Fort Collins Personal Injury Lawyer - All Topics - Most Commented

Top 10 Deadliest Drugs

Linda Snyder — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:31:29 GMT

In 1988, the AIDS activist group ACT UP staged a protest that led to a dramatic change in the US Food and Drug Adminstration (FDA) drug approval process. Previously, the drug approval process was slow, bureaucratic and unresponsive to patients who were desperately ill and might not live to see a drug approved. By 1995, the process became streamlined and dying patients with no other options were given early access to promising medications. Drugs that were granted “priority review” status saw the approval times drop from just under three years to as little as six months.

This makes perfects sense for terminal patients and for catastrophic diseases such as AIDS and cancer, however this streamlining process has allowed drugs to be approved before proper testing has been completed. Vioxx, which may have caused up to 100,000 heart attack and stroke related deaths, is a direct result of prioritizing speed over safety. And, studies have shown that drug makers are spending almost twice as much on marketing a drug than they are on research and development.

A dangerous by-product of this streamlined approval process is weaker standards. The arguments made for fatal diseases such as AIDS and cancer were then extrapolated to other less serious conditions. In 1999, Vioxx was approved under these diluted standards and only after millions of people have taken it was research made public showing that high doses of Vioxx increased the risk of heart attack by a factor of 5 compared to a similar painkiller, naproxen (Aleve).

So, what can you do to protect yourself? Be an informed consumer and research any drugs you are taking for any potential safety risks. Some drugs, like Darvon and Darvocet have been found to be no more effective than aspirin, and they may cause heart damage.

1. Oxycodone Prescription opiod painkiller 5548 deaths 1998 - 2005

2. Fentanyl Prescription opiod painkiller 3545 deaths 1998 - 2005

3. Clozapine Anitpsychotic 3277 deaths 1998 - 2005

4. Morphine Prescription opiod painkiller 1616 deaths 1998 - 2005

5. Acetaminophen Over-the-counter painkiller 1393 deaths 1998 - 2005

6. Methadone Prescription opiod painkiller 1258 deaths 1998 - 2005

7. Infliximab Immune-system modulating drug 1228 deaths 1998 - 2005

8. Interferon beta Immune-system modulating drug 1178 deaths 1998 - 2005

9. Risperidone Antipsychotic 1093 deaths 1998 - 2005

10. Etanercept Immune-system modulating drug 1034 deaths 1998 - 2005

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Linda Snyder

Texting Law Goes Into Effect In Colorado

Chrissie Cole — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:33:00 GMT

New laws involving cell phone use while driving go into effect in Colorado tomorrow banning texting for all drivers and cell phone use for drivers under 18.

The new law will make it a primary traffic offense, which gives law enforcement the authority to cite any driver seen texting while driving. And it’s illegal for 16 and 17-year-olds to use a cell phone – even with a speakerphone or headset - while behind the wheel.

For an initial offense, drivers can be fined $50. Repeat offenders will be fined $100.

Unlike some new laws that allow for a grace period to help educate drivers about the new law before citations are issued – officers with Fort Collins police and the Colorado State Patrol will be handing out citations immediately upon the law taking effect, according to spokespersons from each agency.

The legislation was introduced after 9-year-old Erica Forney was hit and fatally injured Nov. 25, 2008, by a woman who police said had just finished talking on a cell phone.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Chrissie Cole

Diving Equipment Recalled by Halcyon

Chrissie Cole — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:15:00 GMT

Halcyon Manufacturing, in cooperation with the CPSC, recently announced a voluntary of Halcyon Diving Equipment because the over pressure valves can fail, allowing the buoyancy compensator devices and the diver lift inflatable devices to leak, posing a drowning hazard.

To this date, there have been no reports of injury.

The recalled items involve the following Halcyon diving equipment: Halcyon Explorer, Eclipse, CCR35, Evolve and Pioneer Buoyancy Compensator Devices (BCDs) and Halcyon Surface Marker Buoys (SMBs), Lift Bags, Diver Alert Markers (DAMs) Surf Shuttle and Diver Lift Raft Inflatable Devices.

Consumers should return the recalled diving equipment to any authorized Halcyon distributor or dealer for a free inspection, and replacement if needed. In the meantime, the recalled diving equipment should not be used.

For more information, call Halcyon at (800) 425-2966 or visit www.halcyon.net/opv-recall.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Chrissie Cole

Beef Bouillon Recalled Due to Allergy Alert

Chrissie Cole — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:14:00 GMT

Associated Brands announced a voluntary recall of some “Price Rite Beef Flavored Cubes” because they may contain dairy allergens, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The recall involves 320 cases (about 3,840 selling units) with a UPC Code of 41190 75581 on the label. The lot code, on the top of the jar says 22 JUL 11.

Consumers who have an allergy to milk may be at risk of a serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume foods made with the recalled item.

To date, there have been no reports of illnesses or allergic reactions associated with the recalled products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Chrissie Cole

Bicycle-Car Collision in Windsor Leaves Cyclist Critically Injured

Margaret Embry — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 09:50:18 GMT

According to The Coloradoan, on July 14th an 18-year old Windsor man struck a 53-year old bicyclist on Crossroads Boulevard, leaving the cyclist in critical condition. The driver has since been cited for careless driving causing serious bodily injury.

Both the driver and cyclist were heading west on the shoulder when the accident occured. It is unclear why the driver was riding on the shoulder. The driver struck the bike and the cyclist was thrown onto the hood of the car, leaving him unconscious and not breathing. The driver and another cyclist performed CPR and by the time the ambulance arrived, the cyclist had a pulse.

This accident is a reminder of the importance of bicycle safety and cars and bicycles sharing the road safely. Sonoma County Transit has a website describing the ten most common bicycle-car collision types and discusses how cyclists and drivers can avoid them.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Margaret Embry

Fort Collins Man Killed In Rollver Accident

Chrissie Cole — Sun, 03 May 2009 02:43:00 GMT

A Fort Collins man, 20, was killed in a single-vehicle rollover accident on early Friday when he was thrown from his vehicle, according to authorities.

The accident happened just after 1:00 a.m. in the 2600 block of Prospect Road, authorities say.

He was driving eastbound in his 1995 Infiniti on Prospect when his vehicle struck the median and traveled along the median for several yard before striking a light pole, said police officer Scott Crumbaker.

Police believe he was intoxicated at the time of the crash.

Maxwell Dinkel, formerly of Aurora, was working part time and was enrolled in college courses in anticipation of going to Colorado State University full time, his uncle Gary said.

"He was getting his life together," Malpiede said. "That's what makes it doubly sad."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Chrissie Cole

Man Struck And Killed In Pedestrian Accident

Chrissie Cole — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:54:00 GMT

A 31-year-old man was struck and killed in a car accident on Friday night; police are now trying to piece together why.

The accident occurred at 9:15 p.m. at the intersection of Hancock Expressway and Delta Drive.

According to witnesses, the driver of a Jeep Cherokee was traveling eastbound on the Hancock Express. The driver was apparently not speeding and had the green light at the time of the accident.

When paramedics arrived on the scene, he was alive. He was transported to Memorial Hospital with serious injuries where he died hours later.

The names of the driver and victim have been withheld while officials continue to investigate the cause of the crash.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Chrissie Cole

We’ve all done it…driving while distracted.

Kyle Bachus — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 13:49:10 GMT

Cell phones, babies crying, eating, drinking, gawking at the accident on the other side of the highway, putting on make up, shaving, changing the radio station or CD, a gabby passenger, reaching for something that slipped off the seat, lighting a cigarette and even reading! We’ve all engaged in some sort of distracting activity while driving.

It only takes a split second for a crash to occur and when you’re not paying attention that split second of distraction can be catastrophic.

A study conducted by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety found that every driver is driving while distracted some of the time. The study also indicates that distractions are an every day occurrence for the drivers in the study.

Consider this breakdown of the most common distracting activities while driving.

% of Subjects % of Total Time

Reaching, leaning, etc	97.1	3.8
Manipulating music/audio controls	91.4	1.4
Eating, drinking, etc.	71.4	4.6
Conversing	77.1	15.3
Grooming	45.7	0.3
Passenger	44.4	0.9
Reading or writing	40.0	0.7
Using cell phone	30.0	1.3
Smoking	7.1	1.6

Most drivers don’t even realize that they engage in these distractions, it’s just a part of driving. But these distracting activities contribute to about twenty-five percent of all traffic crashes or 1.2 million incidents.

So, let’s try to pay attention the next time we’re behind the wheel…you never know if the driver in the next lane is distracted until it’s too late.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Kyle Bachus

Rhode Island Reverses Lead Paint Verdict

Darin Schanker — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:05:19 GMT

On Tuesday, the Rhode Island Supreme Court reversed a historic verdict against three former paint manufacturers , whose lead-based paint was deemed a public nuisance by a jury in 2006. The three companies, Sherwin-Williams Co., NL Industries, Inc., and Millennium Holdings LLC, would have been forced to pay as much as $2.4 billion to hundreds and hundred of thousands of homes contaminated by the paint, whose lead can, at high levels of exposure, cause “ mental retardation, kidney problems, seizures, coma, and death. Low levels of lead can cause behavior problems, learning disabilities, and diminished intelligence.”

The 4-0 opinion, states that the defendants’ motion to dismiss made early in the litigation, should have been granted because,

“the state has not and cannot allege any set of facts to support its public nuisance claim that would establish that defendants interfered with a public right or that defendants were in control of the lead pigment they, or their predecessors, manufactured at the time it caused harm to Rhode Island children.” Furthermore, the court pointed to the Rhode Island General Assembly’s recognition of this lack of control on the defendants’ part by placing “the burden on landlords and property owners to make their properties “lead safe.”

The justices recognize the danger of lead-based paint, the damages it causes to those exposed, especially children, and the fact that “childhood lead poisoning is completely preventable.” However, the court also rightly recognized that its power to act was limited by the law, and the law of public nuisance consists of three elements: causing 1) an unreasonable interference; 2) with a right common to the general public; 3) by a person or people with control over the instrumentality alleged to have created the nuisance when the damage occurred.

And the state did not establish those elements. It didn’t allege that the defendants interfered with a public right, defined as “indivisible resources shared by the public at large,” or that the defendants had control over the lead pigment when it caused harm to children. The public nuisance claim just didn’t fit with the facts of the case.

While this result, removing a remedy for those were exposed or could be exposed to harmful lead-based paint, seems distasteful according to many of the reactions from the public , the Rhode Island Supreme Court, by joining appellate courts in Illinois, Missouri and New Jersey in rejecting the legally dubious public nuisance claim, made the correct legal decision. But was is the right moral decision?

Thomas Connell

Summer Intern 2008

J.D. Candidate 2010

University of Colorado

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Darin Schanker

Medical Malpractice Crisis Myths(2)

Darin Schanker — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 04:00:00 GMT

The Center for American Progress has a series of short articles on medical malpractice, and it is worth giving a read. As the election shifts into overdrive, you can expect to hear a lot about this issue, since health care is sure to be central this cycle and the canard about a medical malpractice crisis is one that gets trotted out every year.

Proponents of damage caps on personal injury like to use the myth of a medical malpractice crisis as a hammer, talking about how frivolous lawsuits and “jackpot juries” are bloating healthcare costs nationwide. However, they tend to ignore a few crucial facts: first, that medical malpractice costs hover around 2% of all healthcare costs, and second, that the systems is quite skilled at sorting out truly frivolous claims.

But even that is missing the point.

The civil justice system generally, and medical malpractice specifically, is not about shifting money from one party to another; and one of the main things it is about is ensuring continuing care for those with medical needs. There is, all to frequently, no safety net for those who are injured. And if you were injured because of another, then nothing is more basic, more primal, more just then to ensure that the person who injured you does their level best to make you whole again. It is not for nothing that a former doctor and new lawyer framed the issue this way:

“When errors do occur, early and honest disclosure and offer of fair compensation should be the norm.”

It is not about the money, it is about responsibility. Keeping that in mind is the secret to parsing talk about the medical malpractice “crisis.” If the statement is not about how to care for injured people, if it instead talks about exploding costs, then you can bet it is a smoke screen. The first goal of everyone should be expanding protection to the injured, not to the bottom line.

Nathan T. Swanson

Summer Intern 2008

JD Candidate, 2009

University of Denver

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Darin Schanker