consumers can contact the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's hotline at (888) 327-4236, Toyota at (800) 331-4331 or Lexus at (800) 255-3987. 

Toyota to recall 3.8M vehicles over floor mats, Washington Post, September 30, 2009.

Continue reading "Toyota Recall of Defective Cars to Affect 3.8 Million Vehicles--Floor Mats Blamed for Crashes" »

There has been another train accident on the commuter rail, this time at South Station in Boston. The Boston Herald reports that approximately 9AM, train 512, which originated in Worcester, failed to stop in time and collided with the end-of-track bumper at South Station, the last stop on the route.  Of the approximately 100 passengers on the train, at least 18 people suffered personal injuries, many of whom were treated at local hospitals. 

Although the train was allegedly traveling at a speed of 5 miles per hour at the time of the collision, many passengers were standing in preparation for getting off the train and were thrown to the floor and suffered personal injuries.  Many patients were taken off the train on backboards by emergency personnel.  Boston Medical Center activated its emergency plan in case a large number of injured passengers.

Transportation officials have already suggested that operator error contributed to the collision.  Investigations by the MBTA and the National Transportation Safety Board are underway.  Preliminary reports have ruled out signal, dispatching, or equipment problems as a cause.  The Boston Herald has reported that the train's engineer told supervisors that he misjudged the stopping distance at the South Station platform. The engineer will be tested for drugs and alcohol.

Ordinarily, trains stop dozens of yards back from the bumpers, which are the emergency devices designed to stop the train at the end of the track and to protect people in the train station. There are no recent reports of other crashes into the bumpers.

If you would like more information about what to do if you were injured in this train accident, please call us at 1-800-379-1244 or visit us at www.bwglaw.com.

For More Information

Train hits South Station bumper, 16 passengers hurt, Boston Herald, September 15, 2009

18 injured in commuter rail mishap at South Station, boston.com, September 15, 2009

In what is being called the largest prescription drug criminal fraud case in U.S. history, Pfizer will pay $2.3 billion in civil and criminal penalties to compensate taxpayers, patients and doctors across the United States for illegal drug marketing.

A government investigation revealed that Pfizer promoted the sale of Bextra - an anti-inflammatory drug that Pfizer pulled from the market in 2005 - for uses and dosages that the FDA specifically declined to approve due to safety concerns. Despite the lack of approval, Pfizer literally wined and dined physicians around the country to promote the "off-label" uses of its drug. As a result, Pfizer will pay a criminal fine of $1.3 billion.

In addition, Pfizer agreed to a $1 billion civil settlement to resolve allegations under the civil False Claims Act that the company illegally promoted four drugs - Bextra; Geodon, an anti-psychotic drug; Zyvox, an antibiotic; and Lyrica, an anti-epileptic drug - and caused false claims to be submitted to government health care programs for uses that were not medically accepted indications.

Massachusetts will receive $14.7 million, which will go back into the state's Medicaid program.

The settlement comes just weeks before a controversial prescription drug-related murder case is scheduled to go to trial in Massachusetts. In 2007, Michael and Carolyn Riley of Hull, Massachusetts, were charged with first-degree murder in the death of their four-year-old daughter, whom allegedly died of a prescription drug overdose of Clonidine and other prescription drugs that were given to her by her parents. The Rileys have brought a medical malpractice claim against their daughter's Boston doctor, who prescribed Clonidine for a use which was not approved by the FDA. That case is pending.

The Pfizer settlement and the upcoming trial of Michael and Carolyn Riley are a reminder of the damage that prescription drugs can cause when they are prescribed for uses which have not been approved. About 1.3 million people are harmed as a result of a medication error every year in the United States.

For more information about medication errors, click here.

One would have hoped that, by now, the majority of reasonably enlightened elected leaders would not be fooled into believing that changing medical malpractice laws would affect the cost of health care significantly. That should be especially true for Massachusetts representatives and senators, who should not be swayed by exaggerated claims of "frivolous lawsuits" and "defensive medicine." These arguments have repeatedly been debunked, but somehow they survive.

So one news report from this weekend was particularly disappointing. The New York Times reports that on the television show "This Week with George Stephanopolous" (August 30, 2009)  Senator Orin Hatch (R-UT) said, "We've got to find some way of getting rid of the frivolous cases, and most of them are." Shockingly, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) replied, "And that's doable, most definitely."

The NY Times article, "Would Tort Reform Lower Costs?" has an excellent interview with Tom Baker, a professor of law and health sciences at the University of Pennsylvania School of Law. Professor Baker is also the author of "The Medical Malpractice Myth." Some of the points Professor Baker made in the interview:

• "Tort reform" does not bring down the cost of health care because the number of claims is actually very small compared to the total cost of health care (around 1%)
  
• The number of claims has been stable for over twenty years so the rate of law suits is actually declining
• Only 4-7% of those who are injured by doctors or other medical professionals make claims for medical malpractice resulting from preventable medical errors.
  
• There are not frivolous medical malpractice cases. Cases are screened carefully because they are very expensive to litigate.
• Defensive medicine is only around 2.5% of the cost of health care, but that cannot be separated out from the practice of many physicians to order extra tests to be sure they are screening patients carefully and properly. There is little evidence that doctors are just ordering tests to avoid lawsuits.
• One of the major reasons we have such expensive health care is the administrative costs of private health care insurance.

A more meaningful system of reform would require prompt notification of patients when they are injured as a result of medical errors. Patients have the right to know how and why they were harmed. And, as Professor Baker suggested, there should be improved legal mechanisms for those with non-catastrophic injuries to recover for their damages.

We strongly believe that trading the rights of people injured as a result of medical negligence is absolutely wrong. We urge our readers to contact their legislators, and to insist that changes in medical malpractice laws be left out completely for any health care reform legislation.

We should reform health care and health insurance in the United States. We should make health care more affordable and accessible. But we should not believe the medical malpractice myths perpetuated by the medical lobby. And we should not take away the rights of injured people.