Peanut Butter Recalled For Possible Salmonella Contamination
ConAgra Foods. Inc., is recalling all jars of Peter Pan and Great Value peanut butter with a product code on the lid beginning with the number 2111. The peanut butter may be linked with a Salmonella outbreak that has affected 288 people in 39 states since August of last year. According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the outbreak is probably ongoing.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said this would constitute the first Salmonella outbreak linked with peanut butter. All of the peanut butter in question was produced at ConAgra's factory in Sylvester, Georgia. The FDA, which is warning people not to eat the peanut butter in question, is investigating the Georgia facility.
Of the 288 people who became sick, about 20% were hospitalized. There have been no reported deaths. The majority of cases have been reported in New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Tennessee, and Missouri.
According to the CDC, no more than two cases had been reported each day since the outbreak began in August. The CDC was able to identify the probable source of the Salmonella only recently through an epidemiological study linking the cases. The FDA was given the report on February 13.
According to the CDC, there are about 1.4 million cases of Salmonella food poisoning in the U.S. each year, with more than 500 of those resulting in death. The elderly, infants, and those with impaired immune systems are most likely to suffer severe illness.
Symptoms of Salmonella food poisoning include diarrhea (sometimes bloody), abdominal cramps, nausea, vomiting, fever, chills, headache, muscle pain, and joint pain.
Anyone who has eaten Peter Pan or Great Value peanut butter with the suspect product code and has experienced any of these symptoms should contact a health care professional immediately. In addition, the FDA recommends informing local and state health officials.
If you think that your recent illness was caused by tainted peanut butter, you may be able to recovery damages for suffering through this poisoned food product; call the experienced attorneys at Carter and Tae to receive a free evaluation of your case.
AAJ Urges Department of Homeland Security to Rescind Its Dangerous Rule Changes That Threaten Public Safety
The American Association for Justice (AAJ) has urged the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to rescind new rules that endanger public safety and eliminate the rights of Americans to hold wrongdoers accountable.
“These new rules effectively strip local communities from enforcing safety measures at hazardous sites, leaving them exposed to potentially catastrophic consequences,’’ said Jon Haber, CEO of the American Association for Justice. “They shield hazardous plants across this country from any real accountability when corporate negligence leads to a preventable accident, forcing local taxpayers to pick up the pieces.”
The DHS rule changes preempt state laws, effectively prohibiting local communities from undertaking necessary safety oversight operations at hazardous sites. In addition, the new rules are in direct contravention of the U.S. Senate’s intent and fail to provide due process protections for people in communities where negligence occurs.
The DHS’ new rules bypassed Congress’ explicit rejection of these rules. These regulations are outside the purview of the local communities surrounding these potentially hazardous sites and effectively trump state regulations that may exceed these new federal guidelines. The rules also prevent state or local inspectors from assessing the conditions of hazardous plants and provide these sites with full immunity if anything were to happen to endanger the public safety.
In a letter to Dennis Deziel, Chief Program Analyst at the Department of Homeland Security, AAJ noted that the rule changes violate both Congressional intent as well as basic laws against preemption of state and local laws. Specifically, the new rules strip communities of any mechanism to contest the agency’s decisions. The new rules also fail to provide adequate due process protections or alleviate problems with the accompanying preemption provisions, which could even reach far beyond chemical facility regulation to nullify only tangentially related state laws. Restricting citizens from knowing whether their communities are safe is a gravely irresponsible decision, serving only to protect corporations’ bottom lines.
“The DHS must allow states to continue to enforce laws and regulations which offer additional protections to citizens from chemical hazards,” said Lewis S. “Mike” Eidson, President of the American Association for Justice. “These rules encourage corporations to do less than necessary to protect workers, the public and the environment from chemical hazards – not just those posed by threats of terrorism.”
AAJ sent the letter in response to the DHS' Advanced Notice of Rulemaking regarding chemical facility anti-terrorism standards. The new rules are automatically in effect until otherwise modified or rescinded by Congress.
President Bush's Attack on Civil Justice System
President Bush continued his assault on America's civil justice system on Tuesday, January 30, disingenuously blaming lawsuits for high medical costs.
"Bush is misleading the American public all to make the case for further padding the profits of his insurance industry friends," said Jon Haber, CEO of the American Association for Justice, formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. "Restricting the rights of victims to hold wrongdoers accountable will do nothing to lower health care costs and in turn, eliminate a key incentive for hospitals and health care providers to decrease the 100,000 deaths that occur each year from preventable medical errors."
Appearing in Peoria, Illinois, Bush said: "I'm worried about frivolous lawsuits running of the cost of health care. You know that there's about 1500 counties in America where the OB/GYN has left because of frivolous lawsuits. And when somebody gets sued all the time they practice more medicine than necessary and it runs up your costs."
The president's claim that a doctor drought exists in the specialized area of obstetrician/gynecologists is objectively false. According to the American Medical Association's own figures, the number of OB/GYNs in the United States increased by nearly 25 percent from 1990 to 2004 at a time when the U.S. birthrate actually declined. There are more practicing OB/GYNs than ever before.
Expensive medical malpractice insurance premiums, meanwhile, are the result of industry price-gouging, not pay-outs. A 2005 study conducted for the Center for Justice and Democracy by former Missouri Insurance Commissioner Jay Angoff found that insurance companies have been drastically raising insurance premiums even though claims payments have been flat or, in some cases, decreasing. Medical malpractice court filings have steadily declined since 1998. Even insurance industry officials and their allies admit that limiting medical malpractice rewards won't lead to lower insurance rates.
Outdated Rail Regulations Leave Americans At Risk
On May 24, 2003, Brian Vann and his friend were on their way back from a successful fishing trip at a local pond, when they approached a private rail crossing. Having looked right, Brian’s friend (the driver) inched up the steep, gravel-laden incline to peek around the overgrown left side of the tracks. In those few moments, a Union Pacific train came barreling down on the right side of their truck. Traveling at 55mph, the train killed Brian instantly. Unfortunately, although the whistle had blown, the two were directly in front of the train, where the sound was designed to be muted.
A number of factors contributed to Brian’s untimely death:
The crossing had been steeper and narrower than Union Pacific’s own regulations allowed; the train had failed to slow
as it approached what was known to be a hazardous crossing; and there were no lights to warn motorists of oncoming trains. There are thousands of such crossings, leading to thousands of accidents each year. Regulatory enforcement of contracts governing responsibility at private crossings would compel the industry to responsibly maintain its equipment and prevent needless injuries and deaths, though this will all be too late for the Vann family. Union Pacific eventually settled with Brian’s family (his widow and two daughters), but took no action to improve the safety of the rail crossing.
Vital Medical Devices Poorly Tracked in the U.S., Unnecessarily Risking Hundreds of Patients’ Lives Each Year
Zina Lewis, 39, is a nurse in Park City, Utah, where she and her husband, Bruce, are starting a family. Zina has had a heart device of some type ever since complications from viral pneumonia set in, during her teens. In 2002, Zina had a Guidant Pulsar Max II dual chamber pacemaker implanted. Throughout 2002 and 2003, her health inexplicably deteriorated (edema, tachycardia episodes, fevers, frequent dizziness, presyncopal episodes and general discomfort in her chest). By July 2003, Zina’s doctors urged her to have the device removed. After undergoing a complex open-heart surgery to have it removed, Zina received another Guidant implant device – the Insignia pacemaker.
Prior to undergoing this life-threatening surgery, Zina was never notified that between May and June 2003, Guidant, with the FDA’s knowledge, issued safety advisories for both the Insignia and Pulsar Max II. Zina would never have received the Insignia implant had she been aware of the advisory, nor would she have waited to have the also-faulty Pulsar Max II removed. The Insignia was a faulty device that Zina lived with until several complications required its removal in 2004 – the same year that Guidant, with the FDA’s knowledge, issued a recall of both the devices. Not only did both devices not help her problems, they actually exacerbated her already-fragile longstanding condition.
Zina, and the hundreds of other individuals implanted with the faulty devices, were never notified of the recalls. This haphazard process left Zina not only with immense physical and emotional trauma but also a future plagued with life-threatening medical complications, including a compromised right heart valve, unnecessary medication, increased risk of necessary future open-heart surgeries, and most importantly to her budding family, her inability to have children. With such critically important equipment, a standardized identification system – as well as an FDA policy to better notify patients – would greatly improve patient safety.
New Device Puts All Drivers at Risk
To anyone who has ever spent a long time stuck in traffic, it sounds like a dream come true: a dashboard-mounted devise than can change traffic lights from red to green at the push of a button. But like many dreams, this is one that can quickly turn into a nightmare.
Called MIRT, for mobile infrared transmitter, police, fire and rescue vehicles have had access to similar equipment for years, but now that technology has gone mainstream. Now available on the Internet, via mail-order and even on E-bay, ordinary motorists are now equipping their cars with the same devices.
Highway officials say that a MIRT will not work on every traffic light. The intersection needs to be equipped with special sensors that respond to the signal from emergency services. More and more intersections are being equipped with these sensors, making them susceptible to interference by regular motorists using a MIRT.
And what of the manufacturers of these products? What are they doing to ensure that their devices only wind up in qualified hands? The answer to that question is: Not much.
Companies do take certain precautions, such as double-checking the identity of the person ordering a MIRT, confirming that it is being shipped to an authorized recipient like a fire house, and requiring that purchasers sign a contract for using the MIRT.
However, most companies' definition of a 'qualified user' is pretty lax. Often it includes private detectives, doctors and the very broad 'community services personnel.'
What does that mean?
Still other companies openly flaunt the fact that this technology is illegal in most states. One seller advertises their MIRT device saying, "No visible light is emitted! That means that…you will completely blend in with all other traffic…" This same company also 'warns' its customers, "WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT YOU DO WITH THIS PRODUCT!"
To those who do not fully grasp just how dangerous these devices are, imagine the following scene: dozens and dozens of motorists all trying to change one traffic light at the same time. While it sounds facetious, it does not take a huge leap of logic to think that either the light is going to explode from over-use or that you will have green and red lights lasting about one second each. Either way, it is potentially an incredibly dangerous scenario.
Let this serve as a warning to drivers everywhere. These products are on the open-market, and not surprisingly, the companies that make them are taking no responsibility for how they are being used.
During this holiday season there is a natural rush to get to one's destination, whether it be the home of a loved one or a holiday party. But we should exercise a bit a caution, because you never know if the driver in the car next to you is playing with the traffic signals.
If everyone is especially careful to drive carefully and responsibly, it will be a safer and happier holiday season for everyone.
To read more ATLA Consumer News for Families, please visit the ATLA Web site at http://www.atla.org/public/columns/index.aspx.
California Protects 'Black Box' Auto-Crash Data from Disclosure
Should motorists be concerned about their own cars testifying against them in the event of an accident?
Absolutely, according to the state of California, which recently passed a first-of-its-kind law designed to give drivers more control over information stored in their vehicles.
With the passage of the new legislation, sponsored by Assemblyman Tim Leslie (R-Tahoe City) and signed by then-Gov. Gray Davis in September, California has taken the lead in privacy protection relating to event data recorders (EDR)—sometimes referred to as sensing and diagnostic modules (SDM). While many citizens don't even know the devices exist in vehicles, the information EDRs record has been finding its way into the hands of law enforcement authorities.
“The device was meant to help [automakers] build safer cars, not rebuild accident scenes,” said Kevin O'Neill, legislative assistant to Leslie. “But as the technology to download the information becomes cheaper and more available,” use of the data by police has become problematic.
The device works much like the better-known “black box” found on airplanes. Often mounted underneath the front-passenger seat, the unit operates on a continuous loop, recording for a brief period—usually 5 seconds—and then re-recording over existing data. The information is stored permanently only when a crash occurs.
As outlined in the legislation, the devices are capable of recording “how fast and in which direction the motor vehicle is traveling”; “steering performance”; “brake performance, including, but not limited to, whether brakes were applied before an accident”; and “the driver's seat belt status.” The device may also “transmit information concerning an accident in which the motor vehicle has been involved to a central communications system.”
Leslie has argued that allowing the government to access such information without express permission is tantamount to allowing an illegal search and seizure of a vehicle, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Under the new law, EDR data can no longer be “downloaded or otherwise retrieved by a person other than the registered owner of the motor vehicle, except under specified circumstances.”
The circumstances are:
• “The registered owner of the vehicle consents to the retrieval of the [black box] information.”
• “In response to an order of a court having jurisdiction to issue the order.”
• “For the purpose of improving motor vehicle safety, including for medical research of the human body's reaction to motor vehicle accidents, and the identity of the registered owner or driver is not disclosed in connection with that retrieved data.”
• “The data is retrieved by a licensed new motor vehicle dealer, or by an automotive technician . . . for the purpose of diagnosing, servicing, or repairing the motor vehicle.”
“We compare it to wiretaps,” said O'Neill. “If you want to wiretap someone, you need to ask permission, and even then there are restrictions.”
The technology has existed for decades, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has been studying EDR applications since the early 1970s. In recent years, other parties have taken an interest in the data the devices record. The data could be used by vehicle owners to determine whether an automaker had produced a faulty product, by an insurance company or another party trying to assess blame in crash litigation, or by law enforcement authorities examining an accident, O'Neill said.
The data has become easier to access since General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. licensed manufacturing rights to a company called Vetronix Corp. to create a data-retrieval tool based on the automakers' EDR technology. Vetronix's system connects directly to the recording devices and can download stored information to an ordinary laptop computer. In 2000, the company began selling the system for about $2,500.
O'Neill noted that not every car is equipped with an EDR. “You're on an unbalanced field,” he said. “A Honda might not have it, but a GMC might.” Now, any manufacturer of a new motor vehicle that is sold or leased in California and is equipped with a recording device must disclose that information in the owner's manual.
Other states may soon be forced to consider the privacy implications of EDRs as the devices make more and more court appearances around the country. In a highly publicized fatal accident in South Dakota involving U.S. Rep. Bill Janklow (R-S.D.), EDR data proved useless, but in a couple of criminal cases in Massachusetts the recorder yielded vehicle-speed information that contradicted driver testimony.
The California law applies to all motor vehicles manufactured on or after July 1, 2004.
The above article appears in the December 2003 issue of TRIAL magazine. For more information about TRIAL, please visit the ATLA Web site at http://www.atla.org/Publications/Tier3/TRIAL.aspx.
Children must be protected.
Over the years, children in our country have suffered tremendously as a result of corporations putting defective and dangerous products on the market. The corporate world as failed to step in and police its own shop. Neither did the federal government have the will and desire to protect the children. Many of these children's products or practices that affect children, however, were made safer only after the families of sick and injured children filed lawsuits against those responsible. As a result of such lawsuits, the lives of countless other children have been saved.
The following are examples furnished by The Center for Justice & Democracy that show the role of lawsuits and the courts in protecting children in this country.
-
A 23-month-old baby suffered permanent brain damage and paralysis after his shirt became entangled on his crib's corner post knob and he choked. A lawsuit was filed against the manufacturer. As a result of the case, the crib can no longer be made or sold.
-
A two-year-old sustained severe burns to her esophagus after ingesting some drops of Liquid Plumr®. The results of this case, along with others, caused the company to change the formula and redesign its container, and led government agencies to improve child restraint closure and labeling standards.
-
A baby suffered permanent brain damage after an obstetrician ignored a nurse's concerns over abnormalities on the fetal monitor. After this verdict, hospitals throughout North Carolina adopted a new protocol that allows nurses to intervene on behalf of patients without risking losing their jobs.
-
A five-year-old lost most of her intestines after becoming lodged in a pool drain. The family filed suit and the outcome of the case led the manufacturer to change its warnings and instructions regarding the safe use of its drain covers, and caused an industry-wide recall of pool drain covers.
-
A running escalator in a Philadelphia subway station tore off the foot of a four- year-old child. The transit authority was forced to fix all broken escalators and to change the way it handled accident investigations as a result of this litigation.
-
A 15-year-old high school freshman baseball player was raped with a broomstick during a hazing ritual. As part of a settlement in a lawsuit, the school district implemented a strict anti-hazing policy and yearly training for coaches and vice principals.
-
An infant nearly drowned after climbing up on a filter and skimmer as a way of obtaining access to a swimming pool. The child was left in a vegetative state. As a result of this lawsuit and others, the industry changed its standards regarding the placement of pool skimmers and filters.
-
A lawsuit was filed after a three-year-old suffered third-degree burns when she accidentally tipped over a vaporizer. As a result of this case, and over 100 more pending claims, the manufacturer redesigned the vaporizer to include a cover-up lock.
-
A four-year-old was severely burned when her cotton flannelette pajama top ignited when she leaned over an electric stove. The product was removed from the market as a result of a lawsuit being filed.
-
A 14-month-old baby died from ingesting furniture polish. As a result of the case, the product's warning label was changed.
-
From 1981 to 1992, a priest molested boys, age 14 or younger, at three different churches. A lawsuit was filed. As a result of the case, prosecutors pursued criminal charges against the priest, who was ultimately sentenced to life in prison.
-
A newborn suffered permanent brain damage after being left alone in a hospital's pediatric unit for 35 minutes, including 10 to 15 minutes during which he stopped breathing. After this lawsuit, the corporation changed its policy on staffing pediatric units throughout its chain of hospitals.
-
A four-year-old suffered severe burns after another child set her clothes on fire with a multi-purpose lighter. Information uncovered in the lawsuit prompted the Consumer Product Safety Commission to investigate multi-purpose lighters and ultimately issue child safety standards for them.
-
From 1984 to 1993, a fourth grade teacher molested young girls, ages 7 to 12. As part of the settlement, the school district agreed to conduct sexual harassment and abuse training district-wide and to revise its current policies and procedures.
-
Twenty-two students contracted cancer because toxic pollutants emitted from a chrome-plating facility adjacent to their school. As a result of two lawsuits, the company agreed to discontinue the chrome-plating portion of its operations.
-
An 18-month-old suffered brain damage after he wandered into a neighbor's above-ground pool and became trapped under its floating solar cover. This case, along with others, caused the Consumer Product Safety Commission to create a safety standard for all solar covers.
