San Francisco Injury Lawyer Blog

Large Santa Clara County Verdict for Personal Injuries suffered in truck crash

October 1, 2009 | Gregory J. Brod

A horrible motor vehicle accident in May of 2007 changed the life of a young man, forever, requiring him to need permanent and constant medical attention. A Santa Clara jury found that two truck drivers were responsible for the accident, one of whom was talking on his cell phone at the time of the accident. The truck driver who the jury found to be 60 percent at fault, denied causing the accident, and even denied contributing to the cause of the accident. The jury awarded more than $49 million in damages.

The failure to take responsibility for an accident is perhaps one of the most overlooked reasons why the California courts are bogged down with cases. While the proponents of “tort reform”, mostly backed by insurance companies, blame California juries for large verdicts, little is heard about jury verdicts, large or otherwise, occurring in the face of a total failure to assume responsibility. Often, it is not the wrongdoer, or even their attorney, who make the decision to force an injured person to go through a trial in court to have justice served, but the defendant’s insurance company. The insurance industry spends a great deal of money to ensure that everyone is familiar with the term “frivolous lawsuits”, but rarely are cases where a “frivolous defense” is raised, brought to the public’s attention. Cases like the one in Santa Clara County should send a message to insurance companies and to those responsible for causing injuries to others. Don’t think your conduct can cause serious injury to someone and get away with it in Santa Clara County.

San Francisco Injury Attorney Predicts Fewer Injury Accidents on San Francisco’s Streets

September 25, 2009 | Gregory J. Brod

Apropos my last blog, there are two other projects underway in the City of San Francisco that focus on the safety and well-being of both its residents and visitors. One project, adopted by the Board of Supervisors on February 6, 2006 and appropriately called Better Streets, is a joint effort by several city agencies to improve the design of San Francisco’s streets and sidewalks and was. Since that time, Better Streets has created a collection of street types which are a great improvement over our current automobile-centered street scheme and focus on the appropriate use of land (i.e. residential, commercial and industrial), the efficiency of street width and the street’s role in the transportation system. The highlights and benefits that stand out most to us here at the Brod Law Firm are the ones that focus on safety, though there are many others–such as its support of neighborliness, civic interaction , community identity, and the enhancement of the quality of life for San Francisco’s residents and local businesses-and they are:

• The Design of sidewalks and medians, pedestrian safety and accessibility features, ways to mange storm water in the right-of –way, design and placement of streetscape elements such as street trees, lighting ,benches, and more • Decreased likelihood of pedestrian/auto collisions injuries and fatalities

• Increased accessibility for all street users, create settings that make it safe and easy to be physically active and enhance the everyday quality of life for San Francisco Residents.

The Seemingly Endless Conversation on the Need for San Francisco Street Safety and Improvements

September 21, 2009 | Gregory J. Brod

Recently, friends from Europe stayed with me and my family. During their time here they spent their days touring San Francisco by bicycle. I asked them if they felt San Francisco was as bike friendly city as most European cities. They said that they felt drivers were really aware of bicyclists and looked out for them. But they felt that bus drivers were not very considerate, if not hostile, toward bicyclists. I explained how cyclists have fought hard, with the help of the San Francisco Bike Coalition (SFBC), educating motorists as well as buses on being both cautious and vigilant as they share the road with cyclists. At the same time, I also explained how some bicyclists seem to have less interest in following the vehicle rules of the road and believe that red lights and stop signs are meant only for motorists. My friends agreed with me when I pointed out that there is a victim attitude among some bicyclists who feel –because buses are bigger, and can kill bicyclist, and most streets are not designed for bikes– that they are at a disadvantage on the road and should make their own rules. Bus drivers who encounter bicyclists with the victim attitude usually end up developing the same victim mentality and, as a consequence, ignore the safety of all cyclists. One might think there may never be a middle ground for bus drivers and bicyclists. Every story has at least two sides, though. The bottom line is this: If either bicyclists or bus drivers make their own rules on the road, that can, and usually does, lead to dangerous situations. But buses and bicyclists can coexist as long as bus drivers and motorists act professionally and bicyclists follow the rules of the road. Each year there are more bicyclists on the road, and everyone on the roads would follow the laws of the road, as well as use a little courtesy, our streets will be far less dangerous.
Since cyclists will be increasingly populating the roads and asking for more space in the years to come, we need, now, more than ever, the creation education campaigns that foster safety and respect among cyclists as well as bike network improvement projects that keep our city streets a safe place for all. There is good news. The SFBC has spent years planning and appearing at public hearings in an effort to get the city to implement improvements for cyclists and motorists on the road called the SF Bike Plan. This summer, 3 years after a lawsuit and injunction that barred any improvements and the city’s Bike Plan, the SFBC is celebrating their biggest victory: on June 26th, 2009 the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency voted to adopt their bicycle plan. Once the injunction is lifted, the vote gives a green light for 45 new bike lanes throughout the city. The plan also includes the implementation of on-street bike parking corrals, experimental colored pavement treatments and thousands of new bike racks. Another bit a good news for the SFBC is Mayor Gavin Newsom’s recent announcement that he will implementing a package of trial improvements to market street beginning September 29th, modeled on Projects for Public Spaces –which is in partnership San Francisco Great Streets Project and SFBC. As we collectively move forward during these planned changes, go safely and considerately out there, people!

California pain and suffering cap in medical malpractice lawsuits

August 18, 2009 | Gregory J. Brod

For the past 34 years, California has had a cap on the amount of non-economic damages that an injured person may recover in a medical malpractice lawsuit. Under the current law in California, if a doctor is supposed to repair a knee injury but amputates the leg due to being drunk, for example, the maximum amount of non-economic damages (pain and suffering) that can be recovered in a personal injury case is $250,000.00. If that person’s one passion in life was dancing, and a jury awards $500,000.00 in non-economic damages, the award gets reduced to $250,000.00. If that person had jogged every day to alleviate stress, keep their weight down and maintain a healthy heart rate, and a jury awards $650,000.00 in non-economic damages, the award gets reduced to $250,000.00. It is absurd to think that the value of $250,000.00 in 1975 is anywhere close to the value that same amount represents today, which essentially means that the maximum an injured person can recover, has steadily gone down in the State of California.

The cap on medical malpractice lawsuits was supposed to help both consumers and doctors by keeping insurance premiums from rising, which the insurance industry likes to blame on lawyers, juries, and our civil judicial system, in general. It is more than doubtful that health care premiums, as well as medical malpractice premiums for doctors, have consistently risen in California, despite this cap in medical malpractice lawsuits.

The constitutionality of the law that caps these damages was recently upheld in a California Court of Appeal decision, and the California Supreme Court refused to review the decision, which means that the cap will remain in place. The insurance industry is very powerful, has tremendous resources and influence, which is important to take into consideration whenever it sends out its claims of “tort reform” and “lawsuit abuse” in our system.

Hot Dogs Not Good for You? Probably Not New News for Most Health Conscious San Franciscans

July 24, 2009 | Gregory J. Brod

Hot dogs are as dangerous and cancerous as cigarettes? They are– or at least they should be labeled as such– according to a consumer fraud lawsuit filed on behalf of three New Jersey residents against Nathan’s Famous, Kraft Foods/Oscar Mayer, Sara Lee, Con Agra Foods, and Marathon Enterprises. The law suit was filed by the nonprofit Cancer Project, a collaborative effort of physicians, researchers and nutritionists who have joined together to educate the public about the benefits of a healthy diet for cancer prevention and survival and is also an affiliate of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM). All five companies are being accused of failure to warn customers that consumption of hotdogs increases the danger of colorectal cancer and seeks to compel all five companies to place cancer-risk warning labels on hot dog packages sold in New Jersey. According to PCRM, the lawsuit is based on the findings of a landmark report from the American Institute for Cancer Research, based on 58 separate scientific studies, showing that just one 50-gram serving of processed meat (about the amount in one hot dog) consumed daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer, on average, by 21 percent. Risk increases with increasing consumption. Colorectal cancer is a common and serious condition. According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), colorectal cancer is the fourth most common cancer in both men and women.

To some this lawsuit may seem absurd, but, here at the Brod Law Firm, we feel that that may just be the point. We might just need to be shook, shocked, or knocked in the head with such news and information, information that makes us stop for a moment, engage our imaginations, and think about our relationship to food in this country. We do not protest the consumption of hot dogs-everything in moderation, that is our motto. But this type of news just might force some of us, some for the very first time, to see foods previously viewed as an “acceptable”, as unacceptable for the health of our bodies. Most people don’t realize, or do realize but choose to deny, when they purchase a package of hot dogs that they are made from carcass remnants and chemical additives. Additionally, they may not be aware that the nitrates, used as a preservative in hot dogs, break down into nitrosamines and other cancer forming compounds that are considered carcinogens. The more consumers purchase hot dogs and consume these compounds, the more they are at risk. As Neal D. Barnard of PCRM states: “The problem now is simply cultural. As slow as people were to accept that the cool-looking cigarette in Bogart’s lips might have been linked to the cancer that killed him, we have been even slower to accept that the foods we have given our children might lead to cancer in adulthood.”

A New Personal Injury Risk is on the Rise in California

July 17, 2009 | Gregory J. Brod

The NHTSA recently released the findings of a roadside survey to test blood alcohol and drug levels. The survey data were collected in 2007 from roadside locations throughout the country. Drivers were selected at random and waved off the road to a survey location by police officers, but the drivers were approached by interviewers who were not police officers. The drivers were assured that the survey was voluntary and anonymous. Of the 11,000 randomly selected drivers, about 90 percent agreed to give breath samples and 70 percent agreed to give saliva samples. Data collectors and a phlebotomist (an individual trained to draw blood) conducted surveys between 10pm and midnight and between 1am and 3am on both Friday and Saturday nights, for one weekend in six selected States. The interviewers used extra incentives to encourage participation in the survey. For example, drivers were given $10 for saliva samples and $50 for blood samples. When a driver refused to take part in any of the testing, they were then offered $100.

The study found that the number of drivers found to be driving under the influence of alcohol appears to be declining, while many weekend drivers test positive for drug use. The roadside survey also used screening methods to detect marijuana, cocaine and prescription drugs. The drug tests only indicated the presence of a drug in the body and didn’t indicate when the drugs were used or whether the driver was impaired. Here at the Brod Law Firm we are pleased to hear that the rate of alcohol impaired driving is down but discouraged learn that drug impaired driving is on the rise. This study sheds light on troubling issue in this country, an issue that needs to be addressed by society as a whole: prescription drug abuse. Research shows that prescription drug abuse is high mostly among young adults. This is a huge public health risk, considering young, first time, inexperienced drivers are getting high and then getting behind the wheel of a car. Just as aggressive public awareness campaigns have been built around the dangers of drunk driving, new campaigns, made up of health care workers, parents, and schools, should be built around this growing danger within our communities.

San Francisco Injury Lawyer Urges the Public to Play it Safe This Fourth of July

July 1, 2009 | Gregory J. Brod

Every Fourth of July, people are needlessly injured to accidents involving Fireworks. Some of the injuries that occur are due to fireworks were improperly manufactured. In such cases the manufacturer, the distributer and the vendor of the fireworks each could be liable. According a report put out U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in 2006, among different types of fireworks, firecrackers were associated with the greatest number estimated injures. Following firecrackers, rockets and sparklers were next. Sparklers accounted for one-third of all injuries to children under 5. Approximately half the estimated sparkler injuries involved the hands and fingers. The data also shows that typical causes of injuries were the following: 1.) misuse of fireworks, 2.) fireworks exploding earlier or later than expected, 3.) errant flight paths, 4.) sparks or debris from fireworks igniting fires 5.) other malfunctions. Another highlight from the report states that the parts of the body most often injured were hands, eyes and the head, face and ear. More than half of the injuries were burns. Burns were the most common injury to all parts of the body except the eyes and head areas, where contusions, lacerations, and foreign bodies in the eye occurred more frequently. There were 11 deaths and 9,000 injuries reported that year.

Here at the Brod Law Firm we have simple advice for staying safe this 4th of July holiday: if you want to see fireworks explode, leave that to the professionals. If you simply must buy and use your own, check with local authorities to see which are legal to use. Also be sure to check if any are on a recall list put out by www.recalls.gov. Most importantly, use extreme caution when using any form of explosive device. Protect your hands, eyes and head and keep children at safe distance from any fireworks or sparklers. Don’t have your Fourth of July holiday turn into a tragedy.

Don’t Eat Those Dangerous Cookies, People of San Francisco!

June 29, 2009 | Gregory J. Brod

Who doesn’t love raw cookie dough? Have you heard of the recent recall by Nestle of its raw cookie dough? The cookie dough has been voluntarily recalled by Nestle due to its link to a recent E.Coli outbreak. Here at the Brod Law Firm, we think this current recall should spur into action the much needed overhaul the food-safety system. This recall brings into the spotlight one of the FDA’s major handicaps: it does not have the authority to order a recall on its own and relies on the cooperation of food providers to voluntarily recall products.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Nestle refused to give Food and Drug Administration inspectors documents on pest-control and consumer complaints during earlier inspections in recent years. Companies are not required by law to open up their books, but many food companies do, an FDA official told the Wall Street Journal. The agency can only demand access to records if it shows a reasonable belief that the foods are a serious health threat. So far, the E. coli outbreak has affected 69 people, 34 of which have required hospitalization. The bacteria is usually found in cattle feces and can cause severe illness, kidney failure or death. Federal officials are inspecting the Danville facility for clues as to how the bacteria could have gotten in the dough. The CDC is collaborating with public health officials in many states, the FDA, and the United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service to investigate the outbreak.

Nestlé’s cookie dough is packaged with labels warning consumers not to eat it raw, but that warning should not mean Nestle can’t be sued. Everyone knows that Americans love raw cookie dough. It has even been introduced in certain flavors of ice cream. Victims can’t be blamed for not reading the warning label – it seems accepted by most people that eating raw cookie dough has become, in a way, like a national pastime. Nevertheless, the FDA advises not to eat any varieties of pre-packed Nestle Toll House refrigerated cookie dough due to the risk of contamination. If consumers have any prepackaged, refrigerated cookie in their home they should throw them away. Cooking the dough is not recommended because consumers might get the bacteria on their hands and on other cooking surfaces.

Another Off-Label Controversy–Watch Out, California Consumers!

June 17, 2009 | Gregory J. Brod

According to a recent article put out by Bloomberg, Eli Lilly & Co. urged doctors to prescribe Zyprexa for elderly patients with dementia, an unapproved use for the antipsychotic, even though the drugmaker had evidence the medicine didn’t work for such patients. Lilly pleaded guilty in January to a federal misdemeanor charge of illegally marketing Zyprexa for off-label use to elderly consumers. Zyprexa was introduced in 1996 and was developed to help control hallucinations and delusions associated with Schizophrenia and sever mania. Shamelessly, after Lilly had sent the U.S. Food and Drug Administration study results that showed it didn’t alleviate dementia symptoms in older patients, it started marketing the drug to dementia patients. One sales representative admitted that she persuaded a doctor to write Zyprexa prescriptions for use in elderly patients for help with insomnia or irritability. A different sales person asked a doctor to give Zyprexa to elderly who are not thinking clearly and are suspicious and hostile.
In 2002 Zyprexa sales grew after Lilly expanded their label off-label marketing campaign-widening their prescriber base to include primary care physicians-encouraging its use for Post Traumatic Stress, mood disorders and insomnia. Lilly officials have not only marketed Zyprexa for off label use but they are accused of hiding the drug’s health risk and failure to properly warn patients they could develop diabetes by taking the medicine. Even more disturbing is the fact that Lilly acknowledged death among patients taking Zyprexa was significantly greater than placebo-treated patients. By lying about Zyprexa’s benefits and downplaying its risks-in their effort to pump up sales–Lilly has damaged the lives of countless consumers. Consumer safety is seriously violated when they place their trust in their doctors who are prescribing drugs, drugs that come from a company, such as Lilly– who’s website states on their Ethics and Compliance page– that they “conduct business consistent with all applicable laws, are honest in their dealing with customers, and maintain an environment built on respect and concern for all the people they touched and are touched by their company.” Thankfully, consumers can rely on the law for protection after being harmed and lied to by big pharma. Here at the Brod Law Firm, we are dedicated to protecting the rights of consumers who have been injured from drugs prescribed for unapproved uses.

San Francisco Injury Lawyer Comments on Rollover Accident

June 9, 2009 | Gregory J. Brod

Last month a federal court jury awarded $18.3 million in damages to a Bay Area musician who suffered a fractured spine and was paralyzed when his bands rented Ford E-350 van rolled over on an icy highway in 2005. During the rollover his seat broke loose from the floor and pinned him against the roof. Usually death or injuries that occur during a rollover are the result of vehicle instability, roof crush and other compartment failures, or defective seatbelts– all of which are preventable. The overall large number of drashes involving fifteen-passenger vans, especially loaded fifteen-passenger vans, have raised the question as to whether they are unusually susceptible to rollovers. According to a piece of research put out by the NHTSA, fifteen-passenger vans differ from most light truck vehicle in that they have large payload capacity and the occupants sit fairly high up in the vehicle. Therefore, when loaded, the vehicle may have a much worse rollover propensity. Also, when a 15 passenger van is loaded, its center of gravity shifts upward and rearward, increasing the likelihood to rollover. This shift in the center of gravity also increases the potential for loss of control and panic maneuvers.

Here at the Brod Law Firm, we believe the auto industry should be held accountable for death due to rollovers on roads and highways. As a result of the above mentioned types of litigation,and other types like it, the automobile industry is in the process of changing the design of these vehicles so that they are safer and more controllable. Some of the new technologies being employed are:

1. Electronic Steering Control, controls designed to assist drivers when they are in emergency situations. This technology helps drivers maintain control of the vehicle during extreme steering maneuvers by keeping the vehicle headed in the driver’s intended direction, even when the vehicle nears or exceeds the limits of road traction.