Washington DC Injury Lawyer Blog

Washington DC District Court Enters Judgments Against Iran in Two Cases Brought Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act

September 28, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia recently entered judgments in several lawsuits against the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security (MOIS). The plaintiffs were victims of the 1983 U.S. Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, Lebanon, in which the government of Iran and the MOIS were implicated. The lawsuits were brought under an amendment to the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (FSIA), which provides a federal cause of action for injuries against a foreign state designated as a sponsor of terrorism. The court awarded damages to the plaintiffs in both cases, although the question of recovering damages from the defendants remains highly unsettled.

FSIA, which first became law in 1976, gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over most civil claims against foreign states, but applies many of the principles of sovereign immunity. This is the legal doctrine that a government entity may not be sued unless it has waived immunity. It applies in lawsuits against city, county, or state governments, where a claimant must follow steps set out by statute before filing suit. People claiming damages for injuries caused by foreign states have generally been barred from relief by this doctrine. Federal courts applied FSIA in blocking claims for damages caused by the September 11 terror attacks in In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 538 F.3d 71 (2nd Cir. 2008), and a 2003 terror attack in Riyadh in Heroth v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 565 F.Supp.2d 59 (D.D.C. 2008).

Congress added an exception to FSIA in 1996, with amendments added in 2008, for foreign states designated as “state sponsors of terrorism” either at the time of the alleged injury or as a result of the alleged injury. The foreign state must also remain designated as such at the time a claimant files suit. The exception applies to claims for personal injuries or wrongful death resulting from acts such as hostage taking, torture, sabotage, or the support of such acts by the foreign state.

Federal Court Orders Arbitration Between Defendant and Third-Party Defendant in Premises Liability Lawsuit

September 20, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

A lawsuit arising from a slip-and-fall accident in a grocery store parking lot, Kindig v. Whole Foods Market Group, has taken an unusual journey from a Washington, DC Superior Court to a federal U.S. District Court. After the defendant grocery store company sued the parking lot manager as a third-party defendant, the court ordered the two into arbitration. The court then allowed the plaintiff’s case to proceed.

Marion Kindig allegedly slipped and fell in water in the parking lot of the Whole Foods Market (WFM) in the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington, DC on November 26, 2007. She landed on concrete and reportedly sustained serious lower-body injuries. She filed a premises liability lawsuit against WFM in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. WFM removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. It also filed a third-party complaint for indemnification and/or contribution against the company contracted to manage the parking lot, U.S.A. Parking, and its owner, Solomon Arega.

U.S.A. Parking and Arega filed a motion to dismiss. Arega argued that WFM had no legal basis for holding him individually liable for any obligations of the corporation he owned. The court found that WFM had not pleaded any allegations that would compel the court to disregard the corporate entity, such as allegations that Arega was using the U.S.A. Parking corporation as an “alter ego” or as a means to perpetrate a fraud. It therefore granted Arega’s motion and dismissed him as a third-party defendant.

Cars Collide with Washington DC-Area Fire Engines; Police Remind Drivers of State “Move-Over” Laws

September 13, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The city of Greenbelt, Maryland has found itself with no working fire engines as the result of two accidents in recent weeks. One accident involved a driver who failed to yield the right of way and collided with a fire engine. The other accident occurred when two cars struck the city’s remaining engine while it was blocking part of the Capital Beltway to shield emergency workers. The county fire chief, in speaking about the accidents, reminded drivers in the Maryland portion of the Washington DC area of the state’s “move-over” law, which aims to protect emergency responders helping people after automobile accidents and other crises.

On the morning of September 1, 2012, one of the Greenbelt Volunteer Fire Department’s engines was hit by a civilian vehicle while responding to a residential fire in Berwyn Heights. According to a spokesperson for the Prince George’s County Fire/EMS Department, the civilian vehicle failed to yield the right of way to the fire engine. Two firefighters sustained minor injuries in the collision. The county described the damage to the fire engine as “significant” and said that it will remain out of service for some time.

Greenbelt’s only remaining fire engine was serving as a barrier for emergency workers, who were clearing a wreck on the inner Beltway in the early morning of September 8. Firefighters sometimes position fire engines across multiple lanes of traffic to protect emergency crews who must work on busy roadways on foot. In this case, the fire engine did its job well. At about 2:45 a.m., a 2005 Lexus passed multiple warning lights and crashed into the side and rear of the parked fire engine. Maryland State Police troopers arrested the Lexus driver for multiple traffic violations. While emergency crews were still clearing the Lexus from the scene, a second vehicle barely missed several firefighters and collided with the Lexus, causing even more damage to the fire engine. That driver reportedly fled the scene, but was stopped further down the road and now faces a similar number charges for traffic offenses. The county estimates that the damage to the fire engine will exceed $30,000.

Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of Claim for Injury Benefits Under Vaccine Act

September 4, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The estate of a woman who died from vaccine-related complications may recover death benefits, but not injury benefits, under the federal Vaccine Act, according to a ruling by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Griglock v. Secretary of Health and Human Services. A Special Master found that the woman’s death was attributable to an influenza vaccination, allowing the death benefits claim to proceed, but also found that the statute of limitations for an injury benefits claim had expired. The Court of Federal Claims and the Federal Circuit affirmed that decision.

The decedent, Sophie Griglock, received a vaccination for influenza on October 6, 2005, when she was seventy years old. In late November 2005, a neurologist diagnosed her with Guillian-Barré Syndrome (GBS), a disorder in which the immune system attacks the nervous system. It can cause paralysis and death due to an inability to breathe. Griglock died of GBS-related respiratory failure on May 11, 2007.

Griglock’s estate filed a petition for compensation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) in April 2009. HHS did not contest the question of whether the vaccine caused Griglock’s GBS. It recommended death benefits of $250,000, the maximum amount allowed by the Vaccine Act. The estate also requested injury benefits under the Vaccine Act to compensate for Griglock’s medical expenses. The case went before a Special Master, who determined that the vaccine caused Griglock’s GBS and her GBS-related death. While this gave the estate standing to claim injury benefits, the Special Master determined that the claim, filed in 2009, was barred by the statute of limitations.

Washington DC Court of Appeals Affirms Summary Judgment in Favor of Hospital in Medical Malpractice Case, Based on Statute of Limitations

August 30, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a medical malpractice lawsuit. The court based its decision in Atiba v. Washington Hospital Center, et al on a missed deadline under both DC’s statute of limitations and notice requirements for medical malpractice claims. The issue before the court concerned an alleged conflict between the deadline to file suit under the statute of limitations and the time period in which notice must be given.

The plaintiff, Kwaco Atiba, sought medical treatment from the defendants, Michelle Grant-Ervin, M.D. and Washington Hospital Center, between October 27 and November 2, 2006. Washington DC law requires a plaintiff to give “not less than” ninety days’ notice to a defendant before filing a medical malpractice suit. It also imposes a three-year statute of limitations for most personal injury claims, including medical malpractice. In the event that the required notice is given within the ninety-day period immediately prior to the running of the statute of limitations, the time to file suit is extended ninety days from the date the notice is served. Atiba served notice of the intended suit on the defendants on October 27, 2009, and filed suit on January 26, 2010. The filing date of the lawsuit was the ninety-first day after the date the notice was served.

The hospital moved for summary judgment, alleging that the plaintiff failed to file within the statute of limitations, and the trial court granted the motion. The trial court ruled that the ninety-first day after service of the required notice was “one day too late.” The plaintiff argued on appeal that the notice requirement and the statute of limitations conflicted, making it impossible to provide “not less than” ninety days’ notice and file suit within the ninety-day extended limitations period. The plaintiff interpreted the notice requirement as only permitting suit after ninety days had passed.

CPSC Imposes $1.5 Million Fine on Retailer Selling Children’s Clothing with Drawstrings

August 23, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced that the retailer Burlington Coat Factory (BCF) has agreed to pay $1.5 million in civil penalties for violating regulations affecting children’s upper outerwear, such as jackets and sweaters. The CPSC regulates, and largely prohibits, the sale of children’s outerwear with drawstrings. This is due to the high risk of serious injury or death when drawstrings have caught on other items. The penalty to BCF is reportedly the largest one ever assessed by the CPSC for this particular regulation.

The CPSC issued its first set of guidelines regarding drawstrings on children’s upper and lower outerwear in 1996, which it included in a set of voluntary standards the following year. According to the CPSC, since the voluntary standards took effect, the number of deaths caused by children’s upper outerwear drawstrings has declined by seventy-five percent, and it has not received reports of any deaths from waist-level drawstrings.

The primary risk of upper outerwear drawstrings comes when a drawstring is caught on another object. The CPSC states that it has received twenty-six reports of cases where children were killed after a drawstring became tangled in an object. These included school bus doors and playground slides, among others. Drawstrings around the neck present a risk of strangulation, and waist drawstrings have resulted in children being dragged by vehicles when they are caught in doors. In the six-month period from November 2011 to May 2012, the CPSC says it issued eight recalls of products involving drawstring hazards. It has recalled a total of 130 drawstring products.

Wrongful Death Lawsuit Alleges Medical Negligence and Intentional Torts Against Doctor

August 16, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

A husband’s wrongful death lawsuit alleges that his wife’s doctor caused her death last year by prescribing a wide array of psychotropic medications. The suit further claims that the doctor defrauded her of nearly half a million dollars, which she contributed towards his research funding while under the influence of these medications. The two types of claims, brought in a single lawsuit, raise uncomfortable questions about the doctor/patient relationship.

Phyllis Harvey, described as a philanthropist who formed a foundation with her husband, Brian Harvey, to fund scholarships and engage in other charitable activities, died last year at the age of 59. She reportedly had a history of mental illness and alcoholism, and was diagnosed in 1999 with possible bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, or early dementia. She sought treatment from Dr. Alexander Bystritsky, a physician at the University of California, Los Angeles, beginning in 2004. Dr. Bystritsky allegedly put her on a regimen of multiple psychotropic medications, even though the 1999 diagnoses were never fully confirmed. Her prescribed medications included the anti-psychotic drug Seroquel and the anti-anxiety sedative Ativan.

Proposed Unique Identifier System for Medical Devices Could Improve Patient Safety

August 8, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

A new rule proposed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would require most medical devices in the country to include a unique device identifier (UDI). This is a unique code system assigned to medical devices that, according to the FDA, would allow the agency to track problems with devices and develop more effective regulations to protect patient safety. Congress passed legislation, the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, that requires the FDA to promulgate regulations to implement a nationwide UDI system. The proposed rule will be open to public comment until November 7, 2012.

The FDA describes a UDI as a “unique numeric or alphanumeric code” assigned to a device. The UDI includes identifiers for the specific device and the device model, as well as production information including the serial number, the lot or batch number, and, if applicable, the device’s expiration date. The FDA is reportedly developing a database of “basic identifying elements” in UDIs that the public can access and review. A device’s UDI, the FDA says, will not include any personal identifying information about the person using the device.

Washington DC Wrongful Death Lawsuit Filed by Families of U.S. Citizens Killed in Drone Strikes

July 25, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

A wrongful death lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeks damages from the federal government for the allegedly unlawful killings of United States citizens abroad. The families of several people killed overseas by unmanned drone aircraft are claiming violations of the decedents’ constitutional rights as U.S. citizens. Unlike many wrongful death lawsuits, this suit alleges violations of statutory and constitutional rights, rather than negligence, by the government. The lawsuit is sure to generate public controversy, particularly since the government asserted national security reasons for the drone attacks.

Nasser al-Aulaqi (sometimes spelled al-Awlaki) and Sarah Khan, with the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), filed suit against federal government officials, including Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director David Petraeus, in mid-July 2012. Their complaint alleges that the federal government has engaged in targeted killings of suspected terrorists abroad since 2001. Anwar al-Aulaqi, an American citizen living in Yemen, was added to a “kill list” in late 2009 or early 2010, based on suspicion of terrorist activity or support.

On September 30, 2011, the complaint says, unmanned drones operated by the CIA and the Department of Defense fired missiles at a vehicle in Yemen containing Anwar al-Aulaqi. The blast killed al-Aulaqi and another U.S. citizen, Samir Khan. Another drone strike on October 14, 2011, also allegedly authorized by the defendants, killed at least seven people at a restaurant in Yemen, including another U.S. citizen, Anwar al-Aulaqi’s 16 year-old son Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi.

Sewing Needles Found in Sandwiches in Airplane Meals, One Passenger Injured

July 19, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

A bizarre discovery in several airplane meals has left one person injured and launched a two-country investigation. Passengers on several Delta Airlines flights found sewing needles in sandwiches included with the in-flight meals. The flights all originated in Amsterdam and were bound for the United States. Police in both the U.S. and the Netherlands are investigating the matter, as is Delta Airlines. All investigators are reportedly looking at the catering company that provided the meals.

Multiple Delta flights leave Amsterdam’s Schipol Airport for the U.S. every day. On July 15, 2012, it had seventeen such flights, and at least four of them had unpleasant surprises in the in-flight meals. On a flight bound for Minneapolis, a passenger bit into a hot turkey sandwich and reported feeling a “sudden jab” in the roof of his mouth. He said he thought it was a toothpick holding the sandwich together at first, but when he pulled it out of his mouth, he saw it was a one-inch long needle with sharp points on each end. A passenger and an air marshal on two different flights to Atlanta found needles. A needle turned up in a sandwich that had not been served to anyone on a flight to Seattle. The man on the Minneapolis flight, who declined medical treatment, appears to be the only injury.