First New Case Of Mad Cow Disease Detected In US

Reports from California confirm that the first new case of mad cow disease in the U.S. since 2006 has been discovered in a dairy cow. Despite the discovery health authorities insist the animal was never a threat to the nation’s food supply since no meat from the cow was bound for the food supply.

This cow is the fourth ever discovered in the United States and was found as part of an Agriculture Department surveillance program that tests nearly 40,000 cows a year for the fatal brain disease.

Mad cow disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), is fatal to cows and can cause a fatal human brain disease in people who eat tainted beef. The World Health Organization has said that tests show that humans cannot be infected by drinking milk from BSE-infected animals.

Dennis Luckey, executive vice president of Baker Commodities, told The Associated Press that the disease was discovered at its Hanford, Calif., transfer station when the company selected the cow for random sampling. Michael Marsh, chief executive of Western United Dairymen, said it was an adult cow over 30 months old, not a downed or sick animal, and it appeared normal when it was last observed. He said the cow was first tested on April 18.  Officials will continue to investigate but feel confident this case is an atypical one.

The good news here is that the regulatory and safety mechanism put in place to detect mad cow disease and eradicate it before it enters into the food system worked. The sick animal was discovered and dealt with before any likely further risk of contamination. Still, the problem with these kinds of contamination is that containing them is tricky. The personal injury attorneys at Lord & Faris have extensive experience representing people who have become ill as a result of eating contaminated food. If you or a loved one has recently become ill and you think it may be linked to food you ate, contact us for a free consultation.

Plaintiffs In Toyota Sudden Acceleration Litigation Face Possible Setback

Plaintiffs in the litigation surrounding claims that Toyota vehicles were subject to sudden acceleration, causing crashes and in some cases even deaths, were dealt a substantial blow when a federal judge tentatively dismissed the economic damages claims of consumers in Florida and New York against Toyota Motor Corp. in the litigation over sudden acceleration by Toyota vehicles, on the ground that they hadn’t actually experienced the problem.

The April 23 tentative ruling by U.S. District Judge James Selna in Santa Ana, Calif., would not affect consumers in California or other states, but, if finalized, could wipe out a substantial number of claims in the master class action complaint against Toyota.

If made final, the ruling would amount to a big win for Toyota, which is seeking to gut the claims that consumers in California, Florida and New York are entitled to economic damages because the company made false and misleading statements about the safety of its vehicles under the laws of each of those respective states. The plaintiffs claim that, as a result of Toyota’s alleged undisclosed defects associated with sudden acceleration, their vehicles lost value.

Such economic-damages claims represent 200 of the 300 cases in the multidistrict litigation. The rest would be unaffected because they were filed on behalf of individuals who were injured or died in accidents attributed to sudden acceleration.

The car accident attorneys at Lord & Faris have been watching these cases since the initial stages and agree that if this ruling becomes final it would be a serious loss to those injured by Toyota’s actions here. Toyota engaged in a widespread and systematic campaign of trying to stamp out and hush the problem related to sudden acceleration rather than address the matter head on. It wasn’t until regulators closed in that the true extent of the problem became clear and for many it was too late.

If you or a loved one has been injured in a crash involving a Toyota and you think sudden acceleration is to blame contact the litigation attorneys at Lord & Faris for a free consultation.

Generic Drug Makers Get A Win From Supreme Court

The Supreme Court took away one weapon makers of brand-name drugs have used to fight off generic competition, holding them accountable for what they tell the Food and Drug Administration about their products’ patent coverage. In a rare unanimous decision the court ruled that Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories can sue Novo Nordisk for what Caraco claims are exaggerated descriptions of the scope of patents Novo Nordisk holds on the diabetes drug Prandin.

Under federal law governing generic drug approvals, a generic drug maker can market a drug for indications not covered by a current patent held by the branded product’s owner. Frequently a branded drug company will hold a patent on some approved uses but not others and in those cases generic firms can seek approval from the FDA for the unpatented indications.

Caraco sued in federal court, where a district judge agreed that Novo Nordisk had acted improperly. An appeals court then reversed that ruling, arguing that the law gave Caraco no right to sue as long as Novo Nordisk held any unexpired method-of-use patents on the drug, irrespective of the indications covered.

If the Supreme Court would have agreed with the appellate court it would keep generics off the market until all of a branded drug’s method-of-use patents had expired — 2018 in the case of repaglinide. Such a decision would effectively close out the drug sales market from any generic manufacturer and consumers would be the ones to suffer most.

Ultimately this is a decision that will eventually lead to more accessible and affordable prescriptions for all consumers. And so long as we continue to improve the safety and oversight of these medications then both businesses and patients should benefit. This is a good decision for the industry and a good decision for consumers.

If you or a loved one have become sick or injured as a result of taking prescription medication, contact the drug injury attorneys at Lord & Faris for a free consultation. You may have rights at risk.

Toyota May Face Additional Claims

Despite Toyota’s recent efforts to clear away some of the litigation it faces in connection with the massive recall of many of its models, a federal judge has chosen a different route, ruling that additional economic damages claims can be asserted against the manufacturer in the multi-district litigation surrounding sudden acceleration problems.

The temporary order came after the plaintiffs’ steering committee in the litigation filed its first consolidated complaint for economic damages. In that complaint the plaintiffs allege that Toyota knowingly hid defects associated with unintended acceleration beginning in 2002 while falsely assuring consumers about the safety of its vehicles.

Two complaints were actually brought. One was an economic loss master complaint, filed on behalf of 50 named consumers and four business nationwide. A second was an amended complaint filed by 10 consumers and two businesses in California alleging violations of California law.

Toyota dismissed the move as nothing more than tactical gamesmanship and accused plaintiffs of “tactical gamesmanship”. According to Toyota, the move by plaintiffs is pretty simple and transparent–to make a move for getting the largest certified class possible and thus the largest recovery they can manage.

To date, 186 class actions in 39 states, including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have been filed, all seeking economic damages associated with the acceleration problems in Toyota models. Here in Minnesota we’ve seen this issue come to a head with the tragic case of a man imprisoned on manslaughter charges despite his claims that his Toyota simply wouldn’t stop. As these posts illustrate, Toyota’s legal issues are far from over. If you or a loved one has been affected by the recall, contact our Minneapolis personal injury attorneys for a free consultation as your rights may be affected by the ongoing litigation.

Should Doctors Have a Financial Interest in Biomedical Products Research?

Should doctors be allowed to perform clinical trial research involving products if they have even an indirect financial stake in that product? It’s a question that is squarely before the FDA and an answer to which Minnesota-based Medtronic has a lot riding.

The product at issue dates back to 2002. At that time a group of FDA advisers met to decide whether or not to approve a powerful agent that promised to revolutionize back surgery. Even then one of the advisors raised initial concerns that some of the research in support of the product had been conducted by a doctor with a financial interest in the product. The rest of the advisors brushed off the concern and proceeded with approval.

Flash forward several years to complaints about the product, including widespread, unapproved use and adverse reactions in some patients that include life-threatening swelling in the neck from bone in unwanted locations and possibly fueling the growth of cancer cells or sparking adverse immune system reactions.

Now Medtronic is back before the FDA seeking approval of a similar product, and the agency and doctors have raised concerns about these adverse reactions and the ties many of the clinical researchers have to the product. It should go without saying that if a researcher stands to make a profit from the approval of a particular product they should not be involved in directing or conducting research in support of that product. But currently there is no hard and fast rule prohibiting such relationships. Given the change in focus by the FDA over the last year, that could change, and if it did, the Minneapolis Drug injury lawyers at Lord & Faris think that consumers would be much better off.

FDA Restricts Avandia | Minneapolis Avandia Attorneys

Citing evidence of significant risk to users, drug regulators in both the United States and Europe announced that the controversial diabetes drug Avandia would no longer be widely available. The move stopped short of a recall but did place significant restrictions on availability.

In Europe the drug’s sales will be suspended entirely, while in the United States patients will be able to access the medication only if their doctors attest that they have tried every other diabetes medicine and that the patient has been made aware of the drug’s substantial heart risks. Even though the move stopped short of a recall it does signal a new era of seriousness by the Food and Drug Administration and it is a move that should be seen as a welcome sign by consumers.

Avandia had been widely touted as a miracle drug, but that was in large part because manufacturers had a tight control over the kind of information that was released about the drug. It was only after a lawsuit, followed by a settlement that forced the manufacturer to publicly list and acknowledge its evidence of heart damage among the dangerous side effects related to the drug.

The Minneapolis Avandia Attorneys at Lord & Faris are glad to see the Food and Drug Administration making a strong statement in this case. If you or your loved ones have taken Avandia or have any questions about the move by the F.D.A. contact our office for a free consultation as you may have a claim.

University of Minnesota, Mayo Clinic Partner to Beat Diabetes

When private industry and the public sector work together, amazing things can happen. That is why the pharmaceutical injury attorneys at Lord & Faris expect great things to come from the announcement that the University of Minnesota and the Mayo Clinic would team up together with the goal of defeating diabetes in 10 years. The only hitch, as the plan was announced, was that to do so the partnership would need an additional $250 to $350 million in public and private funding.

But money issues aside, this announcement comes as terrific news, not only because it represents an enormous public health initiative, and one that the two medical giants have compared to a modern-day “Manhattan Project”, but also because any efforts that support the research into preventing and treating diabetes is a good thing.

The treatment of diabetes costs the state of Minnesota approximately $2.7 billion dollars, and that doesn’t even factor in the problems and complications that can arise from treatments gone bad. Given the fact that Minnesota is a hub for medical and biomedical research, there’s no reason that if the right minds and resources came together this is a problem that could be solved. And when the problem is solved we would not only save money, we would save lives.

Needless to say this is an announcement that Minnesotans, and the rest of the country, should watch carefully. Research into disease prevention and treatment is the best way to protect consumers. As advocates this is just the kind of news we like to hear.

BP Spill Report Spreads The Blame

British Petroleum released a much-anticipated report detailing the findings of its initial investigation concerning the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and, not surprisingly, the report finds plenty of blame to pass around. Lest the company appear to be simply avoiding all responsibility, the report even found BP had some fault in what has now been called the single greatest environmental disaster to strike the Gulf of Mexico.

The report was the culmination of a four-month investigation launched by BP and conducted by its own auditors and examiners. The report refused to pinpoint a specific cause for the catastrophe and instead placed blame on a “complex and interlinked series of mechanical failures, human judgments, engineering design, operational implementation and team interfaces” as the cause. The report seeks to spread the blame among “multiple companies, work teams and circumstances”.

The other companies involved in the build and operations of the doomed rig were quick to slam the report as self-serving and full of error. But aside from corporate in-fighting, the report can be a useful indicator for how litigation surrounding the spill will proceed. BP’s exposure to liability is tied in many ways to the amount of responsibility it assumes as blame is portioned out among the parties involved. But the company faces a public relations nightmare if it tries to minimize blame altogether. So, in many ways, BP was going to get hit on this report, regardless of what it said.

And to be fair to BP, our own Minneapolis attorneys experiences with oil spill litigation has taught us that in most cases the cause is a complex one. That said, it will be interesting to see if the court of public opinion and the court of law match up with BP’s fault assessment here.

Mercedes Announces Recalls

Looks like Toyota is not the only automobile manufacturer with design flaws that can make their products dangerous for consumers. Mercedes-Benz announced that it is recalling 85,000 of its 2010 and 2011 models for a steering problem that could make the vehicles difficult to control.

According to reports, Mercedes said a connection fitting on the high-pressure power steering line might not be tight enough. If this part is not tight enough power-steering fluid can leak, ultimately making the cars difficult to drive. The problems can be especially noticeable when owners are in tight spots that require maximum steering, such as parking. Representatives from Mercedes acknowledged that the problem could lead to a crash, though as of the current reports, no crashes have been connected yet to this steering defect.

Mercedes representatives said they learned of the problem from customer complaints. As of right now the recall appears limited. Mercedes described the recall as voluntary, though given the nature of the defect it would appear that it falls under mandatory disclosure and recall requirements.

Our Minneapolis automobile accident attorneys never like news of a recall or reports of car manufacturers producing defective products. Yet when we see reports like this it makes us feel somewhat comforted that manufacturers seem to be heeding some of the warnings and lessons from the massive Toyota recall. Whenever we can see that kind of evolution in the marketplace we feel a little bit better that consumers are getting better products and families are driving safer cars.

More Delays in the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Investigation

When a tragedy like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill happens, you would hope that all the parties involved would put their personal interests aside for the common good and come together to try and figure out just what happened and how to prevent it from happening again. Unfortunately, as our Minneapolis attorneys have learned in local oil spill cases, that is not always the case. Sometimes, no matter how bad the tragedy, the parties involved seem incapable of doing what’s right.

According to reports, that is precisely what is happening with the rig owner, Transocean as members of a federal panel investigating the cause of the explosion and spill have accused the company of thwarting their efforts and access to critical documents and witnesses.

Those same reports allege that, for over two months now, Transocean has refused to turn over key documents and materials related to its compliance with international safety management codes. According to members of the panel, lawyers representing Transocean have objected to the requests, claiming they are too burdensome to comply with. It’s a common tactic in litigation, and one our experienced attorneys have witnessed firsthand on numerous occasions. And while we understand and respect the fact that every client deserves a tenacious advocate, we also understand that there is a line between being a tenacious advocate and manipulating the rules of procedure to block justice.

In this case it may take a judge’s ruling to force Transocean to comply with the duty it already has in providing information. And if that is the case then time and money will be wasted all for the sake of delaying the inevitable. Like the saying goes, justice delayed is justice denied, and this case is no different.