Washington DC Injury Lawyer Blog

Class Action Claims DC Police Officers Target Young Black Motorcyclists

July 30, 2013 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

A recently filed class action lawsuit accuses District of Columbia police officers of intentionally running their squad cars into black motorcyclists, in order to then confiscate the bikes and sell them.

The main plaintiff in the case claims that the Metropolitan Police Department officers intentionally target mostly young, male, African American motorcyclists in poorer areas of the city, without regard for their lives, safety, or constitutional rights.

The suit further claims that the District of Columbia and MPD supervisors not only condone but also tacitly encourage this practice, in order to make money off of the bikes.

The class seeks to represent all young black motorcyclists riding small motorbikes or all terrain vehicles of 250 cubic centimeters or less. They estimate the class size to be in the hundreds, based upon the declarations submitted by victims.

The complaint alleges that riders abandon their bikes after being hit by MPD cruisers, in an attempt to flee. The bikes are then confiscated, and allegedly sold to create a revenue stream. The class claims the officers have caused bodily injuries, pain and suffering, disability, emotional distress and damage to their bikes, among other things. They seek class certification and $100 million in compensatory and punitive damages for alleged constitutional violations, negligence, assault, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Class Action Status Sought in NCAA Concussion Lawsuit

July 22, 2013 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The long lasting damage and seriousness of concussions have become major concerns in sports in recent years. The NFL is currently involved in a multi-million dollar lawsuit involving more than 4,000 former players related to head injuries and related complications.

The NCAA is now facing a similar lawsuit, and the plaintiffs involved in the case are seeking class action status. The attorneys handling the case are seeking to expand the suit to potentially include thousands of plaintiffs nationwide. The suit was initially filed in 2011 on behalf of a former Eastern Illinois Football player and several other former athletes.Attached to the class-action request itself is a report by a leading authority on concussions, citing an internal NCAA survey from 2010, which found that nearly half of the college trainers who responded to the survey indicated they put athletes showing signs of a concussion back into the same game. The expert stated that it is well established that athletes must never be returned to play on the same day after having suffered a concussion diagnosis.

FDA Sends Letter to Makers of da Vinci Surgical Robot Regarding Safety Concerns

July 11, 2013 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

According to reports, The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has sent a warning letter to Intuitive Surgical, Inc., the makers of the da Vinci surgical robot, notifying the company that it violated federal procedures by circumventing the requirement of notifying the FDA prior to notifying its customers regarding problems with its product.

The FDA’s “483” letter, which has not yet been published on the agency’s website, reportedly states that during an almost two year period, the company received some 134 complaints and 83 medical device reports related to “tip cover issues” with the product.

Following these complaints, the company then allegedly sent its consumers a letter with suggestions and recommendations regarding the usage of its equipment. The letter was reportedly in response to complaints regarding arcing that was occurring in the case of damaged tip covers, which resulted in patient injury. Arcing occurs when electrical currents transfer inside of someone during the course of a surgery, somewhat like an electrical shock. The company failed to notify FDA prior to sending out the communication to its customers.

Supreme Court Rules Against Patients in Generic Drug Maker Liability Case

July 2, 2013 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled recently regarding the liability of a generic drugmaker whose pain reliever left a woman severely disabled.

The lawsuit itself, Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v. Bartlett, centered on the fact that the label for the anti-inflammatory did not carry a warning regarding the potential rare side effect of developing Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), which is precisely what happened to the plaintiff in the case. It also accused the maker of producing a dangerous product. The plaintiff’s reaction was so severe, that she developed toxic epidermal necrolysis, spent 10 weeks in the hospital, suffered two incidents of septic shock, suffered burns to 60% of her body, endured a medically induced coma, and required 12 separate eye surgeries.

At the time the plaintiff took the medication, the label did not have a warning regarding the risk of SJS, although the package insert did. Following the ordeal, the FDA recommended that all drugs within this class (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory or NSAID) carry a warning regarding toxic epidermal necrolysis.

The plaintiff in the case sued the drug manufacter, claiming that the drug was defectively designed. A lower court awared her $21 million in damages, including amounts for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and past and future medical expenses. The drugmaker appealed, alleging that federal law preempts lawsuits for the defective design of drugs against generic drugmakers; the argument being that the original manufacturer designed and sought approval from the FDA for the chemical makeup of the drug. There were also allegations regarding the label, which the drugmaker challenged on the same grounds.

The Reality of Cruise Line Lawsuits

June 28, 2013 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Following the several recently publicized cases of cruise ships encountering trouble while at sea, there has been widespread speculation regarding passengers filing lawsuits.

The Carnival Triumph, for example spent several days stranded at sea without any air conditioning, functioning toilets, or hot food. Therefore, several of the Triumph’s passengers have begun to consider their legal options.

In response to the incident, Carnival offered the Triumph passengers a full refund, credit towards a future cruise, reimbursement for specific on board expenses, and an additional payment of $500 per passenger.

While many passengers found the offer to be insulting, considering the conditions that they had to endure, unfortunately due to the relevant laws they may not be entitled to much, if anything, more than what they have already been offered.

The primary obstacle in cruiseship lawsuits is the incredibly limiting terms on the cruise tickets themselves, which form a legally binding contract. Many individuals on vacation do not realize that the ticket in their hand is also densely packed with disfavorable contract terms, and may unknowingly waive many of their rights.

Generally speaking, cruise ship lawsuits are governed by maritime law. This means that cruiseliners may not be held liable for damages related to emotional distress or mental suffering, unless caused by the cruise line’s negligence, and resulting in an actual physical injury. A simplified example of emotional distress leading to physical injury might be if an individual begins vomiting uncontrollably, or has some other directly related physical affliction.

Furthermore, like any other binding corporate contract, sometimes referred to as an adhesion contract (i.e., take it or leave it, in nature), there is a venue selection clause. In the case of the Carnival tickets, all lawsuits must be filed within the federal court located in Miami, Florida. Therefore, individuals wishing to sue would have to hire Florida attorneys, and may face costs flying to the venue for relevant court proceedings, such as depositions. Additionally, cruise ship tickets are reportedly infamous for including class action waivers within their terms, creating further difficulty for passengers wishing to band together.

Jeeps Recalled for Potential Fuel Tank Rupture Risks

June 21, 2013 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Chrysler Group recently announced a recall affecting nearly 1.56 million 1993-1998 Jeep Grand Cherokee and 2002-2007 Jeep Liberty SUVs.

However, the company allegedly only reluctantly agreed to to the final recall after nearly 1.1 million 1999-2004 Grand Cherokees were excluded from NHTSA’s original recall request for 2.7 million vehicles. According to Chrysler, the government was incorrect in its original analysis regarding which vehicles were affected.

The recall is reportedly due to an issue with the fuel tank, which can rupture and lead to an explosion and or fire in the event of a rear end collision.

The recall excludes 1999-2004 Grand Cherokees, which are of a different design than the earlier models that NHTSA had initially suggested would be subject to the recall. However, concerned customers can contact their local jeep dealership for information regarding the safety of their vehicle.

The most publicized cases of issues with the Jeeps occurred when rear end collisions resulted in fires which caused death. In those cases, the Jeeps were either stopped or driving at a slow speed, and were hit from the rear by vehicles traveling at highway speeds.

While detailed information was not readily apparent, the conclusion was that the safety issue comes down to the hitch. Apparently the sturdy structure of a trailer hitch fastened into the vehicle’s rear frame helps to absorb some force from a rear crash. As part of the recall, Jeep will inspect and in some cases install rear hitches for the affected vehicles.

Lawsuit Dismissed against Marshall University from Peculiar Personal Injury Incident

June 14, 2013 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The Marshall University Board of Governors was recently granted dismissal of a lawsuit in which it was named defendant. The claim was dismissed because the plaintiff in the case failed to meet the pre-suit notice requirement under the West Virginia code, which requires notice of the claim and relief sought, sent to the defendant by certified mail at least 30 days prior to the filing of the suit. Pre-suit notice is typically not required under West Virginia law, except when the defendant is a healthcare provider or a governmental agency, as in this case.

The case arose out of an interesting fact pattern, whereby one student was attempting to shoot bottle rockets out of his rectum during a fraternity party.

According to the plaintiff, during a house party in May of 2011, one young man became intoxicated, and decided to attempt to “shoot bottle rockets out of his anus on the [fraternity house] deck.” In doing so, he startled the plaintiff, who then jumped backwards, causing him to fall off of the deck of the fraternity house, and becoming injured in the process. He was reportedly lodged between the deck and an air conditioning unit for some period of time. The plaintiff further alleges that there was no railing on the deck at the time of the incident, and that this condition had existed for several months, if not years, prior to the fall.

The suit claims that the fraternity was negligent in failing to provide a safe deck, and that the young man attempting the fireworks was at fault for his actions, which involved consuming alcohol that is known to potentially lead to dangerous activities.

Slip and Fall Accident Against Walmart Receives $11 million Verdict

June 7, 2013 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Walmart is one of the most well known companies in America today. In fact, it has consistently been ranked at the top of the Fortune 500 rankings, and last month was awarded the #1 spot, with $444 billion in revenue in 2012.

Thousands of civil lawsuits are filed every year against Walmart for various reasons. For example, earlier this year in Virginia, one Walmart customer reportedly won a verdict against Walmart for $11,250,000.00 following a slip and fall accident that left him severely disabled, and permanently in pain. The man’s injuries included numerous fractured bones in his back, his elbow, and his hand, and a rotator cuff injury. The reason for the unmarked wet floor was allegedly because an employee had left the area after mopping it in order to retrieve a warning cone.

The purpose of the seemingly large dollar amounts in cases like this one are several fold. First of all, the award sets out to cover all of the previously incurred medical expenses, and cover all those medical and related therapies and costs that may be incurred in the future. Further, it attempts to compensate the individual for the pain and suffering that they have suffered. It is also common for awards to compensate the individual for any previously lost wages, and if the person is unable to work, what they might have been able to earn. Lastly, punitive damages, which seek to punish the defendant for the wrongful conduct, are also sometimes a part of personal injury damage awards.

No Criminal Charges for Death in Maryland Late Term Abortion Case

May 28, 2013 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Authorities released their determination regarding the case of a 29 year old New York teacher who was admitted to the hospital after reportedly complaining of chest pain and other discomfort and died just hours later, apparently having suffered massive internal bleeding into her abdominal cavity.

The investigation revealed that some four days before she died, the woman had visited a Germantown, Md., abortion clinic to begin the several day long procedure to terminate her 33 week pregnancy, which she reportedly sought after discovering her unborn child had developed fetal abnormalities.

According to other sources, following an investigation into the matter, Maryland authorities have decided to not bring any criminal charges against the doctor who performed the procedure, and further found “no deficiencies” in the woman’s care at the abortion facility.

Lawsuits Being Filed Following Texas Fertilizer Plant Explosion

May 22, 2013 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Following the catastrophic explosion at a fertilizer distribution and storage plant in Texas last month, in which the building caught fire and then exploded as firefighters were attempting to douse the flames, several individuals have begun to file personal injury lawsuits. The total extent of damage done remains unknown, though it is estimated that at least 150 buildings were damaged or destroyed, at least 15 people were killed, and many more were injured or reported missing.

Of the two lawsuits recently filed, one was brought by insurance companies on behalf of various individuals and businesses accusing the plant’s parent company of negligent operation of the location, which allegedly led to the accident.

The second suit was filed by a woman who lived in a neighboring apartment, which was destroyed by the blast. She is seeking up to $1 million due to loss of her possessions, and the physical and emotional injuries she suffered as a result of the explosion.

Further lawsuits are expected against the above named and other defendants. For example, the manufacturers of the fertilizers that were being stored at the facility are other potential defendants.

The last inspection performed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) reportedly occurred 28 years ago, and uncovered at least five “serious” violations. One of these violations dealt with the way in which anhydrous ammonia was allegedly improperly handled and stored. According to a report released by the plant in late 2012, it was then storing 110,000 pounds of the chemical,in addition to 540,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate.