Messa & Associates Blog

Harley-Davidson Recalls 308,000 Bikes

2011-10-26T14:27:00.000-07:00

Harley-Davidson has issued a recall for 308,000 motorcycles to fix a switch problem that can cause failure of the brake lights, fluid leaks at the switch that could keep the rear brake from working properly and failure of the rear brakes. Any of these problems could cause a crash resulting in serious injury or death. So far, one motorcycle accident has been reported as a result of the defect.

The defect, caused by brake light switches being exposed to too much heat from the exhaust system, affects Touring, CVO Touring and Trike vehicles from the 2009 through 2012 model years. The recall affects about 251,000 motorcycles in the U.S.

The Philadelphia personal injury and accident attorneys at Messa & Associates have successfully represented many victims of defective motor vehicles and motor vehicle component parts. If you or a loved one has been seriously injured by one of the recalled Harley-Davidson motorcycles, please contact us at 1-877-MessaLaw or visit us at www.messalaw.com.

Parent Alert: Some Child Booster Seats Unsafe

2011-10-20T12:37:00.000-07:00

A safety group has issued a report warning parents that half of the child booster seats it tested are unsafe and pose a potential risk to their children. Booster seats are recommended for children ages 4-8 years old who have outgrown forward-facing child seats. They are designed to raise kids up enough so adult-sized lap and shoulder belts safety belts fit them properly. If seat belts aren't positioned properly, children can hit parts of the vehicle in a motor vehicle crash and be injured by the belts, which can slice into internal organs causing serious, catastrophic injury or death.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) also named six boosters they think parents should avoid because they performed so poorly. They are: the Evenflo’s Chase, Express, Generations 65 and Sightseer models and Cosco Safety 1st's All-in-One and Omega Elite.

Philadelphia personal injury firm Messa & Associates is experienced in handling product liability cases involving injuries to children as a result of products with manufacturing and design defects. In addition to their research and knowledge, our attorneys work with highly regarded experts to prepare every case. If your child has been seriously injured in an automobile accident while using a defective child booster seat, please contact us at 1-877-MessaLaw or visit us at www.messalaw.com.

$48 Million Verdict in Motrin Case

2011-10-18T07:22:00.000-07:00

A 22-year-old man was awarded $48 million earlier this month by a California jury. After taking Motrin for less than one week to get rid of aches and alleviate a fever in October 2005, the man developed a drug-induced reaction called Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN) which damaged his mucosal membranes, which protects the body from infections, and caused severe pulmonary damage, near-blindness, infertility, whole-body scarring and hypoxic brain injury.

The lawsuit accused McNeil Consumer Healthcare, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, of failing to warn consumers of the risk for skin disease or other severe reactions associated with the use of Motrin. The company also failed to alert consumers that if they experienced signs that indicated any adverse reactions to the drug, they should discontinue using it and seek immediate medical attention.

Messa & Associates is currently representing the family of a woman who at the age of 9 was given Children’s Motrin for a headache, stomach pains and fever. She developed a rash on her cheeks but continued to take the Children’s Motrin for four days after the rash first appeared because of the lack of any warning labels on the bottle. When she was finally hospitalized, she was diagnosed with Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and Vanishing Bile Duct syndrome (VBDS). The woman also has suffered other severe injuries and was required to undergo a liver transplant as a result of liver failure. In addition, her reproductive organs were scarred as a result of the SJS causing a loss of fertility and increasing her risk for cervical cancer.

Motrin, a trade name for ibuprofen, is used to reduce fever and mild pain. In 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ordered that labels be added to the bottles warning consumers about skin reddening, rashes and blisters as a result of using ibuprofen.

Our attorneys are available to handle cases involving skin disorders or other injuries related to Motrin or other ibuprofen products. We have handled dozens of cases involving drugs and drug product injuries and obtained verdicts and settlements for victims suffering from these injuries. If you or a loved one has used Motrin or any other ibuprofen product and suffered serious illness or death, please contact us at 1-877-MessaLaw or visit us at www.messalaw.com.

FDA Reviewing Vaginal Mesh

2011-10-17T13:10:00.000-07:00

Surgical vaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse, or POP is being further investigated by a FDA panel. The investigation is in part because nearly 300 lawsuits have been filed by women who have reported injuries including infection, organ perforation, urinary problems and mesh erosion as a result of having the mesh implanted.

The mesh supports pelvic floor tissues that weaken or stretch causing organs including the bladder, rectum or uterus to bulge into the vagina. In August, a consumer group called for a recall of surgical mesh products made by Johnson & Johnson and Boston Scientific Corp.

Between 2008 and 2010, the FDA received 1,503 reports of injury, malfunction or death associated with pelvic organ prolapse surgery. The mesh was approved quickly by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration using an abbreviated process known as 510(k). Under the process, devices like the mesh implant can enter the market if manufacturers show they are “substantially equivalent” to others already for sale.

The attorneys at Messa & Associates are experienced at handling cases involving pharmaceutical and medical device injuries. Our extremely skilled team of attorneys and medical experts are dedicated to ensuring your receive proper compensation for your injuries. For more information or if you or a loved one has been seriously injured by a surgical mesh product, please contact us at 1-877-MessaLaw or visit us at www.messalaw.com.

Avastin for Eye Treatments Becoming a Concern

2011-10-11T09:16:00.001-07:00

The cancer drug, Avastin, has been used by retina specialists nationwide to treat patients suffering from macular degeneration, the leading cause of severe vision loss in the elderly.

However, three incidents this year in which a total of 21 patients lost some or all vision in the affected eye after injections of the drug have raised concerns about the eye treatment.

In Miami, 12 patients suffered eye infections from Streptococcus bacteria in July after receiving Avastin injections that came from the same compounding pharmacy and another four patients got Streptococcus infections at the Veterans Affairs hospital in Nashville earlier this year. Additionally, five patients treated in August at a VA Hospital in Los Angeles lost all or most vision in the injected eye. However, no infectious agent has been identified in this case.

Some patients get an Avastin injection, made by Genentech, as often as once a month. Researchers are split on the risk of using Avastin for eye treatment saying that dividing a vial of Avastin meant for a single cancer patient into many tiny doses for the eye may also introduce a risk of microbial contamination. The job of dividing the drug should be done under sterile conditions by a compounding pharmacy. Additionally, medical professionals should not speak while handling the syringe as droplets from the mouths of doctors has also been found to be a source of infection.

Our attorneys are available to handle cases involving eye injuries related to use of the drug Avastin. We have handled dozens of cases involving drugs and drug product injuries and obtained verdicts and settlements for victims suffering from these injuries. If you or a loved one has used Avastin and suffered loss of vision or a related eye injury, please contact us at 1-877-MessaLaw or visit us at www.messalaw.com.

Bad Boy Enterprises Agrees to $715,000 Fine for Failing to Report Defects

2011-10-07T12:25:00.000-07:00

Bad Boy Enterprises, LLC has agreed to pay a civil penalty of $715,000 resolving allegations from the Consumer Product Safety Commission that the company failed to immediately report a defect involving buggies with electric motors that resulted in sudden acceleration during use or while the ignition is in the idle position, creating a runaway vehicle situation.

The Classic Buggies off-road utility vehicles with Series brand electric motors were sold between 2003 and June 2007 and the off-road utility vehicles with a SePex motors were sold between 2007 and June 2010. More than 50 reports of sudden acceleration incidents have caused injuries, such as arm and leg fractures, a fractured toe, rotator cuff injury, and sore muscles, to consumers.

In 2008, Bad Boy implemented a program to repair the motors but did not advise the CPSC of the problems until August 2009. The buggies were recalled for sudden acceleration on October 21, 2009. A second recall was announced in December 2010 after an investigation conducted by CPSC staff revealed that additional repairs were necessary to repair the for off-road utility vehicles sudden acceleration defect.

Messa & Associates has dozens of cases caused by defective products which resulted in significant injuries and death. We combine our years of experience, thorough research, and the knowledge of highly regarded experts to prepare these cases. If you or a loved one has suffered serious injuries as a result of using a recalled Bad Boy Enterprises Classic Buggy, please contact us at 1-877-MessaLaw or visit us at www.messalaw.com.

Baby Girl Found Unresponsive in Philadelphia Daycare Dies

2011-10-06T08:51:00.000-07:00

The Special Victims Unit of Philadelphia Police is investigating the death of a 7-month-old baby girl yesterday. The child was found unresponsive in a crib at the Apple Blossom Learning Tree Day School in Center City Philadelphia.

The baby was taken to Children's Hospital of Philadelphia where she was pronounced dead shortly after arrival.

The attorneys at Messa & Associates have pursued cases involving injuries and death of children in daycares. We have obtained verdicts and settlements for families, including a $5.75 million settlement awarded to the family of a 2-year-old who died at a daycare while being improperly supervised by her caregivers. If your child has been seriously injured or died as a result of improper supervision at a daycare, please contact us at 1-877-MessaLaw or visit us www.messalaw.com.

Think Pink: October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month

2011-10-03T12:59:00.000-07:00

This month is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Breast cancer is the most common form of cancer among women in the United States (aside from skin cancer) and the second leading cause of death in women. Breast cancer is a malignant tumor that grows in one or both of the breasts. Breast cancer usually develops in the ducts or lobules, also known as the milk-producing areas of the breast.

While there is no way to prevent breast cancer, there are things that can be done to reduce risk factors. Women who limit alcohol intake, exercise regularly, and maintain a healthy body weight have a lower risk of getting breast cancer.

According to the American Cancer Society, high risk women are those who have a known BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation, have a first-degree relative (parent, brother, sister, or child) with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation, but have not had genetic testing themselves, had radiation therapy to the chest when they were between the ages of 10 and 30 years and have Li-Fraumeni syndrome, Cowden syndrome, or Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome, or have first-degree relatives with one of these syndromes. Women at moderately increased risk have a personal history of breast cancer, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS), atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), or atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH) or have extremely dense breasts or unevenly dense breasts when viewed by mammograms.

In addition to risk factors, early detection is important for an increased chance that treatment will be effective. Breast cancer can be detected through self and clinical examinations, mammograms and Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) testing. Women should consult with their physician and decide which method is best for them based on their personal risk factors.

If you are unsure about your personal risk factors or are concerned about something you discovered while self examining your breast, please see your doctor immediately.

Messa & Associates has been involved in numerous cases involving delay in and failure to diagnose cancer including breast cancer because of a medical professionals’ failure to detect by mammogram, failing to recognize symptoms or failure to follow up on family history or a lump. Our attorneys have obtained fair verdicts and settlements for our clients and will fight to ensure clients get the compensation they deserve for injury, trauma, loss, suffering and any ongoing needs that may result. For more information on National Breast Cancer Awareness Month or if you or a loved one has suffered serious injury or death as a result of the delay or misdiagnosis of breast or any other type of cancer, please contact us at 1-877-MessaLaw or visit us at www.messalaw.com.

Pourable Gel Fuel Recalled After Severely Burning Dozens of People

2011-10-03T07:24:00.000-07:00

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has recalled all pourable gel fuel used for ambient, decorative fire pots, as the gel fuel has been linked to severely burning dozens of people. The defective product is used for both indoor and outdoor decorative lighting and has been reported to unexpectedly explode, splashing onto people and furniture. The substance is a molten, long-burning fuel that sticks to the skin and is difficult to extinguish. It can cause severe burns.

So far, 65 accidents from defective gel fuel products have been recognized by federal officials. This includes two deaths from a previously recalled gel fuel product. According to the CPSC, victims have suffered second and third degree burns on their faces and limbs.

This particular recall includes two million units of the pourable gel fuel packets sold since 2008. The recalled products, which come in both scented and unscented formulas, can be bought in one-quart plastic bottles and one-gallon plastic jugs for $5 to $20 each.

Nine manufacturers have agreed to voluntary recall: Bird Brain Inc., of Ypsilanti, Michigan; Bond Manufacturing of Antioch, California; Sunjel Company of Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Fuel Barons Inc. of Lake Tahoe, Nevada; Lamplight Farms Inc. of Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin; Luminosities Inc. of St. Paul, Minnesota; Pacific Decor Ltd. of Woodinwille, Washington; Real Flame of Racine, Wisconsin; and Smart Solar Inc. of Oldsmar, Florida.

If you have been injured from a gel fuel product, you may be entitled to compensation for your injuries. The Philadelphia product liability attorneys at the Messa & Associates have successfully represented numerous clients who were injured by defective household products, such as the recently recalled pourable gel fuel. Call 1-877-MessaLaw today to speak with an experienced, knowledgeable Philadelphia defective product attorney or visit us at www.messalaw.com.

Damages Caps for Medical Malpractice Injuries: Fiscally Sound or Unconstitutionally Invalid?

2011-09-29T14:35:00.000-07:00

A recent post to this blog featured the HBO documentary “Hot Coffee” and its underlying issue of tort reform in this country. Some argue that tort reform will solve problems ranging from alleged frivolous lawsuits to stagnant job creation. Those against tort reform, including many attorneys who represent victims and other proponents of victims rights, argue that damages caps and other legislative changes keep victims from filing legitimate suits for medical malpractice injuries, and violate our constitutional right to a jury trial in civil suits.

A West Virginia Supreme Court decision issued in June 2011 struck a blow to those who argue that it is unconstitutional to limit damages a jury can award in suits for medical malpractice injuries. In 2003, the West Virginia Legislature reduced a cap on noneconomic (pain and suffering) damages in West Virginia in such suits from $1 million to $250,000 in most cases. This Supreme Court decision, in a medical malpractice injury case called MacDonald v. City Hospital, was the first test of the new law with the lower cap. The West Virginia Constitution, just like the U.S. Constitution, “preserves” the right of trial by jury in civil cases, and MacDonald argued that his right was violated if the jury could award him no more than $250,000 for his pain and suffering. The West Virginia Supreme Court held that capping MacDonald’s award did not violate his right to a jury trial. MacDonald also argued that the damages cap law violates the “separation of powers” because the legislature is essentially telling the judicial branch what juries can and cannot do in awarding damages. However, the W.Va. Supreme Court disagreed.

Circuit Judge Ronald Wilson wrote a passionate dissent that also addressed the wider issues of judicial independence and equal protection of the laws. Judge Wilson said that the damages cap law is an inexcusable concession by the Legislature to the will of special “pressure groups with selfish interests.” Judge Wilson added that the high court’s unwillingness to protect the peoples’ rights was motivated by the justices’ desire to win expensive elections. Judge Wilson argued that by pleasing one faction of voters (medical professionals who are often sued), the court disregarded its duty to protect the fundamental rights of all West Virginians.

Other courts around the country are weighing in on the damage caps issue. In 2010, the Supreme Court of Illinois found a legislated non-economic damages cap to be unconstitutional because it facially violates the constitutionally guaranteed separation of powers clause. This case, LeBron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, involved catastrophic birth injuries to a child whose parents believed that the lifetime damages of their severely disabled daughter will far exceed the statutory limits on what they could recover for her pain and suffering due to the defendants’ negligence at her birth. For the third time in thirty-one years, the state’s high court found that the Illinois Legislature’s attempt at capping, which this time limited liability of each physician to $500,000 per case, and of each hospital to $1 million per case, is an intrusion on the judicial branch’s powers, and is therefore invalid on its face.

Also in 2010, the statutory attempt of the Georgia State Legislature to cap noneconomic damages at $350,000 per claimant in a medical malpractice suit was declared invalid. The Georgia Supreme Court held that the act violated the state constitution’s guarantee to a trial by jury, a right that the court found has been utilized in medical malpractice suits in Georgia since at least 1798. The trial jury awarded the plaintiff in this case, Nestlehutt v. Atlanta Oculoplastic Surgery, a total of $1,150,000 in noneconomic damages, which would have been reduced by $800,000 if the Supreme Court had not denied the defendants’ appeal for a new trial consistent with the damages cap legislation.

More recently, Louisiana continues to struggle with disputes about the constitutionality of its 36-year-old statutory cap on all damages of $500,000 per medical malpractice award. In August 2011, an appellate court ruled in Oliver v. Magnolia Clinic that the damages cap was unconstitutional. The court intended that the severely disabled minor, whose health issues are due to the nurse practitioner’s failure to test and diagnose a childhood cancer while it was still highly treatable, should be able to collect the $6 million general damages awarded by the trial jury. A September 2011 trial court in a different case agreed with the appellate court’s finding that equal protection and adequate remedy guarantees are violated by the cap, and extended the finding as relevant to all types of healthcare providers.

Currently, Pennsylvania is not one of 30 states with laws limiting damages in medical liability actions; the Pennsylvania Constitution specifically prohibits damages caps. However, in July 2011, Pennsylvania Republican Gov. Tom Corbett signed a bill that changes the way damages payments are divided among multiple defendants. Before the bill, a plaintiff could collect a jury award from whichever defendant(s) could pay, no matter which defendant was “most guilty.” Under the old law, if a truck driver on the job caused an accident, and his employer was also sued for the victim’s pain and suffering from catastrophic injuries, the company might have paid most of the jury award because it had the “deepest pockets,” even if the jury found that the driver’s personal negligence caused the accident. Under this new law, the employer will only pay the percentage of the award equal to the percentage of fault the jury assigns to the company. If the negligent truck driver can’t pay the rest of the victim’s award for his catastrophic injuries, the company will no longer have to “cover” the difference.

In the end, the victim will suffer the consequences of his injuries and he will also suffer the loss of his constitutional right to an effective jury trial. As Judge Wilson said in his MacDonald dissent, “If a person has a right to a jury trial and the jury award is completely taken away, did that person have a court open to him for an injury done to him? Did he have a remedy?”

Consider another example involving a dram shop, or liquor liability lawsuit. Many states, including New Jersey, impose liability on a dram shop (an establishment such as a bar or tavern) that sells alcohol to a visibly intoxicated individual who then leaves the tavern and causes a motor vehicle accident with an innocent plaintiff. Suppose that plaintiff suffers brain injuries and she seeks damages against the drunk driver. Under dram shop law, the plaintiff can also sue the bar that served the alcohol to the drunk driver. However, if the civil suit takes place in a state such as Pennsylvania under a new tort reform law, the plaintiff might not collect the entire jury award. If the noneconomic damages awarded are $100,000, and the driver is found 80% liable while the bar is 20% at fault, the bar would now only pay $20,000 of the damages. If the defendant driver has no means to pay, the injured plaintiff will not get the award amount to which she is entitled for the pain and suffering caused by her catastrophic injuries. This scenario demonstrates Judge Wilson’s concerns about a fair “remedy” for innocent victims under tort reform.

Laws of this type discourage legitimate lawsuits for wrongs such as brain injuries caused by negligence or malpractice. If plaintiffs can’t recover for their injuries because the defendants with the most fault have no money to pay, plaintiffs may not sue at all for fear that legal expenses will be higher than the award they will be able to collect. Should all taxpayers bear the cost of care for negligently injured plaintiffs who can no longer afford to cover their living and medical expenses? Clearly the new law will prevent some deserving plaintiffs from seeking just remedies, and will further burden the taxpayers who foot the bill for social entitlement programs such as Medicaid, Social Security Disability Insurance, and unemployment insurance.

The personal injury attorneys at Messa & Associates support victims of catastrophic injuries including medical malpractice, burn, birth and brain injuries. Accident attorneys at Messa & Associates believe personal injury victims should have the ability to present their cases in court and have a jury determine a reasonable and fair amount to help injured parties recover their damages. We believe that right to a trial by jury guaranteed by our Constitution is a fundamental right worth fighting for in cases of catastrophic personal injuries. For more information on tort reform, please contact us at 1-877-MessaLaw or visit us at www.messalaw.com.

1.7 Million Toys Recalled

2011-09-28T07:13:00.000-07:00

Little Tikes has expanded a 2009 recall of toy workshop and tool sets to include 11 additional models because of a choking hazard posed to young children. The recall includes 1.7 million play tool sets with oversized, plastic toy nails.

The toy maker previously recalled about 1.6 million workshop sets and trucks with the same toy nails in 2009.

The workshop and tool sets were sold by retailers nationwide from 1990 through 2004. At least two children have choked when the toy nail became lodged in their throat.

Messa & Associates is experienced in handling cases involving injuries to children as a result of products with manufacturing and design defects. In addition to their research and knowledge, our attorneys work with highly regarded experts to prepare every case. If your child has been seriously injured by one of the recalled Little Tikes toy workshop or tool sets, please contact us at 1-877-MessaLaw or visit us at www.messalaw.com.

Pennsylvania Medical Malpractice Suit Tackles New Ground in Preconception Tort

2011-09-26T06:50:00.000-07:00

Under Pennsylvania law, physicians, nurses, and other healthcare providers in Philadelphia and municipalities throughout the state owe a duty of care to all patients, whether they are children, pregnant women, active adults, or the elderly. When a medical professional’s error meets the legal elements of negligence, a successful medical malpractice suit can ease the burden of the long-term problems and costs caused by the doctor’s mistake.

In a recent wrongful death case that arose because of medical negligence allegedly committed by Pennsylvania obstetricians, an appeals court found that even a third party—a future, not yet conceived, child—is owed a reasonable duty of care. Previously in Philadelphia, and throughout all counties in Pennsylvania, courts found that medical professionals only owed a duty of care to third parties when mishandling of a communicable disease or contagious illness caused harm to someone other than the patient who was improperly diagnosed, advised or treated.

In Matharu v. Muir, an ongoing Luzerne County case reviewed by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania in June 2011, a doctor, particularly an obstetrician, may be sued for medical malpractice not only if a negligently erroneous decision or treatment of a pregnant woman affects the mother or baby in the current pregnancy, but also if the mistake could affect a future pregnancy or baby.

The case arose from a situation in which the defendant obstetrician’s patient had Rh-negative blood and the father’s blood was Rh-positive. In such a case, if the baby has Rh-positive blood that inadvertently enters the mother’s system, her body will try to reject the baby. To prevent this problem, which can lead to serious health problems for the child, the mother is typically treated with injections of Rh immunoglobulin, or RhoGAM, at 28 weeks of pregnancy, and again right after the baby’s birth.

The mother in the Matharu case had the Rh blood incompatibility problem that was properly treated with injections of RhoGAM during her first pregnancy in 1997. However, in her second pregnancy in 1998, under the care of the defendants, Mrs. Matharu was not treated with RhoGAM even though it was found that she had been exposed to the baby’s Rh-positive blood during the third trimester. Several pregnancies later in 2005, under the care of a different obstetrical practice, the mother’s heightened sensitivity to her unborn baby’s Rh-negative blood allegedly caused the fetus to develop severe anemia.

While in the womb, the baby was given a blood transfusion, during which it developed an irregular heartbeat. Despite an emergency C-section, the baby died two days later. The plaintiff parents believe that because the defendant physicians did not treat her with RhoGAM in 1998, Mrs. Matharu’s body had become super-sensitized to Rh-negative blood, allegedly rejecting the incompatible blood of the 2005 fetus that led to the baby’s tragic death. The Matharus are suing the obstetricians, claiming that they negligently allowed the mother to go untreated after her 1998 pregnancy, and that this negligence resulted in the loss of their child born in 2005.

The court held that an obstetrician has a duty of care to help prevent health problems or death for the mother and the unborn baby, as well as for any future fetuses. The defendants, therefore, even though they were not involved in the 2005 pregnancy, did owe a duty of care to Mrs. Matharu in 1998 and to all of her future children who might be injured by the untreated Rh incompatibility problem.

The court stated that the baby born in 2005 was “in a class of persons whose health/life was likely to be threatened by defendants’ failure to administer RhoGAM to Mother in 1998.” The court did not agree with the argument made by the defendants’ medical malpractice attorneys that the case should not be allowed to proceed because the parents assumed the risk of rejection in future pregnancies after Mrs. Matharu did not receive RhoGAM treatment from the defendant obstetrical practice in 1998. On this point the appeals court agreed with the trial judge that it was not clear that the parents understood the risk fully, and the unborn child could certainly not be expected to assume such a risk simply by being conceived.

This case falls in an area of Pennsylvania medical malpractice law called “preconception torts.” Philadelphia-area medical malpractice lawyers may soon rely on this ruling to broaden the scope of negligence in other cases. It is very likely that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will take up the issue on appeal, and experienced medical malpractice attorneys in Philadelphia and all counties of Pennsylvania will be watching for the final outcome.

The law firm of Messa & Associates litigates cases like this involving birth-related injuries or other cases involving medical errors resulting in injury or death. The Philadelphia-based firm is known for its medical expertise, and has a wide network of respected physicians and university professors to call upon as medical experts, both for the purpose of evaluating the viability of a case, and for testifying in court. In addition, Messa & Associates has a physician and nurse on staff to assure knowledgeable research and representation at all stages of the case.

A Philadelphia medical practice attorney with the expertise and knowledge that is required to get the results you need is available at Messa & Associates. Call 1-877-MESSA-LAW toll-free to set up a free and confidential consultation regarding all aspects of your or your loved one’s injury. Don’t be overwhelmed by the battle for your rights. Get a compassionate, attentive and aggressive team to battle for you. Call today or visit us at www.messalaw.com.

Hospital ERs Implement Strategies to Reduce Medical Errors

2011-09-21T08:34:00.000-07:00

Due to the high number of medicals errors in Emergency Rooms, many hospital emergency departments are strengthening their patient safety standards and error-reduction procedures. A significant source of medical malpractice claims is diagnostic errors, and a recent report from the Wall Street Journal indicates that the majority of malpractice claims occur in the Emergency Room. This is often because many hospital Emergency Rooms lack timely access to radiology or clinical laboratory test reports. Furthermore, communications between nurses and doctors is frequently ineffective. Missing medical history, missing records of abnormal vital signs and documents lost in shift changes are other contributing factors to Emergency Room errors.

Thankfully, error reduction programs are on the rise. Clinical laboratories are increasingly becoming involved in process improvement projects to reduce the malpractice claims that are a result of diagnostic errors. Also for ineffective communication between nurses and doctors, Electronic Medical Records (EMR), could be having a negative effect. Because information is being typed into the EMR, verbal communication to the rest of the care team is often neglected. To rectify this problem, many physicians and nurses are initiating the “huddle” and “time out” methods. The huddle prevents information from being overlooked, and time out gives nurses the ability to stop discharge of a patient if it appears something has been overlooked.

While the medical profession has recognized that the need for improved care in Emergency Rooms is necessary, its attempts to rectify obvious problems may be “too little, too late”. Many patients have suffered, and are continuing to suffer, the effects of medical malpractice in Philadelphia Emergency Rooms, and in those in surrounding Pennsylvania and New Jersey area hospitals.

Our lawyers and staff understand the complexities of a medical malpractice claim and can provide the legal representation you need and deserve. If you are a victim of medical malpractice, contact the Philadelphia medical malpractice lawyers of Messa & Associates at 1-877-MessaLaw or www.messalaw.com and speak to a knowledgeable and experienced litigator.

Four People Die From Contaminated Cantaloupes

2011-09-16T08:16:00.000-07:00

Jensen Farms in Holly, Colo. has recalled its Rocky Ford Cantaloupes shipped to 17 states, including Pennsylvania and New Jersey, after several cases of listeriosis were linked to the fruit. The Food and Drug Administration also issued a warning to consumers not to eat cantaloupes shipped by the company between July 29 and Sept. 10.

Four people have died and more than two dozen people have been infected with a strain of the bacteria Listeria monocytogenes. Listeriosis primarily affects older adults, pregnant women, newborns and adults with weakened immune systems. The illness can cause fevers, muscle aches, nausea and diarrhea. If the infection spreads to the nervous system, it can cause meningitis. In some cases, Listeriosis can be fatal or cause miscarriages or stillbirth in pregnant women.

The recalled cantaloupes were shipped to Illinois, Wyoming, Tennessee, Utah, Texas, Colorado, Minnesota, Kansas, New Mexico, North Carolina, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Arizona, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania.

The attorneys at Messa & Associates have successfully represented many victims of recalled products. If you or a loved one has been ill as a result of consuming Rocky Ford Cantaloupes produced by Jensen Farms and involved in this recall, please contact us at 1-877-MessaLaw or www.messalaw.com.

FDA Upset With Pfizer, Demands Answers

2011-09-14T13:08:00.000-07:00

The Food and Drug Administration, in a written warning, has taken issue with Pfizer for failing to tell people about risks from the drugs Caduet, Norvasc and Chantix. The warning comes after the agency received a tip about the way various drugs were being marketed on the pharmaceutical giant’s Web site.

According to the FDA, links on the Web pages detailing the individual drugs describes only what the pills do omitting their risks. "By omitting the most serious and frequently occurring risks associated with Caduet, Chantix, and Norvasc, the webpage misleadingly suggests that these drugs are safer than have been demonstrated," the FDA wrote in the letter.

Caduet is used to treat high cholesterol and blood pressure and Norvasc is taken for high blood pressure as well. The drug Chantix is a pill to help people quit smoking. Pfizer has until Sept. 14 to respond to the FDA's letter.

Messa & Associates is available to handle cases involving injuries related to the drugs Caduet, Norvasc and Chantix. Our attorneys are experienced at handling cases involving drugs and drug product injuries and have successfully pursued litigation and obtained verdicts and settlements for victims suffering from these injuries. If you or a loved one has taken Pfizer’s drug Caduet, Norvasc or Chantix and suffered a serious illness as a result of doing so, please contact us at 1-877-MessaLaw.