South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

Two Florida CVS Pharmacies Have Controlled Substance License Revoked

Published on: January 22, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency spent 2012 cracking down on entities they felt enhanced prescription drug abuse, including two CVS pharmacies near Orlando. Narcotic drug abuse often leads to serious injuries or death. Pharmacies have a responsibility to handle the drugs they prescribe with professional care. This can range from ensuring individual attention to a patient filling multiple prescriptions for narcotics in a short period of time, or avoiding an alarming number of pain-killer prescriptions that contribute to illegal sale and use.

Pharmacists are the gate keepers to safe, responsible controlled substance use. If they fail in their duties, then life-long injuries or death can occur, regardless of whether it was a narcotic or other medication. If you’ve been affected by a prescription drug error, Miami attorneys Friedman, Rodman & Frank can help you find the legal relief you need.

Two other Florida whole-sale distributors were also blocked from shipping out certain drugs to other pharmacies. This is an extension of the D.E.A.’s attempt to crack down on the “pill mill” of prescription drugs funneled from companies or doctors’ offices that present themselves as legitimate. The D.E.A. picked the distributors and pharmacies based on the high volume of suspicious sales. Pharmacists and pharmacies are now moving forward with caution, balancing regulations with patient care.

Following statutory regulations while providing patient care is not a new task to those handling medications. The Florida Court of Appeals previously held that a pharmacist has the duty to warn “customers of the risks inherent in filling repeated and unreasonable prescriptions with potentially fatal consequences”. In Powers v. Thobani,et al., No. 4D04-2061 (Fl. Ct. App. June 1, 2005), the pharmacist filled several prescription of pain killers before previous prescriptions were scheduled to run-out. The court pointed out that pharmacists were already under a duty to interpret and assess the prescription order for potential adverse reactions, interactions, and dosage regimen he or she felt appropriate, prior to the transfer of the drug.

Florida courts have long viewed that the state legislature never intended to create a private cause of action when it enacted a statute requiring pharmacists to check for harmful reactions and interactions and to counsel customers. (See Johnson v. Walgreen Co., 675 So.2d 1036 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996) However, injured patients can always look toward any acts of negligence to support a civil suit claim against the pharmacist or pharmacy. (See Pysz v. Henry’s Drug Store, 457 So.2d 561 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984). If the pharmacist confused medications while filling a prescription because he or she was overworked or tired, then that pharmacist failed to meet the established set of professional standards set by various regulatory bodies.

Thousands of Injuries Caused by All-Metal Hip Implants Cause F.D.A. to Tighten Regulations in Florida and Rest of U.S.

Published on: January 18, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Food and Drug Administration recently announced a proposed set of rules that would make it much more difficult for medical equipment manufacturers to sell all-metal hip implants. Companies took advantage of not having to prove their products safe and effective, and were putting devices on the market that they knew caused injuries and were prone to early failure. Now, the F.D.A. seeks to rectify this, placing the onus on companies to show that their product is safe before they can begin or continue to sell an all-metal hip implant.

The South Florida defective hip implant lawyers at Friedman, Rodman & Frank are ready to use their product liability experience to aggressively seek the compensation you need to treat the injuries caused by an all-metal hip. They are very familiar with the problems caused by the metal-on-metal grinding that releases tiny metal shavings into the body, injuring nearby bone and tissue and elevating levels of cobalt and chromium in the blood to a point of toxicity.

Prior to its recall in 2010, the Johnson and Johnson’s Articular Surface Replacement (A.S.R.) device was a popular pick among doctors as they began using all-metal hip implants for its perceived durability benefits. A hip replacement for a metal-and-plastic implant usually lasts around 15 years. However, it has recently been shown that the manufacturers knew that an estimated 37% of patients using the A.S.R. will need to have it replaced within 5 years.

Hip replacements may be a common procedure, but they are far from easy to perform. Hip replacements, like any other serious medical procedure, can leave the patient exposed and prone to infections and blood clots. 29,210 Florida residents were hospitalized for hip replacements in 2011. Several hospitals had to readmit patients for complications related to the procedure. Complications can stem from the doctor choosing a faulty implant device. Any additional surgeries to replace previous hips are painful and increase a patient’s susceptibility to complications.

Johnson and Johnson’s DePuy Orthopaedics division withheld the results of their internal analysis that determined over 1/3 of the A.S.R.’s will need to be replace. They conducted this investigation while denying the results of a British implant registry that already determined the hip implants would fail at an early rate. Though the implant product had already been recalled during the internal analysis, there were still numerous patients who still had the A.S.R. implanted and were not notified of the potential risks.

This is analogous to the recently released documents regarding the drug Celebrex. The manufacturing company, Pfizer, only released the first six months of a study assessing the pain-killer’s effect on the stomach. Celebrex used the first half of the study in order to claim that their medication was safer than other over-the-counter drugs like ibuprofen, because it protected the stomach from complications often found when using a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID). The full results showed Celebrex did not have an edge over any other pain reliever. Previously, Celebrex’s effectiveness was questioned because there hadn’t been any studies showing it to be more effective at treating arthritis than other over-the-counter medications.

Florida’s Office of Insurance Regulation Looking for Beneficiaries of Multi-Million Dollar, Multi-Agency Life Insurance Settlement Agreements

Published on: January 15, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida’s Department of Financial Services, Bureau of Unclaimed Property, holds unclaimed accounts at more than $1 billion dollars. A large portion of this money was obtained through multi-million, multi-state settlement agreements with life insurance companies, including AIG, John Hancock, MetLife, Prudential, and Zurich. All of these companies were previously only using the Social Security Administration’s Death Master File to benefit themselves. They used the file to stop annuity payments to account-holders, but they weren’t using this registry to find beneficiaries that would require new payments.

This is a large example of insurance companies refusing to make the payments to which beneficiaries are entitled. Florida insurance companies are required by law to act in good faith when negotiating and settling a claim, but they often fall short of their fiduciary responsibilities. If you need assistance litigating a bad faith claim to get the compensation you are owed, the South Florida attorneys at Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A. have the experience and results you are looking for.

The District Court of Appeals, 4th District recently ruled against the insurance company, American Vehicle Insurance Company (AVIC). AVIC had previously been awarded summary judgment in their favor, where they alleged that there was no bad faith negotiation on their part when they failed to make a settlement soon after the accident. The Court of Appeals was specifically looking to see if there were any material issues of fact for a jury to consider whether or not AVIC acted in bad faith.

The mother of the deceased originally filed suit in Florida against the drunk driver who ran into her daughter, causing serious injuries that induced a coma and later caused her death. The mother claimed the driver’s insurance company acted in bad faith in the immediate months after the accident by failing to offer a settlement. Two-days after the accident the claim was assigned to an employee who quickly assessed the case and decided that the driver was solely at fault, that the injuries exceeded the policy limits, and that the claim should be settled. The AVIC employee attempted to contact the mother, not the injured, and was advised that an attorney was hired. The suit against the driver was filed, and the settlement offers were rejected by the mother of the victim.

The mother was awarded damages in the original case, and decided to sue for bad faith. AVIC moved for summary judgment, arguing that the mother did not have a bad faith claim. The lower court agreed, and the mother appealed, stating that the question of whether AVIC acted in bad faith is determined by their actions, not the action of the claimant. The Court of Appeals agreed with the mother, recognizing that the insurer has an affirmative duty to negotiate settlements. The Court also pointed out that Florida has a stricter standard for summary judgment, requiring that the moving party show conclusively that no material issues remain for trial (Byrd v. BT Foods Inc., 948 So.2d 921, at 923-24 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Ultimately the Court stated, “Any delay in making an offer under the circumstances of this case even where there was no assurance that the claim could be settled could be viewed by a fact finder as evidence of bad faith.” The Court reversed the lower court’s ruling in favor of AVIC and remanded the case so the mother could move on to further proceedings.

FDA Sends Warning Letter to St. Jude’s Medical to Fix Faulty Defibrillators Leads, Riata and Durata

Published on: January 11, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The FDA issued a warning letter to the medical device company St. Jude’s Medical to address several violations in the manufacturing of defibrillator leads Riata and Durata. St. Jude’s Medical, following an investigation of its manufacturing plant between September 25, and October 17, attempted to show it had corrected the violations found during the FDA’s investigation. The FDA delineated how its actions and responses were either inadequate or questionable to the point where adequacy could not be determined. The letter ultimately ordered St. Jude to correct the ongoing violations, or else face regulatory action, which could include civil fines and injunctions.

If you have a faulty defibrillator that uses a St. Jude or Boston Scientifc Lead, our South Florida products liability attorneys can help you seek compensation.

Riata and Durata are both essential parts of a defibrillator installed in patients to help monitor and correct their heart rates. The defibrillator senses a life threatening irregularity, and a shock is sent to help correct the heart via the Riata or Durata leads. These leads are surrounded by insulation and are expected to last around 10 years, with the insulation wearing out after several years of wear and tear. The Riata and Riata ST leads were eroding at an alarming, hastened rate and were sending unnecessary, jarring electric shocks throughout the patients’ bodies. St. Jude’s recalled the Riata in 2011, and has been under intense scrutiny every since. The Durata has not been recalled, however the FDA decided to subject that product line to a similar investigation, as it is manufactured similarly and performs the same function as the Riata and Riata ST leads.

More than 200,000 Riata leads have been distributed globally, and it is estimated that approximately 79,000 remain in patients in the United States. Even though the Riata leads have been off the market since 2010, the FDA expected St. Jude to bring its manufacturing process up to statutory code. The FDA is still trying to determine how soon the insulation on the leads fail after the lead is implanted, the timeline of the breakdown (when does the inner insulation fail, when does the outer insulation fail, and when do those failures cause the lead’s shock to migrate), and what risk factors contribute to the accelerated dissolution of the lead insulation.

The FDA has recommended doctors to closely monitor any patient with a Riata lead. Doctors may elect to use imaging tests like a fluoroscopy or X-ray to determine whether or not there is any decay in the insulation that could cause externalized shocks, or they could chose to remove and replace the lead. However, this has its own layer of concern, as the lead is threaded throughout the heart and creates a build-up of scar tissue, which makes each removal laden with risk to the patient.

The FDA requests that all doctors and patients who are either experiencing problems with their Riata or Durata lead, or suspect that the lead insulation is eroding too quickly, to report the problem to their agency so they can better track and correct this medical product defect that affects so many.

American Contract Workers Facing Increased Dangers

Published on: January 8, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Last month, the Pentagon released a report regarding the war in Afghanistan that revealed bleak statistics – Improvised Explosive Device (IED) attacks have increased 56% since 2009, insider attacks are used with higher frequency, and 18,188 have been injured and 2,162 killed since the beginning of the war. At the end of December, an American contractor was killed at Kabul police headquarters by an inside attack, and a car bomb exploded near an American base killing 3 people and injuring civilians.

Federal law requires all U.S. government contractors and subcontractors to secure workers’ compensation insurance for their employees working overseas. The Defense Base Act (DBA) provides disability, medical, and death benefits to covered employees injured or killed in the course of employment. If you have been injured overseas, or have lost a family member employed as a contractor, and need assistance filing a claim, contact a DBA lawyer at Friedman, Rodman, & Frank, P.A. Our experienced South Florida attorneys will work to get the compensation you need during your time of hardship.

Obtaining money from a Defense Base Act insurer is not always simple and straightforward. In the recent decision from the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, Terri Truczinskas v. Office of Workers’ Comp.Programs, et al., the widow of a contract worker was denied benefits under DBA after her husband’s death. She argued that his death resulted from working at a job that was in a “special zone of danger” in Saudi Arabia. While the DBA provides a statutory presumption in favor of the claimant receiving coverage, the presumption can be rebutted by the insurance company. In this case, the insurance company relied on evidence of suicide to overcome the presumption and deny her claim.

The widow attempted to show that the denial of the claim was unreasonable by countering with allegations that her husband could have been killed by conservative Muslims vigilantes who were offended by his cross-dressing or extra-marital affair, that he was killed by Saudis he investigated as a possible threat, or that a co-worker killed her husband after he uncovered arms smuggling. The Review Board and the Court of Appeals both thought that she did not provide enough evidence to outweigh the insurance company’s rebuttal that his actions leading to his death were outside the coverage provided.

Ultimately, to be satisfied that her husband’s death was covered by his DBA-mandated insurance, the widow needed to show that his death occurred a result of his employment in the “special zone of danger” in Saudi Arabia. She did not have to show that his death was a direct result of the danger, but that it was present. All that is required by the courts is that the “obligation or condition” of employment creates the “special zone of danger” out of which the injury arose. (See Self v. Hanson, 305 F.2d 699, 1962.)

Dogs Bites at Unexpected Florida Locations

Published on: January 4, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Dog bites can happen in surprising places. Whether it is the governor’s mansion, or the dog-friendly stretch of Lincoln Road, dogs sometimes lash out at others, unprovoked. Recently, a waitress was mauled by a dog while attempting to serve the dog water. The dog ripped into her lip, requiring 300 stitches and seven hours of surgery. Even though police were called to the scene, no charges were filed and the dog was allowed to remain with the owner.

If you have been the victim of a dog bite, contact Florida dog bite attorneys today to see whether you may be entitled to compensation.

Florida expects dog owners to be responsible owners. While a dog does not have to be deemed dangerous for a dog-owner to be held liable, a dog can be determined to be dangerous if it has aggressively bitten, attacked, or endangered or has inflicted severe injury on a human being on public or private property; has either severely injured or killed a domestic animal while off its owner’s property; is used for dog fighting; or attacked or chased someone down the street, unprovoked, in a way meant for an attack (which would have to be verified in an official investigation and with a sworn statement by one or more individuals).

Occasionally, a dog-bite victim may find they have to defend themselves against claims of comparative negligence. Florida law allows a jury to consider whether the victim of an injury in any way caused his or her own injury. If they consider the victim to be negligent, and that this negligence contributed to the injury, then the liability of the other party who contributed to the harm could be reduced.

The CDC estimates that about 4.5 million people are bitten by dogs each year. Approximately 20% of those people had to seek medical attention, including serious procedures like reconstructive surgery. In Florida alone, more than 500 victims of dog bites require hospitalization. Dog bites can lead to a life-threatening rabies infection, which is known to be prevalent in Florida. In 2006 over 300 individuals were recommended post-exposure prophylaxis due to dog bites. As medical costs continue to grow, one cannot afford to be found partially liable.

Dog bites do not only leave physical scars, they also have long-lasting psychological impacts. People who sustain dog bites will often have acute stress disorder or post traumatic stress disorder. Various intensive therapies may be required to make the victim feel safe again.