Fort Worth Injury Lawyer Blog

The Levine v. Wyeth case before the United States Supreme Court could effectively end the chance to litigate against a pharmaceutical drug company if that company produces a harmful drug when it had previous knowledge that the drug was dangerous. These types of cases are called “product liability” lawsuits and the general theory asserted is that the drug manufacturer “failed to warn” about the drug’s dangerous (and oftentimes fatal) side effects. Over the years, these types of cases have helped flush out many dangerous drugs, and thousands of victims of these drugs have been able to recover compensation for their injuries.

The drug manufacturers have complained that the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) approval process is strict enough, and if the warning label meets the FDA’s approval, then the drug is good enough to market. These drug companies have been arguing that federal law “preempts” a person’s right to sue in a state court action. Stated another way, the drug companies say you can’t sue them if they have obtained FDA approval. Since no drug can be sold without FDA approval, this means there would not be any way to sue a drug company if it put out a dangerous drug. Besides the drug companies, this position of “federal preemption” is supported by the Bush Administration (no surprise there—he hates plaintiff lawyers) and by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (which lobbies hard against all types of lawsuits).

Is federal preemption a good thing? Absolutely not. There have been countless drugs sold in America which should not have been on the market. For example, American Home Products (now Wyeth) sold Fen-Phen and Redux despite having knowledge that the drugs caused valve problems and deadly primary pulmonary hypertension. Thousands of innocent people were hurt by those drugs and Wyeth did nothing but continue to rake in the profits until the FDA stepped in. Other drugs, like Vioxx, have similar stories. There are currently several other drugs in the early stages of litigation, building up to be more claims of profits over people. (Examples of such drugs include: Avandia, Chantix, Digitek and Heparin).

So, is it just the supposedly “greedy” plaintiffs lawyers who want to be able to continue bringing lawsuits? No. All consumer groups are strongly against federal preemption. Even the editors of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine realize the good that comes out of lawsuits against bad drugs, and they have filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court asking for the court to rule against federal preemption.

Oral arguments in the Levine v. Wyeth case are set for November 3, 2008. This case is extremely important to the safety of the American public. Last term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision finding federal preemption in cases of FDA approval of medical devices (Reigel v. Medtronic, 128 S. Ct. 999 (2008)). Let’s hope that the court departs from its inclination to help businesses at the cost of injured parties and rules that federal preemption does not apply. If the court rules in favor of Wyeth and applies federal preemption in all “failure to warn” drug caes, it will be a sad day for the safety of Americans.

For more information about federal preemption or your rights to bring a claim for a dangerous drug, please contact Board Certified Personal Injury Attorney Mark A. Anderson at 817-294-1900 or Contact Me Online.

Saturday night an Arlington, Texas woman was killed when she was struck by a car on Interstate-20 in Arlington. The woman’s car stalled so she got out to push it to the shoulder when a 21-year-old man driving a Jetta was unable to swerve around the woman and hit her. The woman died at the scene while a young girl who was in the car steering it to the shoulder was taken to Cook Children’s Medical Center in Fort Worth with injuries. The driver of the Jetta also suffered some minor injuries.

This extremely tragic accident is a prime example of wrongful death. While the lady was doing what she believed was the right thing to prevent an accident, it turned out to be just too dangerous. If her car was still able to drive on its own power, it would’ve been better to drive it off the roadway before calling 9-1-1. If a car ever stalls and you can’t get it to the shoulder of the road (which was the case here), it’s safer to turn on the hazard lights, exit the car immediately, and head to a safe area to avoid a car accident.

If you or a loved one has been injured as a result of someone else’s negligence, you may have a legal right to compensation. For answers to your questions, you can call Fort Worth, Texas Personal Injury Attorney Mark Anderson at 817-294-1900, or feel free to Contact Me Online.

A 78-year-old Fort Worth, Texas man was attacked by three Rottweilers in his front yard last weekend after they escaped through the fence of their nearby backyard. The man was luckily able to scare the dogs off with a stick after running into his garage, but he didn’t escape personal injury.

The man suffered dog bites to his hands and wrist and bled all over the driveway. He said he was lucky because it could have been a lot worse.

There has been some recent strengthening of the criminal laws regarding dangerous dogs. First, the dog (or dogs, in this case) must be designated as “dangerous dogs” by the local municpatity. This finding also mandates that the owner of the “dangerous dog” register the dog with the local animal control authority and provide proof of liability by: (1) carrying at least $100,000 of liability insurance to cover any injuries suffered by a dog attack; (2) have current rabies vaccine of the dog; and (3) have a secure enclosure in which the dog is kept. The owner must also pay an annual fee for keeping a dangerous dog.

If a dangerously-designated dog makes an unprovoked attack causing bodily injury on another person outside of the pet’s secured enclosure, then the dog owner can be charged with a Class C Misdemeanor (Texas Health and Safety Code § 822.44). Also, if a person is found guilty under this law, then the court may order the dangerous dog to be destroyed.

I handle dog bite cases and I know that vicious dogs are something to take very seriously—especially Rottweillers, which are known to be an aggressive breed. And three of them all attacking at once?? It’s very fortunate that this man’s dog bites weren’t any worse.
In the present case, I have no idea if Fort Worth had already designated these particular dogs as dangerous. But that designation does not address whether the owner can be held civilly liable for the damages. That is a completely different standard.

If you have questions regarding civil liability on a dog attack, please call Fort Worth, Texas Personal Injury Attorney Mark Anderson at 817-294-1900, or feel free to Contact Me Online.

Back in 2003, the Texas legislature passed a horrible law which capped the damages recoverable in medical malpractice cases. An amendment to the Texas Constitution was also passed in which voters of this Texas narrowly gave approval for this law. Is this cap on damages constitutional? The Texas Supreme Court has not ruled on it yet, as it takes time for “new law” malpractice cases to be filed, worked up through expensive discovery, tried before a jury and then appealed. The Texas Supreme Curt actually had a chance to hear the arguments on whether the caps are constitutional, but this week issued an Order by which they denied hearing the case. The case was actually appealed by the side which is in favor of the caps. That sounds unusual—because it is. Usually you see the folks who are challenging the caps to bring the appeal, but this time is brought on a direct appeal (skipping the appellate courts) by the Texas Hospital Association and the Texas Medical Association.

So we will have to wait and see whether the Texas Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of this bad law. Since this Court is very pro-business and has an abysmal record of voting against the claims brought by the injured parties, I think we all know how they will eventually rule.

So why is this law so bad? Well, just about every attorney who used to handle medical malpractice claims no longer takes them because the damages are so limited that is just does not make economic sense to pursue a case. The cases are very expensive to handle and when the eventual recovery is so limited, then it just makes better sense for the injury attorney to quit taking those types of cases. At the Anderson Law Firm, we stopped handling these types of cases and routinely turn down the opportunity to represent victims of medical malpractice. The result is that injured parties or their families end up not being able to find a lawyer to take their case. So, unfortunately, most instances of true malpractice just end up not being pursued.

Over the years, I have heard a lot of crazy stories and received thousands of outrageous calls of wrongful death and personal injury, I have never ever heard of a helicopter crashing into a house.

Over the weekend, a helicopter crashed into the roof of a residential home in Wisconsin, killing both passengers and narrowly missing a couple and their three children who were fast asleep in the home. The cause of the crash has yet to be released, but witnesses who heard the helicopter in the moments before the accident said it sounded like an engine problem.

It’s amazing that family wasn’t even injured. Can you imagine waking up to a helicopter blade chopping through your roof at 5:30 in the morning?? Unbelievable.

Will there be a wrongful death claim made? If the helicopter did malfunction, there is definitely a legitimate claim to be made. Or maybe it was a pilot error. I am sorry for those two who were killed; it will be very interesting to see what the cause was, and if a lawsuit will ultimately be filed against the helicopter manufacturer, or the pilot’s estate by the passenger’s family or the homeowner.

A bizarre truck accident in Benbrook, Texas left one man dead when the 18-wheeler he was driving swerved off of Southwest Loop 820 and unded crunched up under a bridge. The truck was carrying water bottles. The accident happened at 7:15 p.m. Thursday evening under the Winscott Road bridge. Three other cars driving the same direction as the semi-truck were involved and one man was taken to the hospital with injuries.

The bridge was closed last night until early this morning so it could be checked for structural damage.

As of now, no facts have been released which would reveal the reason for the accident. A thorough accident investigation might turn up what happened. The best source of facts for this investigation will be witness interviews and collection of the scene evidence, like skid marks, for example. The truck should also be equipped with an Engine Control Module (ECM) which may give useful information such as how fast the truck was going at the time of the crash.

In 2003, five bus passengers were killed when a bus headed to Dallas from Temple crashed on I35. The bus accident occured when the bus driver lost control of the bus in the rain and crossed the median near Hewitt, Texas, slamming into a southbound Chevrolet Suburban. Two passengers of the Suburban were killed and additional passengers of the bus were injured.

A wrongful death lawsuit was brought in Waco against Motor Coach Industries, an Illinois company which assembled the bus. In 2005, the case went to trial and a jury ruled that the crash victims should receive $17.5 million dollars, finding that the bus was defective as it had no seatbelts. Of course, the bus company appealed.

This week the 10th Court of Appeals, based in Waco, overturned the jury’s decision. The main reason for the reversal was that the appellate court believed that the trial judge should have asked the jury whether the bus driver or the charter bus company should share in responsibility. One of the three appellate justices also said the jury’s verdict should have been thrown out as federal law governing seatbelts “preempts” the victim’s ability to pursue that type of claim.

It is a shame that these victims’ claims have to go back and start over. The question of which parties’ conduct the jury considers is an important part of all injury cases where more than one party may be responsible. Who the trial judge ultimately “submits” to the jury depends on many things, including the requests made by the various parties’ attorneys and the type of claims being asserted. What is troubling here is the “preemption” argument asserted by the dissenting justice. It seems like federal preemption arguments are being increasingly relied upon by appellate courts to throw out plaintiffs claims. So much for state rights and the decision of juries.

A 66-year-old Fort Worth, Texas man is dead after injuries he sustained last Friday afternoon when his bike collided with a car. The accident happened at the intersection of South Drive and Inwood Road, near Interstate 20. The man died yesterday at JPS Hospital from his critical injuries. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported that this is the 53rd death related to a motor-vehicle accident. Last year at this time, there had been 60 fatalities relating to car and/or bike crashes.

In July, I wrote about a Weatherford, Texas man who was killed riding his bike when a car hit him near Willow Park on an I-20 access road. In that post I discussed the danger most people don’t associate with riding a bike. At that time, I stumbled upon an excellent website on bicycle safety. Check it out before you hit the streets on your bike, and don’t forget your helmet!

Yesterday, I wrote about a Fort Worth, Texas Woman Killed at the Railroad Crossing on Galvez Avenue, where it intersects Riverside Driver near downtown Fort Worth. The 21-year-old woman who died was riding passenger to a 23-year-old man who is expected to survive, but suffered major bodily injuries when he decided to drive around the gates, as the Trinity Railway Express (TRE) came crashing into the passenger side of his car. The woman's two-year-old daughter was also in the car, and suffered injuries.

A similar car/train accident injured another woman at the same crossing just last year.

Now, just two days after the most recent accident, there's already talk of improvements to be made at the crossing as soon as February, 2009. So why wasn't this addressed sooner?

The hold up was due to a battle of control of the project to improve many Tarrant County crossings between TRE officials and the City of Fort Worth, so funds were dispersed between the competing groups. In 2005, government officials put the money together and approved $384,000 for improvements to be made as early as 2009.

Improvements suggested at the particular intersection of Galvez Avenue and Riverside Drive include installing "quad gates" to block access to the tracks completely from the road so impatient drivers won't be able to go around them. There's even been talk of cutting Galvez Avenue off completely just before the tracks and turning it into a cul-de-sac.

No matter what it decides to do, let's hope the city does something sooner, rather than later. But it's important to remember that no matter how many improvements a city can make, nothing beats common sense, and there's a big lesson to be learned from fatal accidents like this one.

Two people were badly injured early this morning after a pickup truck and a car decided to race down the westbound lanes of Airport Freeway in North Richland Hills, Texas. The truck hit a car (that was not involved in the race) and the truck spun out of control, off the freeway and landing twisted up around a tree. The driver of the truck which caused this motor vehicle collision was a 23-year-old Keller man who was taken to Harris Methodist Hospital in Fort Worth with critical bodily injuries. While the other racer kept on driving, the uninvolved driver of the car that was hit was also taken to Harris with unknown injuries. It is unknown at this point if alcohol was involved.

How do these dangerous racing events come about? Police and experts say that they arise in three situations:
1) Spontaneous contests when drivers end up at the same light at the same time
2) Roving parties where racers and their friends take over the highways, and
3) Planned events on a remote road where races are for money

Due to the incredibly dangerous speeds people drive when they “street race,” serious injuries almost always result for those involved. And also for those unsuspecting motorists who happen to be in the way. I understand the feeling of excitement that comes with getting your license when you turn 16. The thrill of driving on one’s own often makes young people feel invincible. But by the time you’re 23, you should know better than to race someone on the freeway in the middle of the night.

And the fact that the other racer was able to speed off from the accident scene without punishment bothers me. I hope the local Police are able to track him down. If located, I assume that he will face criminal charges for leaving the scene of an accident in addition to some sort of reckless endangerment charges relating to the racing. The poor guy who landed in the hospital that wasn’t involved in the race must hope that the pickup driver liability insurance as mandated by the State of Texas.

Yesterday, a Fort Worth, Texas woman died when the car she was a passenger in was hit by the Trinity Railway Express (TRE) train just east of downtown. This tragic accident occurred at the intersection of Riverside Drive and Galvez Avenue. According to witnesses, the male driver of the Chrysler sedan tried to go around the lowered crossing gates. The driver was critically injured and a child was taken to Cook Children’s Medical Center with minor injuries. This intersection was the site of another car/train collision last year.

According to the Federal Railroad Administration, there are approximately 150,000 public grade crossings. Of those, 35,500 have gates, 25,000 have flashing lights and 1,200 have traffic signals, wigwags and bells. Unfortunately, each year approximately 400 deaths occur at railroad crossings, with another 900 injuries. An additional 500 people are killed each year while they are trespassing on railroad property.

This accident, and resulting death and bodily injuries, sounds like it was entirely preventable if the driver had just exercised some more patience and waited for the upcoming train to pass. While it is very tempting to drive around gates, the danger is just too high.

Photo courtesy of Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

In an attempt to get information to the public at an earlier stage than ever before, the Federal Drug Administration (“FDA”) has announced that it will post a listing every three months of the prescription drugs which are being investigated by the FDA. The listing will be posted on the FDA’s Web site. The first list can be found below.

While inclusion on the listing will not mean that a drug is dangerous, it does mean it is under investigation and this step of informing the public is quite an improvement in open government. People should not panic if they are taking a drug that is on the list, but they should be aware of the reported side affects and talk to their doctor about it. Plus, each person should monitor their own health closely if they are taking a drug on this list or any future list published by the FDA.

I know all too well from representing many families where a loved one was injured or died from taking a dangerous drug that sometimes the risk benefit of taking these drugs is just not worth it. I don’t trust drug companies and I know first hand that they can sometimes put profits over people. Just recently I wrote in Dangerous Drug Vioxx Had Misleading Study about the initial Vioxx study that was for marketing purposes instead of safety reasons like Merck had reported.

Here is the first listing of drugs under investigation and the potential problems of the drugs:

Arginine Hydrochloride Injection (R-Gene 10)---Pediatric overdose due to labeling / packaging confusion
Desflurane (Suprane) Cardiac arrest
Duloxetine (Cymbalta) Urinary retention
Etravirine (Intelence) Hemarthrosis
Fluorouracil Cream (Carac) and Ketoconazole Cream (Kuric) Adverse events due to name confusion
Heparin---Anaphylactic-type reactions
Icodextrin (Extraneal)---Hypoglycemia
Insulin U-500 (Humulin R)---Dosing confusion
Ivermectin (Stromectol) and Warfarin---Drug interaction
Lapatinib (Tykerb)---Hepatotoxicity
Lenalidomide (Revlimid)---Stevens Johnson Syndrome
Natalizumab (Tysabri)---Skin melanomas
Nitroglycerin (Nitrostat)---Overdose due to labeling confusion
Octreotide Acetate Depot (Sandostatin LAR)---Ileus
Oxycodone Hydrochloride Controlled-Release (Oxycontin)---Drug misuse, abuse and overdose
Perflutren Lipid Microsphere (Definity)---Cardiopulmonary reactions
Phenytoin Injection (Dilantin)---Purple Glove Syndrome
Quetiapine (Seroquel)---Overdose due to sample pack labeling confusion
Telbivudine (Tyzeka)---Peripheral neuropathy
Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) Blockers---Cancers in children and young adults

In a continuing effort to curb the running of red lights, the City of Fort Worth, Texas has announced that it will install nine more red light cameras. These additional cameras will be turned on October 1 and will double the number of red light cameras in the city. As I talked about last month in Fort Worth, Texas Turns On Another Red Light Camera, I think these cameras are a great idea. I have represented a lot of automobile accident victims who were seriously injured by someone running a red light. The results can be horrible and any efforts to stop red light runners should be applauded.

The intersections where the new cameras will be installed are:

• Eastchase Parkway and Meadowbrook Boulevard
• East Long Avenue and Deen Road
• South Hulen Street and Bellaire Drive South
• McCart Avenue and Westcreek Drive
• Bryant Irvin Road and West Vickery Boulevard
• Eighth Avenue and Elizabeth Boulevard
• North Beach Street and Western Center Boulevard
• Lancaster Avenue and Riverside Drive
• Lancaster Avenue and Sandy Lane

Related topic: Products Aimed to Avoid Fort Worth’s Red Light Cameras

Early this morning, two teenage-boys were killed in a motorcycle wreck on a ramp from the George Bush Turnpike to Highway 161. One was from Bedford, Texas; the other from North Richland Hills, Texas. The details are still unknown, but apparently when one of the riders hit a wall, the other came up behind him and both were flung off the freeway.

Were they racing? Were they wearing helmets? Helmets might not have even mattered if they were racing. When I first heard the story, initially I thought of helmets and then I thought of racing, but my next thought was: what kind of bikes were they on—maybe one of those sport bikes?

Many riders complain that roads are dangerous because of other motorists. This case shows a wreck that was probably not caused by other cars or trucks, but by a combination of too much speed and the vulnerability that goes with riding a motorcycle on an interstate highway. When the boys hit the wall, they flew off their bikes and fell to their death. If they had been encased in a car, the result might have not been deadly. Either way, this unfortunate story just brings to light how dangerous motorcycle-riding can be.

More news to come, I’m sure, as the story develops.

Early Monday morning a drunk driver killed a newlywed couple and injured four others in a horrific car accident near Interstate 75 and Mockingbird Lane in Dallas, Texas. Prior to the accident, police pulled a man driving with a female passenger over whose vehicle had been weaving in and out of traffic. When the officer started to approach him, the driver sped away with his lights off, eventually running a red light and slamming into a carload of Southern Methodist University (SMU) students. All five of them suffered injuries. The impact from that crash sent the drunk driver’s Tahoe flying into another car—killing a newlywed couple. At the hospital, his passenger was in serious condition while he was upgraded to fair.

If this story isn’t tragic enough, it gets worse. The drunk driver had previously been convicted of DWI twice before and two other DWI charges were pending. He was out on bond, which had been revoked and had four outstanding warrants. He was driving the night of the crash with a suspended license and two empty bottles of Patron tequila.

This is one of those tragic cases of someone slipping through the cracks of the legal system. Why wasn’t he in jail? Who forgot to take his license…and his car for that matter? Apparently on one of his latest DWI charges, the “system” did not catch his prior DWI’s.

I only practice personal injury law—not criminal law, but it just seems to me like the law should mandate that the driver should have already been in jail. This man should have already lost his freedom.

It's been in the news a lot this past year, but back to school has meant that many more cities in the Dallas-Fort Worth area are jumping on board: Banning cell phone use in school zones to prevent accidents. The first city in Texas to implement the new policy was Highland Park earlier this year. Since then, Dallas, Duncanville, University Park, Flower Mound, Denton, Rowlett, Sachse, Wylie and Irving have all approved the ban in their school districts, and just today, Mesquite approved the ban, adding itself to the growing list.

Because the laws which regulate the speed of motorists fall under the jurisdiction of cities, the bans are voted on and passed by city councils. The bans prohibit the use of handheld cell phones and PDAs, including text-messaging and dialing, however, hands-free devices are still acceptable. If caught, violators usually face a fine up to $200. The bans will hopefully make drivers more careful in areas where many children are present.

But the bans have become rather controversial. Some argue that talking on a cell phone is no different than drinking a cup of coffee, eating a sandwich or applying mascara. Others are curious as to how effectively the bans will be enforced.

Being the parent of an eight-year-old, I understand the importance of the bans and I am happy to know that DFW cities are taking the initiative to prevent car accidents in school zones. According to the City of Fort Worth website, there seem to be no immediate plans of a ban here. We all talk on our cell phones too much as it is. And a little extra precaution to make school zones safer sounds like an excellent idea to me.