Injury Compensation News
You are entitled to make product liability claims when goods you have purchased from a shop, or medical devices you have been supplied with, fail to work as intended and cause you to sustain an injury as a result. The claim for product liability could be made against the retailer of the shop or manufacturer of the item depending on the circumstances of the case, and you are advised to speak with a personal injury solicitor to discuss your product liability claims at the earliest possible opportunity.
Wednesday, 18 December, 2013
A Supreme Court judge has upheld a High Court ruling in a combine harvester injury claim against John Deere – one of the world´s largest manufacturers of farm machinery.
In June 1995, thirty-year-old Denis Scollard was working for agricultural contractors Thomas and William Wright, collecting silage for various farmers in County Limerick and operating a John Deere 6810 combine harvester.
While operating the combine harvester, a grass blockage occurred; and Denis attempted to clear the obstacle via the inspection hatch. However, as he was doing so, the fingers of his left hand were crushed when the combine harvester´s paddles came down inside the chute.
Denis made a combine harvester injury claim in 1996 against his employers and received €430,000 personal injury compensation. Thomas and William Wright then made a claim against the companies from whom the machine was leased and supplied to recover what they had paid to Denis.
AIB Finance & Leasing and Geary’s Garage Ltd – respectively the leasing company and suppliers of the combine harvester – in turn sought indemnity from John Deere Ltd who are the manufacturers of the combine harvester.
John Deere Ltd denied any liability for Denis´ injuries and argued that the accident could not have occurred as claimed as the paddles would not have crushed Denis´ fingers if he had followed the instructions published in the combine harvester´s manual.
Their defence was that there was no scientific basis to explain how the paddles could have moved if Denis had disengaged the engine of the combine harvester as he claimed he had. However, at the High Court in December 2007, Ms Justice Mary Irvine found in favour of AIB Finance & Leasing and Geary’s Garage after hearing evidence from two eye witnesses and a medical expert.
The judge ruled that John Deere Ltd had been negligent by “designing, manufacturing and selling a combine harvester with a design defect” and she ordered them to settle the combine harvester injury claim; commenting that Denis´ injuries would have been far worse if the engine of the combine harvester had been engaged.
John Deere Ltd appealed the decision, and last week the case was heard at the Supreme Court before Mr Justice Frank Clarke. After hearing the case again, Judge Clarke upheld the High Court verdict that Denis´ injuries were a foreseeable consequence of negligence, and ordered John Deere Ltd to reimburse the €430,000 paid in settlement of Denis´ combine harvester injury claim.
Posted in Farm Accident Injury, Product Liability Claims, Workplace Injury Claims - No Comments »
Monday, 18 November, 2013
A French court has ordered TUV Rheinland to compensate thousands of victims of faulty Poly Implant Prothese breast implants.
The German company TUV Rheinland was brought to the Commercial Court in Toulon in order to answer claims raised in a class action that it negligently awarded the faulty Poly Implant Prothese breast implants the European seal of approval, without noticing that the implants contained low grade industrial silicone instead of the higher grade gel that had been originally approved.
The class action was comprised of PIP breast implant victims from Britain, Ireland, France and South America; some of whom had sustained terrible injuries after the silicone gel from the implants leaked into their lymph nodes when the implants leaked or ruptured. One woman in France is acknowledged to have died due to the faulty Poly Implant Prothese breast implants.
TUV Rheinland´s legal team argued that they had been defrauded by Jean-Claude Mas – the founder of Poly Implant Prothese, who is waiting a verdict on the charge of aggravated fraud – and that their role had been to inspect the manufacturing process rather than the finished product. However, solicitors on behalf of the class action contested that TUV Rheinland failed to do its job properly and gave “global credibility” to a product which was clearly faulty.
After hearing evidence from both parties – during which time it emerged that the employee in charge of quality control had only a cookery diploma, while another in charge of the laboratory had previously trained as a pastry chef – judges at the Toulon court found that TUV Rheinland had ”failed its obligations of checking, caution and vigilance” and awarded each claimant €3,000 with immediate effect for the removal of their faulty breast implants.
Future awards of up €13,000 for faulty Poly Implant Prothese breast implants could be made to each of the 17,000 plaintiffs subject to an individual assessment and an appeal against the settlement by TUV Rheinland to be heard early next year. If unsuccessful in their appeal, up to 400,000 other victims could claim compensation for faulty Poly Implant Prothese breast implants – suggesting that TUV Rheinland could be faced with a bill of €6.4 billion for their negligence.
Speaking after the verdict was announced, spokesperson for the PIP Action Campaign Group Jan Spivey said “It is a first important victory for PIP victims worldwide and especially those British victims who have received no help from the health service or the Government. It means that they can start to get the surgical help [to replace defective implants] that they urgently need.”
The verdict in France comes just over three weeks after the Irish Medicines Board released its latest update on the faulty Poly Implant Prothese breast implants:
“The Irish Medicines Board (IMB) notes the scientific opinion [from the European Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks] which states that ‘There is currently no convincing medical, toxicological or other data to justify removal of intact PIP implants as a precautionary approach. Implant removal in the absence of malfunction may be considered for women who are experiencing significant anxiety because they have a PIP breast implant. However, the decision to remove an intact PIP implant for this reason should be based on an individual assessment of the woman’s condition by her surgeon or other treating physician after consultation’.
Women with health enquiries about the faulty Poly Implant Prothese breast implants, should contact the IMB on 01 6764 971.
For more information about compensation for faulty Poly Implant Prothese breast implants, speak with a solicitor on 1-800 989 900.
Posted in Class Action Suits, Product Liability Claims, Professional Negligence - No Comments »
Tuesday, 17 September, 2013
The twice-postponed DePuy ASR hip replacement court case has been put back in date again – this time after a change of plaintiff and a ruling about referring to the DePuy recall as evidence.
The first Federal DePuy ASR hip replacement case was delayed again last week after the parties in McCracken -v- DePuy (Case No 1:11 dp 20485) were allowed additional time by U.S. District Judge David A. Katz for discovery to take place and to deal with other legal matters.
The first `Bellwether` DePuy ASR hip replacement case has now been rescheduled for September 24th, and will revolve around the hip dislocation sustained by Ann McCracken (57) from Rochester in New York, which is alleged to have been due to metal particles displaced by her DePuy ASR XL Acetabular Hip Replacement System causing the soft tissues around her hip to decay.
Ann had a DePuy ASR XL Acetabular Hip Replacement System implanted in August 2009, but had to undergo revision surgery in January 2011 after she had suffered her dislocated hip. In October 2011, Ann had to undergo further surgery to insert a device restricting the movement of her hip, which has reduced her mobility and will result in her present hip replacement system wearing out quicker – resulting in another hip replacement operation in the future.
The latest delay is due to Judge Katz agreeing that the worldwide recall of the DePuy hip replacement systems should not be referred to in court – not only because the DePuy ASR hip replacement case to be heard on its individual merits, but DePuy´s lawyers successfully argued that any reference to the DePuy recall at trial might prevent other companies from voluntarily withdrawing potentially dangerous medical devices because of the legal consequences.
One of the purposes of this first ‘Bellwether’ DePuy ASR hip replacement case is to evaluate the relative strengths and weaknesses of the plaintiffs´ claims and DePuy Orthopaedic´s defence. If Ann´s case – and others still to be scheduled among the `Bellwether’ trials – results in a yardstick for compensation settlements, DePuy Orthopaedics are likely to negotiate settlement offers with the 7,800 plaintiffs also attached to this DePuy ASR hip replacement case through the consolidated multidistrict litigation (MDL).
If no compensation yardstick is established by the juries in each of the trials – or if there are both positive and negative verdicts returned – all of the remaining DePuy ASR hip replacement cases will be referred back to the US District Courts in which they were originally filed – each to be heard individually and prolonging the how long it will take for each plaintiff to receive a fair settlement of DePuy hip replacement injury compensation.
This second scenario would also have an impact on plaintiffs in Ireland who have made a claim for DePuy hip replacement injury compensation, as each DePuy ASR hip replacement case in Ireland would then have to go through the court process.
Posted in Class Action Suits, Compensation for Long Term Injuries, DePuy Hip Implant Recall, Hospital Negligence Claims, Medical Negligence Claims, Product Liability Claims - No Comments »
Friday, 13 September, 2013
A Canberra woman, who made a claim for compensation for an injury caused by a broken chair at work, has had her claim resolved in court for more than AU$1 million.
Terry Anne Downie was employed as a team leader for the Community Information and Referral Service in the Australian Capital Territory when, in June 2002, she purchased furniture for her office from the ex-government furniture outlet – Fyshwick – including a chair for her own use at work.
In October of the same year, Terry Anne was sitting on the chair while using the telephone when two legs of the chair snapped and she fell to the floor. A co-worker who saw the accident said that she heard a loud crack and then witnessed Terry Anne struggling to get up.
Terry Anne was taken to hospital, where scans revealed that a bulging disc inflamed by the accident was in contact with a nerve root. Doctors were unable to fix the injury and Terry Anne – now 51 years of age – suffers from ongoing pain, mental illness, sexual dysfunction and a permanent sensation, described in court, of ants under the skin of her legs.
In 2005, Terry Anne was paid Au$190,000 in worker´s compensation for an injury caused by a broken chair at work but also made a private claim for personal injury compensation against the chair´s importer – Jantom – claiming that the product was faulty when it was supplied to Fyshwick. Terry Anne´s employers also made a claim against Jantom to recover the amount of worker´s compensation they had paid her.
At the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court, Judge Master David Harper found in favour of Terry Anne and her employer after hearing expert evidence that plastic moulding on the base of the chair had failed in a catastrophic manner when two of five supporting spokes had broken.
The judge said “Terry Anne has many years ahead of pain and depression. Her life is very different to the life she could have expected if it had not been for her injury. Her enjoyment of life, and the kind of life she is able to lead, have been altered immeasurably.”
He awarded her Au$933,030 compensation for an injury caused by a broken chair at work plus a further Au$112,000 in special damages to cover her medical expenses. Terry Anne´s employer was also able to recover the compensation already paid to Terry Anne and the costs of raising the claim for an injury caused by a broken chair at work.
Posted in Compensation for Long Term Injuries, Falling Accident Claims, Mental Stress Claims, Product Liability Claims, Workplace Injury Claims - No Comments »
Tuesday, 11 June, 2013
A Californian judge has upheld the DePuy hip replacement settlement of $8.3 million awarded by a Los Angeles jury to Loren Kransky and denied the company their request for a new trial.
Loren Kransky (65) from South Dakota was awarded the DePuy hip replacement settlement after a hearing at the Los Angeles Superior Court in March this year, in which the jury had found DePuy Orthopaedics negligent for supplying the plaintiff with a faulty ASR XL Acetabular hip replacement system and awarded the former prison office $8.3 million compensation for a faulty hip implant.
DePuy Orthopaedics´ parent company – Johnson & Johnson – appealed the decision and requested that a new trial be held on the grounds that “the court did not let the company tell the jury about the Food & Drug Administration’s review and clearance of the device”. However, Judge J. Stephen Czuleger upheld the jury´s verdict and said that the plaintiff had provided enough evidence during the original trial to establish that the products were defective in design.
The judge´s decision to deny DePuy Orthopaedics a re-trial has prompted Johnson and Johnson to delay the Multi District Litigation (MDL) being heard in Ohio, by filing a motion requesting that any DePuy hip replacement settlements awarded in the case are based on typical injury compensation awards in the company´s home state of Indiana – where compensation settlements are much lower than the national average.
Johnson and Johnson are also preparing to defend a second MDL in Texas; where more than 4,000 claims brought by plaintiffs complaining of defects in DePuy´s Pinnacle hip replacement system have been brought together in one action. The first of the DePuy Pinnacle hip replacement compensation claims is scheduled to be heard in September 2014.The company recently announced that it would discontinue manufacturing and selling the allegedly faulty Pinnacle hip replacement system from August this year.
Posted in Class Action Suits, DePuy Hip Implant Recall, Product Liability Claims - No Comments »
Friday, 11 January, 2013
The first Multi District Litigation (MDL) DePuy faulty hip replacement cases – which will establish a benchmark of how much compensation for a faulty DePuy hip replacement many thousands of plaintiffs should be entitled to receive – have been set to be heard in May and July.
The announcement that the first “Bellwether” trial of Faye Dorney-Madgitz v DePuy Orthopaedics (MDL2197) will be heard in May at the Ohio Northern District Court in Cleveland was made by Judge David A. Katz; who also revealed that a secondary case – Ann McCracken v DePuy Orthopaedics – will be scheduled for July 2013 in the event that the Dorney-Madgitz v DePuy faulty hip replacement case is settled before it goes to trial.
The setting of the two trial dates is expected to increase DePuy Orthopaedics´ attempts to negotiate a settlement with plaintiffs in the Multi District Litigation (MDL), after the company successfully settled three DePuy revision surgery claims in Nevada for approximately $200,000 each. If the “Bellwether” Dorney-Madgitz v DePuy faulty hip replacement case proceeds to court, future settlements of DePuy faulty hip replacement compensation could be influenced by the verdict of the jury.
Whereas a low trial settlement of the DePuy faulty hip replacement case would be advantageous to DePuy Orthopaedics and their parent company Johnson & Johnson, should the jury in Cleveland award substantial damages in the case against Faye Dorney-Madgitz, this would set a benchmark for all future claims against DePuy for faulty hip replacements and painful revision surgery.
It may not be too late to initiate DePuy faulty hip replacement claims for compensation in Ireland if you have undergone revision surgery within the past two years or suffered any form of injury due to the recalled DePuy ASR hip replacement systems. Call our 24-hour helpline for more information.
Posted in Class Action Suits, DePuy Hip Implant Recall, Product Liability Claims - No Comments »
Friday, 21 December, 2012
A judge in Australia has approved a settlement of DePuy knee replacement compensation following a class action suit brought following the recall of the DePuy LCS Duofix Femoral implants.
More than 5,000 DePuy LCS Duofix Femoral implants were implanted in patients in Australia prior to the recall in July 2009 due to a higher than expected failure rate. In March 2010, Pamela Casey became the lead plaintiff in a class action suit against DePuy seeking DePuy knee replacement compensation and, on 29 August 2012, a provisional settlement of the DePuy knee replacement class action was agreed.
Under the terms of the provisional agreement, DePuy are to pay plaintiffs who underwent one revision to the faulty knee implant but required no further surgery A$30,000. Plaintiffs who needed two or more surgical procedures after their initial revision surgery will be paid A$65,000, and plaintiffs who have suffered significant complications due to the faulty knee implants will have their claims for DePuy knee replacement compensation assessed on an individual basis.
At the Federal Court in Melbourne, Justice Robert Buchanan formally approved the compensation settlement following a review period during which he received 430 inquiries into the proposed DePuy compensation agreement. He said that the few complaints about the settlement he received during the review period did not give him sufficient reason to delay from approving the DePuy knee replacement compensation class action agreement.
Further class action suits against DePuy are ongoing in respect of the recalled DePuy ASR hip replacement systems.
Posted in Class Action Suits, Product Liability Claims - No Comments »
Saturday, 25 August, 2012
Three DePuy revision surgery claims – intended to be the first cases to be heard by a jury relating to the recalled ASR hip replacements – have been settled out of court in Nevada.
The three plaintiffs – Annelise Rundle (74), Martha Bender (69) and Katherine Guy (60) from Las Vegas in Nevada – all required revision surgery after being recipients of failed DePuy ASR hip replacement systems in the past six years. It is reported that each has receive a settlement of approximately $200,000 – although this has not been confirmed by either the plaintiffs or by DePuy Orthopaedics Inc.
In their combined claim for DePuy revision surgery compensation, evidence had been made available to DePuy Orthopaedics Inc which revealed permanent bone damage caused by the devices and – in the case of Annelise Rundle – other health issues had developed which were attributable to the metal filings which had been displaced from the faulty hip replacement.
The settlement of the DePuy revision surgery claims came as no surprise as DePuy have a substantial number of claims scheduled against them and will wish to save the court costs of defending the claims made against the company or arguing for a limited assessment of damages. However, how much compensation for DePuy revision surgery was agreed upon has surprised some industry observers.
Professor Eric Gordon, a pharmaceutical industry expert from the University of Michigan, said “J&J [Johnson & Johnson - DePuy Orthopaedics´ parent company] should have expected to pay in the $200,000-to-$500,000 range per case” and he believes that the company will have been satisfied with the outcome of the DePuy revision surgery claims settlement, considering that there are more than 2,000 claims outstanding in the States of California, Maryland and Nevada, and 6,000 more consolidated into a Multi District Litigation (MDL) scheduled to commence in the spring of 2013.
Johnson and Johnson would not comment on whether they were intending to settle future DePuy revision surgery claims prior to other scheduled court hearings.
It may not be too late to initiate claims for DePuy revision surgery compensation in Ireland if you have undergone revision surgery within the past two years or suffered any form of injury due to the recalled DePuy ASR hip replacement systems. Call our 24-hour helpline for more information.
Posted in DePuy Hip Implant Recall, Product Liability Claims - No Comments »
Friday, 17 August, 2012
Following complaints and reports of injury made to the American Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) a popular series of baby chairs have been recalled due to claims of Bumbo seat injury.
The chairs – which are manufactured for babies aged from 3 months to 10 months – are sold in Ireland through various retail outlets and online stores for around 40 Euros, but have been found to be unstable when used by active children and have lead to several serious injuries when babies have rocked from side-to-side or leant backwards.
Marketed in Ireland as Bumbo Baby Sitters, Bumbo Baby Chairs and Bumbo Baby Chairs, the product was originally withdrawn in 2007 after it was found that parents in the US were placing their new-born children at risk by leaving them unattended and unrestrained in the Bumbo chairs placed on a table. More than twenty reports of infants sustaining injuries due to falling out of Bumbo Baby Chairs were received by the CPSC – including two of a fractured skull injury.
Since the product was re-introduced into the States, more than four million sitters have been sold. However, the application of a label advising parents that the Bumbo baby Seats should not be used at height has not stopped the complaints from continuing. Between 2007 and 2011 the CPSC received more than 50 reports of injuries to children due to using the Bumbo Baby Sitters – with a further 19 skull fractures recorded.
In November 2011, when it was learned that a number of these skull fracture injuries were sustained by children seated on the floor, the CPSC issued a health warning advising parents to be vigilant whenever they placed their children into a Bumbo Baby Seat. This further warning failed to stop Bumbo Baby Sitter accidents from occurring, and now the manufacturer has recalled the baby seats – with the CPSC issuing instructions that they should not be used until a repair kit which includes a safety harness has been obtained from Bumbo International.
In Ireland, parents should also stop sitting their children in the faulty chairs until a restraint has been received from the vendor from whom the sitter was purchased. Although the baby chair recall has not yet been extended to Ireland, parents of children who have sustained an injury due to a faulty chair should contact a solicitor to discuss their right to claim for Bumbo Seat Injury Compensation.
Posted in Children's Injury Claims, Product Liability Claims - No Comments »
Friday, 10 February, 2012
Claims for Tassimo recall compensation are likely to follow the withdrawal of the popular coffee making machine in Canada and the United States, following the revelation that the machine´s T-disc – the plastic coffee container – could explode and shower bystanders with scalding water.
Burn injuries which were brought to the attention of the American Consumer Product Safety Commission included those sustained by a two-year-old girl, who received second-degree burns to her face after being splattered by hot water and coffee granules, and the case of a ten-year-old girl from Minnesota, whose burns to her face and neck were so severe that she required emergency hospital treatment.
In total, more than 160 personal injuries have been reported to the American Consumer Product Safety Commission, including thirty-seven cases of second-degree burns which required hospital treatment. The Consumer Product Safety Commission launched an investigation and discovered a design fault. As a result, more than 1.7 million Tassimo coffee making machines have now been recalled along with more than four million Gevalia, Maxwell House and Nabob espresso T-discs still believed to be in circulation
At the present time in Ireland, there has been no announcement made of a Tassimo recall. Compensation claims, however, can still be made if a person is scalded or burned by a Tassimo coffee making machine, subject to the circumstances through which the victim received their injury. Claims for Tassimo recall compensation should be made against the manufacturers – BSH Home Appliances Corporation of Irvine, California – with the assistance of a personal injury solicitor.
Posted in Product Liability Claims - No Comments »